Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design and Multi-disciplinarity: Co-creation in Practice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Applied Degree Education and the Future of Work

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Educational Technology ((LNET))

  • 745 Accesses

Abstract

The world around us is in a constant state of flux. Given that most experiences are governed by incremental shifts happening, imperceptibly, over very long periods of time, it is disorientating, and rare, for people to experience a sudden step change to the environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2006). Intellectual development in the college years. Change, 38(3), 50–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boreham, N., & Morgan, C. (2004). A sociocultural analysis of organizational learning. Oxford Review of Education, 30(3), 307–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovill, C. (2014). An investigation of co-created curricula within higher education in the UK, Ireland and the USA. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(1), 15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., & 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), 133–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, P. (2013). Student as co-producer in a marketised higher education system: A case study of students’ experience of participation in curriculum design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(3), 250–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Disckson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., et al. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8086–8091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuseo, J. (1992). Cooperative learning vs. small group discussions and group projects: The critical differences. Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, 2(3), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Costa, E. M. (1986). Metacognition and higher order thinking: An interdisciplinary approach to critical thinking in the humanities. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Society for Individualized Instruction, USA (Vol. 15, pp. 2–15).

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Castri, F. (2000). Ecology in a context of economic globalization. BioScience, 50(4), 321–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, E., & Zandstra, R. (2011). Students as change agents: New ways of engaging with learning and teaching in higher education. Bristol: ESCalate Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Education/University of Exeter. Retrieved August 7, 2014, from http://escalate.ac.uk/8064.

  • Errington, E. (2001). The influence of teacher beliefs on flexible learning innovation in traditional university settings. In F. Lockwood & A. Gooley (Eds.), Innovation in open and distance learning. Successful development of online and web-based learning (pp. 27–37). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, E., Palmatier, R. W., & Evans, K. R. (2008). Influence of customer participation on creating and sharing of new product value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(3), 322–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 44(Spring), 43–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felten, P., & Bauman, H.-D. (2013). Reframing diversity and student engagement: Lessons from deaf-gain. In E. Dunne & D. Owen (Eds.), Student engagement handbook: Practice in higher education (pp. 367–378). Emerald: Bingley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filieri, R. (2013). Consumer co-creation and new product development: A case study in the food Industry. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 13(1), 40–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gärdebo, J., & Wiggberg, M. (2012). Importance of student participation in future academia. In J. Gärdebo & M. Wiggberg (Eds.) Students, the university’s unspent resource: revolutionising higher education using active student participation (pp. 7–14). Pedagogical Development Report 12. Uppsala Universitet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, M., & Gervacio, N. (2011). Radical equality: A dialogue on building a partnership—And a program—Through a cross-campus collaboration. Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education, Spring(3) Article IV. Retrieved November 28, 2013, from http://teachingandlearningtogether.blogs.brynmawr.edu/archived-issues/may-issue/radical-equality.

  • Hepworth, J., Mulder, I., & Kleinsmann, M. (2016). Design for liveability: Connecting local stakeholders as co-creative partnerships. In Fifth Service Design and Innovation Conference, May 24–26, 2016, Copenhagen SV.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ind, N., & Coates, N. (2013). The meanings of co-creation. European Business Review, 25(1), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341311287754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning. In J. Thousand, A. Villa, & A. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning. Baltimore: Brookes Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html.

  • Kates, R. W., Clark, J. S., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., et al. (2001). Environment and development: Sustainability science. Science, 292(5517), 641–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klassen, P. (1983–1984). Changes in personal orientation and critical thinking among adults returning to school through weekend college: An alternative evaluation. Innovative Higher Education, 8, 55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redstrom, J., & Wensveen, S. (2011). Design research through practice: From the lab, field, and showroom. Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostoff, R. (2002). Overcoming specialization. BioScience, 52(10), 937–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristensson, P., Magnusson, P. R., & Matthing, J. (2002). Users as a hidden resource for creativity: Findings from an experimental study on user involvement. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11(1), 55–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristensson, P., Gustafsson, A., & Archer, T. (2004). Harnessing the creative potential among users. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(1), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2004). Collaboration: The social context of theory development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(2), 164–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, B., & Williams, R. (2010). Students’ roles in maintaining quality and in enhancing learning—Is there a tension? Quality in Higher Education, 16(2), 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, T. R. (2001). 101 reasons for using cooperative learning in biology teaching. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 63(1), 30–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, P. R. (2009). Exploring the contributions of involving ordinary users in ideation of technology-based services. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(5), 578–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millis, B. J., & Cottell, P. G., Jr. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mostert, E., Pahl-Wostl, C., Rees, Y., Searle, B., Tàbara, D., & Tippett, J. (2007). Social learning in European river-basin management: Barriers and fostering mechanisms from 10 river basins. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 19. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art19/.

  • Nygaard, C., Brand, S., Bartholomew, P., & Millard, L. (Eds.). (2013). Student engagement: Identity, motivation and community. Faringdon: Libri Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Senach, B., & Scapin. D. (2010). Living lab research landscape: From user centred design and user experience towards user cocreation. First European Summer School “Living Labs”, Aug 2010, Paris, France. <inria-00612632>.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students (Vol. 2): A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poetz, M. K., & Schreier, M. (2012). The value of crowdsourcing: Can users really compete with professionals in generating new product ideas? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2), 245–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, S. (2006). Editorial: What drives environmental policy? Global Environmental Change, 17, 4–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoten, D. (2003). Final report: A multi-method analysis of the social and technical conditions for interdisciplinary collaboration. San Francisco, California, USA: The Hybrid Vigor Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welp, M., de la Vega-Leinert, A., Stoll- Kleemann, S., & Jaeger, C. C. (2006). Science-based stakeholder dialogues: Theories and tools. Global Environmental Change, 16, 170–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Singapore Institute of Technology, SIT, Singapore, Singapore

    Agnes Xue, Alfred Tan, Desmond Chong & Tim Xu

Authors
  1. Agnes Xue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alfred Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Desmond Chong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tim Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Agnes Xue .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Christina Hong

  2. Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Will W. K. Ma

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Xue, A., Tan, A., Chong, D., Xu, T. (2020). Design and Multi-disciplinarity: Co-creation in Practice. In: Hong, C., Ma, W. (eds) Applied Degree Education and the Future of Work. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3142-2_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3142-2_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-3141-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-3142-2

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation