Conference Agenda

The present contribution intends to introduce a doctoral research project, which explores the participation of young people in decision-making processes, a crucial issue at the heart of international and European policies (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009; UN General Assembly, 1989, 2015).

Alongside the increasing investment by key European institutions in terms of promoting participation, there has been a steady decline in the levels of political engagement in most EU countries over the past decades (Eurochild et al., 2021), especially with regard to young people. Indeed, in recent years, disengagement from institutional political participation seems to be a significant trend among contemporary European democracies even among younger generations, causing them to lack representation and power in political decision-making (Norris, 2003; Farthing, 2010). At the same time, there is a new wave of youth political engagement outside the institutional sphere, which has become particularly visible through youth activism movements, protests, demonstrations, volunteering and online engagement (Sloam, 2016; Spannring et al., 2008).

The United Nations and the European Union are currently aiming to invest more in participation by involving young people in its decision-making mechanisms. This is also reflected in the most recent EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child policy (European Commission, 2021) and in the recognition of 2022 as the European Year of Youth. Furthermore, the most recent European and international youth strategies (United Nations, 2018; European Union, 2018; Council of Europe, 2020) promote spaces for youth participation. Specifically, they highlight some characteristics youth spaces should have: they should be independently usable, accessible, safe, inclusive and combine the presence of physical spaces with digital environments. It is evident that these characteristics are also found in the literature on the subject. As expressed in Laura Lundy's (2007) participation model, the participation space should be safe and inclusive so that everyone can actively participate. What Lundy adds, however, is that one has to take into account the impact the space has on young people themselves and, above all, their willingness to participate or not in the decision-making process. Indeed, policies seem to assume that all young people want to be involved, but there is a risk of falling into the trap of 'forced' and inauthentic participation.

Within this framework, this project aims to explore participation in decision-making processes within 'specific spaces', i.e., within youth organisations (Council of Europe, 2023). Youth organisations are generally understood as voluntary, non-profit, non-governmental associations promoted by young people and, in some circumstances, may instead be part of the state apparatus or run by youth workers. They tend to be founded to promote the political, social, cultural or economic goals of their members. This is done through the implementation of youth activities and/or engagement in advocacy activities. The aforementioned strategies define them as privileged spaces for the promotion of participation in public life.

This paper will discuss a mixed-methods research study which explores how adult learners on lifelong learning programmes in SETU can inform and shape curriculum development through a co-creation model. Currently, there is limited empirical evidence on adult learners, as well as industry participation, in curriculum co-creation in lifelong learning programmes (Erkkilä & Kortesalmi, 2020; Shrivastava et al., 2022). By focusing on the inclusion of the adult learner’s ‘voice’ in curriculum design, this study is responding to the call for a communicative university and a participatory decision-making process where learners are involved in all aspects of college life (Cook-Sather et al. 2014; Fleming et al., 2017). Through a co-creation approach in curriculum design, the outcomes of teaching and learning are jointly negotiated to lead to a shared responsibility for learning, which results in a greater level of student agency and empowerment (Bovill, 2020).

As this research study commenced in early 2022, this paper will concentrate on the literature review process (traditional and systematic) and the development of the theoretical framework underpinning the research. It will also present the proposed methodological framework that will be used to gather data from adult learners in SETU. The overarching research question is: To what extent are adult learners co-creating the curriculum in lifelong learning programmes within SETU? The subsidiary research questions are framed within the aspects of adult learners’ professional, academic, and personal motivations to engage in lifelong learning in HE; how their needs are considered and embedded in curriculum design in HE; and how SETU supports adult learners’ engagement in the co-creation of the curriculum.

The literature suggests that co-creation is a contested term, with various definitions and interpretations emerging in recent years (Matthews et al., 2018; Godbold et al., 2021). Co-creation generally implies democratic collaboration and partnership between learners and faculty members (Cook-Sather, 2014; Godbold et al., 2021; Gravett et al., 2020). Doyle et al. (2021) highlight that co-creation encourages a shared responsibility between learners and faculty staff in the process of establishing and achieving learning outcomes. Co-creation is also differentiated from other forms of active learning and learner engagement based on the level of learners’ responsibility in decision-making regarding their education, assessment, and teaching process (Lubicz-Nawrocka and Bovill, 2021).

