This paper will discuss a mixed-methods research study which explores how adult learners on lifelong learning programmes in SETU can inform and shape curriculum development through a co-creation model. Currently, there is limited empirical evidence on adult learners, as well as industry participation, in curriculum co-creation in lifelong learning programmes (Erkkilä & Kortesalmi, 2020; Shrivastava et al., 2022). By focusing on the inclusion of the adult learner’s ‘voice’ in curriculum design, this study is responding to the call for a communicative university and a participatory decision-making process where learners are involved in all aspects of college life (Cook-Sather et al. 2014; Fleming et al., 2017). Through a co-creation approach in curriculum design, the outcomes of teaching and learning are jointly negotiated to lead to a shared responsibility for learning, which results in a greater level of student agency and empowerment (Bovill, 2020).

As this research study commenced in early 2022, this paper will concentrate on the literature review process (traditional and systematic) and the development of the theoretical framework underpinning the research. It will also present the proposed methodological framework that will be used to gather data from adult learners in SETU. The overarching research question is:  To what extent are adult learners co-creating the curriculum in lifelong learning programmes within SETU? The subsidiary research questions are framed within the aspects of adult learners’ professional, academic, and personal motivations to engage in lifelong learning in HE; how their needs are considered and embedded in curriculum design in HE; and how SETU supports adult learners’ engagement in the co-creation of the curriculum.

The literature suggests that co-creation is a contested term, with various definitions and interpretations emerging in recent years (Matthews et al., 2018; Godbold et al., 2021). Co-creation generally implies democratic collaboration and partnership between learners and faculty members (Cook-Sather, 2014; Godbold et al., 2021; Gravett et al., 2020). Doyle et al. (2021) highlight that co-creation encourages a shared responsibility between learners and faculty staff in the process of establishing and achieving learning outcomes. Co-creation is also differentiated from other forms of active learning and learner engagement based on the level of learners’ responsibility in decision-making regarding their education, assessment, and teaching process (Lubicz-Nawrocka and Bovill, 2021).

This research is underpinned by a theoretical framework incorporating Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) and Self-Determination Theory. According to SCT, individuals learn through personal experiences and by observing others’ behaviour, and their social context also influences their behaviour and learning (Bandura, 2001). One of the fundamental tenets of SCT is that individuals have the capacity to actively engage in their own growth and learning and to self-regulate their learning (Bandura, 2001). This is in keeping with the suggestion that adult learners should actively engage in the process of co-designing the curriculum (Erkkilä & Kortesalmi, 2020). This would tend to imply, within the context of this study, that adult learners on HE lifelong learning programmes should be encouraged to share their knowledge and experiences resulting in a more effective and relevant curriculum. Furthermore, an exploration of Self-Determination Theory, which posits that individuals have innate psychological needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence (Ryan & Deci, 2017), will provide insight into the underlying motivational factors for adult learners' engagement in lifelong learning and how these motivations relate to the co-design of curriculum on SETU's lifelong learning programmes. 

A pragmatic, mixed-method convergent research design is being used (Tashakkori et al. 2021), over two distinct phases, to collect quantitative data (via an online survey) and qualitative data (via focus groups) from adult learners who are registered on lifelong learning programmes in SETU. The pragmatic approach will be viewed as a set of philosophical tools to address the research topic of adult learners’ involvement in curriculum co-design in SETU. It will address the dual objectivity and subjectivity perspective by using both methods to answer the research questions of the study (Tashakkori et al., 2021), and provide methodological pluralism resulting in more comprehensive findings (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). In order to address issues of validity (quantitative) and trustworthiness (qualitative) in this study, ‘legitimation’ will be applied where both the quantitative and qualitative research will be prioritised equally and integrated through a confirmatory approach (Onwuegbuzie et al. 2011). In Phase 1 (2023), an online survey will be administered to a combined purposive sample of adult learners commencing on lifelong learning programmes (part-time and flexible) in SETU. In Phase 2 (2024), follow-up audio-taped focus group interviews will be conducted with a sample of the adult learners who engaged with the Phase 1 online survey, in order to probe deeper and expand upon the findings from the survey. This method is based on the collective and collaborative ethos of the study and will produce results that have high face validity (Krueger and Casey, 2014; Tashakkori et al., 2021). The data analysis strategy for the two methods will be sequential and consist of two different approaches. For the Phase 1 survey method, a statistical package (e.g. SPSS) will be used for the quantitative data and content analysis for the qualitative data (Tashakkori et al., 2021). For the Phase 2 focus group method, the qualitative data will be analysed using a systematic thematic framework (Braun and Clarke, 2012). The findings from the two phases will then be converged to elicit overall results, inferences and conclusions in response to the research questions (Tashakkori et al., 2021).

