Bovill, C., and Bulley, C.J. (2011) A model of active student participation in curriculum design: exploring desirability and possibility. In: Rust, C. (ed.) Improving Student Learning (ISL) 18: Global Theories and Local Practices: Institutional, Disciplinary and Cultural Variations. Series: Improvin

This paper explores the desirability and possibility of active student participation (ASP) in curriculum design. Rationales for pursuing ASP in curriculum design are outlined. A conceptual model from community planning literature is then presented – Sherry Arnstein’s ‘Eight rungs on a ladder of participation’ – a model that has been used widely in various disciplines but rarely in higher education. Arnstein’s model is adapted to enable exploration of different possible levels of ASP in curriculum design in higher education. Key features of this adapted ‘Ladder of student participation in curriculum design’ model are outlined and illustrated through the use of examples. Discussion focuses on contextualising the desirability and possibility of different levels of student participation in curriculum design, and explores the utility of the adapted model. The paper concludes with some suggested areas of ASP in curriculum design that need further investigation.

[1]  N. Entwistle,et al.  Approaches to Learning and Levels of , 1979 .

[2]  A. McCulloch.  The student as co‐producer: learning from public administration about the student–university relationship , 2009 .

[3]  B. Massumi,et al.  The postmodern condition : a report on knowledge , 1979 .

[4]  Deem Rosemary,et al.  Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education , 2005 .

[5]  S. Arnstein,et al.  Ladder of Citizen Participation , 2020 .

[6]  Yvonne Haig,et al.  Classroom Decision-Making Negotiation and process syllabuses in practice , 2022 .

[7]  M. Fielding,et al.  Student voice and the perils of popularity , 2006 .

[8]  C. Bovill,et al.  Experiences of learning through collaborative evaluation from a masters programme in professional education , 2010 .

[9]  Sarah J. Mann,et al.  Study, Power and the University , 2008 .

[10]  S. Hickey,et al.  Towards Participation as Transformation: Critical Themes and Challenges for a Post-Tyranny Agenda , 2004 .

[11]  Sharon Fraser,et al.  The curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t it? , 2006 .

[12]  Ira Shor.  Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change , 1992 .

[13]  Henry A. Giroux.  Toward a New Sociology of Curriculum. , 1979 .

[14]  A. Collins,et al.  Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning , 1989 .

[15]  Betty Collis,et al.  An On-Going Journey: Technology as a Learning Workbench , 2005 .

[16]  Noel Entwistle,et al.  Styles of learning and teaching , 1981 .

[17]  L. Morgan,et al.  Community participation in health: perpetual allure, persistent challenge. , 2001, Health policy and planning.

[18]  S. Wright,et al.  Power and Participatory Development: Theory and Practice , 1995 .

[19]  A. Cook‐Sather.  Students as Learners and Teachers: Taking Responsibility, Transforming Education, and Redefining Accountability , 2010 .

[20]  A. Tsui,et al.  Distinctive qualities of expert teachers , 2009 .

[21]  Zejun Ma,et al.  Promoting Learner Autonomy through Developing Process Syllabus—Syllabus Negotiation: the Basis of Learner Autonomy* , 2010 .

[22]  Irene Guijt,et al.  1. Waking up to power, conflict and process , 1998 .

[23]  P. Felten,et al.  Power and Expertise: Student-Faculty Collaboration in Course Design and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning , 2008 .

[24]  D. F. Clarke.  The Negotiated Syllabus: What is it and How is it Likely to Work? , 1991 .

[25]  A. Brew,et al.  Academic development through a negotiated curriculum , 1999 .

[26]  S. Barrie.  A research‐based approach to generic graduate attributes policy , 2004 .

[27]  K Morss,et al.  Curriculum design for the first year: Quality Enhancement Theme: The First Year Experience , 2008 .

[28]  J. Dewey.  Democracy and education : an introduction to the philosophy of education , 1961 .