Pedagogical Partnership as an Unconventional and Valuable Approach in Curriculum Design

Practice Paper Recommended citation: Hunter, M., & Ruth, B. (2025). Pedagogical Partnership as an Unconventional and Valuable Approach in Curriculum Design. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631319. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. PEDAGOGICAL PARTNERSHIP AS AN UNCONVENTIONAL AND VALUABLE APPROACH IN CURRICULUM DESIGN Martijn Huntera,1, Ruth Buningb, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, Delft, The Netherlands, a ORCID: 0009-0007-2481-6337 b ORCID: 0009-0005-1324-3700 Conference Key Areas: Diversity, equity, and inclusion in our universities and in our teaching, Curriculum development and emerging curriculum models in engineering Keywords: curriculum design, co-creation, pedagogical partnerships, inclusion and diversity, multiple perspectives ABSTRACT The bachelor program of Applied Physics at The Hague University of Applied Sciences underwent a comprehensive curriculum revision. This revision was characterized as a “complex problem,” emphasizing the need for a process-based approach that involves all stakeholders. Central to this approach was the unconventional establishment of a pedagogical partnership between educators and students during the design phase of the curriculum revision process. This partnership enables both groups to collaborate as equals by actively dismantling existing power structures. Evaluations of the pedagogical partnership indicate that it not only contributes to an effective curriculum but also fosters the professional development of the team members themselves and enhances the educational environment as a whole. Key ingredients for success include clear participation agreements, organizational support, patience, and active moderation. Implementing such collaborative efforts in curriculum revisions is anticipated to yield significant benefits for both students and educators, thereby reinforcing the value of pedagogical partnerships in higher education. 1 Corresponding Author Martijn Hunter [email protected] 1 INTRODUCTION Applied Physics at The Hague University of Applied Sciences is a full-time four-year bachelor program that hosts about 250 students and is run by 21 educators (17 fte). From regular evaluations of the educational program, including formal student consultations, staff meetings and study success rates, it became clear that a curriculum revision was desired by both educators and students, with the goal to reduce stress and to enhance learning. The entire curriculum revision process, from orientation to implementation readiness, took about three to four years. We involved all stakeholders (educators, students, lectors, alumni, and the professional field) in distinct phases of the process and with varying intensity and duration. This paper describes the involvement of students in this process in the form of a pedagogical partnership. We will share the benefits we experienced from this approach, our insights on making such an approach successful and the additional gains we expect to meet in the future. 2 CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AND PEDAGOGICAL PARTNERSHIPS Curriculum development can be considered at different levels (Akker, 2003). In this paper, we focus on curriculum development as the design of an educational program as a whole. A comprehensive curriculum revision involves a diverse range of stakeholders, each with different expectations and perceptions, in a rapidly changing technological and societal landscape. According to the Cynefin framework (see Figure 1), such a task can be classified as "complex", where complexity refers to the relations between its different components. In other words, the behaviour of the whole cannot be understood by examining its individual components separately. The corresponding approach is a processbased way of working, in which there are four main guiding principles (Weisbord & Janoff, 2010): 1) Involve all stakeholders. 2) Explore the whole and derive your own actions from it. 3) Focus on common ground and work futureand action-oriented. 4) Promote self-management and accountability. When following these principles, possible next steps and solutions supported by all stakeholders will emerge. Figure 1. The Cynefin Framework (Snowden & Boone, 2007) . Each domain requires different actions. Simple and complicated contexts assume an ordered universe, where cause - and -effect relationships are perceptible, and correct answers can be determined based on facts. Complex and chaotic contexts are unordered —there is no immediately apparent relationship between cause and effect, and the way forward is determined based on emerging patterns. In higher education, and especially in the technical sciences, we prefer to classify challenges as ordered (simple or complicated), and accordingly employ a systematic or instrumental approach (Akker, 2003). An inspiring system engineering approach at Aerospace Engineering is described in (Kamp & Klaassen, 2013). Social and political dimensions and the importance of involving all stakeholders are addressed. However, students are not mentioned as members of the design team. They primarily receive information and are asked for feedback at most, but they do not participate in decision-making. An alternative to involving students as one of the most important stakeholders is the establishment