Higher Education (2020) 79:1023–1037

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00453-w

Co-creation in learning and teaching: the case

for a whole-class approach in higher education

Catherine Bovill 1

Published online: 2 December 2019

# The Author(s) 2019

Abstract
There is a wide range of activity in the higher education sector labelled ‘students as partners’
and ‘co-creation in learning and teaching’. Several frameworks have been proposed to map
and categorise existing partnership and co-creation roles, activities, research, and practice. In
this paper, I synthesise some of these frameworks to illustrate how the predominant focus in
the international literature has been on partnership projects that select small groups of often
already super-engaged or privileged students to participate. In contrast, co-creation in learning
and teaching, embedded within the curriculum and involving a whole class of students, has
been largely overlooked. I explore the potential of co-creating learning and teaching with a
whole class of students (including face-to-face, blended, and online settings, and including
lectures, tutorials, laboratories, and other methods of teaching); in other words, it is co-creation
integral to students’ programmes and courses of study. I argue that whole-class approaches to
co-creation may be inherently more inclusive of students than other approaches to co-creation
and that this approach both relies upon, and contributes towards, building positive relation-
ships between staff and students, and between students and students. I explore some of the
challenges of whole-class co-creation in learning and teaching, and I also argue that the
benefits suggest this is currently an underutilised and researched approach internationally.

Keywords Co-creation . Partnership . Whole class . Teaching approach . Staff-student

relationships . Inclusion

Introduction to co-creating learning and teaching

In higher education, there has been rising interest in research and practice about ‘students as
partners’ and co-created learning and teaching (Cook-Sather et al. 2014; Dunne 2016;
Mercer-Mapstone et al. 2017). Although relatively widespread, this work has taken place

* Catherine Bovill
[email protected]

1
Institute for Academic Development, University of Edinburgh, 1 Morgan Lane, Edinburgh, Scotland
EH8 8FP, UK

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1024 Higher Education (2020) 79:1023–1037

predominantly in the USA, Canada, UK, Australia, and Scandinavia, and Dunne (2016)
highlights that people are using many terms to describe this work. One commonly used term
is student engagement, which refers to a very broad range of activities universities employ to
motivate and interest students, as well as the time and effort students give to meaningful
activities (Kuh 2009). Student engagement in the UK refers to both engagement in learning
and teaching as well as engagement in student representation and governance systems. Student
engagement also refers to low levels of engagement, such as a student turning up to class, as
well as to high levels of engagement, such as a student going beyond course requirements. In
contrast, partnership or ‘students as partners’ refers to a much deeper level of student
involvement and agency. Cook-Sather et al. (2014: 6–7) define partnership in learning and
teaching as ‘a collaborative, reciprocal process through which all participants have the
opportunity to contribute equally, although not necessarily in the same ways, to curricular or
pedagogical conceptualization, decision making, implementation, investigation, or analysis’. A
third term, co-creation, has been described by Ryan and Tilbury (2013) as a new pedagogical
idea that emphasises learner empowerment. Bovill et al. (2016: 197) suggest that ‘one way to
conceptualise co-creation is occupying the space in between student engagement and partner-
ship, to suggest a meaningful collaboration between students and staff, with students becoming
more active participants in the learning process, constructing understanding and resources with
academic staff.’ Another related, but slightly broader term is participatory design. Participatory
design refers to a collaboration of a group of stakeholders (often including external participants
as well as teachers and students) in the design and development of initiatives, which can
include the curriculum. All stakeholders’ expertise is valued, but there is a strong focus on
development of new technology and school-level design in much of the participatory design
literature (DiSalvo et al. 2017) and students are often considered informants or testers rather
than partners with high levels of agency (Martens et al. 2019).
The terms, students as partners, partnership, and co-creation of learning and teaching are
often used interchangeably. I have chosen to use the term co-creation predominantly in this
paper for a number of reasons: co-creation does not assume the level of equality sometimes
implied by partnership, teaching staff are sometimes resistant to using the term partnership (my
experience suggests some colleagues find the radical overtones of the term threatening and
they disengage from conversations about partnership), and the term ‘students as partners’ has
been critiqued for only naming one of the partners involved in the partnership (Cook-Sather
2018). Outside of an ‘inner partnership circle’ (made up of key authors of partnership articles
and editors of partnership journals), I have found that many staff and students prefer to talk of
striving for meaningful relationships, which may, due to the nature of higher education
structures and assessment processes, fall short of what many consider to be true partnership.
However, they are often keen to discuss students’ active participation, learner empowerment,
shared decision-making, student agency, and negotiation of learning and teaching under the
umbrella of co-creation.
There is huge variation in the types of co-creation being enacted around the world, with
work focusing on different activities, actors, and aims, for example, students co-researching
university-wide projects and acting as change agents (Dunne and Zandstra 2011), students
undertaking research and scholarship projects with staff (Werder and Otis 2010), student
representatives collaborating with university staff on committees for quality assurance and
enhancement purposes (Luescher-Mamashela 2013; Buckley 2014), students participating in
course design review committees (Mihans et al. 2008; Rock et al. 2015), students as consul-
tants providing feedback on teaching observations (Cook-Sather et al. 2014; Huxham et al.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education (2020) 79:1023–1037 1025

2017), students designing their own essay titles (Cook-Sather et al. 2014), students and
teachers co-assessing work (Deeley 2014), students co-designing courses and curricula
(Bovill 2014; Delpish et al. 2010), students co-evaluating courses (Bovill et al. 2010), students
and staff writing collaboratively (Marquis et al. 2016), and students involved in teaching and
designing academic development work (Kandiko Howson and Weller 2016). Cook-Sather
et al. (2014: 209) have likened this to a ‘partnership movement’, but it is a movement
embracing a diversity of focus, motivations, methods, values, and outcomes. One of the
challenges raised by this rich diversity is ensuring clarity about the nature of work being
described, researched, and discussed internationally. For researchers to build upon existing
evidence, and to enable deeper discussions and understandings to develop within the field, this
clarity is currently much needed.
In response, Bovill et al. (2016) outlined a typology of four roles that students adopt in co-
creation work: representative, consultant, co-researcher, and pedagogical co-designer. There
can often be overlap between the roles, but this model enables us to distinguish between the
student representative role, which tends to be an elected role involving a small group of
students representing a larger group of students; the consultant or intern role, which often
involves students being selected by staff, and usually paid to collaborate on projects; and the
co-research and pedagogical co-designer roles, where students may or may not be selected
depending on if teachers choose to work with a small group or a whole class of students. In an
alternative categorisation, Buckley (2014) has suggested that student engagement work (which
encompasses much partnership and co-creation work) divides into two main areas of focus: the
pedagogical and the political, with the former focused on learning and teaching and the latter
focused on university governance. Finally, in a third typology, Bryson et al. (2015) propose
that existing student partnership work can be categorised by the students who are involved in
partnership. Model A partnership is work that involves only a small selection of students
working with staff, and model B partnership is work involving all students within the
curriculum. There are further related frameworks that I have not included here in order to
avoid unnecessary complexity. Bovill and Woolmer (2018: 5) distinguish between co-creation
of the curriculum (co-design of a programme or course, usually before the programme or
course takes place) and co-creation in the curriculum (co-design of learning and teaching
within a course or programme usually during the course or programme). In this paper, I focus
specifically on whole-class co-creation in learning and teaching (co-creation taking place
involving all students studying a course as the course unfolds). In the next section, I will
explain this concept further and provide examples.

Whole-class approaches to co-creation in learning and teaching

Whole-class co-creation in learning and teaching involves inviting a whole group of students
who are studying together in any teaching setting face-to-face or online, to actively collaborate
and negotiate with the teacher and each other, elements of the learning process. This might
include negotiation of the content or subject matter, the purpose of their work, the teaching
approach, the many ways in which they can work and learn together, or their preferred
approach to evaluation. When I refer to co-created learning and teaching, I include assessment.
I could use the term co-created curriculum, but in this paper I purposely avoid the term
curriculum to avoid further complexity due to the widespread lack of agreement over how
higher education curriculum is defined and the resulting influence on what students are invited

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1026 Higher Education (2020) 79:1023–1037

to co-create (Bovill and Woolmer 2018). Co-creation overlaps with the concept of active
learning, which aims to move the student from adopting a passive role in learning to an active
role involving interaction between teacher and students, and between students and students.
Active learning practices and definitions vary, but it often involves students participating,
interacting, or contributing, whether mentally or physically, in activities to gather information,
to problem-solve, and to reflect upon knowledge. This often involves, for example, activities
such as reading, writing, discussion, and small group work, as well as values and attitude
exploration (Bonwell and Eison 1991; Freeman et al. 2014; Michael 2006). In co-creation, the
purpose, approaches, and outcomes of learning and teaching are jointly negotiated and there is
a shared responsibility for learning that implies a greater level of student agency and empow-
erment than in active learning. Co-creation involves developing deeper relationships between
student and teacher, and between students and other students. Education is perceived as a
shared endeavour where learning and teaching are done with students not to them (Cook-
Sather et al. 2014).
While there are many examples and significant discussion in the research literature of
partnership and co-creation projects involving small numbers of students, there are relatively
few examples in the international literature of whole-class co-creation in learning and teaching
within higher education (Bryson et al. 2015; Mercer-Mapstone et al. 2017). This lack of
attention to pedagogically embedded forms of co-creation between a teacher and a whole class
of students is a distinct weakness in the current literature, which this paper aims to highlight.
There are likely to be more instances of whole-class co-creation in practice that have not been
captured in written accounts, but which teachers who have a disposition towards more
democratic forms of teaching that encourage greater student agency, might describe as ‘just
the way I teach’. However, this highlights a key question about co-creation in learning and
teaching, namely, how does it differ from good teaching? It is perfectly possible for a student to
be engaged and to learn without co-creating learning and teaching. A teacher might use
research evidence to support using interactive teaching approaches for the benefit of students
(Freeman et al. 2014), but good teaching does not necessarily require a shift in the power
relations between teacher and students that is required for co-creation. Care is also needed not
to assume that good quality evidence-informed teaching involving active learning is common,
despite growing evidence that we should ‘question the continued use of traditional lecturing in
everyday practice’ (Freeman et al. 2014: 8413).
Another key consideration in discussing co-creation is to be careful about any claims made
about the scale of co-creation. In a recent UK research study, Mercer-Mapstone and Bovill
(2019) highlight that many institutional partnership schemes (the common terminology applied
to university-level schemes funding collaborative projects) that might be considered large scale
in fact reach less than 100 students per year because they involve multiple projects but each
project only includes small numbers of students (with a couple of exceptions). The authors
question whether some co-creation work that is considered small scale—such as whole-class co-
creation led by individual, motivated members of staff—are in actual fact reaching larger
numbers of students per year than many institutional schemes. Many ‘large scale schemes’ are
being administered and funded at a macro-level but with predominant influence and impact at
departmental level. In contrast, micro-level partnership activity within students’ programmes of
study is often considered small-scale and isolated despite involving potentially larger numbers of
students. This is a key point I wish to emphasise because it has substantial implications for
universities and departments wishing to increase co-creation activity. Several apparently isolated
but motivated members of staff co-creating learning and teaching with their classes could involve

