Working together with students from masters-level programmes in educational leadership and vocational teacher education, we, a team of educator-researchers, designed and carried out a multidisciplinary action research project based on the research question: How can we use co-creation as a tool to develop assessment practices? Our team comprised six staff members working on two teams across three separate programmes of study within the Institute of Education: the Master’s in Educational Leadership, the Master’s in Vocational Didactics and Practical Pedagogical Education for vocational teachers. This was our first multidisciplinary collaboration, and we aimed to improve assessment practices for our shared demographic of mature, part-time students balancing full-time educational leadership or teaching roles. With limited on-campus teaching time, our efforts had to be closely aligned with course requirements.

We view building competence among those working in schools as central to our mission as educators, enabling them to design innovative learning and assessment activities with their colleagues and students. Inspired by Dewey's (2011/1916) descriptions of co-creating learning communities, where diversity and equality are essential, as well as Cook-Sather’s work on student voice in higher education, we position students as active participants in, and not passive recipients of, predetermined strategies (Jones, 2022). As educators, we consider ourselves to be learning partners with the students, and our intention is to develop 'egalitarian, reciprocal, humanizing relationships (...) across power differences' (Cook-Sather & Felten, 2017). Results from previous student evaluations of our programmes, however, indicated outdated, disjointed and alienating assessment practices. Therefore, this apparent mismatch between our intentions as educators and students' experiences of assessment deserved attention. Whilst we recognised the tensions between university educators and students described by McGarr et al. (2017) which arise from the power of university educators to define what counts as knowledge, we felt the need to answer repeated calls for the need to disrupt existing hierarchies within higher education, e.g. Cook-Sather, 2002; Nieminen, 2022.

Viewing assessment as inherent and inseparable from learning processes, whilst at the same time being fraught with power issues, we designed this project with the aim of exploring existing assessment practices, contesting those which countered our intentions and co-creating new practices. We were interested in assessment conceived as dynamic, context-sensitive, and developed through co-created processes where students and educators could participate as partners. This partnership approach was particularly important since our students have valuable work experience, yet are are less comfortable with traditional academic practices (Smeplass & Hylander, 2021). Examples of practices we tried out were: designing formative assessment activities together with students (e.g. literature seminars, gallery-walk, peer-coaching), writing assessment criteria with students, creating space for shared meta-reflections on course content and assessment and replacing examination grades A-F with pass/fail. Students were involved in discussing and evaluating these practices along the way, and knowledge was shared within our team. These interventions were intended to foster more in-depth learning, enabling students to develop confidence as learners within higher education and encouraging them to consolidate study techniques (Smeplass, 2023). 

The international relevance of this research lies in its alignment with global trends of promoting inclusion, equity, and lifelong learning in higher education. It also contributes to conversations on fostering equitable and innovative practices in higher education.

Our project was inspired by Deweyan inquiry (1938), beginning with real-life issues to be investigated and aiming to generate new understandings through action. Action research, as conceptualized by Greenwood and Levin (1998), informed our approach as a continuous, participatory, and collaborative process to improve current practices. Following the principles of pragmatism, we emphasized action as a means of creating knowledge, aligning with Klev and Levin’s (2021) and McAteer’s (2013) view of action research as a dynamic cycle of exploration, action, and reflection. The theoretical framework integrates critical pragmatism and social constructionism, recognising knowledge, meanings, and practices as products of social interactions. Educators and students across study programs participated as partners in co-constructing learning and assessment practices. This partnership was guided by contextual understanding and openness to multiple outcomes, reflecting a commitment to inclusive, egalitarian practices. The project had three stages: 1. Exploration: Collecting and analysing data from students and educators to explore existing practices and identify issues and needs. Findings were discussed with colleagues and students and used to inform stage 2. 2. Redesign and Testing: Course descriptions and structures were adapted to allow testing of co-creative methods in assessment. There was continuous evaluation of changes and interventions by students and within our team of educator-researchers. 3. Future Frameworks: Findings from the first two stages were synthesised to propose sustainable co-creative assessment models, potentially applicable in other contexts. Working as two teams of educator-researchers across disciplines provided opportunities for rich discussions and reflections. Simultaneously having the roles of educators and researchers was challenging, yet essential. We have co-constructed knowledge with students and each other at the same time as critically reflecting on our practice. We have been facilitating, participating in and undertaking inquiry within learning communities which we are collaboratively building as we go. The process has been ‘messy’ (McAteer, 2013) and highly dependent on the competence and capacity of those involved. The process has required adaptability, reflexivity, and trust among all participants. However, this iterative and participatory approach fostered a deeper understanding of co-creation as a transformative process in higher education.

Our findings are organised according to the stages of the action research process: Stage 1: Exploration of Existing Practices •Students perceived existing assessment practices as disconnected from their professional development, focusing more on academic standards than relevant, practical learning. •Students expressed a need for greater support, predictability, and guidance to navigate academic requirements effectively. •Educators highlighted constraints imposed by academic structures and expectations, as well as increasing demands from students for individualised support and feedback. Stage 2: Testing and Evaluating New Practices •Students were positive to changes in course structures and welcomed opportunities to discuss and agree learning activities together with educators and each other. They reported feelings of ownership and agency, and appreciated time given to discuss their learning as well as efforts made by educators to model practices and approaches which the students could use in their own professional practices. •Discussions about learning and the modelling of practical, professional strategies by educators were especially valued, as these were seen as transferable to students’ own professional contexts. •The shift to pass/fail assessment was widely welcomed as it reduced anxiety surrounding grading, allowing students to focus on meaningfully engaging with course content. •Action research was experienced as a powerful tool for fostering innovation and equity in higher education. Collaborative inquiry between students and educators created a sense of mutual respect and egalitarian relationships, enriching the learning experience for all participants. These findings suggest that co-creative practices can bridge the gap between academic expectations and professional relevance, creating a more inclusive and empowering learning environment. By fostering dialogue and collaboration on assessment practices, the project demonstrates the potential for co-creation to enhance learning outcomes, particularly for mature and non-traditional student groups.

Cook-Sather, A., & Felten, P. (2017). Ethics of Academic Leadership: Guiding Learning and Teaching. In F. Su & M. Wood (Eds.), Cosmopolitan Perspectives on Becoming an Academic Leader in Higher Education (pp. 175–191). Bloomsbury. Dewey, J. (2011/1916). Democracy and education. Simon & Brown. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Greenwood, D., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to Action Research: Social research for social change. Sage. Klev, R., & Levin, M. (2021). Forandring som praksis (Third Edi). Fagbokforlaget. Jones, M.-A. (2022). “We hope it isn’t about them deciding everything!” A Mixed Methods Study of Student Participation [PhD Thesis]. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. McAteer, M. (2013). Action Research in Education. BERA/SAGE Research Methods in Education. McGarr, O., O’Grady, E., & Guilfoyle, L. (2017). Exploring the theory-practice gap in initial teacher education: Moving beyond questions of relevance to issues of power and authority. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(1), 48-60. Nieminen, J. H. (2022). Disrupting the power relations of grading in higher education through summative self-assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(7), 892-907. Smeplass, E. (2023). Investigating adult learners ‘experiences from using slow reading as a pedagogical approach, International Journal of Educational Research, Volume 122, 102252, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102252 Smeplass, E., & Hylander, L. (2021). Developing a Digital Learning Community: How a Campus Lockdown Made Us Rethink Our Teaching. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, 16(31). https://doi.org/10.7146/dut.v16i31.126208