Strategies, benefits and barriers– a systematic literature review of student co-creation in higher education

ABSTRACT

As competition for student enrollment and funding among universities increases, higher education institutions (HEI) need to critically endeavor to implement and offer high quality service experiences. Drawing on current literature on student co-creation, this paper aims at presenting a systematic review of the literature on co-creation strategies in higher education (HE) in order to map extant research on this topic and offer a consolidated view of how co-creation may contribute to creating mutual value for institutions and students.

The findings of our review include a descriptive analysis of the body of papers and a thematic analysis structured under three themes; (1) co-creation strategies that can be used by HEI; (2) Co-creation barriers and benefits for HEIs; and (3) Co-creation barriers and benefits for students. We identify an exhaustive inventory of the strategies, barriers and benefits studied in extant literature. Finally, directions for further studies are identified.

KEYWORDS:

• Benefits
• Barriers
• Strategies
• Student Co-creation
• Higher Education

1. Introduction

Following a marketing trend for improving customer engagement, it has been recommended that students are engaged as active co-creators of their university and learning experience (Bowden & D’Alessandro, 2011; Dusi & Huisman, 2020; Klemenčič, 2015). Students progressively have opportunities to take on proactive roles as consultants, student representatives, co-researchers (Bell et al., 2009) or curriculum co-designers (Bovill, 2019; Bovill et al., 2011; Díaz-Méndez & Gummesson, 2012).

Such an active role enhances students’ ability to become co-creators in their education process. Through this co-creation process, students’ resources such as time, novel ideas and feedback are merged with organizational resources to foster a series of experiences and activities that promote interaction and exchange, and this in turn can prompt improved practice and innovation (Dollinger, Lodge, & Coates, 2018). Students involved in co-creation bring their own perspectives, experiences, skills, and knowledge to their own education process (Bovill, 2013).

Students and HEIs are driven by different motivating forces to improve student experience. On one hand, HEIs are motivated by a desire to find extra revenue (Dollinger et al., 2018; Giner & Rillo, 2016), while students, on the other hand, demonstrate enthusiasm for taking a more active role in their HE experience (Bovill et al., 2016), and enhanced persistence, learning, and achievement (Bryson, 2016). Since both HEIs and students have reasons to improve student experience, there are a number of approaches to help them cooperate towards this end.

Despite this increasing active role of students in their education co-creation, there is scarce evidence of the factors that fosters students’ co-creation of value, as well as the benefits and barriers for HEIs and for students. Therefore, this paper aims at presenting a systematic review of the literature on the theme of co-creation strategies to map extant research on this topic and offer a consolidated view of how these strategies contribute to creating mutual value for HEIs and students. A literature review paper can serve as a platform for future research by explicitly synthesizing extant knowledge, identifying research gaps and suggesting promising directions for further research on a given topic in terms of methodology, theory, constructs/variables, and contexts (Paul and Criado, 2020; Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003). The amount of existing research looking at co-creation in HE settings calls for such a comprehensive overview.

This paper is organized as follows: we start by presenting the concept of co-creation in HE, followed by method, results and discussion. We present the future lines of research in section five and implications and conclusions in section six.

2. Co-creation in higher education

Value co-creation has been conceptualized as a marketing and management strategy that integrates consumer resources to cooperatively co-create value. Value co-creation evolved from the shortcomings of the traditional producer-consumer relationship, in which suppliers provide value and consumers consume or destroy it (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). By adopting co-creation, organizations seek a mutual and well-balanced relationship with their consumers, thus enabling a broad personalization of services, products, and/or delivery (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). The context of HE has also been witnessing this trend.

Dollinger et al. (2018) presented the conceptual model of value co-creation in HE. Their model incorporates key components of value co-creation, value-in-use (ViU) and co-production, and links to the anticipated advantages of value co-creation. According to Vargo and Lusch (2004), ViU is more than co-production, exchange, and possession of goods or services, and, applied to the context of HE, it entails that students figure out how to utilize, repair, and maintain a product or service proposition. Co-production suggests that students are involved in performing the different activities, including intellectual work of designing, resource aggregating and processing activities that lead to the creation of outputs (Etgar, 2008).