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education (2020) 79:1023–1037 1027

a moderate number of students in co-creation (depending on the size of their classes) and thereby
have significant impact on students. Motivating more members of staff to teach in ways that
embed co-creation may be a powerful way of scaling up co-creation activity—a point that is
somewhat overlooked within much of the partnership and co-creation literature.
Examples of whole-class co-creation include teachers who invite their student group to
collaborate in decision-making throughout the course. Huxham et al. (2015) describe work
with a whole class of ecology students at Edinburgh Napier University in Scotland. They refer
to their work as ‘a series of attempts to imagine the curriculum and our relationships in
different ways’ (p531) including moving some of the teaching outside the classroom into
alternative spaces such as the local botanic gardens. They worked with 35 final year students to
collaboratively decide the course direction. Using a metaphor from mountaineering, they
referred to students as ‘co-navigators’ of the course (p531) and the course progressed by
‘moving together’ (p532). Fundamental to the approach taken was ‘… the absence of a
predetermined plan of action for every stage of the course’ (p538). They argue that ‘… the
principles – of mutual respect, genuine sharing of control and rethinking the parameters of time
and space to suit what is most appropriate for the type of knowledge students are engaging
with – could apply in most disciplinary areas’ (p540).
In another example outlined by Cook-Sather et al. (2014), Ignacio Canales taught an
Entrepreneurship and Business Planning course at St Andrews University. Students were
invited to design group projects to create a business idea. The whole class then collaborated
to co-create the later part of the course by identifying key concepts and content needed in order
to meet the requirements for students’ proposed group projects. Students read key articles and
resources and took turns to use engaging and entertaining approaches to introduce the
important ideas from these readings to the rest of the class.
Bovill (2014) describes the work of Eurig Scandrett at Queen Margaret University,
Edinburgh, who co-created an environmental justice programme with 16 students who were
activists in their local community. The framework for each course was provided in the form of
overarching themes/key areas of study such as understanding science, using the law and
practical organisation. Students then co-created the content of the courses on the basis of the
particular environmental injustices they wished to actively challenge, such as a toxic waste
dump in a residential area.
Other examples of practice involve teachers working with a whole class of students to make
decisions about selected elements of a course such as assessment. Deeley (2014) describes her
work to introduce co-assessment in a Public Policy service learning course with eight, third
and fourth year students at the University of Glasgow. ‘Each student self-assessed her own oral
presentation in addition to the teacher assessing each presentation. A provisional mark was
awarded for the content and delivery of the presentation, and reflective comments were written
by each student and the teacher. Subsequently, the teacher met individually with each student,
to discuss the presentation using the written feedback comments as supportive evidence, and to
agree a mark to co-assess presentations with students’ (Deeley 2014: 43). Deeley and Bovill
(2017) describe a range of initiatives where a whole class of students in a Public Policy course
at the University of Glasgow were invited to co-create elements of assessment. The course
involved 20 third and fourth year students, co-creating essay titles as well as the marking
criteria for formative assessment and marking criteria for the summative examination. In each
of these examples, it is important to note that these approaches to assessment might not be
suitable for all programmes, such as final year courses with professional body accreditation,
but they help to provide ideas of how co-creating assessment might be possible.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1028 Higher Education (2020) 79:1023–1037

Bovill et al. (2010) outline how a class of 20 postgraduate students co-created the
evaluation for the educational research module they were studying. Students designed evalu-
ation approaches to investigate elements of the course they were most interested in. They used
a range of different evaluation methods that they considered suitable for eliciting information.
Students and the teacher then collated and reflected on the evaluation outcomes as well as
disseminating the findings within the programme teaching team.
Ayesha Delpish at Elon University in North Carolina worked with first year students
studying a statistics course to create an ‘open-ended, student-driven structure’ to the course.
From the first day of the course, she attempted to share power with students through using a
series of real-world case studies which required students to work together in groups to solve.
The cases provided the stimulus for students to create questions to solve the cases—the
questions became the focus for the course and the basis of shared decision-making. ‘For
example, any question raised by a student during class went back to the entire group with a
simple What do you think and why?’ (Delpish et al. 2010: 108). She also invited students to be
active participants in all the class learning activities.
Bergmark and Westman (2016) investigated the impact of co-creating the curriculum with
two cohorts of 35 students on a school teacher education programme at Luleå University of
Technology in Sweden. Teachers are normally ‘… required to present a study guide (a detailed
plan of course activities) two weeks before class begins. However, in order to promote student
engagement, there was no completed study guide before the course started. Instead, the lead
instructor posted a tentative study guide and information about the first session and invited the
students to plan the course together with the teacher. Then, based on the learning goals of the
course, they created assignments related to the content of the course, including the literature’
(Bergmark and Westman 2016: 32).
Students in these examples are much more responsible for what takes place in the learning
environment. This does not imply the end of disciplinary knowledge, theoretical frameworks,
or staff expertise (Breen and Littlejohn 2000), or that student views should be accepted
uncritically. On the contrary, students and staff can critique knowledge together using shared
expertise and perspectives. This co-creation approach recognises that knowledge is contingent
and messy, and it accepts that students can play a role in knowledge co-creation. Students are
making sense of what they are learning collaboratively with their teacher and peers.