This research is underpinned by a theoretical framework incorporating Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) and Self-Determination Theory. According to SCT, individuals learn through personal experiences and by observing others’ behaviour, and their social context also influences their behaviour and learning (Bandura, 2001). One of the fundamental tenets of SCT is that individuals have the capacity to actively engage in their own growth and learning and to self-regulate their learning (Bandura, 2001). This is in keeping with the suggestion that adult learners should actively engage in the process of co-designing the curriculum (Erkkilä & Kortesalmi, 2020). This would tend to imply, within the context of this study, that adult learners on HE lifelong learning programmes should be encouraged to share their knowledge and experiences resulting in a more effective and relevant curriculum. Furthermore, an exploration of Self-Determination Theory, which posits that individuals have innate psychological needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence (Ryan & Deci, 2017), will provide insight into the underlying motivational factors for adult learners' engagement in lifelong learning and how these motivations relate to the co-design of curriculum on SETU's lifelong learning programmes.

To become an expert teacher, it is theorised that a practitioner will need to develop three distinct knowledge bases; content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge (Lachner et al., 2016). Expert teachers integrate these knowledges into curriculum scripts, and are able to use their professional vision to activate their knowledge in ways that reflect their context (Lachner et al., 2016). Access to quality professional learning is a key mechanism for ensuring teachers are able to continuously build their knowledge base. This is particularly important in the area of high ability, where training providers often neglect to equip pre-service teachers with the knowledge needed to work effectively with this cohort (Plunkett & Kronborg, 2021). This is despite the important relationship that exists between a teacher’s knowledge base and their capacity to meet the needs of their high-ability learners. For instance, the abilities of students will often mediate what a teacher needs to know about the subject they are teaching, with high-ability students requiring their teacher to provide them access to advanced content (Van Tassel-Baska, 2019).

There is, though, much debate in the international literature as to what constitutes an appropriate knowledge base for teachers working with high-ability students (Dai & Chen, 2013; 2014), and in these circumstances designing professional learning can be fraught. It involves sifting through a range of contested approaches in order to make content decisions related to definitions (See Smedsrud, 2020 for an explanation of the various definitions in the field); identification (See Almeida et al., 2016 for a discussion of some of the issues surrounding the identification of high ability); provisions (See Walsh et al., 2012 for a discussion on the difficulties in locating evidence based practices in the field of high ability); cultural understandings of high ability (See Thraves et al., 2021 for a discussion of cultural perspectives and high ability); equity issues (See Peters, 2022 for a discussion of equity issues in the field); and practices and processes for supporting the social-emotional needs of this unique cohort (See Rinn, 2021 for a discussion of the issues related to the social-emotional and psychosocial development of high-ability students).

This paper presents a case study which involved interested teachers from the study site, an Australian school (The College) working closely with researchers to co-design a professional learning program on the topic of high ability. Often, when programs are designed by researchers alone, little consideration is given the school’s specific context, and as a result practitioners must spend time determining which of the program’s elements need to be adapted, and which are more universal (Gomoll et al., 2022). When researchers co-design with teachers, contextual factors can be interwoven into the design process.

Given the complexity of the high-ability field’s underlying issues, the study utilised a facilitated dialogue to support decision making. Facilitated dialogues are structured sessions built on the premise of promoting consensus (LoBianco, 2016). The facilitated dialogue in this study allowed the school to develop policy positions for each of the high-ability field’s contested areas, which, in turn, guided content decisions for the professional learning, thus answering the research question: What do participants envision should constitute the knowledge base to underpin the co-designed high-ability professional learning at the study site?

To this end, the study was guided by a conceptual framework that emphasises the role knowledge plays in an expert teacher’s cognition (Lachner et al., 2016), as well as the importance of co-design for accounting for context when designing professional learning (Gomoll et al., 2022). The conceptual framework also acknowledges the contested nature of knowledge within the field of high ability (Dai & Chen 2013; 2014).