This study is intentionally forward-looking in its consideration, and it is envisaged that its unique contribution to new knowledge will inform future educational provision within the HE sector. It is positioned within the context of international, national and institutional lifelong learning policies in the HE sector. At a global level, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4 calls for ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and the promotion of lifelong learning opportunities for all, including adult learners. However, whilst there is a growing body of research on co-creation in HE more broadly, much of the empirical evidence focuses on full-time undergraduate and postgraduate student populations, leaving a gap in our understanding of the potential for co-creation in the adult learning context. Given the expanding significance of lifelong learning and the increasing number of adults returning to HE, the evidence on adult learners' contribution to such models is warranted at this stage (Erkkilä and Kortesalmi, 2020). In order to successfully develop and implement curricula that fulfil adult learners' needs and objectives, it is crucial to comprehend the process involved from the perspective of adult learners themselves. Thus, the findings will contribute to a greater understanding of the lived experiences of adult learners in HE. Finally, a key outcome of this research will be the development of a conceptual model and framework for the operationalisation of a co-creation model of curriculum design in SETU.

Bandura, A. (2001) Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), pp.1-26. Bovill, C. (2020) Co-creation in learning and teaching: the case for a whole-class approach in higher education, Higher Education, 79(6), pp. 1023-1037. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2012) Thematic Analysis. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C. and Felten, P. (2014) Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: a guide for faculty. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Doyle, E., Buckley, P. and McCarthy, B. (2021) The impact of content co-creation on academic achievement, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(3), pp. 494-507. Erkkilä, L. and Kortesalmi, M. (2020) Co-creating value: Multi-stakeholder co-creation of lifelong education. Co-Creating and Orchestrating Multistakeholder Innovation, p. 253. Fleming, T., Loxley, A. and Finnegan, F. (2017) Access and participation in Irish higher education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Godbold, N., Hung, T. Y. and Matthews, K. E. (2021) Exploring the role of conflict in co-creation of the curriculum through engaging students as partners in the classroom, Higher Education Research & Development, 41(4), pp. 1-15. Gravett, K., Kinchin, I. M. and Winstone, N. E. (2020) More than customers’: conceptions of students as partners held by students, staff, and institutional leaders, Studies in Higher Education, 45(12), pp. 2574-2587. Johnson, R. B. and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004) Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come, Educational Researcher, 33(7), pp.14-26. Krueger, R. A. and Casey, M. A. (2014) Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research, 5th ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lubicz-Nawrocka, T. and Bovill, C. (2021) ‘Do students experience transformation through co-creating curriculum in higher education?’, Teaching in Higher Education, pp. 1-17. Matthews, K. E., Dwyer, A., Hine, L. and Turner, J. (2018) Conceptions of students as partners’, Higher Education, 76(6), pp. 957-971. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Johnson, B. R. and Collins, K. M. (2011). Assessing legitimation in mixed research; a new framework, Quality & Quantity, 45(6), pp. 1253-1271. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2017) Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Publications. Shrivastava, S., Bardoel, E.A., Djurkovic, N., Rajendran, D. and Plueckhahn, T. (2022) Co-creating curricula with industry partners: A case study. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(2), p.100646. Tashakkori, A., Johnson, R. B and Teddlie, C. (2021). Foundations of mixed methods research; Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.