scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Students as co‐creators of teaching approaches, course design, and curricula: implications for academic developers

TL;DR: In this article, the authors outline the theoretical background to arguments for including students as partners in pedagogical planning processes and present examples where students have worked collaboratively in design processes.
Abstract: Within higher education, students’ voices are frequently overlooked in the design of teaching approaches, courses and curricula. In this paper we outline the theoretical background to arguments for including students as partners in pedagogical planning processes. We present examples where students have worked collaboratively in design processes, along with the beneficial outcomes of these examples. Finally, we focus on some of the implications and opportunities for academic developers of proposing collaborative approaches to pedagogical planning.

Summary (4 min read)

Introduction

  • '…I think some teachers…are so focused on getting stuff done that they don't pay attention to their students, who I think are the most valuable resources in a classroom.'.
  • Drawing on current literature about student engagement and on a growing body of student voice research, the authors contend that academic staff should not only consult students but also explore ways for students to become full participants in the design of teaching approaches, courses and curricula.
  • This contention challenges conventional conceptions of learners as subordinate to the expert tutor/faculty in engaging with what is taught and how.
  • Moving away from traditional hierarchical models of expertise, it strives for 'radical collegiality' in which students are 'agents in the process of transformative learning'.

Theoretical Grounding

  • Student engagement is considered crucial to student success in higher education, with engagement understood as serious interest in, active taking up of, and commitment to learning (Kuh, Kinzie, Shuh & Whitt, 2010) .
  • Adopting an active and participatory role in learning is thought to enhance learning processes and outcomes (Kuh, 2008) through, for example: students engaging in meaningful (as opposed to rote) learning; staff and students breaking down the power differential between them; and students experiencing the freedom to become critical thinkers and critical beings in the world (Barnett, 1997; Freire 2003) .
  • Baxter Magolda ( 2009) calls this self-authorship.
  • Developed largely in school contexts in the UK, Australia, Canada, and the US, 'student voice' is premised on the notions that students have a unique perspective on teaching and learning and that they should be invited to share their insights, which warrant not only the attention but also the response of educators (Fielding, 2001; Rudduck, 2007) .
  • Participatory approaches risk unquestioningly reifying the views of the less powerful (Cooke & Kothari, 2001) -in this case, students.

Students as Co-creators of Teaching Approaches

  • The first programme the authors highlight, called Students as Learners and Teachers (SaLT), is funded by a grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
  • Part of the Teaching and Learning Initiative at Bryn Mawr College, the programme invites faculty and students to engage in reflective dialogue about what is happening and what could be happening in higher education classrooms.
  • Since 2007, SaLT has supported 108 faculty members (who span ranks and divisions and range from new to those with 45 years of teaching experience) and 57 student consultants (second-year through to fourth-year undergraduate students who major in different fields, claim different identities, and bring varying degrees of formal preparation in educational studies) in a total of 137 partnerships.
  • Students are not enrolled in the courses for which they serve as consultants.

Students as Co-creators of Course Design

  • Course design might be the most important barrier to quality teaching and learning in higher education (Fink 2003) .
  • Since 2005, faculty, students, and academic development staff at Elon University have experimented with a variety of approaches to partnering in 'course design teams' (CDT) that co-create, or re-create, a course syllabus.
  • Each team's process varies, but typically a CDT includes one or two faculty, between two and six undergraduate students, and one academic developer (Delpish et al., 2010; Mihans et al., 2008; Moore, Altvater, Mattera & Regan, 2010) .
  • Once the CDT is assembled, the CDT uses a 'backward design' approach (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) , first developing course goals and then building pedagogical strategies and learning assessments on the foundation of those goals.
  • This collaborative approach prompts both students and academic staff to confront fundamental questions about the nature of teaching and learning.