of a pedagogical partnership. A pedagogical partnership is 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 conceptualisation, decision making, implementation, investigation, or analysis (Cook-Sather et al., 2019). Instead of following the existing hierarchical roles during common student consultations, in a pedagogical partnership formal power imbalances are actively dismantled. The Student Engagement through Partnership Framework identifies four different, but overlapping, areas of partnership (Healey & Healey, 2019): (1) Learning, teaching and assessment, (2) Subject-based research and inquiry, (3) Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), and (4) Curriculum design & pedagogic consultancy. The first kind of partnership is becoming increasingly accepted, and the second and third kind are becoming more common as well. The fourth kind is still rare in higher education institutions. Initiatives of the fourth kind that are described in literature typically focus on courselevel improvements and are often limited in duration. For example, student consultants collaborate with academic course teams to suggest adjustments that can make a particular course more inclusive and accessible (Hughes et al., 2019). In a case study presented in (Goff & Knorr, 2018), they developed an “Applied Curriculum Design in Science” course in which upper-year students partner with faculty and educational developers to co-create learning modules for first-year students. Furthermore, during the development of this course, two students participated in a much larger curriculum committee consisting of experts (staff and faculty). Also, such pedagogical partnerships are occasionally established in our and other higher education institutions in The Netherlands (Stapele, 2024; Kappe, 2024). The work presented in this paper differs from existing examples in that it involves a pedagogical partnership for curriculum development at the program level, with a design team consisting of approximately 50% student members. 3 OUR CURRICULUM REVISION APPROACH In our curriculum revision process we can distinguish three distinct phases: the orientation, the design, and the development phase. The orientation phase (~2021 until summer 2023) consisted of several working sessions within the educational team and the consultation of a group of ~40 people with all stakeholders represented in a half-day meeting. Combined with institutional policies, this resulted in a set of principles the curriculum must meet to be acceptable. During the design phase (fall 2023-summer 2024) we worked in a team consisting of five students and five educators on the curriculum using “backwards design”. This resulted in learning outcomes for the entire program as well as for the semesters and modules, a “blueprint” of the curriculum showing the collection of modules, and an elaboration of the design principles. In the development phase (start fall 2024), teams of both educators and students work on individual modules to make the module and lesson designs ready for implementation in September 2025. Educators and students are considered our most important stakeholders. Hence for the design phase of our curriculum revision we created a pedagogical partnership in the form of a design team with an equal number (5) of educators and students. To design a curriculum that suits both the student and the educator populations, the design team is intentionally composed to reflect their diversity. That means that within the team there is variety in age, gender, expertise, work experience, personalities, and neurodiversity1. The team was supported by both an educationalist and a facilitator who applied a process-based way of working and principles of Holding Space (Cairo, 2021) and Lewis Deep Democracy (Lewis, 2023). The pedagogical partnership was evaluated after eight months of working together as partners. Team members were interviewed by two members of an independent research group Inclusive Education2 to assess their perceived level of equality, the benefits of incorporating student perspectives, and their engagement in the curriculum revision process. When working on a complex problem, relationships between all the stakeholders are essential. Therefore, we marked the start of our pedagogical partnership with a workshop “relationship before performance” (Figure 2), inspired by the Future Search methodology (Weisbord & Janoff, 2010). The aim of this workshop was to dismantle both the informal and formal power structures that exist between its members and to enable equivalent contributions of all the team members. Figure 2. Photos from the “Relationship before Performance” workshop: Left, association cards and Right, timelines. 1Neurodiversity describes the idea that people experience and interact with the world around them in many ways, often used in the context of autism spectrum disorder but essentially referring to the diversity all people (Nicole & Frueh, 2025). 