Verwoord (2016) adds that although students are not experts in the discipline, they have expertise in being students. Hence, they can make a significant contribution to improving practice. By providing students with greater latitude to share knowledge, universities can innovate their service while simultaneously avoiding future risks. Additionally, if the university offers assets such as a platform and detailed knowledge of prior production, the students can also provide feedback and novel ideas for innovation (Dollinger et al., 2018). Progressively, the term ‘student experience’ has become centered around the manners in which students can proactively participate in HE and even assume customer-type roles. Moreover, students within HE have increasingly demonstrated interest in having the possibility of personalizing their experiences (Bryson, 2016).

In HE, the students’ relationship with their university can also influence their feelings towards their university and their HE experience by incorporating learning (Carini et al., 2006). Additionally, students’ positive relationships with their university can contribute to creating a community (Zhao & Kuh, 2004) that may pave the way for future collaborations (Dollinger et al., 2018). Personalization via ViU in HE may also allow for students to construct value propositions – e.g. degrees or courses – within their HE experience to fit their own needs or desires. Another component is customization, which can be supported with technologies that foster a wider scale of co-creation. Hence, there are multiple strategies that HEIs can use to allow students to actively engage in their HE experience. For example, recently, Xu, Lo, and Wu (2018) noted that the multiple roles of students incorporate ‘client’, ‘partner’, ‘co-producer’, ‘product’, and ‘citizen’.

Hence, it is important to identify the strategies that provide students with opportunities to co-create value that is consistent with students’ desire, and classifying the main motivational benefits for students and HEIs in co-creation of value.

3. Method

This study aims at conducting a systematic review of the literature on the topic of co-creation in HE. This approach is different from a conventional review, as it is focused, transparent, and allows research and specialist groups to be united, prompting overall synthesis. A systematic review seeks to identify extant knowledge in a study subject and the most relevant gaps, leading to advancement of theory (Tranfield et al., 2003). We focus on student co-creation strategies in HE. Utilizing the process used by Klewitz and Hansen (2014) and Seuring et al. (2005), the systematic literature review consisted of a six-step procedure that includes the search process (steps 1–4) and the descriptive and thematic analyses (steps 5 and 6):

Step 1. Following the recommended practices for conducting systematic literature reviews (Paul & Criado, 2020), we started our review by establishing the following inclusion criteria: The domain of the research was operationalized through eight keywords: ‘Student’, ‘co-creation’, ‘cocreation’, ‘student co-creation’, ‘co-production’, ‘coproduction’ ‘value in use’, and ‘higher education’. Although co-production is different from co-creation, some studies use co-creation and co-production interchangeably; thus, we use both concepts. The research was carried out without time limitations on December 2020. Target articles had to match at least one word.

Step 2. To guarantee quality and decrease the sample to a workable amount, this investigation focused on peer-reviewed academic journal papers written in English. The journals focusing on education, business, management, innovation and marketing were collected.

Steps 3 and 4. The research was conducted in the following significant research databases: Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Only papers published in journals focusing on education, business, management, innovation and marketing were collected. Our search resulted in an initial list of 398 articles. Our list was reduced to 277 relevant articles by eliminating repeated entries and papers in languages other than English.

These 277 papers were analyzed via an iterative process, focusing on the title, abstract, and pertinent parts of the full text, aiming at identifying which papers presented a strong focus on student co-creation in HE. Then articles that were not directly linked with the subject were excluded. The final list, comprising 128 empirical and theoretical articles, was examined.

The analysis (steps 5 and 6) was organized into two sections: a quantitative descriptive analysis (bibliographical) for a general overview of the topic under research, followed by a qualitative thematic analysis to gain an in-depth perspective on the data.

Step 5. A number of categories that defined the articles were selected for the descriptive analyses, such as year of publication, journals, impact of the papers, countries of the studies, and research methods.