Benefits to Students and Academic Staff

  • Each programme discussed here has been analyzed through a different process.
  • SaLT has, since its inception, been the subject of an action research project approved by Bryn Mawr College's Institutional Review Board.
  • Through this project, the primary investigator and student researchers have engaged in the 'spiral of selfreflective cycles' of planning a change, acting and observing the consequences of the change, reflecting on these processes and consequences, and then re-planning (Kemmis & Wilkinson, 1998, p. 21) .
  • The primary methods of analysis have been constant comparison and grounded theory (Creswell, 2006; Strauss, 1987) .
  • The co-created curricula examples were investigated using case study methodology in a research study approved by the University of Glasgow's Education Ethics Committee.

Students and Academic Staff Gain a Deeper Understanding of Learning

  • When students work with academic staff to develop pedagogical approaches, they gain a different angle on, and a deeper understanding of, learning.
  • Likewise, when academic staff engage in dialogue with students and one another about learning expectations, pedagogical rationales are clarified.
  • This is consistent with Hattie's (2008) findings regarding how 'visible teaching' and 'visible learning' improve student learning outcomes.
  • As an academic staff member claimed: '…students… demonstrated high levels of self-directed learning and autonomy…improved levels of confidence and motivation with a resultant impact on improved student performance'.

Students and Academic Staff Experience Enhanced Engagement, Motivation, and Enthusiasm

  • Having the opportunity to work collaboratively with faculty in developing pedagogical approaches inspires students to experience an increased sense of engagement, motivation, and enthusiasm.
  • The thought of actively trying to learn something never crossed my mind.
  • This student's recognition that he has a choice regarding the nature of his participation in his education contributes to his taking more responsibility for his own learning (hooks, 1994; Rogers & Freiberg, 1969 ) -a recognition that leads to a re-energizing and renewed commitment to learning.
  • One of the teachers at University College Dublin stated '…[this work has] really transformed how I think about teaching and how I teach.
  • When academic staff feel reenergized and engage more deeply in their work through extending more opportunities to students to actively engage, learning processes and outcomes are enhanced (Kuh, 2008) .

Students and Academic Staff Relate Differently

  • Students and academic staff who work together on pedagogical planning assert consistently that they revise their sense of relationship with one another.
  • 'Participating in this programme has dramatically helped me to become more patient and take more responsibility for my education, also known as Students regularly state.
  • These articulations of shared commitment and collaborative efforts attest to the power of positioning students as co-creators of learning (Davis & Sumara, 2002) .
  • Academic staff 'spoke of the importance of having a liminal…moment early in the negotiation of collaborative relationships, where students realised that they were being listened to and taken seriously'.
  • In one case, for example, the collaborative selection of a course textbook changed 'the dynamic of the design group, empowering students to be active participants and showing faculty the value of listening to students'.

Implications for Academic Developers

  • Recent approaches to academic development build on constructive alternatives to what Shulman (2004) has called 'pedagogical solitude'.
  • Reflective and collaborative approaches to professional development (Cowan & Westwood, 2006) and faculty learning communities (Richlin & Cox, 2004) have become models of good practice.
  • Drawing upon the approaches the authors have presented, they suggest that embracing the following characteristics may enable academic developers to begin to effect this change: 1. Invite students to be partners (active and authoritative collaborators) with academic staff in pedagogical planning, thus challenging traditional hierarchies and roles.
  • Foster collaboration through which both academic staff and students take more responsibility for teaching and learning and adopt new views of both.

Challenges

  • Academic staff might resist new approaches viewed as time consuming if they already feel overloaded with work.
  • They can acknowledge that what is possible will vary in different contexts, and provide illustrative frameworks for academic staff to use in guiding their first attempts at partnership planning with students.
  • Time investments up front can pay off later as students take a more active role in the learning process (Wolf-Wendel et al, 2009) .
  • Academic developers can understand and work with the disciplinary differences and needs across the university setting (Jenkins, 1996) , and they can remind academic staff that professional requirements usually relate to outcomes in terms of 'fitness to practice' and less frequently dictate the way in which the knowledge, skills and values required of a professional graduate are to be achieved.