2This research group is part of our institution however it is not connected to our program. In this workshop, we: • collaboratively established a set of fundamental guidelines for our teamwork, which include fostering a curious attitude to one another, recognizing each other’s competencies, and using first names when addressing each other. • reintroduced ourselves by using association cards and timelines, where each of us shared memorable events from our personal lives, significant occurrences in the world, and key moments related to the revision of our educational program. • concluded the gathering with a shared meal of pizzas. Next, we met twice a week for three to four hours, including a check-in, agenda setup, substantive discussions, follow-up appointments, and a check-out. Initially, the discussions focused on the partnership and tasks, such as clarifying previous work, explaining jargon, exploring perspectives, and determining follow-up actions for team members. As time progressed and the partnership evolved, the discussions became shorter and more focused on the substantive details of the revision itself. The remaining meeting-time was used for collaboration among subsets of team members on specific topics, with results presented to the entire design team to keep everyone informed and engaged. Similar, though less frequent, meetings took place with educators in our program who were not members of the design team. Once the curriculum design became more concrete, we organized "pressure cooker" sessions for the design team to explore specific topics and make decisions. The design phase concluded (summer 2024) with a celebrative meeting where the design was presented and handed over to all educators in our program. 4 RESULTS AND INSIGHTS The outcomes can be categorized based on the effectiveness of the pedagogical partnership itself or its impact on curriculum design. From these outcomes, we can identify benefits for individual participants (both educators and students), the curriculum, the educational team, the institution, and the overall educational environment. Furthermore, we highlight the essential ingredients needed for a successful pedagogical partnership of the fourth kind. 4.1 Effectiveness of the pedagogical partnership itself The interviews reveal how the pedagogical partnership and its effects are perceived by the individual participants. Analysis indicates that the collaboration enhances the sense of belonging among student members, deepens their reflective capacity, and helps educators expand their perspectives. A description of the interview results with examples is given in Table 1. It is expected that these effects facilitate the transformation of an institution into a community where members feel a meaningful connection, as is argued in (Cook-Sather et al., 2019). 4.2 Impact on curriculum design Our approach forces members to slow down and rethink their opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints. This more reflective approach will lead to a more thoughtfully designed curriculum that accommodates multiple functions. Here are some examples in our curriculum design that are directly linked to our approach: Table 1. Interview results Description Examples Motivation and commitment There are various motivations for participating in the partnership, including curiosity, dissatisfaction with the current program, a sense of responsibility to improve it, personal development, moral obligation, or simply the appeal of a paid (side) job. Overall, participants are intrinsically motivated and demonstrate a strong commitment to the partnership's success. "Because I think it is very important. I have strong improvement wishes for the curriculum." “The project offers space for creativity and thinking about education, which I find interesting.” Sense of equality and a culture of openness and inclusivity An open and safe culture has been established within the team, allowing all members to freely express their viewpoints, ideas, and feelings. While tensions occasionally arise, often originating from traditional power relations, there is a conscious effort to address these issues and to restore respectful and professional relationships "They really take a lot of time to listen to your story." “I just definitely feel like an equal... lecturers may have a little more knowledge, but that doesn't mean they get to speak more than I do.” “There are moments of discomfort when the roles of educator and assessor overlap.” Added value of partnership The perceived value of the partnership is at least twofold. It encompasses personal benefits, such as the development of social skills, as well as contributions to designing an effective curriculum. The collaboration between students and educators is particularly valuable due to the diverse perspectives each brings. Students draw from their individual experiences, while educators approach education from a broader, more generalized viewpoint. These dynamics fosters valuable discussions that lead to innovative ideas, such as the introduction of learning paths tailored to meet the diverse needs of students. “Students are good at sharpening ideas that come from educators.” "You develop personally... you get better social skills." "What I never really realized... is that even students who pass their tests easily can still have serious test stress." Challenges The main challenge is finding the right balance between incorporating all perspectives (being inclusive) and maintaining a pace of decision-making and overall progress that keeps all members engaged in the process. This applies not only to the design team but also to other members of our institution, particularly educators in our program who are not directly involved. "I think that sometimes we involve everyone too much that I think to myself, let's just keep going, we have to keep this momentum going." “It does take time to really hear each other, especially when there are minority views.” • A more refined set of program learning outcomes and module learning outcomes that are distributed throughout the program (4 years). • A more flexible examination method and a more suitable implementation of cumulative assessments. • An intensive project with a relatively short lead time (5 EC in 4 weeks) at the end of a semester. • Two learning paths that accommodate distinct levels of guidance and/or study pace. “You gather all perspectives and arrive at a decision that everyone supports. Ultimately, it does not matter who thought what; it is about achieving the best collective result.” 