Students as Partners: A model to promote student engagement in post-COVID-19 teaching and learning.

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic brought a seismic shift to the ways and means in which
higher education institutions (HEIs) approached teaching, learning and assessment
provision. The medium and longer term effects of COVID-19 are likely to have an
impact on the approaches of education, to which students and staff could work
collaboratively as ‘partners’ in ensuring a student-centred approach. Development of a
culture of Student Partnership has been identified as a means of working within
resource constraint environments and optimising educational experiences for students
and staff alike. This paper makes a series of recommendations aimed and supporting
and enhancing the quality of higher education in the post-COVID 19 future.

Full text

AISHE-J Volume 12, Number 3 (Autumn 2020) Page 1
All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (AISHE-J)
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0
Students as Partners: A Model to Promote Student
Engagement in Post-COVID-19 Teaching and
Learning.
Dale F. Whelehan
Trinity College Dublin, whelehd@tcd.ie
Abstract.
The COVID-19 pandemic brought a seismic shift to the ways and means in which
higher education institutions (HEIs) approached teaching, learning and assessment
provision. The medium and longer-term effects of COVID-19 are likely to have an
impact on the approaches of education, to which students and staff could work
collaboratively as ‘partners’ in ensuring a student-centred approach. Development of a
culture of Student Partnership has been identified as a means of working within
resource constraint environments and optimising educational experiences for students
and staff alike. This paper makes a series of recommendations aimed and supporting
and enhancing the quality of higher education in the post-COVID 19 future.
Keywords: COVID-19, teaching and learning, quality assurance, student engagement, student
partnership.
1. Introduction.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on the way society thinks and
behaves. In the context of higher education, many institutions have had to adapt to online-
learning, and with it, a grappling of complex systems of technology, innovative approaches to
teaching, learning and assessment, as well as adapting to work-from-home environments which
have become a salient feature of the lives of many. A lesser focus has been given to student-
centred engagement into the design and implementation of these processes. This is
unsurprising given the timeframe in which such drastic changes had to occur, as well as the
orientation of time with regards to proximity to annual examinations. As we shift from the acute
phase of the pandemic into the longer-term sustainable changes that are required, it is important
that students should play an equal role in their education shaping its design, implementation
and review (Marquis et al., 2015). This is in line with the European Standards and Guidelines

AISHE-J Volume 12, Number 3 (Autumn 2020) Page 2
(2015) approach to student-centred approaches to ensuring a quality higher education provision
(ESG, 2015). The active involvement of ‘students as partners’ can facilitate implementation of
key activities in a blended learning environment to facilitate overcoming challenges to
implementation of educational frameworks such as competency-based education (Gruppen et
al., 2016; Miller, 1990). This paper discusses principles of student partnership and suggests
some key activities which staff could actively engage with in order to facilitate student-centred
learning as we move into a post-COVID-19 higher education system.
2. Current Landscape.
The acute management of COVID-19 in higher education has provided useful insights for
institutions to critically reflect upon. Reactive processes reflect a sector that didn’t have a culture
of students engaging in decision making from the outset. Such processes include decision
outdated didactic online teaching(Bishop, 2002), inappropriate philosophies and assessment
methods to measure higher-level thinking (Agarwal, 2019) and difficulty in finding the balance
in implementing an inclusive roadmap (Felten & Baumann, 2013) for examinations provision
with consideration for students’ environment or resources. Learning from these decisions is
important as we move to a digital environment. According to the National Forum for the
Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education’s Irish National Digital Experience
Survey (INDEX, 2020), teaching online was a relatively new concept for many academic staff,
with the report noting that 70% of staff had never taught in a live online environment prior to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Involvement of students in design of the post-COVID blended curriculum
may enhance motivation and student engagement, fostering a stronger more collaborative
learning community (Deeley & Bovill, 2017) between students and staff.
3. Developing Student Partnership.
Higher education now has the opportunity to start with a blank canvas - independent of the
shackles of cultural norms to teaching and learning. A continuum of student participation in
curriculum design exists (Bovill & Bulley, 2011) to which formal legislation protects (Universities
Act, 1997), but there are other opportunities for students to get involved such as pedagogical
planning (Bovill & Bulley, 2011) , students-as-researchers (Maunder, Cunliffe, Galvin, Mjali &
Rogers, 2012) and as strategic developers in a post-COVID education climate (Healey,
O’Connor & Bradfoot, 2010). In the context of Irish higher education, in 2017 as Education

