Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Global health experiences are an increasingly popular component of medical student curricula. There is little research on the impact of international medical electives embedded within long-standing, sustainable partnerships. Our research explores the University of Michigan medical student elective experience in Ghana within the context of the Ghana-Michigan collaborative. Methods Study participants are University of Michigan medical students who completed an international elective in Ghana between March 2006 and June 2017. Post-elective reports were completed by students, including a description of the experience, highlights, disappointments, and the impact of the experience on interest in future international work and future practice of medicine. A retrospective thematic analysis of reports was carried out using NVivo 12 (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia). Results A total of 57 reports were analyzed. Benefits of the elective experience included building cross-cultural relationships, exposure to different healthcare environments, hands-on clinical and surgical experience, and exposure to different patient populations. Ninety-five percent of students planned to engage in additional international work in the future. Students felt that the long-standing bidirectional exchange allowed them to build cross-cultural relationships and be incorporated as a trusted part of the local clinical team. The partnership modeled collaboration, and many students found inspiration for the direction of their own careers. Conclusions Embedding clinical rotations within a well-established, sustained partnerships provides valuable experiences for trainees by modeling reciprocity, program management by local physicians, and cultural humility—all of which can help prepare learners to ethically engage in balanced, long-term partnerships in the future.

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 relationships 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.

Policymakers, funders, and researchers today view research-practice partnerships (RPPs) as a promising approach for expanding the role of research in improving educational practice. Although studies in other fields provide evidence of the potential for RPPs, studies in education are few. This article provides a review of available evidence of the outcomes and dynamics of RPPs in education and related fields. It then outlines a research agenda for the study of RPPs that can guide funders' investments and help developing partnerships succeed.

A group of collaborative approaches to education research sits uneasily within the existing infrastructure for research and development in the United States. The researchers in this group hold themselves to account to ways of working with schools, families, and communities that are different from the ways envisioned by models for education research promoted in U.S. policies and endorsed by U.S. federal agencies. Those models, widely supported by funders, privilege the research priorities of individual investigators and regularly yield products and findings with little relevance to educational practice. In this article, we review four collaborative approaches: Community-based Design Research, Design-based Implementation Research, Improvement Science in Networked Improvement Communities, and the Strategic Education Research Partnership. Through a participatory process involving developers and advocates for these approaches, we identified a set of interconnected principles related to collaboration, problem solving, and research. Further, we reviewed evidence of these principles in projects belonging to these four approaches. We contend it is worth attempting to understand, build upon, and support enactments of these principles in research proposals and projects, because there is evidence these approaches can promote agency and equity in education. To do so would require the field to develop criteria for judging quality, which peers can use to evaluate individual studies or sets of research; new outcomes by which to measure progress; new venues for developing and giving accounts of research; and an appreciation for the value of developing and cultivating relationships with educators, families, and communities as an integral part of research.

Student representation and student partnership differ and the difference matters. To further scholarly understanding of, and appreciation for, the important difference between the two, we examine these two commonly evoked conceptions for student voice in higher education. We draw on two points of difference—responsibility and access—to illuminate conceptualisations and discourses of each in the current literature. In doing so, we clarify the unique contributions of each, shaped by differing contexts of interaction, and articulate issues arising by confounding and conflating partnership and representation in the name of student voice. Advancing an argument for an ecosystem of student participation grounded in student voice, we warn of the harm in positioning student partners as speaking for other students and the risk of diminishing the importance of elected student representation systems in favour of staff selected student partner models of student representation.

Agenda 2030 for sustainable development focuses attention on lifelong learning opportunities for all. The new targets expand on their predecessors, the Millennial Development Goals, by both widening and deepening the scope of system-wide quality education systems. Whilst the Millennial Development Goals focused attention on universal primary attainment, the Sustainable Development Goals introduce tertiary education into the global development agenda. Higher education was an important consideration in the 2000 Dakar framework, but it was not included as a target. Instead, it appeared indirectly as a supportive pathway to other goals such as youth skills or quality teacher. Now, higher education plays a key role as a means to achieving Goal 4 on education: inclusive, equitable and quality education for all. This article evaluates the introduction of higher education into the development agenda and the introduction of the SDGs into the parallel but fragmented multilateral and university agendas. It concludes by specifying two factors that are essential if higher education is to play a revitalised role in the sustainable development framework: publicly-funded research and regional higher education partnerships. (HoF/text adopted).