4.3 Essential ingredients We believe that the following ingredients are essential for developing a successful pedagogical partnership: • Only work on topics for which no single person has the sole answer (complexity). • Take time to both actively dismantle old and build new relationships among participants. Be trustful in and have patience with each other and the process. Celebrate (small) successes. Slow down where necessary and speed up where possible. • Arrange organisational support (time, money, way of working). • Establish clear agreements on who can join the conversation, participate actively, and engage in decision-making when and on what topics. We had high expectations for the partnership's capacity and decided that all members had equal opportunities to influence decisions on all topics unless a situation would arise where this would not be feasible. So far, we have not encountered such a situation. • Constant awareness on maintaining the balance between equality and inequality. This is a sensitive balance and has different, sometimes subtle, dimensions, like: language and jargon, (financial) compensation, gender, available time, knowledge, experience, etc. • Active moderation by a facilitator. A facilitator taking responsibility for the process itself ensures that members can focus on the substantive side of the issue. “Active moderation ensures that all voices are heard, and minority opinions are not overlooked. This requires a conscious approach to managing group dynamics, allowing students to express their opinions as freely as educators do. The moderator's role is crucial in maintaining this balance.” 5 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS We approached our comprehensive curriculum revision as a “complex problem,” involving all stakeholders and fostering a pedagogical partnership between educators and students. This partnership, composed of initiative-taking and committed members, promotes an open and safe culture where all can freely express their viewpoints, ideas and feelings. It offers personal benefits for participants and contributes to an effective curriculum. Approaching a curriculum revision as a “complex problem” should be a conscious decision. The process way of working will most likely be experienced as messy, unpredictable, and time consuming. However, these are essential characteristics of this kind of problems, and learning to work with them will in the end result in a real solution supported by all stakeholders. There is no guaranteed formula for success. However, the success of our partnership relies on principles that foster collaboration and mutual respect, such as clear agreements, organizational support, awareness of the balance between equality and inequality, engagement in topics that require collective input, and using a process facilitator. While the primary goal of our pedagogical partnership is to create an effective, inclusive, and sustainable curriculum, it also provides additional benefits. Participating students gain essential skills for their future careers, while educators strengthen their connections with students and broaden their perspectives. This collaboration fosters a greater sense of belonging and enhances agency for both educators and students. We believe these additional benefits will ultimately be the most compelling reason to pursue pedagogical partnerships. 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The presented work is a team effort in which some members are clearly visible, while others, though equally important, operate more in the shadows. Therefore, in this section, we want to shed some light on them all. Our thoughts go out to our colleagues who were not directly involved but who entrusted us with the mandate to carry out this work. We also want to thank our board members for their support, trust and patience, as well as our institutional strategic plan for its guidance. Furthermore, we want to thank the members of the research group Inclusive Education who interviewed us to assess the perceived sense of equality among the design team members. We are grateful to our students, alumni, members of the professional field, and other participants of our “world café”. Finally, our thoughts go out to all members of the design team (see Figure 3) for their trust, commitment, curiosity, flexibility, perseverance, and courage to embark on this unconventional adventure. “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together” -African proverbFigure 3. The design team (December 2023, Top Left to Bottom Right): Lodewijk Arntzen, Ruth Buning, Chris Bootsman, Tijn Slootjes, Gwen van Doorn, Sanne Smit, Martijn Hunter, Youri Barends, Hendrik Snijder, Ivo Wenneker, Channon Montenij, Astrid Koster.