Catherine Bovill

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

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.

An investigation of co-created curricula within higher education in the UK, Ireland and the USA

This paper presents findings from research that investigated students and academic staff working in partnership to co-create curricula. Using case study methodology, the study investigated three examples within higher education in the UK, Ireland and the USA, where academic staff and students co-designed curricula. Findings focus on the approach to co-created curricula described by academic staff within each setting, followed by presentation of cross-case themes and outcomes from the three examples. The discussion focuses on drawing out key messages from the study results including the importance of students’ views being taken seriously and a range of early design decisions that are taken by academic staff and which are useful to those considering co-creating curricula.

Staff student partnership in assessment: enhancing assessment literacy through democratic practices

In recent years, research and practice focused on staff and students working in partnership to co-design learning and teaching in higher education has increased. However, within staff–student partnerships a focus on assessment is relatively uncommon, with fewer examples evident in the literature. In this paper, we take the stance that all assessment can be oriented for learning, and that students’ learning is enhanced by improving their level of assessment literacy. A small study in a Scottish university was undertaken that involved a range of different adaptations to assessment and feedback, in which students were invited to become partners in assessment. We argue that a partnership approach, designed to democratise the assessment process, not only offered students greater agency in their own and their peers’ learning, but also helped students to enhance their assessment literacy. Although staff and students reported experiencing a sense of risk, there was immense compensation through increased motivation, and a sense of being part of an engaged learning community. Implications for partnership in assessment are discussed and explored further. We assert that adopting staff–student partnership in assessment and more democratic classroom practices can have a wide range of positive benefits.

Cultivating student–staff partnerships through research and practice

Cultivating student–staff partnerships through research and practice Student engagement is a central theme in higher education around the world. Over the last several years, student–staff partnerships have increasingly been portrayed as a primary path towards engagement. Indeed, Healey, Flint, and Harrington argue that ‘engaging students and staff effectively as partners in learning and teaching is arguably one of the most important issues facing higher education in the twenty-first century’ (2014, p. 7). This special issue explores practices and research on student–staff partnerships, and considers the implications for academic development. In higher education, partnerships between students and academic staff in learning and teaching can be understood as ‘a collaborative, reciprocal process through which all participants have the opportunity to contribute equally, although not necessarily in the same ways, to curricular or pedagogical conceptualization, decision-making, implementation, investigation, or analysis’ (Cook-Sather, Bovill, & Felten, 2014, pp. 6–7). Partnership practices vary widely across disciplines, institutions, and countries. This special issue reflects that diversity with articles from Australia, Canada, Sweden, and the UK. These articles highlight that partnership is an emergent practice that is often unfamiliar to students, staff, and academic developers (Bovill, 2014) – and that partnership does not always fit easily within existing cultures in higher education. A common theme throughout this special issue is the difficulty of moving partnership from theory to practice. In the first article, Marquis and colleagues evaluate a student scholars programme at McMaster University in Canada. The authors, including both students and staff, use the theoretical lens of threshold concepts to consider the troublesome nature of partnerships for all involved. This article is refreshingly honest about some of the challenges faced in this work, including when staff attempt to make space for student perspectives yet paradoxically leave students feeling less capable of contributing to the partnership. Woolmer, with student and staff colleagues at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, critically analyze their experiences when co-creating an undergraduate course that spanned a range of science disciplines. They underscore the importance of beginning partnerships by explicitly addressing the aims and intended processes of the work. At the same time, they stress that too much early attention to structure can stifle the development of authentic partnership. Bergmark and Westman, scholars in teacher education at the University of Luleå in Sweden, extend this consideration of processes by emphasizing the democratic values at the heart of partnerships. In common with other authors in this issue, they carefully consider some of the tensions in trying to encourage students to take on more responsibility for co-design when students report that it is ‘hard to give concrete suggestions on tasks when you have little knowledge about the subject’. Jensen and Bennett at the University of Huddersfield in England outline an interdisciplinary study of their student–staff partnership programme focused on enhancing dialogue about learning and teaching through observation of teaching sessions. The most successful of these partnerships, Jensen and Bennett conclude, ‘created space for conversation and collaboration, a liminal space where students and staff stepped outside normal roles and the traditional learner-teacher relationship’.