Outcomes and advantages of a whole-class approach to co-creation

In much of the literature on partnership and co-creation, the evidenced outcomes are amal-
gamated across the wide range of different partnership and co-creation approaches adopted.
These often involve outcomes for small numbers of students who experience an intense level
of engagement through partnership or co-creation. To my knowledge, there has been no
attempt to gather the outcomes from whole-class co-creation specifically. In Table 1, I present
the outcomes specifically from whole-class co-creation in learning and teaching from the
examples previously presented. This is not a comprehensive overview of all whole-class co-
creation examples or outcomes, but helps to fill an existing gap in the partnership and co-
creation literature.
In many of these studies, students and staff describe the importance of greater dialogue and
of building relationships between students and staff and between students and students as an
integral part of learning and teaching. Also highlighted is the changing nature of the power

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education (2020) 79:1023–1037 1029

Table 1 Outcomes of whole-class approaches to co-creation

Outcome Who experiences Source of evidence

outcome?

Improved academic performance or higher Students Bovill (2014);

quality of work from students Deeley and Bovill (2017)
Enhanced skills for future professional Students Deeley (2014)
development including teamwork, critical
reflection, and communication skills
Learning beyond the course and transferring Students Bovill et al. (2010)
learning into new contexts/greater aca-
demic aspirations
Opened up the learning process Students Deeley (2014); Bovill et al. (2010)
to be more transparent
Process was fun Students Bovill et al. (2010)
Shift from a focus on grades to learning Students Delpish et al. (2010)
Increased confidence, enthusiasm, Students Bergmark and Westman (2016);
engagement, and motivation Bovill (2014); Bovill et al. (2010);
Deeley (2014);
Deeley and Bovill (2017)
Increased autonomy, self-regulation, Students Deeley and Bovill (2017)
and responsibility
Increased ownership Students Bovill et al. (2010); Deeley (2014);
Deeley and Bovill (2017)
Appreciated learning by doing and learning Students Bergmark and Westman (2016);
collaboratively with other students Bovill et al. (2010)
Practice at working democratically Students Bergmark and Westman (2016)
Appreciated being asked to voice opinions Students Bergmark and Westman (2016);
Deeley (2014);
Deeley and Bovill (2017)
Felt valued Students Deeley and Bovill (2017)
Developed and experienced a more equal Students Bovill et al. (2010)
relationship with the teacher
Lack of familiarity, shock at being invited to Students Bergmark and Westman (2016);
co-create course Bovill (2014)
Enhanced identity, metacognitive awareness Students and staff Bergmark and Westman (2016);
of learning and teaching, inspired, and/or Bovill (2014); Huxham et al. (2015)
transformed
Creation of a learning community Students and staff Deeley and Bovill (2017)
Enhanced negotiation experience and skills Students and staff Bovill (2014); Deeley (2014)
Curriculum becomes more (socially) relevant Students and staff Bovill (2014); Bovill et al. (2010)
Student and teacher roles change Students and staff Bergmark and Westman (2016)
Felt risky and unpredictable Staff Bergmark and Westman (2016);
Bovill (2014); Delpish et al. (2010)
Challenge in getting the pace Staff Huxham et al. (2015)
of teaching right

dynamics and relationship between teacher and students: ‘we were treated as equals from day
one’ (Bovill et al. 2010: 149). Two important potential benefits of whole-class co-creation in
learning and teaching are worthy of further exploration. First, several authors have argued that
whole-class co-creation is inherently more inclusive than co-creation approaches that involve
selecting students to participate (Bovill et al. 2016; Bryson et al. 2015; Moore-Cherry et al.
2016). Second, I propose here that whole-class approaches require, but also enhance, positive
relationships between the teacher and a whole group of students, and between the students in a

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1030 Higher Education (2020) 79:1023–1037

class. I explore these two benefits further here, before discussing some of the challenges of
whole-class co-creation in learning and teaching.

Enhanced inclusion

Bryson et al. (2015) argue that model A initiatives (involving selection of students) have some
compelling benefits but that these are only available to a small number of students. The
(s)election of students includes a tendency to involve students who are already engaged or
advantaged in some way, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities and not tackling lower
levels of student engagement. This runs the risk of creating a small ‘elite’ of super-engaged
students and co-creation projects being perceived as only for privileged students (Mercer-
Mapstone and Bovill 2019; Cook-Sather 2018; Marquis et al. 2018). Even where partnership
and co-creation schemes claim to be open to all, institutional and systemic forms of discrim-
ination ensure that those students selected are likely to be already privileged in some way
(Eddo-Lodge 2017; Mercer-Mapstone and Bovill 2019).
If the focus of co-creation is on students’ learning, there is a strong ethical imperative
that opportunities should be accessible to all students. Most institutions are too big to
consider offering institutional partnership project opportunities for every student through
partnership schemes. While these projects have been demonstrated to lead to a range of
benefits, whole-class co-creation involving a teacher and a whole class of students offers a
practical way to offer opportunities for co-creation to all students in a class. If there was an
intentional effort by departments and institutions to support teachers to adopt teaching
approaches that promote deep engagement through greater levels of student agency and
shared decision-making, the benefits of co-creation could be experienced by larger num-
bers of students. This call for expansion of whole group co-creation requires a shift to the
ways that people teach and learn, and has significant implications for the support offered to
staff for teaching and learning enhancement.
Nevertheless, offering the opportunity to co-create learning with a whole class of students
does not guarantee full participation and inclusion. As Cornwall argued ‘the question of who
participates - as well as who is excluded and who excludes themselves - is a crucial one’
(Cornwall 2008: 275). Students may be invited to co-create learning and teaching, but they
may not wish to. Cook-Sather et al. (2014) have argued that what is important is the equality of
opportunity to participate, but also the opportunity not to participate—it is natural that students
will participate in different ways. In order to be inclusive, teachers need to ensure that any
opportunities to participate are genuinely open to all, and that the methods used to discuss and
enact co-creation are clear, appeal to a diversity of students, offer different ways of being
involved to suit different students’ strengths, and are cognisant of students’ different previous
experiences, and socio-economic and cultural backgrounds. Specific strategies are needed to
create a welcoming and reconceptualised learning environment that is genuinely open to all—
not ‘a few’ or ‘nearly all’—students.
All of this demands that teachers think carefully about different possible kinds of student
involvement and ultimately a plan B (and C and often D) in case some students do not wish to
participate. This is particularly important if a student does not want to be involved in co-
creating assessment. Staff need to ensure there are well-considered plans in place that do not
detrimentally impact on students’ grades, and this needs to be weighed against the evidence of
enhanced performance from students involved in co-creation. If someone strongly resists
participating in an activity, usually, teachers would use forms of negotiation to try to explain