Opportunities

  • The authors have suggested some possible responses to the challenges raised, but there are other possible opportunities for promoting student participation in pedagogical planning.
  • Build on existing commitments among academic staff.
  • Many academic staff already collaborate with students in the research arena and others embrace liberatory pedagogies that place active student participation at the centre of their teaching practice.
  • Academic developers can build upon these practices, find places where student voice work aligns with teachers' disciplinary and philosophical approaches, and help academic staff to bridge between existing approaches and new forms of collaboration.
  • Such efforts make explicit for academic staff, as they do for students, the kinds of self-authorship in which they are engaged (Baxter Magolda, 2009; Cook-Sather, 2006) .

Promote and practice co-creative approaches in academic development fora. Courses such as Postgraduate

  • Certificates in Learning and Teaching emphasize the importance of reflection on and evaluation of one's own teaching practice.
  • These fora may also provide opportunities to promote alternative and democratic pedagogies and engender greater expectations of students.
  • The authors can also practice what they preach by using co-creation in their own practice (Swennen, Lunenberg & Korthagen, 2008; Brew & Barrie, 1999) .
  • Act as a bridge between different parts of the University and influence policy.
  • This positioning provides a range of additional opportunities for developers to influence and support student/academic staff partnership approaches at institutional policy levels, including, for example, influencing the nature of learning and teaching strategies.

Questions for Further Exploration

  • The complexity of student participation in pedagogical planning means that there are many areas of practice with questions that remain unanswered:.
  • Involving students in designing their own educational experiences can enhance student ownership of their learning, but this implies the need for redesign by the next cohort of students to ensure that they achieve this same degree of ownership.
  • Involving students in pedagogical planning is a significant step in deepening engaged learning and might therefore be understood as a professional responsibility for academic developers.
  • The authors have attempted to illustrate the added value of this approach: the implications in terms of deeper learning and changed relationships between academic staff and students.

Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., and Felten, P. (2011) Students as co-creators
of teaching approaches, course design and curricula: implications for
academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development,
16 (2). pp. 133-145. ISSN 1360-144X
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/54132/
Deposited on: 20 December 2011
Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk

1
Students as co-creators International Journal for Academic Development
Vol. 16, No. 2, May 2011, 133-145
ARTICLE
Students as co-creators of teaching approaches, course design and curricula: Implications for academic
developers
Catherine Bovill
a
, Alison Cook-Sather
b
and Peter Felten
c
a Academic Development Unit, Learning and Teaching Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
b The Andrew W. Mellon Teaching and Learning Institute, Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania, USA
c Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, Elon University, North Carolina, USA
Abstract
Within higher education, students’ voices are frequently overlooked in the design of teaching approaches,
courses and curricula. In this paper we outline the theoretical background to arguments for including students
as partners in pedagogical planning processes. We present examples where students have worked
collaboratively in design processes along with the beneficial outcomes of these examples. Finally, we focus
on some of the implications and opportunities for academic developers of proposing collaborative approaches
to pedagogical planning.
Key words: learning, engagement, student voice, co-construction, pedagogical planning
Introduction
‘…I think some teachers…are so focused on getting stuff done that they don’t pay attention to their students, who
I think are the most valuable resources in a classroom.’ (Mihans, Long & Felten, 2005, p. 9)
‘Asking students to talk about their education is so simple that whether we are teachers, parents, researchers,
or policymakers — we inevitably forget to do it.’ (White, 2010, p. xi)
The college student and the business executive quoted above make the same assertion: students are an
important resource but are rarely consulted about their educational experiences. Drawing on current literature
about student engagement and on a growing body of student voice research, we contend that academic staff
should not only consult students but also explore ways for students to become full participants in the design
of teaching approaches, courses and curricula.
This contention challenges conventional conceptions of learners as subordinate to the expert
tutor/faculty in engaging with what is taught and how. Moving away from traditional hierarchical models of
expertise, it strives for ‘radical collegiality’ in which students are ‘agents in the process of transformative
learning’ (Fielding, 1999, p. 22). Such a move raises questions for academic developers about how they can
support and challenge academic staff to be open to democratic approaches and to hold greater expectations for
students as well as challenge students to demonstrate more active engagement in learning.
Email: catherine.bovill@glasgow.ac.uk

