Recent technological advancements have significantly impacted higher education, expanded access, and created new learning opportunities. This transformation is reflected in the changing demographics of university students, as seen in the consistently rising enrolment numbers and the emergence of more diverse student groups (EUROSTUDENT, 2018; Ólafsdóttir & Jónasson, 2017).
As a result, the task of designing courses that effectively meet the needs of all students has become more challenging. Recognizing the crucial role of engagement and motivation in student success, it has become evident that designing courses to address the expectations and needs of a diverse student body at the university level is a complex process. In this context, actively involving students in the course design process has been identified as a key factor in enhancing their interest and promoting success in learning (Bovill & Woolmer, 2019; Cook-Sather et al., 2014; Jones, 2009; 2018; 2019).
Curriculum serves as the foundational structure for educational experiences, encompassing the entire educational planning spectrum, from design to implementation and program evaluation. The intended curriculum sets educational goals and content, acting as a guide for student learning. The translation from intended to attained curriculum is influenced by instructional methods, interactions, and the learning environment, with student participation crucial in bridging this gap (Bovill & Woolmer, 2019; Thijs & van den Akker, 2009). 
Cook-Sather et al., (2014) have developed a ladder of active student participation in curriculum design, which delineates levels of student involvement, ranging from passive reception to active collaboration. They argue that empowering students along this ladder fosters motivation, a sense of ownership, and enhances the likelihood of achieving the intended curriculum (Cook-Sather et al., 2014). The implemented curriculum reflects the dynamic interplay between educators, students, and the learning context, where active student participation contributes to co-creating knowledge and enriching the educational experience (Cook-Sather et al., 2014). 

In conjunction with the Ladder, the MUSIC model of motivation identifies five key elements—eMpowerment, Usefulness, Success, Interest, and Caring—that collectively contribute to a motivational learning experience. Thus, by incorporating these elements into course design and teaching practices, educators can enhance student motivation (Jones, 2009; 2018; 2019). 

Addressing these aspects of curriculum design and implementation calls for teachers’ continuous development of academic knowledge and teaching skills. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) ideology integrates teaching and research, providing a framework to cultivate these competencies (Gurung and Swartz, 2013). Thus, SoTL assists higher education teachers in meeting the increasing demands of teaching quality for diverse student groups (Ólafsdóttir & Geirsdóttir, 2022).  SoTL encompasses concepts, research, and knowledge defining professional teaching, involving theoretical framework development, reflective practices, and dialogues with colleagues and students about teaching and learning (Boyer, 1990; Groccia, 2023; Potter & Kustra, 2011). 
The study presented here focused on student participation in curriculum development in higher education and used the MUSIC model of motivation as a conceptual framework when analyzing the data collected from the students participating in the study. Its primary aim was to explore students' experiences of being actively involved as curriculum co-creators in three courses on the digitalization of education, part of a teacher education study program in a public university in Iceland. The central question guiding the research was: How do students perceive being actively included as co-creators of the curriculum, and how does this perception relate to the foundational principles of the MUSIC model of motivation? 

The study aligns with international trends in research on learning and teaching development in higher education, emphasizing the active involvement of students in the curriculum design process. It contributes to the understanding of how collaboration between students and teachers positively impacts the quality of education. 

The study employed a case study design, focusing on three courses within a teacher education program which focuses on the digitalization of education.  Participants:  The study involved students enrolled in the three courses, with varying attendance levels—some attended all three, others two, and some only one course. The researchers were responsible for designing the study program, managing the courses, and teaching most of the study material. This collaborative effort also engaged the students in the process.  Data Collection and Implementation:  In the first course, data were collected using a rating scale for online and mixed courses. The scale assessed various components, including teaching practices, learning assessment, innovation, digital technology use, individual contribution, and feedback. The second course utilized focus group interviews at its conclusion, employing a semi-structured question framework to best capture students' perspectives on their course experiences. In the final course, students wrote a reflection journal throughout the period, following Gibb's model of reflection, which encompasses elements such as description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusion, and action plan. Additionally, the researchers themselves had regular reflection meetings where they discussed the students' experiences and implications for further development.  Data Analysis:  The datasets from the three courses were analyzed using the MUSIC model of motivation as analytical tool. The model comprises five key components: eMpowerment (students' sense of control over the learning process), Usefulness (understanding the study's benefits in both short-term and long-term goals), Success (strategies fostering belief in students' ability to succeed with effort), Interest (methods promoting student participation and long-term interest in the subject), and Caring (emphasizing students' role in a professional learning community, both in teacher-student and student-student communication).  Ethical Issues:  Prior informed consent was obtained from the students. Ethical precautions included safeguarding participant identities and assigning an external interviewer to conduct focus group interviews, as to minimize potential researcher-induced bias in students' openness during the interview process. 

