Changing Participants in
Pedagogical Planning:
+ Students as Co-Creators of Course
Design, Curricula, and Teaching
Approaches
Alison Cook-Sather, Bryn Mawr College (US)
Peter Felten, Elon University (US)
Catherine Bovill, University of Glasgow (UK)
+
International
Consortium of
Educational
Development
(ICED)
Barcelona 2830 June 2010
The Andrew W. Mellon
Teaching and Learning Institute
Students as Co-Creators of Teaching Approaches
Changing Participants in Pedagogical Planning: Students as Co-Creators
of Course Design, Curricula, and Teaching Approaches
Dr. Alison Cook-Sather, Professor of Education
Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. U.S. A.
+
Overview

Description of focal programs

Theoretical grounding

Research approach

Key redefinition of quality learning

For small group discussion:

Address particular questions people have

Discuss challenges to norms of faculty development that this
approach poses

Share recommendations for developing such programs

Distribute a list of references
+
The Andrew W. Mellon Teaching
and Learning Institute
at Bryn Mawr College
Part of a larger Teaching and Learning Initiative that
aims to create new structures within which all
members of the campus community — faculty, staff,
and students — interact as teachers, learners, and
colleagues.
Seeks to foster a culture that operates on principles
of equality and functions as an integrated, interactive,
and evolving whole (Lesnick & Cook-Sather 2010).
www.brynmawr.edu/tli
+ Faculty participate in two interrelated forums
for dialogue about teaching and learning:
1. A semi-structured, semester-long seminar



weekly two-hour, semi-structured meetings
weekly posts to a closed blog
feedback and portfolios
2. Individual partnerships with undergraduate students
The undergraduate student, who is not enrolled in the
participating faculty member’s course,




visits one of her faculty partner’s classes each week and takes
detailed observation notes
meets with her faculty partner each week to talk about what is
happening in the class
participates in weekly reflective meetings with other student
consultants and me
visits five meetings of the faculty pedagogy seminar each
semester.
+
TLI: Theoretical Grounding

Responds to Shulman’s (2004) assertion that faculty need to emerge from
“pedagogical solitude” and “change the status of teaching from private to
community property” (pp. 140-141)

Embraces the commitments of reflective and collaborative approaches to
professional development (Cowan & Westwood, 2006; Huston & Weaver,
2008) and faculty learning communities (Richlin & Cox, 2004; Cox, 2003)

Addresses Cox and Sorenson’s (2000) claim that student involvement in
formal conversations about teaching and learning “has not only been just
a small component of faculty development practices — it has been
virtually invisible” (p. 99; see also Cox, 2001; Cox & Sorenson, 2000;
Sorenson, 2001)

Applies to the college context principles of student voice work developed
largely within K-12 schools (Fielding, 2006; Rudduck, 2007; Thiessen &
Cook-Sather, 2007) and is modeled on a project that positions high school
students as consultants to prospective secondary teachers (Cook-Sather,
2002, 2006, 2009).

Complements a new a strand of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
(SoTL) focused on student voice (Mihans, Long, & Felten, 2008; Werder &
Otis, 2010).
+
Research Approach

Action research project approved by Bryn Mawr College’s
IRB

Participants: 104 faculty members across rank and
division and 55 student consultants in a total of 118
partnerships between 2007 and 2010

Data sources: audiotaped conversations of weekly
meetings, weekly posts to the closed blog, mid- and endof-semester feedback, a follow-up survey, and transcripts
of small-group, semi-structured discussions of past
participants in TLI forums

Method: constant comparison/grounded theory
(Creswell, 2006; Strauss, 1987)
+
Student Outcomes

Improved Learning
“I honestly think it has made me a better student, although maybe a
more critical one. I think more about the professor’s thinking
process for what he or she wanted me to get out of an assignment,
which makes me more focused.”