Transnational approaches to teaching and learning in higher education: challenges and possible guiding principles

The higher education sector has become increasingly internationalised over recent decades. This paper examines a range of challenges that can arise where teaching staff in one context support and implement learning and teaching initiatives in another international context – transnational teaching. We use examples and experiences from our own practice to highlight challenges that arise from implementing cross-cultural and transnational teaching and that warrant further exploration, including differing expectations; differing views of learners and learning; the illusory nature of transformed practice; and time constraints. We discuss these challenges in the light of Hofstedes model of cultural dimensions as well as critiquing this model. We then highlight some possible guiding principles for transnational higher education work that include modelling good practice; ensuring reciprocity and mutual benefit; ensuring individual integrity and institutional credibility; and developing and supporting transnational staff.

Is student-centred learning a Western concept? Lessons from an academic development programme to support student-centred learning in Iraq

This paper explores the idea that student-centred learning (SCL) is a concept and an approach that is internationally useful and transferable to a range of higher education settings. We present details of a British Council funded collaborative project between Hawler Medical University (HMU), in Erbil in the Kurdistan region of northern Iraq and the University of Glasgow (UoG) in Scotland, UK. The aim of this project was to support teachers within HMU to adopt SCL methodologies across the dentistry, medicine, nursing and pharmacy curricula. We use experiences and evaluation from this project to explore the ways in which different teachers interpreted and enacted SCL. The project evaluation findings demonstrate that as a result of the SCL project, most teachers at HMU demonstrated a slight increase in their level of confidence as a teacher, their level of understanding of SCL and confidence in their own skills to undertake SCL. There was a willingness from most participants to try to adapt their teaching practice towards an SCL approach. However, some participants did not fully understand the shift in conceptualisation necessary in adopting a student-centred approach and some were uncomfortable with the need for a shift of power from teacher to student implied within SCL. We conclude by highlighting the key lessons learned from this project related to the translatability of SCL from one global context to another, highlighting the need to re-examine a range of Western educational concepts in the current context of increasing transnational higher education partnerships.

Evaluation of a pilot peer observation of teaching scheme for chair-side tutors at Glasgow University Dental School

Aim To introduce and examine a pilot peer observation of teaching (POT) scheme within the Department of Paediatric Dentistry at Glasgow Dental School and its associated outreach centres.Methods All tutors teaching paediatric dentistry were invited to be involved in evaluation of the POT scheme. Participants were randomly paired with a peer, who then observed their teaching and provided constructive feedback. For those consenting to be involved in the evaluation of the scheme, semi-structured, one-to-one interviews were carried out by the principal investigator.Results POT was found by all participants to be a beneficial process, reassuring those of their teaching styles and giving them ideas to adapt their teaching.Conclusion POT is an effective method for engaging chair-side tutors in the reflection and development of their teaching practice via observations and scholarly discussion.

Experiences of learning through collaborative evaluation from a masters programme in professional education

This paper presents findings from a collaborative evaluation project within a masters programme in professional education. The project aimed to increase knowledge of research methodologies and methods through authentic learning where participants worked in partnership with the tutor to evaluate the module which they were studying. The project processes, areas of the course evaluated and the data collection methods are outlined. The findings focus on key themes from evaluating the effectiveness of using a collaborative evaluation approach, including: enhanced student engagement; creativity of the collaborative evaluation approach; equality between the tutor and students; and enhanced research skills. Discussion focuses on the outcomes and effectiveness of the project and tutor reflections on adopting a collaborative approach. This paper highlights lessons from the project relevant to those interested in staff–student partnership approaches and those facilitating postgraduate learning and teaching programmes and educational research courses. Cet article présente les résultats d’un projet collaboratif d’évaluation ayant eu lieu dans le cadre d’un programme de master en formation professionnelle. Le projet visait à accroître les connaissances des méthodes et méthodologies de recherche par l’entremise d’un apprentissage authentique dans le cadre duquel les participantes œuvraient en partenariat avec le tuteur à l’évaluation du module auquel elles prenaient part. Les processus du projet, les parties du cours ayant été évaluées et les méthodes de collecte des données sont présentées. Les résultats se concentrent sur les thèmes principaux provenant de l’évaluation de l’efficacité d’une approche collaborative d’évaluation. Ceux‐ci comprennent : l’engagement accru des étudiantes ; la créativité de l’approche collaborative d’évaluation ; l’égalité entre le tuteur et les étudiantes ; et les compétences de recherche développées. La discussion porte sur : les résultats et l’efficacité du projet de même que des réflexions du tuteur au sujet de l’adoption d’une approche collaborative. L’article met en lumière les leçons tirées de ce projet pouvant être pertinentes pour ceux qui seraient intéressés par les approches de partenariat enseignant‐étudiant et pour ceux qui ont la charge de programmes de 2e ou 3e cycle en pédagogie universitaire ou de cours de recherche en éducation.

Rhetoric or reality? Cross-sector policy implementation at the UK government Department for International Development

International development discourse emphasises collaboration, partnerships and cross-sectoral approaches, but to what extent is cross-sector policy implemented in practice? This article presents findings from research into cross-sector policy implementation at the Department for International Development (DFID) in the UK and Nepal. Discussion focuses on examining and explaining the contradictory nature of the data gathered and a possible model of cross-sectoral engagement is presented in response to the findings. In conclusion, DFID was found to have made some significant attempts to implement cross-sectoral policies but, for a number of reasons, DFIDs cross-sector policies have not been fully implemented.

The challenge of sustaining academic development work

Academic developers enact their role in a range of different ways whilst occupying a unique structural position between academic staff and senior managers within higher education institutions (Land, 2004; Manathunga, 2007). Much of the work we do is challenging – such as supporting academic staff to spend time enhancing their teaching when line managers and colleagues often emphasize the importance of research. Academic developers need a range of skills and attributes to undertake their work successfully, including a good measure of diplomacy, resilience, and adaptability. Academic development practice is often varied; it is sometimes piecemeal, sometimes reactive rather than proactive. Also, different academic, institutional, and national contexts and cultures set different demands on our work. In this complex contextual setting, how do academic developers ensure their work is sustained? Unfortunately, there is no handbook or set formula for ensuring that academic developers can achieve successful outcomes and sustain changes in their own and others’ academic practice. Yet there are perhaps some underpinning values and principles that can guide us towards this goal. We can plan our work so that it is focused on recurring themes that are unlikely to disappear in academic work, such as assessment, student learning, research–teaching links, scholarship of teaching and learning, and ongoing professional development for academic staff. We can try to ensure we focus our attention on activity at various strategic levels within our institutions, such as interventions at college or faculty level or work affecting curricula across an institution. We also need continually to take a scholarly, critical, and questioning stance to the work we do. This can help to ensure we remain open to changes that might be required in our accepted ways of practicing, and provide new angles on, and approaches to, academic development that may offer alternative ways of sustaining effective work. The articles in this volume cover a range of academic practice and academic development work and they refer to some of the values and principles that can enhance the sustainability of our practice. In the first article, O’Neill, Donnelly, and Fitzmaurice argue that curriculum in higher education is often modularized and fragmented, and that therefore the sequencing of curriculum is crucial for ‘promoting a coherent student experience’. They present the outcomes from a phenomenological study across two institutions and across seven different disciplinary programme teams examining the sequencing of curriculum. They found three key themes from their research on curriculum sequencing: the importance of ‘developing a collective philosophy; communicating the sequencing clearly; and developing strong building blocks’. The building blocks seem to be critical, but we know from experience as academic developers that academic staff typically conceptualize their subject in different ways and do not necessarily agree about the following: whether knowledge should be built incrementally; if there is a core basic knowledge that