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education (2020) 79:1023–1037 1031

the benefits of what they are proposing or would offer equally valuable alternatives. It is easier
to appeal to encourage all students to participate in some way where there is an expectation
that the whole class is working together towards a shared purpose that has been negotiated.
And yet, we need to overcome the idea that within any class, students must participate at the
same level and in the same way and at the same time (Bovill 2017); this is simply unrealistic
and does not take into account the variations of motivation and engagement in class or online
at any one time.

Building positive relationships

There is robust evidence to show that positive student-teacher relationships in higher

education lead to a host of benefits. Greater student-teacher interaction inside and outside
formal classes can lead to students’ academic success, good academic performance, higher
educational aspirations, personal and intellectual development, student satisfaction, and
enhanced motivation (see, for example, Chickering and Gamson 1987; Cuseo 2007;
Komarraju et al. 2010; Kuh and Hu 2001; Lamport 1993; Lundberg and Schreiner 2004;
Pascarella and Terenzini 1978, 2005). Academic staff characteristics and attitudes are also
considered a key influence on any teaching environment and on establishing positive
relationships with students, which in turn are key predictors of positive student engage-
ment and achievement outcomes (Powell 1976; Scheck and Bizio 1977; Theophilides and
Terenzini 1981). Staff perceived as being warm and informal, friendly, genuine, respectful,
and understanding, support the development of positive teacher-student relationships
(Theophilides and Terenzini 1981). McDowell and Westman (2005) noted that staff who
encourage students to call them by their first names are perceived as warmer, more
approachable, and more respectful than staff who are addressed by formal titles.
Early teacher-student and student-student encounters are crucial in relationship building.
Gozemba (2002: 132) reports a student saying to her, ‘When you come to class on the first day
and the teacher says ‘We notice your attitude,’ they forget that we notice their attitude too.
Students do the same thing’. Time is needed to build trust and respect, and the teacher needs to
demonstrate that they value contributions from all students in the group. Whole-class co-
creation also relies on teachers being prepared to relinquish some of their power and on their
valuing students’ contributions. As De Los Reyes (2002: 49–50) argues, it is important for
teachers to take the first steps in creating a trusting relationship: ‘...the teacher needs to make it
clear that he or she is interested in sharing power by giving students room to participate’. Breen
and Littlejohn (2000: 277) highlight ‘...teachers may need to come to see their own plans for
classroom work as simply proposals... which learners have the right to reformulate, elaborate
upon or even reject.’ Respect, responsibility, and reciprocity are considered underpinning
principles for working in partnership (Cook-Sather et al. 2014), and it could be argued also for
co-creating learning and teaching with students. These values align well with many of the
factors that have been demonstrated to build positive relationships between teachers and
students in co-created learning and teaching.
Positive student-teacher relationships are at the heart of co-created learning and
teaching. Co-creation relies on students and teachers trusting and respecting one another,
and recognising that responsibility for learning is shared, in the case of whole-class co-
creation, by the entire group. If we look at the evidence in Table 1, it appears that
positive relationships are not just a key element needed for co-creation but they are also
an outcome of co-creation.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1032 Higher Education (2020) 79:1023–1037

Challenges of a whole-class approach to co-creation

Co-creating learning and teaching with an entire class is not without challenges (Bovill et al.
2016), including, but not limited to, time constraints, large classes, ‘sticky’ classes, gaps
between espoused and actual practice, and sustaining co-creation.

Time constraints

Most academic staff and students experience time pressure, which can be a challenge to
co-created learning and teaching where additional planning may be required to adapt
previous ways of working and time is also needed to build trust. From talking to
practitioners who are co-creating learning and teaching, I get the sense that they are not
people with excessive time on their hands, but rather they are re-prioritising their time,
either in response to the evidence of positive outcomes from co-created learning and
teaching or because they are seeking more engaging or democratic kinds of teaching in
which students have more agency. Whole-class co-creation is perhaps less about requiring
extra time and more about different ways of relating to one another, which involve
negotiation and shared decision-making within existing class time.

Large classes

The market context within which many universities operate leads to increasing pressure for
many institutions to expand class sizes. Yet, the adverse effects of large class sizes are well
evidenced (Cuseo 2007) and include the following: causing staff to rely on lectures as the
primary teaching approach, reducing the level of active involvement of students, reducing the
frequency and quality of teacher-student interaction, reducing students’ depth of thinking in
class, increasing the use of assessments that take less time to grade, reduction in students’
learning and their grade performance, and reports of lower student satisfaction (Cuseo 2007).
Gibbs (2010) also notes teacher-student interaction in large classes tends to focus on fact
clarification, in contrast to smaller classes where students and staff engage in more dialogue
and thought exploration. Therefore, smaller classes may be more conducive to enacting deeper
forms of interaction, negotiation, and power sharing that are necessary for co-creation. This
implies whole-class co-creation in learning and teaching may be possible but challenging in
large classes.