Greater Confidence
“I gained a lot confidence in my own thoughts in my opinions and
ways that I look at things and confidence in the ways that I put
them forward. “

More Responsibility
“In past discussions I’ve always been talking about what the profs do
to us and it’s been a one-way street. And now I am able to look at it
as a relationship in the classroom; if we’re complaining about
something that is going on, it’s also the students’ role to step up
and say something about that.”
+

Faculty Outcomes
Deeper Sense of Community
“Our participation in the seminar produces the invigorating effect of
removing the instructor from his or her office and the classroom,
enclosed spaces where traditionally preparation of lesson plans and
execution take place. The lonely task of the authoritative professor is
transformed into an open space, and the dialogue between colleagues
and students enriches the experience of participating in the same
community of learners.”

Greater Confidence
“I feel much more confident insofar that I feel more centered in my own
understanding of what is generative about the material I’m presenting
and about the dynamics of the classes themselves.”

Increased Intentionality
“The whole experience has made me more intentional, more thoughtful,
and more articulate in defining the rationales for what I do.”
+
Key Redefinition of Quality Learning:
Both faculty and students who participate in the TLI
come to see learning as a shared responsibility
“I work with students more as colleagues, more as people
engaged in similar struggles to learn and grow.”
–Faculty Member
“This experience has made me increasingly alive to both the
professor’s perspective and to my own responsibilities as a
student in creating and maintaining a positive and effective
learning environment for all members of the class.”
– Student Consultant
Students as partners in course
design
Peter Felten, Elon University
ICED: June 28, 2010
Overview

Elon’s context

CASTL Leadership Initiative: Student Voices in SoTL

Course design teams / course design process

Findings

Questions
CASTL: Student Voices in SoTL
2006 - 2009

Carmen Werder and Megan M. Otis,
editors (Stylus, 2010)
Elon’s course design
teams / process

Design team = faculty, students, CATL

Goal = redesigned syllabus

Process = ~6-12 meetings, backward design

Roles = based on expertise

Power = from “you”/“I” to “we”/“our”
Research on course design
teams

Multiple SoTL projects approved by Elon’s IRB

Pre, post, and post-post-interviews of participants (n=27)

Design team member journals (n=42)

Teacher journals while teaching redesigned course (n=6)

Methods: constant comparison/grounded theory -- and disciplinarybased SoTL methods
Findings


Students in design teams:

Deepened understanding of foundational concepts in discipline

Stronger sense of control/autonomy/voice in own education

Greater appreciation for complexities of teaching and learning
Faculty in design teams:

Enhanced understanding of student learning experiences

New perspectives on students (and community participants)

Increased stress and “liberation”
A somewhat typical student postinterview

Junior psychology major: “I feel like I’ve had a lot of
involvement, which is kind of surprising since I have no
idea how to teach a classroom or anything like that. But just
knowing what our research has found and being the
student, being in classes all the time, I guess. You know, I
have a completely different perspective than the two
professors would.... So I could talk about different activities
that were most interesting and that students would get the
most value out of. So that was helpful.”
A somewhat typical faculty
journal


PRE: “I don’t think this group project will work. I really should
have put my foot down and told them that my way was the
only way to do it to ensure that everyone contributed.... Some
of them will simply blow it off and the importance of this
module will be lost.... Some of them are just looking for a way
to do the least amount of work possible. Grading this is going
to be a nightmare - should I even bother? How would I
differentiate between students?... I should not have given this
option - it will be a disaster!”
POST: “The group presentation went really well... Because
they had worked with each other for 2 months now, they
seemed to be aware of each other’s strengths and
weaknesses.... Be sure to have them add a component to
their reflections about group dynamics.”
Questions we are pondering...



How can we scale-up the course design teams to involve more faculty
and students?
What are the characteristics of courses, faculty, and students that are
most ripe for the redesign team process?
How do courses (and how does learning) change as a result of the
redesign team process?
A closing Elon student
perspective, post-interview

