Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Co-creating curriculum with students, teachers, and practitioners in a technology-enhanced environment

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational technology research and development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper introduces an approach that facilitates whole-class curriculum co-creation and presents a case study conducted in a higher education institution in Hong Kong where it was implemented. The approach enables students to actively contribute to constructing a curriculum in partnership with teachers and practitioners, using scenario development techniques within the technology-enhanced learning environments. In this sense, the study is compatible with and contributes to contemporary higher education requirements for future-ready students, able to work in fast-changing, digitalized and globalized working environments. The case study describes the implementation of the approach in undergraduate and postgraduate knowledge management courses. The mix-method design was employed, including content analysis of scenarios, a questionnaire asking for students’ feedback, and teacher’s observations. The findings revealed that the approach enabled students and the teacher to work more collaboratively and co-create some aspects of the knowledge management courses (e.g., identifying and compiling relevant subject trends), even if some challenges were experienced. The paper points to the need for students’ ownership when it comes to developing curricula that better consider students’ experiences and meaning-making processes. The paper contributes to contemporary higher education discourse by providing conceptual and practical guidance on how to enact whole-class curriculum co-creation for teachers interested in such practice.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source: Authors’ research

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Notes

  1. Overall, five universities and eight departments participated in the project. Researchers were responsible for training sessions to make familiar teachers and assistants involved with the concepts and tools. A guidebook was also provided to involved teachers prior to the commencement of the semester to design interventions in their courses.

  2. At the beginning of the approach implementation, we have used the Google+community. However, after Google announced to shut down of Google+community, we have chosen the MeWe platform to facilitate learning activities.

  3. Due to COVID-19 pandemic, temporarily, all the lectures and workshops were held online. Google Jamboard tool is used to facilitate group collaborative activities.

  4. For the method implementation, we have used a condensed version of the deductive matrix approach (cf. Van der Heijden, 2005).

References

  • Abuhassna, H., Al-Rahmi, W. M., Yahya, N., Zakaria, M. A. Z. M., Kosnin, A., Bt, M., & Darwish, M. (2020). Development of a new model on utilizing online learning platforms to improve students’ academic achievements and satisfaction. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00216-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad, T. (2019). Scenario based approach to re-imagining future of higher education which prepares students for the future of work. Higher Education Skills and Work-Based Learning, 10(1), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-12-2018-0136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, B., Ashford-Rowe, K., Barajas-Murph, N., Dobbin, G., Knott, J., McCormack, M., Pomerantz, J., Seilhamer, R., & Weber, N. (2019). EDUCAUSE Horizon Report 2019 Higher Education Edition. EDU19.

  • Benedict-Chambers, A., Kademian, S. M., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (2017). Guiding students towards sensemaking: Teacher questions focused on integrating scientific practices with science content. International Journal of Science Education, 39(15), 1977–2001. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1366674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergdahl, N., Nouri, J., & Fors, U. (2020). Disengagement, engagement and digital skills in technology-enhanced learning. Education and Information Technologies, 25(2), 957–983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09998-w.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmark, U., & Westman, S. (2016). Co-creating curriculum in higher education: Promoting democratic values and a multidimensional view on learning. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(1), 28–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, I., & Shamir-Inbal, T. (2018). Digital technologies for promoting student voice and co-creating learning experience in an academic course. Instructional Science, 46, 315–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, I., Shamir-Inbal, T., & Avdiel, O. (2020). How does the pedagogical design of a technology-enhanced collaborative academic course promote digital literacies, self-regulation, and perceived learning of students? The Internet and Higher Education, 45, 100722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, M., & Bedenlier, S. (2019). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology: Towards a conceptual framework. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2019, 1–14.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.770264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovill, C. (2020). Co-creation in learning and teaching: The case for a whole-class approach in higher education. Higher Education, 79(6), 1023–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovill, C., & Bulley, C. J. (2011). A model of active student participation in curriculum design: Exploring desirability and possibility. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving Student Learning (ISL) 18: Global theories and local Practices: Institutional, disciplinary and cultural variations (pp. 176–188). Oxford Brookes University. Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsld/books/improving_student_learning/global_theories.html.

  • Bovill, C., & Woolmer, C. (2019). How conceptualizations of curriculum in higher education influence student-staff co-creation in and of the curriculum. Higher Education, 78(3), 407–422.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2011.568690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L., & Moore-Cherry, N. (2016). Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: Overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student–staff partnerships. Higher Education, 71(2), 195–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bower, M., Lee, M. J. W., & Dalgarno, B. (2017). Collaborative learning across physical and virtual worlds: Factors supporting and constraining learners in a blended reality environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradfield, R., Cairns, G., & Wright, G. (2015). Teaching scenario analysis—An action learning pedagogy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 100, 44–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. D., & Bailey, K. M. (1984). A categorical instrument for Scoring Second Language writing skills. Language Learning, 34(4), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00350.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, P. (2013). Student as co-producer in a marketized higher education system: A case study of students’ experience of participation in curriculum design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(3), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.796714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, M. N. (2017). A multi-perspective scenario-based roadmapping for strategic planning and technology forecasting [Thesis], The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. http://ira.lib.polyu.edu.hk/handle/10397/71560.