AISHE-J Volume 12, Number 3 (Autumn 2020) Page 3
Officer of the Students Union, this author launched a ‘student partnership campaign’ in Trinity
College Dublin in 2017 (Trinity College Dublin and Trinity College Dublin Students Union
Student Partnership Policy, 2017) which focused on four main activities to develop a culture of
partnership.
Figure 1: Four activities to develop a culture of student partnership in Higher Education
Institutions.
3.1 First activity: Institutional policy.
The initial aspect of facilitating a culture of student partnership is the development of an
agreement policy between the academic institution and the student representative body.
National focus on ‘student partnership’ has been discussed by government bodies such as the
National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, as well as
being facilitated by new national programmes such as the National Student Engagement
Programme (NSTEP) and could act as resources for institutions to draw upon. A joint
commitment from both stakeholders places dual-responsibility of student engagement, defined
as ‘…the investment of time; effort and other relevant resources by both students and their
institutions intended to optimise the student experience and enhance the learning outcomes
and development of students, and the performance and reputation of the institution’ (Trowler &
Trowler, 2011), on students and staff. There are ten key principles which are important to
First Activity:
Institutional
policy
Second
Activity:
Scoping of
formal and
informal
mechanisms of
student
engagement
Third Activity:
Establishing
annual priorities
Fourth
Activity:
Review,
reflection and
dissemination

AISHE-J Volume 12, Number 3 (Autumn 2020) Page 4
consider when designing and implementing institutional change that can facilitate student
partnership in COVID-19 times (Higher Education Authority, 2016).
Table 1:Ten principles to guide develop an institutional approach to student engagement
(adapted from Higher Education Authority (2016).
Principles of Student Engagement
Democracy
Students as stakeholders
Inclusivity and Diversity
Transparency
Students as co-creators
Collegiality and Parity of Esteem
Professionalism and Support
Reciprocal Feedback and Feedback Loops
Self-criticism and Enhancement
Consistency
Recommendation: Seek collaborative opportunities between student and staff academic
representatives to create a road-map for policy provision in ensuring that in a post COVID-19
era, student-centred approaches to teaching and learning involve students from the conception,
design, implementation and review of programmatic and institutional changes.
3.2 Second activity: Scoping of formal and informal mechanisms of
student engagement.
In conjunction with the development of a long-term strategy for facilitating student engagement,
a partnered scoping exercise in conjunction with governance experts and quality assurance
experts could be undertaken to explore areas in which students currently engage in decision-
making, the impact of such student engagement, and the potential opportunities for enhanced
student engagement in relation to the COVID-19 changes to teaching and learning. Common

AISHE-J Volume 12, Number 3 (Autumn 2020) Page 5
representations include sabbatical officers from Student Unions and affiliated representatives.
Dual-training by students and staff leaders is an important role to enable effective
representation. Students may get involved in feedback mechanisms at an institutional or local
school level through quality assurance and enhancement mechanisms. This is an area needing
urgent attention to reap the true benefits and potential of feedback. For many, the feedback loop
is closed in an unsatisfactory way, by implementing change for subsequent cohorts, or by not
actioning on any suggested approaches due to an ‘insufficient response rate’. In the context of
COVID, where such pitfalls have led to some of the aforementioned problems in the first place,
academics need to recognise their key role in engaging students in quality enhancement
through going beyond tokenistic means of ‘capturing’ the ‘student voice’, and instead truly
listening in innovative ways such as focus groups, student-staff liaison committee meetings, or
by actioning feedback in a live-manner. In the digital environment, where both students and staff
are on a similar learning journey, a collaborative approach at the programme level in may play
a pivotal role in ensuring students are successfully attaining a quality education.
Recommendation: Commence review of current opportunities for students to engage in
teaching and learning provision, and ensure they are rigorous, involve closed loops, and make
meaningful impact of students’ experience. Consider development of processes which
overcome pitfalls in current student feedback mechanisms through development of ‘feedback
spirals’ (Carless, 2019) which allow analysis of complex teaching and learning processes and
sustainability of change within education systems. Identify additional opportunities for student
stakeholder engagement from the classroom level to institutional level through innovative
collaboration in governance and quality assurance.
3.3 Third activity: Establishing annual priorities.
Accountability and measurable impact are important to both highlight the success of student
partnership activities in facilitating student engagement, as well as help identify the areas for
future improvement. It shows growth between both stakeholders in addressing the concerns
raised by stakeholders in light of COVID-19 adaptions. Collection of quantitative and qualitative
data regarding impact of COVID-19 on student engagement, from both stakeholders, can help
inform the annual priorities for the year. In the context of Trinity College Dublin, an overarching
theme of ‘revolutionising student engagement through embedding a culture of collaboration and
partnership’ was further divided into three priorities:

