Main Article Content
The notion of students as partners in the co-creation of curricula and indeed co-evaluating or co-grading has shown positive outcomes that include increased engagement and motivation (Cook-Sather, Bovill, & Felten, 2014; Cook-Sather 2014; Cook-Sather & Motz-Storey 2016). In order for a student to be a pedagogical co-designer or indeed a change agent it is reasonable to suggest that they must already possess a substantial level of social and cultural capital (Woolcock, 2001) to enable this engagement. However, students from lower socio-economic status backgrounds are more likely to lack such capital and to not understand the “rules of the game” (Bourdieu, 1990; Bourdieu, 1984). In this situation, the value or pay-off of being involved in such co-design in terms of attribute development through a novel sense of experiential learning, may not be fully appreciated. Therefore, there are likely limits to the extent that co-creation and radical collegiality (Fielding, 1999), will lead to the democratisation of curricula and enhance students’ experiences, irrespective of social background. Despite the barriers outlined above, Student-Led, Individually-Created Courses (SLICCs) are an emerging area of practice at the University of Edinburgh through which widening participation (WP) students are successfully being engaged in the graduate attributes and employability agendas and ultimately in the pedagogical co-design of their own credit-bearing curriculum. SLICCs provide a flexible reflective-learning framework for experiential learning that enables individuals and groups of students to work across disciplinary and structural boundaries. These courses broaden the scope of what is considered to be ‘curricular’, bringing what was previously co- and extra-curricular into the credit-bearing provision. This paper will explore how WP students are engaged in the radical collegiality of SLICCs, despite the many barriers related to capital, through a rational pedagogy as outlined by Bourdieu and Passeron (1979).
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice has made best effort to ensure accuracy of the contents of this journal, however makes no claims to the authenticity and completeness of the articles published. Authors are responsible for ensuring copyright clearance for any images, tables etc which are supplied from an outside source.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2006). Intellectual development in the college years. Change, 38(3), 50–54.
Basu, S. J., Barton, A. C., Clairmont, N., & Locke, D. (2008). Developing a framework for critical science agency through case study in a conceptual physics context. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 345–371.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice, R. Nice (trans). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste, R. Nice (trans). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1996). The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power, L. C. Clough (trans). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture, R. Nice (trans). London: Sage Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1979). The inheritors, French students and their relation to culture, R. Nice (trans). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
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.
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.
Breen, M. P., & Littlejohn, A. (2000). The practicalities of negotiation. In M. P. Breen and A. Littlejohn (Eds.), Classroom decision-making. Negotiation and process syllabuses in practice (pp. 272–295). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Burke, C., T., Emmerich, N., & Ingram, N. (2013). Well founded social fictions: A defence of the concepts of institutional and familial habitus, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(2), 165-182.
Carey, P. (2013). Representation and student engagement in higher education: A reflection on the views and experiences of course representatives. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 37(1), 71-88.
Cook-Sather, A. (2014). Student-faculty partnership in explorations of pedagogical practice: A threshold concept in academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 19(3), 186-198.
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cook-Sather, A., & Motz-Storey, D. (2016). Viewing Teaching and Learning from a New Angle: Student Consultants’ Perspectives on Classroom Practice. College Teaching, 64(4), 168-177.
Crozier, G., & Davies, J., (2006). Family matters: A discussion of the Bangladeshi and Pakistani extended family and community in supporting the children’s education. The Sociological Review, 54(4), 678–695.
Crossman, J. E., & Clarke, M. (2010). International experience and graduate employability: Stakeholder perceptions on the connection. High Education, 59(5), 99–613.
Dunne, L., & Zandstra, R. (2009). Students as change agents – New ways of engaging with learning and teaching in Higher Education. University of Exeter.
Ecclestone, K., Biesta, G., & Hughes, M. (2010). Transitions in the life course: The role of identity, agency and structure. In K. Ecclestone, G. Biesta, & M. Hughes (Eds.), Transitions and learning through the lifecourse (pp. 1–15). London: Routledge.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.
Fielding, M. (1999). Radical collegiality: Affirming teaching as an inclusive professional practice. Australian Educational Researcher, 26(2), 1-34.
Fielding, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 123–41.