“Even in college, even now, 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.”
Changing Participants in Pedagogical Planning: Students as Co-Creators of Course
Design, Curricula, and Teaching Approaches
Students as co-creators of curricula
International Consortium of Educational Development (ICED)
Barcelona 28-30 June 2010
Dr Catherine Bovill,
Lecturer, Academic Development Unit, University of Glasgow
Overview
 Background to research
 Relevant literature
 The cases studied
 Findings
 Relationships, ownership and practice
Background to research
 Students as co-creators/co-producers of their learning (ESU,
2008; McCulloch, 2009; SFC, 2008)
 Silence about curriculum within HE (Barnett & Coate, 2005)
 Students passive in the curriculum (Mann, 2008)
 Most refs to active student participation (ASP) - student
feedback informing curricula (e.g. Rumpus, 2009; University of Warwick, 2006)
 Literature calling for ASP in curriculum design from critical
pedagogy and popular education (Darder et al, 2003; Dewey, 1916; Fischer,
2005; Freire, 1993; Giroux, 1983; Rogers and Freiberg, 1969)
HE Literature supporting ASP
 HE Literature calling for ASP in curriculum design limited
 Active participation in university, representation & learning
 Implied in Fraser & Bosanquet’s (2006) curriculum definitions
a) Structure and content of a unit
b) Structure and content of a programme of study
c) The students’ experience of learning
d) A dynamic and interactive process of teaching and learning (p272)
 Specific ASP in curriculum design in HE
 Breen & Littlejohn (2000) Language teaching
 Samson & Scandrett (1999) Environmental justice
 Fischer (2005); Delpish et al. (2010) Education
Research process
 Carnegie Research Grant – Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland
 3 examples purposively sampled from an earlier study on first year
curriculum design (Bovill et al., 2008)
 Geographical spread – Scotland, Ireland, USA
 Subject spread – environmental justice, geography, education,
 First year focus
The cases: interview 1
University College Dublin, Ireland (February 2009)
Geography, 400 students
Retrospective and current design
The cases: interview 2
Elon University, North Carolina, USA (March 2009)
Education, 50 students
Retrospective and future design
The cases: interview 3
Queen Margaret University Edinburgh, Scotland (March 09)
Environmental Justice, 16 students
Current and future design
Student outcomes








Increase in collective and individual responsibility
Enhanced collaborative learning
Enhanced group cohesion
Increased autonomy and self-directed learning
Improved confidence and motivation
Enhanced student performance in assessments
Changed views of curriculum design as a complex process
Enhanced understanding of role of tutor
 Enhanced understanding of place of theory within curriculum
content
 Desire for more opportunities to participate
Staff outcomes
 Nerve-wracking
 Intense / demanded a lot
 Rich experience from genuine dialogue with students
 Transformatory
Findings – key themes
 Risk
 Tutor – student relationship
 Individuals
 Institutional context
 Familiarity/unfamiliarity
 Expectations
Re-imagining relationships
“You work in a university and you get
surrounded by people who should like teaching
but who really don’t like teaching and don’t like
students…’they’re so stupid’, ‘they don’t do any
work’, ‘they’re so lazy’…and I think actually, it’s
our problem, because they’re not, they’re smart,
they’re engaged, they’re interested.” (UCD)
Relationships











Tutors are gatekeepers to curricula design
Relationship as litmus test to motivations of tutor & students
Students as experts in student experience
The importance of the nature of dialogue (Fischer, 2005; Haggis, 2006)
Exposure to rich pedagogical variety - experimentation
Tutors operate within the constraints of a market-driven university
system (McLean, 2006; Parker, 2003)
Tutor and students as learners in joint inquiry (Freire, 1993)
Tutors have expert knowledge & control over assessment
Liminal moments – key to convincing students of sincerity
Is there a curriculum without students? (Barnett & Coate, 2005)
Some legitimate staff concerns of about handing over control and loss
of expertise (Bovill et al., 2009)
Some concerns…
 Danger of participative methodologies being adopted in
instrumental ways - tends to result in alienation
(Cleaver, 2001; Mosse, 2005)
 Possible to be methodologically radical but politically
conservative (Kane, 2005)
Discussion
• Questions and comments you have
• Challenges to norms of faculty development that
this approach poses
• Recommendations for faculty developers
Questions to consider
 How can we raise academic staff expectations of students?
 How might possible co-creation of the curricula differ
between the arts / social sciences / science disciplines?
 Should academic developers encourage / support cocreation of the curriculum?
 If they should, how can academic developers support cocreation of the curriculum?
 Other questions you may have…
What next?
• Insight: What is one idea or question you
have now?
• Application: What is one way you will apply
these ideas in your context?