International Journal for Academic Development
In this paper, we (1) provide theoretical grounding for these proposed changes, (2) describe three
forms of student participation in pedagogical planning that complicate traditional roles and responsibilities in
higher education and improve the quality of learning that students experience (Cook-Sather, Felten, & Bovill,
2010), (3) outline some of the benefits of student participation in pedagogical planning, and (4) explore some
of the implications for academic developers of doing this work.
Theoretical Grounding
Student engagement is considered crucial to student success in higher education, with engagement understood
as serious interest in, active taking up of, and commitment to learning (Kuh, Kinzie, Shuh & Whitt, 2010). In
virtually every definition of engaged learning, students take an active role in the learning process (Wolf-
Wendel, Ward & Kinzie, 2009), with recent calls for students to become co-creators of learning (Davis &
Sumara, 2002; McCulloch, 2009).
Adopting an active and participatory role in learning is thought to enhance learning processes and
outcomes (Kuh, 2008) through, for example: students engaging in meaningful (as opposed to rote) learning;
staff and students breaking down the power differential between them; and students experiencing the freedom
to become critical thinkers and critical beings in the world (Barnett, 1997; Freire 2003). Student choice
contributes to learners taking more responsibility for their own learning (hooks, 1994; Rogers & Freiberg,
1969).
Active learning implies not only a shift from passivity to agency but also from merely doing to
developing a meta-cognitive awareness about what is being done. When students make this transition from
simply enacting what is required of them to learn, to consciously analyzing what constitutes and enhances that
learning, they change ‘not just what the learner knows…but also who the learner is’ (Dreier, 2003, in
Wortham, 2004, p. 716; see also Cook-Sather, 2006). Baxter Magolda (2009) calls this self-authorship.
Although there might be student and academic staff resistance to this transition, such a transformation makes
students more likely to adopt deep approaches to learning, as they ‘become adaptive experts who both
recognize and even relish the opportunity and necessity for breaking with traditional approaches and
inventing new ones’ (Bain & Zimmerman, 2009, p. 10).
Like engagement, student voice is a theory and set of practices that position students as active agents
in analyses and revisions of education. Developed largely in school contexts in the UK, Australia, Canada,
and the US, ‘student voice’ is premised on the notions that students have a unique perspective on teaching and
learning and that they should be invited to share their insights, which warrant not only the attention but also
the response of educators (Fielding, 2001; Rudduck, 2007). These assertions are supported by Hattie’s (2008)
meta-analysis of student achievement, in which he argues that student learning is deepest when students
become their own teachers and when their teachers learn from them through feedback and other means.
Nascent efforts to engage undergraduate voices in higher education value student perspectives and reposition
students to share those perspectives (Delpish, Holmes, Knight-McKenna, Mihans, Darby, King & Felten,
2010).
Proposals for higher education students to collaborate in pedagogical planning are not new (Dewey,
1916). However, students often lack agency within university educational structures and processes.
Encouragingly, a new strand of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning embraces ‘a commitment to more
shared responsibility for learning among students and teachers, a more democratic intellectual community,
and more authentic co-inquiry’ (Hutchins & Huber, 2010, p. xii). Such sharing of the work of conceptualizing
and enacting approaches to learning requires new notions of power (Mihans et al., 2008) that in turn ‘mean
greater ability to act and thus a greater sense of responsibility(Manor, Bloch-Schulman, Flannery & Felten,
2010, p. 10). Positioning students as peers who have valuable perspectives (Sorenson, 2001) is key to

