Chapter Audience:

• Program Managers
• Faculty

What Are “Students as Partners”?

Learners are sometimes thought of as mere recipients of training. However, an increasing number of institutions are viewing them as partners rather than as just end-users. As a reflection of this, the term “students as partners” is now used extensively in the education literature (Cook-Sather et al., 2018; Mercer-Mapstone et al., 2017), and McMaster University has created the International Journal for Students as Partners dedicated to exploring this topic.

In their book Engaging Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty, Cook-Sather, Bovill, and Felten describe the learner-staff partnership as “a collaborative, reciprocal process through which all participants have the opportunity to contribute equally, although not necessarily in the same ways, to curricular or pedagogical conceptualization, decision-making, implementation, investigation, or analysis” (2014, pp. 6-7).

Why Collaborate with Learners

The many reasons for engaging learners as partners are described in the literature. Some are values-based, citing the desire to break down hierarchies and reduce power imbalances at the institution (Matthews et al., 2018). There is evidence that institutions that engage in the practice of “students as partners” can foster a greater sense of community, with increased trust between learners, and between learners and staff (Mercer-Mapstone et al., 2017). While some have cautioned that the movement to view learners as partners is based on a neoliberal perspective on the role of post-secondary education (i.e., seeing learners as customers) (Matthews et al., 2019), research suggests that institutions that engage in this practice do so to reflect their democratic ideologies (i.e., learners’ and staff’s desire for more transparent communication and understanding) (Gravett et al., 2020).

Engaging learners as partners is also seen as a way to disrupt the system, bring about cultural reform, and facilitate change (Matthews et al., 2018). Indeed, there is evidence that engaging in “students as partners” practices can transform faculty thinking about teaching and learning, opening their understanding to the views of learners (Harrington et al., 2014).

Some institutions use a “students as partners” strategy to promote the growth of their learners. There is evidence that serving as partners can boost learners’ confidence, develop their sense of self-efficacy, and improve their motivation to learn as well as their learning outcomes (Harrington et al., 2014; Kuh, 2008).

Finally, learners are often consulted with a more pragmatic goal: To probe their perspectives and knowledge to improve a program. Learners’ perspectives can inform a wide range of topics, from improving the curriculum and/or teaching, to linking institutions with work and employers, to addressing diversity and inclusion issues in the program (Bovill, 2019; Bovill et al., 2011; Felten et al., 2014; Healey et al., 2016).

Consulting with learners to improve the design of a program reflects a design thinking approach, also known as human-centred design (Interaction Design Foundation, n.d.). Proponents of design thinking emphasize the importance of involving end-users throughout the design of new products and services. No matter how well intentioned they are, designers risk relying on erroneous assumptions in their work. Hence the need to collect data to understand the user perspective. Designers are encouraged to talk to prospective users to identify the pain points that lead them to seek the product or service. This approach helps designers prioritize what’s most important to users. Then, having identified and defined the problem from the user’s perspective, designers brainstorm different ways to address these pain points and prototype a few options. Finally, designers observe users engaging with a prototype to learn how users are engaging with the product or service, which may differ from the designers’ intended or anticipated interaction. Adopting a design thinking approach and involving users throughout the design and development stages maximizes the chances that the final product will match user needs and expectations, leading to a successful outcome.

What Roles Can Learners Play in a Micro-credential?

Prospective, current, and past learners can provide valuable information about their needs and expectations for the training, including their response to proposed curriculum or curriculum changes, the choice of employer partner, the learning management system, instructors, and the program’s marketing plan. Consulting with learners can ensure that the program meets their need.

Learners can also play a role in mentoring the next cohort, promoting the program, bridging relationships with new employer groups, educating employers about micro-credentials, and even serving as future instructors. Involving learners in various ways has the added benefit of creating a sense of community and establishing networks that can support the ongoing success of the program.

Here is a list of some of the roles to consider for learners during a micro-credential project.

How to Collaborate with Learners

The literature seems in agreement with Cook-Sather, Bovill, and Felten’s (2014)’s proposal that three values should underpin the development of learner-staff partnerships:

• Respect;
• Responsibility;
• Reciprocity^[1].

Matthews (2017) used past research to guide her proposal of best practices in treating “students as partners.” According to her work, practitioners should espouse the following principles:

1. Foster inclusive partnerships;
2. Nurture power-sharing relationships through dialogue and reflection;
3. Accept partnership as a process with uncertain outcomes;
4. Engage in ethical partnerships;
5. Enact partnership for transformation.

To plan learner partnerships and make clear the roles and responsibilities, Bovill (2017) suggests developing a participation matrix to summarize the nature of learner engagement in each phase of a project. Drawing from a scale of participant engagement used in international development, Bovill categorizes participation in one of four categories: Inform, Consult, Participate, and Partnership. These engagement levels are defined in the following manner (adapted from Last, 2019):

• Inform. Provide learners with balanced and objective information about the project, the problem, and possible solutions. (There is no opportunity for learner input or decision-making.)
• Consult. Gather feedback on the information provided. Level of input can range from minimal interaction (such as online surveys) to more extensive. Engagement can be a one-time opportunity or an ongoing/iterative process in which learners’ input is incorporated into the decision-making process.)
• Participate. Work directly with learners during the process to ensure that their concerns and desired outcomes are fully understood and factored in at each stage. Final decisions are still made by the institution, but input from learners is carefully considered.
• Partnership. Partner with learners at each stage of the decision-making, including developing alternative solutions and choosing the preferred solution together. Goal is to achieve consensus regarding decisions.

Bovill then creates a table that lists each phase of a project and clarifies learner involvement at each stage, with a final column specifying who has control of each phase. An example is provided in Table 1.

Bovill has also created a learner participation framework that is specific to learner engagement in curriculum design (Bovill & Bulley, 2011). This model proposes levels of participation based on Arnstein’s “eight rungs on a ladder of participation” (1969), which range from having no voice in the curriculum (bottom levels) to taking ownership of the curriculum (top levels). Using this model, instructional designers can choose the appropriate level of involvement of learners, employers, and others in curriculum design for their context. The eight levels are:

1. Learners in control of the curriculum.
2. Learners co-create the curriculum in partnership with instructor.
3. Learners control some areas of choice.
4. Learners control prescribed areas of choice.
5. Learners have many choices from a set of prescribed options.
6. Learners have limited choice from a set of prescribed options.
7. Participation is claimed, but the instructor is in control.
8. The curriculum is dictated by the instructor (i.e., no interaction).

Often, learners are consulted as part of a group process with other stakeholders. The methods used to involve learners will depend on the goals of the engagement (Bovill, 2019). Some utilize large groups, others use small groups, some may be a one-time consultation, while others may put learners in charge of making decisions.

Several toolkits can guide the process of soliciting input from diverse stakeholder groups. These toolkits provide structure for the engagement. Two are suggested below (additional resources for these two toolkits are provided in the Suggested Resources section).

• Liberating Structures is a popular, open-access collection of 33 techniques for engaging groups of people. It values distributed control of the conversation and ensures that all the voices are heard and considered.
• The design thinking community is very active in creating and sharing techniques to engage end-users and collect their feedback throughout the design of a new product or service. Two such toolkits are shared in the Suggested Resources section, including the freely accessible DesignKit by IDEO.org.

Suggested Resources

Works Cited