Fluckiger, J., Tixier y Vigil, Y., Pasco, R., & Danielson, K. (2010). Formative feedback: Involving students as partners in assessment to enhance learning, College Teaching, 58(4), 136-140.
Giroux, H. (2002). Neoliberalism, corporate culture and the promise of higher education: The university as a democratic public sphere, Harvard Educational Review, 72(4), 1-31.
Gorard, S., Smith, E., May, H, Thomas, L., Adnett, N., & Slack, K. (2006). Review of widening participation research: Addressing the barriers to participation in higher education. Bristol: HEFCE.
Grenfell, M., & James, D. (1998). Bourdieu and Education: Acts of Practical Theory. London: Falmer Press
Hall, V. J. (2017). Exploring teacher–student interactions: Communities of practice, ecological learning systems – or something else?, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(2), 120-132.
Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemologies: What is ‘strong objectivity’? In Alcoff, E. & Potter, L. (Eds) Feminist Epistemologies (pp. 49–82). London: Routledge.
Harris, S. R., & Shelswell, N. (2005). Moving beyond communities of practice. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.) Beyond Communities of Practice. Language, Power and Social Context (pp. 158–179). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. York: Higher Education Academy.
Howard, A. (1986). College experiences and managerial performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 530-52.
Huxham, M., Scoles, J., Green, U., Purves, S., Welsh, Z., & Gray, A. (2016). ‘Observation has set in’: Comparing students and peers as reviewers of teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 1-13.
Jacob, M., Klein, M., & Iannelli, C. (2015). The impact of social origin on graduates’ early occupational destinations—An Anglo-German comparison. European Sociological Review, 31(4), 460–476.
Jensen, K., & Bennett, L. (2016). Enhancing teaching and learning through dialogue: A student and staff partnership model. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(1), 41–53.
Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student learning and personal development. Journal of Higher Education 66, 123–155.
Lareau, A., Evans, S. A., & Yee, A. (2016). The rules of the game and the uncertain transmission of advantage: Middle-class parents’ search for an urban kindergarten. Sociology of Education, 89(4), 279–299.
Lodge, C. (2006). Issues in young people’s participation in visual research in the classroom. Paper presented at the national research conference ‘Pupil voice and participation: Pleasures, promises and pitfalls’, May 22–23, in Nottingham, UK.
Lynch, K. (2006). Neo-liberalism and Marketisation: the implications for higher education. European Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 1-17.
McCabe, G., & Speirs, N. M. (2016). Using graduate attributes to engage wp students. AGCAS Phoenix, 148, 14-15.
McCulloch, A. (2009). The student as co-producer: Learning from public administration about the student–university relationship. Studies in Higher Education, 34(2), 171–183.
McGourty, R. (2014). Does study abroad accelerate personal growth? Trends & Insights for International Leaders. 1-5.
McIntyre, D., Pedder D., & Rudduck, J. (2005). Pupil voice: Comfortable and uncomfortable learnings for teachers. Research Papers in Education, 20, 149–68.
Moffatt, M. (1988). Coming of age in New Jersey: College and American culture. New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press.
Pauli, R., Raymond-Barker, B., & Worrell, M. (2016). The impact of pedagogies of partnership on the student learning experience in UK higher education, Higher Education Academy, York.
Quinn, J. (2010). Rethinking ‘failed transitions’ to higher education. In K. Ecclestone, G. Biesta and M. Hughes (Eds.) Transitions and learning through the life course, (pp. 118–29). London: Routledge.
Reay, D. (2004). ‘It's all becoming a habitus’: Beyond the habitual use of habitus in educational research, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(4), 431-444.
Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267.
Sharma, A. (2007). Making (electrical) connections: Exploring student agency in a school in India. Science Education, 92(2), 297–319.
Smith, B. P. (2006). Social and organisational learning as action research. University of the West of England.
Taylor, T., & Robinson, C. (2009). Student voice: Theorising power and participation. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 17(2), 161-175.
Thomas, L. (2002). Student retention in higher education: The role of institutional habitus. Journal of Education Policy, 17(4), 423–42.
Woolcock, M., (2001). The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes, ISUMA Canadian journal of policy research, 2(1), 11-17.