3
supporting collegial partnerships between faculty members and students with the goal of clarifying and
improving classroom practice (Cook-Sather, 2010; 2009, 2008). However, it is important to note that
enhancing student participation in pedagogical planning does not replace teachers’ expertise and their key role
in facilitating learning (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000).
Although there are numerous benefits to student participation in pedagogical planning, scholars also
issue warnings. Participatory approaches risk unquestioningly reifying the views of the less powerful (Cooke
& Kothari, 2001) in this case, students. This can lead to an uncritical value being placed on students’
views, irrespective of the nature of these views (Silva & Rubin, 2003; Shor cited in O’Loughlin, 1995) and to
ignoring the diversity of motivations and experiences that different students bring to learning. Furthermore,
claims of participation that are not genuine and forms of participation where students remain as ‘outsiders’ in
relation to the academic world may result in the alienation of students (Mann, 2001). Finally, co-creation can
be threatening to students who are used to teachers dominating the classroom and thus may be resistant to
deviating from this norm (Shor, 1992).
Mindful of both the potential and the challenges of this work, we present in the following section
some examples of students becoming partners in pedagogical planning.
Three Forms of Student Participation in Pedagogical Planning
The programmes we describe here unfolded in different contexts: a small liberal arts college in the United
States, a medium-sized liberal arts university in the United States, a large National University in Ireland, and
a small ‘post 1992’ university in Scotland. Each example is outlined in order to demonstrate some of the
range of possibilities within student participation in pedagogical planning.
Students as Co-creators of Teaching Approaches
The first programme we highlight, called Students as Learners and Teachers (SaLT), is funded by a grant
from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Part of the Teaching and Learning Initiative at Bryn Mawr College,
the programme invites faculty and students to engage in reflective dialogue about what is happening and what
could be happening in higher education classrooms.
SaLT consists of two interrelated forums for faculty: (1) a semester-long seminar that includes weekly
two-hour meetings, weekly posts to a closed blog, mid- and end-of-semester feedback, and development of a
final portfolio and (2) a partnership with a student consultant. Since 2007, SaLT has supported 108 faculty
members (who span ranks and divisions and range from new to those with 45 years of teaching experience)
and 57 student consultants (second-year through to fourth-year undergraduate students who major in different
fields, claim different identities, and bring varying degrees of formal preparation in educational studies) in a
total of 137 partnerships.
Students are not enrolled in the courses for which they serve as consultants. Rather, each student
consultant: meets with the faculty member to establish goals and plans for the semester; visits one class
session each week; takes detailed observation notes on the pedagogical issues the faculty member identifies;
surveys or interviews students in the class (if the faculty member wishes); meets weekly with the faculty
member to discuss observation notes and other feedback and implications; participates in weekly meetings
with one another and with the coordinator of SaLT; and visits one or more faculty seminars five times over
the course of the semester.
Student consultants and faculty members forge partnerships outside of the regular teacher/student
relationship, explore dimensions of teaching and learning not generally discussed outside of education
courses, and model for the entire community a form of collaboration that challenges traditional role