  • Cheng, M. N., Wong, J. W. K., Cheung, C. F., & Leung, K. H. (2016). A scenario-based roadmapping method for strategic planning and forecasting: A case study in a testing, inspection and certification company. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 111, 44–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • de Bem Machado, A., Secinaro, S., Calandra, D., & Lanzalonga, F. (2022). Knowledge management and digital transformation for industry 4.0: A structured literature review. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 20(2), 320–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2021.2015261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3),182–185.

  • Divjak, B., Rienties, B., Iniesto, F., Vondra, P., & Žižak, M. (2022). Flipped classrooms in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings and future research recommendations. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00316-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dollinger, M., Lodge, J., & Coates, H. (2018). Co-creation in higher education: Towards a conceptual model. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 28(2), 210–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dragicevic, N., Ullrich, A., Tsui, E., & Gronau, N. (2020). A conceptual model of knowledge dynamics in the industry 4.0 smart grid scenario. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2019.1633893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, T. J., & Kennedy, M. (2019). Technology enhanced learning in higher education; motivations, engagement and academic achievement. Computers & Education, 137, 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eck, N. J. V., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks (pp. 285–320). Measuring scholarly impact. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Findik-Coşkunçay, D., Alkiş, N., & Özkan-Yildirim, S. (2018). A structural model for students’ adoption of learning management systems: An empirical investigation in the higher education context. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 13–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, J. S., Profetto-McGrath, J., et al. (1994). A model for critical thinking within the context of curriculum as praxis. Journal of Nursing Education, 33(8), 341–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, M. S. J., & Lodge, J. M. (2015). Academic workload: The silent barrier to the implementation of technology-enhanced learning strategies in higher education. Distance Education, 36(2), 210–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1055056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gros, B., & López, M. (2016). Students as co-creators of technology-rich learning activities in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0026-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gyimóthy, S. (2017). Networked cultures in the collaborative economy. In D. Dredge & S. Gyimóthy (Eds.), Collaborative economy and tourism: perspectives, politics, policies and prospects (pp. 59–74). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hietajärvi, L., Salmela-Aro, K., Tuominen, H., Hakkarainen, K., & Lonka, K. (2019). Beyond screen time: Multidimensionality of socio-digital participation and relations to academic well-being in three educational phases. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(86)90015-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horney, N., Pasmore, B., & O’Shea, T. (2010). Leadership agility: A business imperative for a VUCA World. People & Strategy, 33(4), 32–38.

  • Ives, B. (2021). University students experience the COVID-19 induced shift to remote instruction. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00296-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, S., Kim, W., Bae, C., Cho, M., Lee, S., & Dreamson, N. (2021). The identity changes in online learning and teaching: Instructors, learners, and learning management systems. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00304-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latorre-Cosculluela, C., Suárez, C., Quiroga, S., Sobradiel-Sierra, N., Lozano-Blasco, R., & Rodríguez-Martínez, A. (2021). Flipped classroom model before and during COVID-19: Using technology to develop 21st century skills. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 18, 189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loyens, S. M. M., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2006). Students’ conceptions of constructivist learning: A comparison between a traditional and a problem-based learning curriculum. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11(4), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-006-9015-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Nerghes, A. (2017). Co‐word maps and topic modeling: A comparison using small and medium-sized corpora (N< 1,000). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(4), 1024–1035.

  • Lubicz-Nawrocka, T., & Bovill, C. (2021). Do students experience transformation through co-creating curriculum in higher education? Teaching in Higher Education, 0(0), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1928060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J. P., Hannon, J., & Macken, C. (2014). Sustainable practice in embedding learning technologies: Curriculum renewal through course design intensives. Curriculum models for the 21st century (pp. 423–442). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., Knorr, K., Marquis, E., Shammas, R., & Swaim, K. (2017). A systematic literature review of students as partners in higher education. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1)

  • Nancy, W., Parimala, A., & Livingston, L. M. M. (2020). Advanced Teaching Pedagogy as innovative Approach in Modern Education System. Procedia Computer Science, 172, 382–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.05.059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2021). The State of Higher Education: One Year into the COVID-19 Pandemic. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/the-state-of-higher-education_83c41957-en.