‘Sticky’ classes

Academic staff from different disciplines, including those who engage in co-creation, often
report experiencing a particularly problematic class, where they use a range of similar teaching
approaches or invitations to students to participate, to those they have used in previous years,
but whatever they do, this particular group is resistant. They talk of becoming frustrated when
they seem to make little progress with these ‘sticky’ classes. Even the greatest supporters of
radical pedagogical approaches sometimes have a sticky class: ‘...I had this class that I just
hated. I hated it so bad I didn’t want to get up in the morning and go to it...One of the things
that fascinated me about that experience is that we failed to create a learning community in the
classroom. That did not mean that individual students didn’t learn a great deal, but in terms of
creating a communal context for learning, it was a failure. That failure was heartbreaking for

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education (2020) 79:1023–1037 1033

me. It was hard to accept that I was not able to control the direction our classroom was moving
in. I would think, ‘What can I do? And what could I have done?’ And I kept reminding myself
that I couldn’t do it alone, that forty other people were also in there’ (hooks 1994: 158–159).
This is a powerful reminder that a teacher is not in sole control of what happens in any class.
We need to develop a wide range of strategies if we wish to communicate our intentions to
share power with students. We also need to remember that many students have become used to
the passive role through the widespread use of ‘traditional lecturing’ and unidirectional
approaches to teaching (Freeman et al. 2014).

Gaps between espoused and actual practice

There are some staff who claim to be co-creating learning and teaching, but the ways they
talk about and behave towards students reveal a disconnect between espoused values and
practice (Bovill 2015). Indeed, some staff may struggle to relinquish power—they prefer
to remain in control of teaching rather than face the risk of uncertainty in opening teaching
to be a co-created endeavour. What if students prioritise different things from the teacher
or feel they do not have legitimate contributions to make? What if the teacher invites
students to participate but does not value student contributions? hooks (1994: 8) argued
that ‘to begin, the professor must genuinely value everyone’s presence. There must be an
ongoing recognition that everyone influences the classroom dynamic, that everyone
contributes’. This is a vision of an inclusive classroom where everyone has opportunities
but also responsibilities. hooks continued by suggesting that ‘all too often we have been
trained as professors to assume students are not capable of acting responsibly, that if we
don’t exert control over them, then there’s just going to be mayhem’ (hooks 1994: 152).
The strong relationships, trust, and shared decision-making at the heart of co-creating
learning and teaching require a focus on teacher and student attitudes, language, and
behaviour towards one another.

Sustaining co-creation

Moore (2004) talks of the effort that it takes to maintain a more participatory approach to work
over several years, and in Table 1, several studies highlight the sense of risk experienced by
some staff. In contrast, other staff have described whole-class co-creation in learning and
teaching as transformatory and invigorating: ‘It was liberating … we moved from teaching …
that just didn’t work to … [teaching]… that … was put together in ways that I never even
imagined were possible … so… it’s really transformed how I think about teaching and how I
teach’ (Bovill 2014: 18). However, we need to consider what we mean by sustainability. There
is a substantial difference between (1) a co-creation project where a small group of selected
students redesign a course they previously studied, and which may then not be substantially
updated for a number of years, and (2) a whole class co-creation approach where a teacher
opens up the learning and teaching experience for negotiation, and redesign of the course each
time she meets a new class of students. Whole-class co-creation in learning and teaching
requires the teacher to be responsive to the needs of each new group of students. Whole-class
co-creation also requires a teacher to adopt a potentially career-long commitment to engage
deeply with each new group of students encountered and to mutually negotiate each new
learning encounter. This is a seismic change to the way that much learning and teaching is
conducted within universities.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1034 Higher Education (2020) 79:1023–1037