International Journal for Academic Development
distinctions and notions of who is responsible for the education that unfolds in college classrooms (Cook-
Sather, 2010, 2009, 2008).
Students as Co-creators of Course Design
Although much educational development focuses on pedagogical technique, course design might be the most
important barrier to quality teaching and learning in higher education (Fink 2003). Since 2005, faculty,
students, and academic development staff at Elon University have experimented with a variety of approaches
to partnering in ‘course design teams’ (CDT) that co-create, or re-create, a course syllabus.
Each team’s process varies, but typically a CDT includes one or two faculty, between two and six
undergraduate students, and one academic developer (Delpish et al., 2010; Mihans et al., 2008; Moore,
Altvater, Mattera & Regan, 2010). Faculty members initiate the redesign process, inviting the students and
developer to co-construct a team. Students usually apply to participate in a CDT, motivated by a desire to
contribute to a course they have taken or that is important to the curriculum in their disciplinary home. Once
the CDT is assembled, the CDT uses a ‘backward design’ approach (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), first
developing course goals and then building pedagogical strategies and learning assessments on the foundation
of those goals.
These student-faculty partnerships to redesign undergraduate courses challenge students’ customary,
and often comfortable, passive role in the classroom, as well as a common academic staff assumption that
their disciplinary expertise gives them complete authority over the learning process. This collaborative
approach prompts both students and academic staff to confront fundamental questions about the nature of
teaching and learning.
Time is the most important element in the success of a CDT. Successful teams usually meet weekly
for two or three months, providing ample opportunities to both accomplish the CDT’s practical purpose of
redesigning the course and, perhaps more importantly, to develop a true partnership that welcomes student
voices. Students often doubt that they will be taken seriously in the process, and they also need time to
develop the language and the confidence to express pedagogical ideas clearly. Many CDTs experience a
liminal moment when everyone present recognizes that a fundamental boundary has been crossed, either by a
faculty member ceding significant authority for the course design or by students claiming power in the
process.
Students as Co-creators of Curricula
Co-creation of curricula implies students and academic staff working in partnership to create some or all
aspects of the planning, implementation and evaluation of the learning experience. A recent research project
examined the role of students as co-creators of first year curricula in the USA, Ireland and Scotland (Bovill,
2009). The example from the USA was based at Elon University and has been outlined above. The other two
examples are presented here.
At University College Dublin, programme co-ordinators redesigned the first year geography
curriculum in collaboration with students. The programme enrolls approximately 400 students each year. The
co-ordinators advertised for four third-year students to apply for the job of co-designing the curriculum with
existing academic staff. These students were paid to design a new virtual learning environment based around
case studies covering important themes for first-year geography, such as migration and the coffee trade. They
then produced written, audio and video resources for the virtual learning environment that first-year students
could interact with and use to support their learning. These case studies prompted discussion among small
groups of students online and in class. The third-year students then collaborated with the programme co-

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a critical examination of democratic theory and its implications for the civic education roles and contributions of teachers, adult educators, community development practitioners, and community organizers is presented.
Abstract: Course Description In this course, we will explore the question of the actual and potential connections between democracy and education. Our focus of attention will be placed on a critical examination of democratic theory and its implications for the civic education roles and contributions of teachers, adult educators, community development practitioners, and community organizers. We will survey and deal critically with a range of competing conceptions of democracy, variously described as classical, republican, liberal, radical, marxist, neomarxist, pragmatist, feminist, populist, pluralist, postmodern, and/or participatory. Using narrative inquiry as a means for illuminating and interpreting contemporary practice, we will analyze the implications of different conceptions of democracy for the practical work of civic education.

4,931 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Higher education in the United Kingdom has rather lagged behind other countries in developing an interest in, scholarly research on, and realisation about the importance of student engagement as mentioned in this paper. This...
Abstract: Higher Education in the United Kingdom has rather lagged behind other countries in developing an interest in, scholarly research on, and realisation about the importance of student engagement. This...

511 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore the relationships between student engagement, co-creation and student-staff partnership before providing a typology of the roles students can assume in working collaboratively with staff.
Abstract: Against a backdrop of rising interest in students becoming partners in learning and teaching in higher education, this paper begins by exploring the relationships between student engagement, co-creation and student–staff partnership before providing a typology of the roles students can assume in working collaboratively with staff. Acknowledging that co-creating learning and teaching is not straightforward, a set of examples from higher education institutions in Europe and North America illustrates some important challenges that can arise during co-creation. These examples also provide the basis for suggestions regarding how such challenges might be resolved or re-envisaged as opportunities for more meaningful collaboration. The challenges are presented under three headings: resistance to co-creation; navigating institutional structures, practices and norms; and establishing an inclusive co-creation approach. The paper concludes by highlighting the importance of transparency within co-creation approaches and of changing mindsets about the potential opportunities and institutional benefits of staff and students co-creating learning and teaching.

378 citations


Cites background from "Students as co‐creators of teaching..."

  • ...The idea of students as partners, change agents, producers, and co-creators of their own learning has been the subject of increasing interest in recent years (see for example Bovill et al. 2011; Carey 2013; Dunne and Zandstra 2011)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
08 May 2017
TL;DR: Through a systematic literature review of empirical research, trends across results provide insights into four themes: the importance of reciprocity in partnership; the need to make space in the literature for sharing the (equal) realities of partnership; a focus on partnership activities that are small scale, at the undergraduate level, extracurricular, and focused on teaching and learning enhancement.
Abstract: “Students as Partners” (SaP) in higher education re-envisions students and staff as active collaborators in teaching and learning. Understanding what research on partnership communicates across the literature is timely and relevant as more staff and students come to embrace SaP. Through a systematic literature review of empirical research, we explored the question: How are SaP practices in higher education presented in the academic literature? Trends across results provide insights into four themes: the importance of reciprocity in partnership; the need to make space in the literature for sharing the (equal) realities of partnership; a focus on partnership activities that are small scale, at the undergraduate level, extracurricular, and focused on teaching and learning enhancement; and the need to move toward inclusive, partnered learning communities in higher education. We highlight nine implications for future research and practice.

329 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The SaLT program at Bryn Mawr College as mentioned in this paper provides both context and case study for this form of Student-faculty partnership as a threshold concept in academic development, drawing on faculty reflections to explore what constitutes this threshold, the insights and practices that are possible if faculty cross it, and implications for academic developers.
Abstract: Student-faculty partnerships position students as informants, participants, and change agents in collaboration with faculty members. Enacting one form of such collaboration, Bryn Mawr College’s SaLT program pairs faculty members and undergraduate students in explorations of pedagogical practice. The program provides both context and case study for this form of Student-faculty partnership as a threshold concept in academic development. Like all threshold concepts, the notion of Student-faculty partnership is troublesome, transformative, irreversible, and integrative. This article draws on faculty reflections to explore what constitutes this threshold, the insights and practices that are possible if faculty cross it, and implications for academic developers.

168 citations

References
More filters
Book
10 Apr 2017
TL;DR: Poth mengeksplorasi dasar filosofis, sejarah, and elemen kunci dari lima pendekatan penelitian kualitatif as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Dalam edisi revisi keempat dari buku terlaris, John W. Creswell dan rekan penulis baru Cheryl N.Poth mengeksplorasi dasar filosofis, sejarah, dan elemen kunci dari lima pendekatan penelitian kualitatif: penelitian naratif, fenomenologi, teori dasar, etnografi, dan studi kasus. Mempertahankan gaya penulisannya, penulis membandingkan pendekatan dan menghubungkan desain penelitian dengan masing-masing tradisi penyelidikan dengan cara yang sangat mudah diakses. Menampilkan konten baru, artikel, pedagogi, referensi, dan cakupan etika yang diperluas. Edisi Keempat adalah pengantar yang ideal untuk teori, strategi, dan praktik penelitian kualitatif.

17,770 citations

Book
01 Jan 1916
TL;DR: Dewey's "Common Sense" as mentioned in this paper explores the nature of knowledge and learning as well as formal education's place, purpose, and process within a democratic society, and it continues to influence contemporary educational thought.
Abstract: First published in 1916, this classic continues to influence contemporary educational thought. Considered one of the great American philosophers, Dewey grapples with the nature of knowledge and learning as well as formal education's place, purpose, and process within a democratic society.

15,527 citations

Book
01 Jan 1987
TL;DR: This book presents a meta-coding pedagogical architecture grounded in awareness contexts that helps practitioners and students understand one another better and take responsibility for one another's learning.
Abstract: The teaching of qualitative analysis in the social sciences is rarely undertaken in a structured way. This handbook is designed to remedy that and to present students and researchers with a systematic method for interpreting qualitative data', whether derived from interviews, field notes, or documentary materials. The special emphasis of the book is on how to develop theory through qualitative analysis. The reader is provided with the tools for doing qualitative analysis, such as codes, memos, memo sequences, theoretical sampling and comparative analysis, and diagrams, all of which are abundantly illustrated by actual examples drawn from the author's own varied qualitative research and research consultations, as well as from his research seminars. Many of the procedural discussions are concluded with rules of thumb that can usefully guide the researchers' analytic operations. The difficulties that beginners encounter when doing qualitative analysis and the kinds of persistent questions they raise are also discussed, as is the problem of how to integrate analyses. In addition, there is a chapter on the teaching of qualitative analysis and the giving of useful advice during research consultations, and there is a discussion of the preparation of material for publication. The book has been written not only for sociologists but for all researchers in the social sciences and in such fields as education, public health, nursing, and administration who employ qualitative methods in their work.