  • Pavlidou, I., Dragicevic, N., & Tsui, E. (2021). A multi-dimensional hybrid learning Environment for Business Education: A Knowledge Dynamics Perspective. Sustainability, 13(7), 3889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raes, A., Detienne, L., Windey, I., & Depaepe, F. (2019). A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: Gaps identified. Learning Environments Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-019-09303-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reis, J., Amorim, M., Melão, N., & Matos, P. (2018). Digital transformation: a literature review and guidelines for future research. In Á. Rocha, H. Adeli, L. P. Reis, & S. Costanzo (Eds.), Trends and advances in information systems and technologies (pp. 411–421). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77703-0_41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruskin, J., & Bilous, R. H. (2020). A tripartite framework for extending university-student co-creation to include workplace partners in the work-integrated learning context. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(4), 806–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadiev, R., & Yang, M. (2020). Review of studies on technology-enhanced Language Learning and Teaching. Sustainability, 12(2), 524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, C., & Ho, J. (2020). Technology-enhanced learning in higher education: A bibliometric analysis with latent semantic approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(10), 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsang, H. W. C., & Tsui, E. (2017). Conceptual design and empirical study of a personal learning environment and network (PLE&N) to support peer-based social and lifelong learning. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 47(2), 228–249. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-03-2017-0010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, E., & Dragicevic, N. (2018). Use of scenario development and personal learning environment and networks (PLE&N) to support curriculum co-creation. Management & Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 13(2), 848–858.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Heijden, K. (2005). Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation (2nd ed.). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vladova, G., Ullrich, A., Bender, B., & Gronau, N. (2021). Students’ acceptance of technology-mediated teaching–how it was influenced during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020: A study from Germany. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.636086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5), 2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. (2012). Deep learning Isn’t about technology. Powerful Learning Practice. https://plpnetwork.com/2012/09/24/deeper-learning-technology/

  • Yin, R. K. (1994). Discovering the future of the case study. Method in evaluation research. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 283–290.

  • Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been partially supported by the Teaching and Learning Development Grant and administered by the Learning and Teaching Committee of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University under Project No 1-49CZ and partially supported by the Croatian Science Foundation under Project No UI-2020‐02‐8889.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Higher Education Research and Development (IHERD), The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China

    Eric Tsui & Irene Fan

  2. Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Nikolina Dragicevic

  3. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China

    Meina Cheng

Authors
  1. Eric Tsui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nikolina Dragicevic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Irene Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Meina Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikolina Dragicevic.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix 1: Scenario worksheet

A short title and description of the scenario

Short title

Short description

WHEN and WHERE is the scenario happening? WHO are the key actors?

WHEN: Projected timeframe

WHO: Main actors involved in the scenario

WHERE: Where will the scenario happen

Why (What assumptions this scenario is based upon?)

Which trends that you perceive today indicate (at least partly) the way the future will unfold?

What are the key uncertainties—driving forces that drive the plot of your scenario? Please explain why they are the key uncertainties.

Describe barriers (factors that act as obstacles to realization of the scenario) or threats (negative impacts of the scenario on the subject field you are exploring)

Describe enablers (necessary conditions for this scenario to become reality) or opportunities (the positive impacts of the scenario on the subject field you are exploring)

Description of the scenario

Write a short story

Appendix 2: Assessment scheme for students’ scenarios

Performance/area

Relevancy (Relevant to focus question and subject scope)

Plausibility (Capable of happening, supported by research data)

Consistency (No built-in internal inconsistency and contradiction)

Innovativeness (Provides a story that is in some way surprising or new)

Excellent

Scenario addresses the focus question and subject scope

Appropriate uncertainties and axes with detailed justification, backed by thorough research data

A thorough, consistent and logical explanation of interacting events and actors

Very original ideas, very imaginative use of critical uncertainties

Good

Scenario addresses the focus question and subject scope but misses some points

Good choice of uncertainties and axes with an explanation, evidence of some research data

Good description with a consistent explanation of interacting events and actors

Original ideas, imaginative use of critical uncertainties in generating ideas

Adequate

Scenario is somewhat of the focus question and subject scope

Mediocre use of uncertainties and axes with brief supporting research data

Somewhat appropriate and coherent explanation of interacting events and actors

Shows some originality, adequate use of critical uncertainties in generating ideas

Fair

Some effort to the focus question and subject scope

Axes not independent, incoherent, no supporting evidence

Unclear/Brief description, incoherent or inconsistent information

Shows some originality, inadequate use of critical uncertainties in generating ideas

Unacceptable

Inadequate effort to address the focus question and subject scope

No justification, severe lack of supporting evidence

Poor or no description, incomprehensible, unrelated

Does not show efforts to be original

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tsui, E., Dragicevic, N., Fan, I. et al. Co-creating curriculum with students, teachers, and practitioners in a technology-enhanced environment. Education Tech Research Dev 72, 869–893 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10301-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10301-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation