Collaborative learning has emerged as a fundamental pedagogical approach in higher education, aimed at achieving shared learning objectives (Qureshi et al., 2023). In educational literature, terms like co-creation, co-production, co-design, and co-construction are often used interchangeably, though each plays a role in the broader concept of the collaborative learning process (Vargas et al., 2022). In this approach, students participate in group activities where they exchange knowledge and skills, fostering deep learning through meaningful social interaction (Scager et al., 2016).

Previous studies have highlighted the relationship between collaborative learning and student engagement (Herrmann, 2013; Qureshi et al., 2023). However, the literature on this topic remains fragmented due to inconsistent definitions, applications, and outcomes, which hinder a comprehensive understanding of how concepts like co-creation, co-production, and co-design enhance student engagement. Despite the existence of some systematic reviews on student engagement (Bond et al., 2020) and collaborative learning in specific disciplines (Zarandi et al., 2022), there is a lack of a broader overview that specifically addresses empirical research on both student collaboration and engagement across higher education.

This systematic scoping review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of empirical research on collaborative learning and student engagement in higher education. In line with this aim, our research questions are as follows:

1. What are the characteristics of the studies on this topic?
2. What concepts are used to describe the collaborative learning process?

a. Which actors and stakeholders are involved in this process?

b. What is the context of this process?

3. Which student engagement types are examined concerning this process?

By addressing these research questions, this review seeks to fill the gaps in the current literature and contribute to a better understanding of how collaborative learning is related to student engagement. This, in turn, can inform effective educational practices in higher education.

This review employed a systematic scoping review approach, adhering to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Page et al., 2022) to ensure methodological transparency and rigor (Peters et al., 2022). The methodological framework guided our process, involving literature search, study identification, and data extraction/study coding. A comprehensive search was conducted across three databases: ERIC, Scopus, and Web of Science, using a broad range of terms related to higher education, collaboration, and student engagement. The search string incorporated terms such as "higher education," "college," "university," "postsecondary," "undergraduate," "further education," "vocational school," "graduate," "master," and "doctorate." Additionally, we included various terms related to the collaboration process, such as "co-creat*," "co-produc*," "co-develop*," "co-construct*," "collaborat*," "cocreat*," "codevelop*," "coproduc*," "co-generat*," "cogenerat*," and "coconstruct*." We also incorporated "student engag*," focusing on aspects of student engagement. Searches were conducted using these categories of search terms, combined using the Boolean operator 'AND'. Searches were performed in titles, abstracts, and keywords. The following inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to identify relevant studies: • Topic: Studies focusing on students’ collaboration • Target group: Higher education • Study type: Primary studies employing qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods • Outcome: Studies examining students’ engagement outcomes • Publication type: Peer-reviewed articles • Publication language: English language Studies not focusing on student collaboration, studies not within higher education, theoretical and conceptual papers, studies without empirical data on students’ engagement, , grey literature, and studies published in languages other than English were excluded. After eliminating duplicates, a two-stage screening process was conducted, involving title and abstract screening, followed by a full-text examination. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. Detailed study information for the eligible studies was extracted using the EPPI-Reviewer database to comprehensively review existing research. The authors independently extracted data covering study details (e.g., authors, publication year, country, study design), sample characteristics (e.g., student academic level, subject area, stakeholders involved), and thematic content (e.g., type of collaboration, modality, engagement type). Each study was individually coded, followed by a 10% sample review to ensure coding accuracy. Data were displayed using various tabular and graphical forms. Data in this scoping review were also visually displayed in an evidence gap map (EGM) using the EPPI-Mapper application (Digital Solution Foundry & EPPI-Centre, 2020). Given the scoping nature of this review, the quality of the included studies was not assessed.

2346 articles were identified, and 485 studies were included in the review after two-stage independent screening. The review underscores the need for future research to develop standardized measures of student engagement, include diverse stakeholders in studies on collaboration, and explore different types of collaborative learning. Addressing these gaps can enhance the understanding of how collaborative learning relates to student engagement and inform effective educational practices in higher education. The results indicate that collaborative learning practices are crucial for enhancing student engagement in various educational settings. Addressing the identified gaps is essential for advancing collaborative learning practices and enhancing student engagement in higher education. Future studies should prioritize examining how partnerships with external stakeholders can create more dynamic learning environments and better prepare students for future professional challenges. Research should focus on developing standardized measures of student engagement, including diverse stakeholders in studies on collaboration, and exploring different types of collaborative learning. This systematic scoping review provides a broad overview of current research on collaborative learning and student engagement in higher education, highlighting several important gaps in the existing literature. While there is an increasing focus on collaborative learning, the lack of consistent operationalization of student engagement and limited exploration of specific forms of collaboration hinder a comprehensive understanding of this association. Additionally, the underrepresentation of diverse stakeholders and insufficient measurement across various subject areas further limit the insights that can be drawn. Addressing these gaps will be crucial for advancing collaborative learning practices and enhancing student engagement in higher education.

Herrmann, K. J. (2013). The impact of cooperative learning on student engagement: Results from an intervention. Active learning in higher education, 14(3), 175-187. Page, M. J., Moher, D., & McKenzie, J. E. (2022). Introduction to PRISMA 2020 and implications for research synthesis methodologists. Research synthesis methods, 13(2), 156-163. Peters, M. D., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Khalil, H., Larsen, P., Marnie, C., Pollock, D., Tricco, A. C., & Munn, Z. (2022). Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI evidence synthesis, 20(4), 953-968. Qureshi, M. A., Khaskheli, A., Qureshi, J. A., Raza, S. A., & Yousufi, S. Q. (2023). Factors affecting students’ learning performance through collaborative learning and engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(4), 2371-2391. Scager, K., Boonstra, J., Peeters, T., Vulperhorst, J., & Wiegant, F. (2016). Collaborative learning in higher education: Evoking positive interdependence. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar69. Vargas, C., Whelan, J., Brimblecombe, J., & Allendera, S. (2022). Co-creation, co-design and co-production for public health: a perspective on definitions and distinctions. Public Health Research & Practice, 32(2).