The analysis of the data revealed that the adopted approach to the design and implementation of the courses appeared to have a positive impact on the five key components outlined in the MUSIC model.   The primary findings indicate that students felt a sense of empowerment (eMpowerment), attributing it to active participation in the courses’ projects. Their ability to choose and influence the learning process contributed to feelings of control and ownership. Students conveyed that they found the courses highly useful (Usefulness). The freedom to shape tasks and program sessions was seen as beneficial, providing practical and applicable skills. Students appeared to believe in their ability to succeed (Success), crediting the active participation encouraged by the teacher in this context. Positive attitudes towards fellow students and the impact of shared learning experiences contributed to their sense of success. The courses seemed to foster a high level of interest (Interest) among students, who appreciated the diverse group dynamics and peer teaching. Students perceived care (Caring) in interactions with both teachers and peers. Support and encouragement, with an emphasis on the importance of experienced students helping newer ones, and the teachers addressing individual needs as well as fostering a sense of community among students, were evident in their responses. In conclusion, the findings indicate that including students as co-creators in designing and implementing the curriculum for the examined courses had a positive effect on their motivation, participation, activity, and overall learning experiences. Additionally, it can be inferred that the MUSIC model, although solely employed as analytical tool for the data in this study, has proved its value for educators in identifying strategies to enhance student motivation and engagement in learning, hence suggesting its potential as a valuable resource in the context of professional development in higher education.

Bovill, C. & Woolmer, C. (2019). How conceptualisations of curriculum in higher education influence student-staff co-creation in and of the curriculum. Higher Education, 78, 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0349-8  Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.  Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C. & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for faculty. Jossey Bass.  EUROSTUDENT. (2018). EUROSTUDENT VI Database (Data Reporting Module). http://database.eurostudent.eu/  Groccia, J. E. (2023). The similarities and difference between scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching and learning. Estonian Journal of Education, 11(2), 23−39. https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2023.11.2.02b  Gurung, R. A. R. & Schwartz, B. M. (2013). Optimizing teaching and learning: Practicing pedagogical research. Wiley-Blackwell.  Jones, B.D. (2009). Motivating students to engage in learning: The MUSIC Model of Academic Motivation. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 272–285. The MUSIC®Model of Motivation. http://www.theMUSICmodel.com  Jones, B. D. (2018). Motivating students by design: Practical strategies for professors (2nd ed.). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.  Jones, B. D. (2019). Testing the MUSIC model of motivation theory: Relationships between students’ perceptions, engagement, and overall ratings. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.3.9471  Ólafsdóttir, A. & Geirsdóttir, G. (2022). „Þetta getur opnað dyr“: Reynsla háskólakennara sem rannsakenda eigin kennslu. [“This can open up doors”: University teachers’ experiences of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning]. Netla − Veftímarit um uppeldi og menntun [Netla – Journal of pedagogy and education]. https://doi.org/10.24270/serritnetla.2022.88  Ólafsdóttir, A. & Jónasson, J. T. (2017). Quality assurance in a small HE system: Is the Icelandic system in some ways special? In S. Georgios, K. M. Joshi & S. Paivandi (Eds.), Quality assurance in higher education: A global perspective (pp. 203–226). Studera Press.  Potter, M. K. & Kustra, E. K. (2011). The relationship between scholarly teaching and SoTL: Models, distinctions, and clarifications. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2011.050123  Thijs, A. & van den Akker, J. (Eds.). (2009). Curriculum in development. Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development (SLO).