1. Dr Niamh Moore-Cherry School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Policy University College Dublin, Ireland Co-creating curriculum in a mass education system: Challenges and insights

2. Massification of higher education ‘Right to be there’ – automatic transition and learning behaviour Student as ‘consumer’ (Molesworth, Nixon and Scullion, 2009) Emphasis on engagement & QE (Gvaramadze, 2011; Robinson, 2012) Competing demands on staff time (effectiveness and efficiency) Diminishing resources, financial constraints Large class sizes (Stanley and Porter, 2002; Cuseo, 2007; Keirle and Morgan, 2011)  CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY

3. “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). Students can become more active authors of their own learning experiences (Baxter-Magolda, 1992, 2001; Moore et al., 2011) Co-creation is an option but logistical challenges in large group settings

4. Partnership - a negotiated curriculum Students in control Student control of some areas of choice Students control of prescribed areas Wide choice from prescribed choices Limited choice from prescribed choices Dictated curriculum – no interaction Participation claimed, tutor in control Students control decision-making and have substantial influence Students have some choice and influence Tutors control decision-making informed by student feedback Tutors control decision-making Annotated from participation model by Bovill, C. and Bulley, C.J. (2011) GEOG10030 Members of curriculum/VLE design team GEOG10030 Contribute content GEOG20130 Resource creation for peers GEOG40540/20110 Developing field component All modules Gathering feedback

5. GEOG 10030 Intro to Human Geography Full members of a curriculum design team Designing the VLE for a programme (n=4 students) + All student participants developing lecture material/content (n=400 students) Case study design with specific themes –A commodity chain: global coffee trade –The M3 motorway debate –Migration –The Corrib Gas Fields controversy

6. Initial design: ‘Students as partners’ –Employed 3 undergraduate students for 6 weeks over summer to develop content, resources and design the VLE –Autonomous work with weekly reporting meetings During delivery: ‘Students as partners’ –Student work incorporated into lecture content to showcase skills, talent and motivate students as well as being a resource for lecturers

9. Case study 3 tutorial work

10. GEOG20130 World Urbanisation n=198 students (47 groups)

11. Using groupwork to create resources for their peers in collaboration with them –‘we worked harder because we knew that this was for the benefit of the whole class’ –‘instead of trying to learn everything yourself, you are aided by the work of other groups’ Generating case studies for lecturer in-class use Producing understanding for themselves [major challenge] –‘It would be more beneficial to have resource sheets from academics so I can make reference to them in the future’ –‘we should have covered the topics before moving to do a project on them. I didn’t learn anything useful’

12. GEOG20110 Geographic research techniques n=289 students Core geography module Link made to MA module GEOG 40540 Reading Urban Landscapes (13 students) Lecturer Second year students Masters students

13. Linking design and learning across cohorts GEOG 40540 –Learning outcomes of level 2 module given –General broad parameters (location etc.) –Design & deliver fieldwork study for Level 2 students GEOG 20110 –To be introduced to fieldwork as a learning tool –Awareness of place of the core module within the curriculum –Choice of three routes designed by MA students

14. MA student response (90% response rate) “Really enjoyed the exercise, have not previously ever had the opportunity to engage in such an exercise and I believe as masters student we should be required to do so more often.” “The major benefits were taking on the increased responsibility.” “I feel curriculum co-creation can optimise student engagement. It is important however when designing a co-created curriculum that the involvement expected by us (the MA students) and the second year students is at a level that we/they are capable of.” “the use of students in the co creation of curriculum can help develop both the student academically and indeed give the lecturer new ideas. But the use of students at masters level or higher to do this is a must. This is my opinion as I believe undergraduate students would not appreciate or put as much effort into a project such as the one we undertook.”

15. Second year student response (in-class survey) “Sounds interesting and a new way of learning” “It’s not co-creation, it’s just choice” “It’s a cop-out. Masters students are only two years out from us.” “Excited to do something outside the classroom. They [MA students] might have a good idea about what would interest us”

16. Key issues Fit with the student view of education and module coordinators? –“clear provision of information” –“to make sure we’re covering all topics correctly” –How do we convince them? Trust and contradiction –“resource sheets could have wrong material, rather not learn from what I’m not confident in” –“would make the curriculum more student-orientated but I’m not in favour of it”. –Co-creation can be threatening and empowering to students

17. Resistance, power, confidence –“module coordinators are the expert” –“we should have covered the topics before moving to do a project on them.” –“never felt such resentment towards an assignment” –Students perpetuating conventional view as subordinates (Breen and Littlejohn, 2000) –Pitching the activity at an appropriate level is crucial Inter-cohort recognition/links –“It would benefit future students of the module if present students can make the learning process easier for them”. –Better guidelines needed, better explanation? –Past, present (across cohorts) and future students with staff

18. “Curriculum development is not simply an exercise in pedagogic design. It is bounded by a variety of governance processes at different levels” (Carey, 2013) Structural issues & timelines: –“Students choose modules based on the content of the curriculum” so when do you decide this? –Co creation ideas: “survey at start of term to see what interests student” “survey on exam type” –Compressed modules an issue (year long modules?) –Role for negotiation, with whom, when?: “lecturer can’t please everyone so not too much student inclusion”