AISHE-J Volume 12, Number 3 (Autumn 2020) Page 6
• Engagement with representation in governance,
• Engagement in teaching and learning,
• Engagement with the wider community.
During COVID-19, a reflective campaign may centre around ‘ensuring student engagement in
the COVID-19 pandemic through a culture of partnership’ through which a series of performance
indicators which can be actioned, with responsibilities allocated to student and staff working
groups are provided. In this new normal COVID-19 environments, priorities are likely to focus
around how students and staff work together in implementing the pre-approved competency
frameworks of their programmes in a blended learning environment, and could be facilitated
through frank and open discussions with students at the beginning of the academic year around
expectations and realities. While most curricula have devised comprehensive competency
frameworks, it would be a missed opportunity for programme review boards to not consider
comprehensive digital literacy as a key competency in all programmes going forward.
Recommendation: Using a strategic management approach, such as strengths-weaknesses-
opportunities-threats (SWOT) analysis (Helms & Nixon, 2010), involve students in identifying
their own priorities for the academic year and ensure cohesion between these
recommendations and those of management and academics. Agree on a proposed plan of
implementation of key overlapping areas for enhancement which will have a meaningful impact
on all stakeholders’ experiences, such as upskilling in pedagogical design of online teaching
provision.
3.4 Fourth activity: Review, reflection and dissemination.
Other institutional approaches to developing a culture of ‘Students as Partners’ have
recommended 3 phases to implementation – testing and prototype, identifying and
implementing strategies, and developing systems and processes which support your planned
activities (Shaw, Rueckert, Smith, Tredinnick & Lee, 2017) as well as recognising the importance
of evaluation as a key activity to drive change (Coombe, Huang, Russell, Sheppard, Khosravi,
2018).The final activity to facilitate ‘student partnership’ is to take stock of the work of the
collaboration between students and staff at the end of the academic year. This is organised
through the annual review of the priorities, the successful implementation of any of the
performance indicators, as well as through a showcase of best-practice within the institution of

AISHE-J Volume 12, Number 3 (Autumn 2020) Page 7
partnered solutions. With flexibility required for COVID-19, such reflection ensures rigour of the
policy in reflecting stakeholders’ priorities. This dissemination also affords the opportunity to
academics to adapt practices in an accessible way. Finally, it indicates potential future activities
to further embed a culture of student partnership as we return to more in-house teaching - such
as developing ‘student leaders’ in teaching and learning by involving them as peer-reviewers of
teaching, and chairing committees.
Recommendation: As a live campaign, ensure ongoing discussions and review take place
between students and staff throughout the year to monitor progress in agreed areas of priorities,
or revision and adaption if required in light of changes to the national higher education context
e.g. a return to in-class learning, increased resource provision through the creation of a Higher
Education ministry. Identify, highlight and share the successes in the partnership between staff
and students at the end of each year in overcoming COVID-19 related challenges.
4. Barriers and Benefits.
While many HEIs and staff have begun to truly embrace student partnership, it has been
reported that some staff may feel uncomfortable in the shift of power to that of a ‘partnership’
with students (Murphy, Nixon, Brooman & Fearon, 2017). Murphy and colleagues identify four
main processes that should occur to encourage ‘buy-in’ from academic staff
1. increasing staff willingness and involvement by starting at a place where issues are occurring
(for e.g. online assessments) and working here with students in designing student-centric tools
(Cook-Sather, Bovill & Felten, 2014).
2. Developing students in the partnership process by working with national training bodies on
student engagement.
3. Shifting the focus from ‘staff as experts’ to ‘staff as facilitators.’
4. Recognising that partnership activities are a professional development opportunity. A
systematic review on ‘Students as Partners’ in Higher Education (Mercer Mapstone et al., 2017)
also found an abundance of benefits for students including development of key transferrable
competencies such as meta-cognition, increased critical skill development, and increased
student-efficacy; and for staff including development of better curriculum materials, increased
motivation for teaching and research, and improved personal career prospects.