11,846 citations


"Students as co‐creators of teaching..." refers methods in this paper

  • ...The primary methods of analysis have been constant comparison and grounded theory (Creswell, 2006; Strauss, 1987)....

    [...]

Book
19 Nov 2008
TL;DR: This meta-analyses presents a meta-analysis of the contributions from the home, the school, and the curricula to create a picture of visible teaching and visible learning in the post-modern world.
Abstract: Preface Chapter 1 The challenge Chapter 2 The nature of the evidence: A synthesis of meta-analyses Chapter 3 The argument: Visible teaching and visible learning Chapter 4: The contributions from the student Chapter 5 The contributions from the home Chapter 6 The contributions from the school Chapter 7 The contributions from the teacher Chapter 8 The contributions from the curricula Chapter 9 The contributions from teaching approaches - I Chapter 10 The contributions from teaching approaches - II Chapter 11: Bringing it all together Appendix A: The 800 meta-analyses Appendix B: The meta-analyses by rank order References

6,776 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a critical examination of democratic theory and its implications for the civic education roles and contributions of teachers, adult educators, community development practitioners, and community organizers is presented.
Abstract: Course Description In this course, we will explore the question of the actual and potential connections between democracy and education. Our focus of attention will be placed on a critical examination of democratic theory and its implications for the civic education roles and contributions of teachers, adult educators, community development practitioners, and community organizers. We will survey and deal critically with a range of competing conceptions of democracy, variously described as classical, republican, liberal, radical, marxist, neomarxist, pragmatist, feminist, populist, pluralist, postmodern, and/or participatory. Using narrative inquiry as a means for illuminating and interpreting contemporary practice, we will analyze the implications of different conceptions of democracy for the practical work of civic education.

4,931 citations


"Students as co‐creators of teaching..." refers background in this paper

  • ...Proposals for higher education students to collaborate in pedagogical planning are not new (Dewey, 1916)....

    [...]

Frequently Asked Questions (9)
Q1. What are the contributions in this paper?

In this paper the authors outline the theoretical background to arguments for including students as partners in pedagogical planning processes. The authors present examples where students have worked collaboratively in design processes along with the beneficial outcomes of these examples. 

Positioning students as peers who have valuable perspectives (Sorenson, 2001) is key to3supporting collegial partnerships between faculty members and students with the goal of clarifying and improving classroom practice (Cook-Sather, 2010; 2009, 2008). 

Students and academic staff developed their negotiation skills through discussion, compromise and agreement about curriculum decisions. 

These fora may also provide opportunities to promote alternative and democratic pedagogies and engender greater expectations of students. 

Academic developers canInternational Journal for Academic Developmentunderstand and work with the disciplinary differences and needs across the university setting (Jenkins, 1996), and they can remind academic staff that professional requirements usually relate to outcomes in terms of ‘fitness to practice’ and less frequently dictate the way in which the knowledge, skills and values required of a professional graduate are to be achieved. 

Involving students in pedagogical planning is a significant step in deepening engaged learning and might therefore be understood as a professional responsibility for academic developers. 

Like engagement, student voice is a theory and set of practices that position students as active agents in analyses and revisions of education. 

Academic staff similarly comment on the change in relationship: ‘I work with students more as colleagues, more as people engaged in similar struggles to learn and grow.’ 

In virtually every definition of engaged learning, students take an active role in the learning process (WolfWendel, Ward & Kinzie, 2009), with recent calls for students to become co-creators of learning (Davis & Sumara, 2002; McCulloch, 2009).