Conclusions

The growth of interest and activity related to co-creation and partnership over the last 5 to
10 years is encouraging, but has focused predominantly on project-based initiatives
involving small groups of students (Mercer-Mapstone et al. 2017). In contrast, whole-
class co-creation in learning and teaching has received relatively little attention in the
literature. Increasing whole-class co-creation has the potential to transform teaching and
learning practices and to reach greater numbers of students with more democratic forms of
education. I would argue we need both approaches to partnership and co-creation to
maximise the benefits that are increasingly being evidenced from these collaborative
endeavours. If we draw on Freeman et al.’s (2014) argument, based on evidence of
interactive learning, the growing evidence for the benefits of whole-class co-creation in
learning and teaching suggests we could be held negligent for not ensuring all students
have the opportunity to benefit. Indeed, Kuh (2009: 31) argues that in higher education,
‘most institutions can increase student engagement and success by more consistently using
what the research shows are promising policies and effective educational activities and
practices...but at too many institutions, only small numbers of students are involved’.
We could also learn from related work that takes place in schools. Due to the class sizes in
primary and high school, some authors draw attention to the potential of co-creation and
negotiated curriculum with whole classes of students (see, for example, Bron et al. 2018).
What differs in higher education is that class sizes are often substantially larger, and this poses
a very real challenge to whole-class co-creation. Further exploration of school-based co-
creation research and expertise would be of benefit to the higher education sector. Further
research would also be beneficial that focuses on gathering more examples and outcomes from
whole-class co-creation, particularly in larger classes.
Whole-class co-creation has the potential to be a more inclusive approach to co-creation
and to support the building of positive relationships, which in turn are likely to contribute to
wider departmental and institutional priorities of building more effective learning environ-
ments, a stronger sense of community and belonging. However, this may require academic
staff in most cases to adapt their current teaching practice, and learn to adopt more relational
approaches to teaching that are open, collaborative, dialogic, and democratic. They may need
to learn how to facilitate collaborative decision-making with a whole class to ensure inclusion
is maximised. This is likely to require many teachers to learn more about the benefits of whole-
class co-creation and about different ways to facilitate and evaluate whole-class co-creation.
This has significant implications for departments and universities in terms of the academic
development support offered to teaching staff.
Writing over 20 years ago, bell hooks argued that ‘the classroom remains the most
radical space of possibility in the academy’ (hooks 1994: 12), but I would suggest we
are not maximising this possibility. Also over 20 years ago, Lamport (1993: 980)
argued that ‘educational institutions need humanizing to regain the personal element.
Sweeping changes are needed in attitudes toward teaching, learning and relations
among faculty, students and administrators.’ Our challenge inside and outside the
curriculum is to ensure we speak and behave in ways that communicate our shared
respect and care for one another. What students want ‘… is teachers who care deeply
about them, have enormously high standards, and believe in the potential of every
student’ (De Los Reyes and Gozemba 2002: 21), and this, in my view, is the key to
enhancing much of what we do in universities.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education (2020) 79:1023–1037 1035

Acknowledgements Many thanks to Dr. Rayya Ghul, Dr. Daphne Loads, and Dr. Lucy Mercer-Mapstone for
constructively critical comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and repro-
duction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

References

Bergmark, U., & Westman, S. (2016). Co-creating curriculum in higher education: promoting democratic values
and a multidimensional view on learning. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(1), 28–40.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. Washington D.C.:
George Washington University.
Bovill, C. (2014). An investigation of co-created curricula within higher education in the UK, Ireland and the
USA. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(1), 15–25.
Bovill, C. (2015). Identifying your underlying assumptions in co-creating learning and teaching: the importance
of language and behaviour. Paper presentation, student voice conference, 22–24 June, University of
Cambridge.
Bovill, C. (2017). A framework to explore roles within student-staff partnerships in higher education: which
students are partners, when and in what ways? International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1), 1–5.
Bovill, C., & Woolmer, C. (2018). How conceptualisations of curriculum in higher education influence student-
staff co-creation in and of the curriculum. Higher Education https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007
%2Fs10734-018-0349-8.
Bovill, C., Aitken, G., Hutchison, J., Morrison, F., Roseweir, K., Scott, A., & Sotannde, S. (2010). Experiences of
learning through collaborative evaluation from a postgraduate certificate in professional education.
International Journal for Academic Development, 15(2), 143–154.
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 & A. Littlejohn (Eds.),
Classroom decision-making: negotiation and process syllabuses in practice (pp. 272–295). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bron, J., Bovill, C., & Veugelers, W. (2018). Distributed curriculum leadership: how negotiation between student
and teacher improves the curriculum. Journal of Ethical Educational Leadership, Special Issue 1 March,
74–95.
Bryson, C., Furlonger, R., & Rinaldo-Langridge, F. (2015). A critical consideration of, and research agenda for,
the approach of ‘students as partners’. Paper presentation, International Conference on Improving University
Teaching, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 15-17 July.
Buckley, A. (2014). How radical is student engagement? (And what is it for?). Student Engagement and
Experience Journal, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.7190/seej.v3i2.95.
Chickering, A. W. & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education.
AAHE Bulletin, March, 3–7, http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED282491.
Cook-Sather, A. (2018). Listening to equity-seeking perspectives: how students’ experiences of pedagogical
partnership can inform wider discussions of student success. Higher Education Research and Development,
37(5), 923–936.
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: a guide
for faculty. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking participation: Models, meanings and practices. Community Development
Journal, 43(3), 269–283.
Cuseo, J. (2007). The empirical case against large class size: adverse effects on the teaching, learning and
retention of first-year students. The Journal of Faculty Development, 21(1), 5–21.
De Los Reyes, E. (2002). Breaking the cycle rising to question: the language intensive interdisciplinary program.
In E. De Los Reyes & P. A. Gozemba (Eds.), Pockets of hope: how students and teachers change the world
(pp. 31–60). London: Bergin and Garvey.
De Los Reyes, E., & Gozemba, P. A. (2002). Introduction: education as the practice of freedom. In E. De Los
Reyes & P. A. Gozemba (Eds.), Pockets of hope: how students and teachers change the world (pp. 1–30).
London: Bergin and Garvey.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1036 Higher Education (2020) 79:1023–1037