AISHE-J Volume 12, Number 3 (Autumn 2020) Page 8
5. Reflection and Conclusion.
This paper argues that the ‘student voice’ is often missing from making meaningful change, or
is often involved too late in a tokenistic manner. If a culture of student partnership existed within
institutions prior to COVID-19, which focused on troubleshooting and enhancing digital learning,
it is likely that institutions collaborated with students to ensure pedagogically sound digital
education provision. Nonetheless, the foundation for such cultures can be laid in the post-
COVID era of teaching and learning, with a new opportunity for meaningful student and staff
collaboration to ensure a quality education. This culture can be facilitated through a series of
activities as outlined in this paper, recognising that ultimately responsibility of student
engagement is a partnership between students and staff alike.
6. References.
Agarwal, P. K. (2019). Retrieval practice & Bloom’s taxonomy: Do students need fact
knowledge before higher order learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(2), 189.
Bovill, C., & Bulley, C. J. (2011). A model of active student participation in curriculum design:
exploring desirability and possibility. In C. Rust (ed). Improving Student Learning ISL 18
Global Theories and Local Practices: Institutional, Disciplinary and Cultural Variations.
Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Educational Development, pp. 176-188.
Bishop, A. (2002). Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly: Critical reflections on Web-
based education from a student's perspective. Distance Education, 23(2), 231-236.
Carless, D. (2019). Feedback loops and the longer-term: towards feedback spirals.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(5), 705-714.
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging Students as Partners in Learning
and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty. John Wiley & Sons.
Coombe, L., Huang, J., Russell, S., Sheppard, K., & Khosravi, H. (2018). Students as partners
in action: Evaluating a university-wide initiative. International Journal for Students as
Partners, 2(2), 85-95.

AISHE-J Volume 12, Number 3 (Autumn 2020) Page 9
Deeley, S. J., & Bovill, C. (2017). Staff student partnership in assessment: enhancing
assessment literacy through democratic practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 42(3), 463-477.
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). (2015). Standards
and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG).
Universities Act (1997). The Stationery Office: Dublin
Felten, P., & Bauman, H. D. L. (2013). Reframing diversity and student engagement: Lessons
from deaf-gain. In E. Dunne & D. Owen (eds). Student Engagement Handbook: Practice
in Higher Education. Emerald. pp. 367-378
Healey, M., O'Connor, K. M., & Broadfoot, P. (2010). Reflections on engaging students in the
process and product of strategy development for learning, teaching, and assessment: an
institutional case study. International Journal for Academic Development, 15(1), 19-32.
Helms, M. M., & Nixon, J. (2010). Exploring SWOT analysis–where are we now? Journal of
Strategy and Management, 3(3), 215-240.
Gruppen, L. D., Burkhardt, J. C., Fitzgerald, J. T., Funnell, M., Haftel, H. M., Lypson, M. L.,
Mullan, P.B., Santen, S.A., Sheets, K.J., Stalburg, C.M. & Vasquez, J. A. (2016).
Competency‐based education: programme design and challenges to implementation.
Medical Education, 50(5), 532-539.
Higher Education Authority (2016). Enhancing Etudent Engagement in Decision-making. Doi:
http://www.thea.ie/contentfiles/HEA-IRC-Student-Engagement-Report-Apr2016-min.pdf
Marquis, E., Puri, V., Wan, S., Ahmad, A., Goff, L., Knorr, K., Vassileva, I. & Woo, J. (2016).
Navigating the threshold of student–staff partnerships: A case study from an Ontario
teaching and learning institute. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(1), 4-
15.
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K. E., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P.,
Knorr, K., 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).

AISHE-J Volume 12, Number 3 (Autumn 2020) Page 10
Miller, G. E. (1990). The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Academic
Medicine, 65(9), S63-7.
Murphy, R., Nixon, S., Brooman, S., & Fearon, D. (2017). “I am wary of giving too much power
to students:” Addressing the “but” in the Principle of Staff-Student Partnership.
International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1).
National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (NF)
(2020). The Irish National Digital Experience Survey (INDEX). Doi:
https://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2020/05/NF-2020-INDEx-Report.pdf
Shaw, N., Rueckert, C., Smith, J., Tredinnick, J., & Lee, M. (2017). Students as partners in the
real world–A whole-institution approach. International Journal for Students as Partners,
1(1).
Sosniak, L. A. (1994). Bloom's taxonomy. In L. W. Anderson, L. Sosniak & B. Bloom. (eds.).
Bloom’s Taxonomy: A Forty-year Retrospective. Chicago, IL: Univ. Chicago Press.
Trinity College Dublin and Trinity College Dublin Students Union (2017). Student Partnership
Policy. Doi: https://www.tcd.ie/teaching-
learning/assets/pdf/academicpolicies/StudentPartnershipPolicy.pdf
Trowler, P., & Trowler, V. (2011). Student Engagement: Toolkit for Leaders. London:
Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.