In this article, we advance an approach to design research that is organized around a commitment to transforming the educational and social circumstances of members of non-dominant communities as a means of promoting social equity and learning. We refer to this approach as social design experimentation. The goals of social design experiments include the traditional aim of design experiments to create theoreticallygrounded and practical educational interventions, the social agenda of ameliorating and redressing historical injustices, and the development of theories focused on the organization of equitable learning opportunities. To illustrate how we use social design methodology, we present two examples that strategically reorganized the sociohistorical practices of communities to expand learning as a key goal. We conclude with a discussion of the opportunities this approach creates for learning scientists to form effective research partnerships with community members, as well as the responsibilities it entails for creating a more just society.

There is a wide range of activity taking place under the banner of 'co-created curriculum' within higher education. Some of this variety is due to the different ways people think about 'co-creation', but significant variation is also due to the ways in which higher education curriculum is conceptualised, and how these conceptualisations position the student in relation to the curriculum. In addition, little attention is paid to the differences between co-creation of the curriculum and co-creation in the curriculum. This paper addresses this gap by examining four theoretical frameworks used to inform higher education curriculum design. We examine how each framework considers the position of the learner and how this might influence the kinds of curricular co-creation likely to be enacted. We conclude by calling for more discussion of curriculum and curriculum theories in higher education—and for these discussions to include students. We argue that more clarity is needed from scholars and practitioners as to how they are defining curriculum, and whether they are focused on co-creation of the curriculum or co-creation in the curriculum. Finally, we suggest that paying greater attention to curriculum theories and their assumptions about the learner, offers enhanced understanding of curricular intentions and the extent to which collaboration is possible within any particular context.

Against a backdrop of rising interest in students becoming partners in learning and teaching in higher education, this paper begins by exploring the relationships between student engagement, co-creation and student-staff partnership before providing a typology of the roles students can assume in working collaboratively with staff. Acknowledging that co-creating learning and teaching is not straightforward, a set of examples from higher education institutions in Europe and North America illustrates some important challenges that can arise during co-creation. These examples also provide the basis for suggestions regarding how such challenges might be resolved or re-envisaged as opportunities for more meaningful collaboration. The challenges are presented under three headings: resistance to co-creation; navigating institutional structures, practices and norms; and establishing an inclusive co-creation approach. The paper concludes by highlighting the importance of transparency within co-creation approaches and of changing mindsets about the potential opportunities and institutional benefits of staff and students co-creating learning and teaching.(HRK / Abstract übernommen).

Purpose: Universities can do more to deliver against the sustainable development goals (SDGs), working with faculty, staff and students, as well as their wider stakeholder community and alumni body. They play a critical role in helping shape new ways for the world, educating global citizens and delivering knowledge and innovation into society. Universities can be engines of societal transformation. Using a multiple case study approach, this study aims to explore different ways of strategizing sustainability toward delivering the SDGs are explored in a university setting with an example from the UK, Bulgaria (Europe) and USA. Design/methodology/approach: The first case is a public UK university that adopted enterprise and sustainability as its academic mission to secure differentiation in a disrupted and increasingly marketized global higher education sector; this became a source of inspiration for change in regional businesses and the local community. The second case is a business sector-led sustainability-driven transformation working with a private university in Bulgaria to catalyze economic regeneration and social innovation. Finally, a case from the office for sustainability in a major US research university is given to show how its engagement program connected faculty and students in sustainability projects within the institution and with external partners. Findings: Each case is in effect a \"living lab,\" positioning sustainability as an intentional and aspirational strategy with sustainable development and the SDG framework a means to that end. Leadership at all levels, and by students, was key to success in acting with a shared purpose. Partnerships within and with universities can help accelerate delivery of the SDGs, enabling higher education to make a fuller contribution to sustaining the economic, environmental, cultural and intellectual well-being of our global communities. Originality/value: The role of universities as the engine of transformational sustainability toward delivering the SDGs has been explored by way of three case studies that highlight different means toward that end. The collegiate nature of the higher education sector, with its shared governance models and different constituencies and performance drivers, means that sustainability at a strategic level must be led with leaders at all levels acting with purpose. The \"living lab\" model can become a part of transformative institutional change that draws on both top-down and bottom-up strategies in pursuit of sustainable development.