Co-creation isn’t simply asking for students’ views

The student voice has become increasingly important to universities. Students are experts in their own experiences and can offer valuable insights into learning, assessment and university practices.

However, there is a difference between consultation and co-creation. Consultation asks, “What do you think?” Co-creation asks, “How can we work together to improve this?”

This distinction matters. Inviting students into a project does not automatically mean that they will feel confident challenging ideas, sharing experiences or suggesting alternatives. Students may be unsure about the purpose of an activity, lack background knowledge or feel constrained by power imbalances between themselves and staff.

This is particularly important when working with diverse groups. Students bring different identities, experiences, cultures and communication preferences.

Our approach to meaningful co-creation is based on a simple principle: before students can become partners, we need to create the conditions for partnership.

The four stages of meaningful co-creation

1. Prepare: build confidence and shared understanding

A common mistake is moving too quickly into asking students for solutions.

Before inviting contributions, students need to understand the purpose of the project, why their perspectives matter and how their input will be used. This involves:

• Explaining the aims and context of the project.
• Providing accessible information about key concepts.
• Being transparent about what students can influence.
• Creating opportunities for questions.

Our co-creation projects begin by establishing a shared understanding rather than assuming that everyone starts with the same knowledge or experience.

Preparation is not about directing students towards a particular outcome. It is about ensuring that they have the confidence and context needed to contribute meaningfully.

• Spotlight guide: The practicalities of co-creation with students
• Co-creation as a liberating activity
• Co-creation that treats students as collaborators, not consultants

2. Partner: create trust and reduce power imbalances

Authentic co-creation requires recognising that staff and students enter these spaces with different levels of institutional power.

Students may hesitate to disagree with someone who teaches, assesses or represents the institution. Creating an environment where all participants feel able to contribute therefore requires intentional effort.

• Establish shared agreements about communication, participation and how you will work together.
• Not everyone is comfortable contributing in a large-group discussion, so provide multiple ways for students to contribute. Draw on universal design for learning principles. This could include written reflections, collaborative documents, anonymous responses or smaller group conversations.
• Consider how cultural differences may influence expectations around participation, disagreement and authority and ensure that discussions do not privilege only the most confident voices.

In one student co-creation research project, we trained students to conduct focus groups and interviews ethically. Rather than simply asking students to collect peer experiences, we provided training on research ethics, questioning techniques, active listening and confidentiality. This built students’ confidence and supported more meaningful engagement with participants.

3. Create: develop ideas together

Meaningful co-creation develops over time. Students should not be expected to become confident partners immediately; you can introduce responsibility gradually as trust and understanding develop.

• Start by building shared understanding before asking students to generate solutions.
• Invite students to review themes, suggest activities, shape future discussions and co-facilitate sessions.
• Be transparent about how contributions will influence the final outcomes.

While developing a toolkit, student co-creators worked alongside staff through a staged process. Initial sessions focused on building shared understanding and identifying priorities, before students helped refine activities and resources. Regularly checking our interpretations with students ensured that the final toolkit reflected their experiences rather than staff assumptions.

4. Share: recognise ownership and impact

Co-creation should not end once you have gathered ideas. Students should be able to see how their contributions have influenced outcomes and have opportunities to shape how their work is recognised.

• Invite students to review and comment on final outputs.
• Provide opportunities for students to present findings or resources.
• Recognise students as co-creators or co-authors where appropriate.
• Ask students how they would like their contributions acknowledged, recognising that preferences for visibility will differ.

Across our co-creation projects, students have contributed to shaping resources, presenting findings and communicating outcomes. Where appropriate, we support students to take on visible roles, such as presenting alongside staff or as contributors or co-authors. This recognises students as partners in knowledge creation rather than participants whose input ends once feedback has been collected.

Three questions to ask before starting co-creation

• Have students been given enough context to contribute meaningfully?
  Do they understand the purpose, expectations and boundaries of the project?
• Have we designed different ways for students to participate?
  Are there multiple opportunities to contribute?
• How will students see the impact of their contributions?
  Will they recognise how their ideas shaped the outcome?

Co-creation as a shared educational experience

Meaningful student co-creation requires more than inviting students into existing processes. It requires preparation, trust-building and a willingness to share ownership.

When students understand the purpose of a project, feel safe to contribute and see that their ideas shape outcomes, co-creation becomes more than consultation. It becomes a genuine partnership through which staff and students learn from one another and create better educational experiences together.

AI declaration: the author used generative AI as an editorial support tool to help reduce the word count while retaining the author’s intended meaning and voice. All content and examples were developed and reviewed by the author.

Manjula Patrick is an associate professor (teaching) and inclusive education lead at UCL.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.