Deeley, S. J. (2014). Summative co-assessment: a deep learning approach to enhancing employability skills and
attributes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 39–51.
Deeley, S. J., & Bovill, C. (2017). Staff-student partnership in assessment: enhancing assessment literacy through
democratic practices. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 463–477.
Delpish, A., Holmes, A., Knight-McKenna, M., Mihans, R., Darby, A., King, K., & Felten, P. (2010). Equalizing
voices: student-faculty partnership in course design. In C. Werder & M. Otis (Eds.), Engaging student voices
in the study of teaching and learning (pp. 96–114). Sterling: Stylus.
DiSalvo, B., Yip, J., Bonsignore, E., & DiSalvo, C. (Eds.). (2017). Participatory design for learning: perspec-
tives from practice and research. Abingdon: Routledge.
Dunne, E. (2016). Design thinking: a framework for student engagement? A personal view. Journal of
Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.21100/jeipc.v2i1.317.
Dunne, E., & Zandstra, R. (2011). Students as change agents. New ways of engaging with learning and teaching
in higher education. Bristol: ESCalate, Higher Education Academy/University of Exeter.
Eddo-Lodge, R. (2017). Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race. London: Bloomsbury.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014).
Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering and mathematics. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 111(23), 8410–8415.
Gibbs, G. (2010). Dimensions of quality. York: Higher Education Academy.
Gozemba, P. A. (2002). Aloha ‘Aina. In E. D. L. Reyes & P. A. Gozemba (Eds.), Pockets of hope: how students
and teachers change the world (pp. 121–148). London: Bergin and Garvey.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: education as the practice of freedom. London: Routledge.
Huxham, M., Hunter, M., McIntyre, A., Shilland, R., & McArthur, J. (2015). Student and teacher co-navigation
of a course: following the natural lines of academic enquiry. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(5), 530–541.
Huxham, M., Scoles, J., Green, U., Purves, S., Welsh, Z., & Gray, A. (2017). ‘Observation has set in’: comparing
students and peers as reviewers of teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6), 887–899.
Kandiko Howson, C., & Weller, S. (2016). Defining pedagogic expertise: students and new lecturers as co-
developers in learning and teaching. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.20343
/teachlearninqu.4.2.6.
Komarraju, M., Musulkin, S., & Bhattacharya, G. (2010). Role of student-faculty interactions in developing
college students' academic self-concept, motivation, and achievement. Journal of College Student
Development, 51(3), 332–342.
Kuh, G. D. (2009). High impact activities: what they are, why they work, who benefits. In C. Rust (Ed.),
Improving student learning through the curriculum (pp. 20–39). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and
Learning Development, Oxford Brookes University.
Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. The Review of Higher
Education, 24(3), 309–332.
Lamport, M. A. (1993). Student-faculty interaction and the effect on college student outcomes. Adolescence,
28(112), 971–990.
Luescher-Mamashela, T. M. (2013). Student representation in university decision making: good reasons, a new
lens? Studies in Higher Education, 38(10), 1442–1456.
Lundberg, C. A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student interaction as predictors of
learning: an analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student Development, 45(5), 549–565.
Marquis, E., Healey, M., & Vine, M. (2016). Fostering collaborative teaching and learning scholarship
through an international writing group initiative. Higher Education Research & Development,
35(3), 531–544.
Marquis, E., Jayaratnam, A., Mishra, A., & Rybkina, K. (2018). BI feel like some students are better connected^:
students’ perspectives on applying for extracurricular partnership opportunities. International Journal for
Students as Partners, 2(1), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v2i1.3300.
Martens, S. E., Meeuwissen, S. N. E., Dolmans, H. J. M., Bovill, C. & Könings, K. D. (2019). Student
participation in the design of learning and teaching: disentangling the terminology and approaches.
Medical Teacher Short Communication, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0142159
X.2019.1615610.
McDowell, J. E., & Westman, A. S. (2005). Exploring the use of first name to address faculty members in
graduate programs. College Student Journal, 39(2), 352–256.
Mercer-Mapstone, L., & Bovill, C. (2019). Equity and diversity in institutional approaches to student- staff
partnership schemes in higher education. Studies in Higher Education https://www.tandfonline.
com/doi/abs/10.1080/03075079.2019.1620721. Accessed 13 July 2019.
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K. E., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., Knorr, C., Marquis,
E., Shammas, R., & Swaim, K. (2017). A systematic literature review of students as partners in higher
education. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1), 1–23 https://www.researchgate.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education (2020) 79:1023–1037 1037

net/publication/316764140_A_Systematic_Literature_Review_of_Students_as_Partners_in_Higher_
Education. Accessed 13 July 2019.
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4),
159–167.
Mihans, I. I., Richard, J., Long, D. T., & Felten, P. (2008). Power and expertise: student-faculty collaboration in
course design and the scholarship of teaching and learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 16.
Moore, J. (2004). Living in the basement of the ivory tower: a graduate student’s perspective of participatory
action research within academic institutions. Educational Action Research, 12(1), 145–162.
Moore-Cherry, N., Healey, R., Nicholson, D. T., & Andrews, W. (2016). Inclusive partnership: enhancing student
engagement in geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 40(1), 84–103.
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. C. (1978). Student faculty informal relationships and freshman year educational
outcomes. Journal of Educational Research, 71(4), 183–189.
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students vol 2: a third decade of research. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Powell, J. P. (1976). Informal staff student contact at the University of NSW. In TERC research and development
paper 42. Kensington: New South Wales University.
Rock, R., Foster, E., & Lamb, S. (2015). Putting students at the heart of the curriculum change process. York:
Higher Education Academy.
Ryan, A., & Tilbury, D. (2013). Flexible pedagogies: new pedagogical ideas. York: Higher Education Academy.
Scheck, D. C., & Bizio, S. (1977). Students’ perceptions of the ideal professor. College Student Journal, 11(4),
335–342.
Theophilides, C., & Terenzini, P. C. (1981). The relation between non classroom contact with faculty and
students’ perceptions of instructional quality. Research in Higher Education, 15(3), 255–269.
Werder, C., & Otis, M. (2010). Not the conclusion. Moving from engaging to sustaining student voices. In C.
Werder & M. Otis (Eds.), Engaging student voices in the study of teaching and learning (pp. 185–194).
Sterling: Stylus.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at

[email protected]