Step 6. The thematic analysis aimed to systematically categorize the papers’ content and identify relationships and identify the main streams of research (Paul & Criado, 2020; Lane et al., 2006). This synthesis procedure was deductive and interpretative.

4. Results and discussion

We structure the results into descriptive and thematic analyses.

4.1 Descriptive analysis

The descriptive analysis is structured into the following topics: year of publication; journals; study location; research methods, and impact of the papers.

On what concerns year of publication, although the first paper that meets the inclusion criteria was published in 2009, the majority of researches were published after 2018 (Figure 1). This finding suggests a rising interest amongst scientists regarding the discussion of the topic of co-creation in HE in recent years, which may be due to increased awareness of the use of technological co-creation strategies in HE.

Figure 1. Distribution of articles by year of publication.

The analysis additionally featured that student co-creation in HE research has been published in a wide variety of JCR-indexed educational journals with high impact factor such as Journal of Marketing for Higher Education (17 articles), Studies in Higher Education (6 articles), Higher Education (6 articles) that account for the highest number of papers. A variety of publication outlets focused on education and development are found.

Regarding study location, results show that the investigations focus on diverse countries, mostly the UK, the USA, Australia, and Malaysia. Most studies adopted a single-country focus (Figure 2). This result shows to some extent the global appeal of the topic, however there is a need to diversify the national contexts where research is carried out and replicated.

Figure 2. Studies by study location.

On what concerns the methodology used in the papers, 56% of papers were quantitative, followed by 28% of qualitative research approaches, and 16% used mixed methodologies. The data collection methods used in quantitative studies include questionnaires, as well as evaluation, academic and cognitive tests, while in qualitative studies the methods utilized include interviews, case studies, observations, and focus groups. This result shows that a variety of research designs has been used to study co-creation in HE (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Studies’ methodological choice.

We analyzed the number of citations received to understand the impact of these publications, and illustrate the ten most-cited articles with their sources and their highlights in Table 1.

Table 1. The ten most-cited papers.

Authors	Source title	Cited by	Study highlights
McCulloch (2009)	Studies in Higher Education	341	In this report, students, lecturers, and those who assist with the learning process are considered partners in a cooperative endeavor focused on producing, disseminating and applying knowledge.
Radnor, Osborne, Kinder, & Mutton (2014)	Public Management Review	183	It presents an example in the context of HE where the creation of a model brought staff and students together to concentrate on the design of student enrolment, which resulted in enhanced student experience and supported coproduction.
Duque (2013)	Total Quality Management and Business Excellence	164	It presents a theoretical structure for analyzing student satisfaction, perceived learning outcomes, and dropout intentions, including energy dedicated to studying, active participation in student organizations, time spent on campus, and interaction with other students and faculty members.
Elsharnouby (2015)	Journal of Marketing for Higher Education	101	It explores what student satisfaction with university experience and analyzes the impact of overall satisfaction with the university experience on student co-creation behavior, in particular participation behavior and citizenship behavior.
Balaji Roy, and Sadeque (2016)	Journal of Business Research	94	It examines the role of university identification in university supportive behaviors, namely university affiliation, advocacy intentions, suggestions for further improvement, and participation in future activities.
Dollinger et al. (2018)	Journal of Marketing for Higher Education	80	It presents the first conceptual model of value co-creation in HE, including critical components of value co-creation, co-production, and value-in-use, in addition to links to the benefits expected from value co-creation.
Aspara, Aula, Tienari, and Tikkanen (2014)	Consumption Markets and Culture	69	It conducts a study on a university in the process of rebranding itself according to a new logic that is market-oriented and service-dominant.
Giner, Peralt and Rillo (2016)	Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics	52	It empirically measures the impact of co-creation on the core marketing outcomes of student satisfaction, and the resulting loyalty.
Foroudi, Yu, Gupta, and Foroudi (2019)	Technological Forecasting and Social Change	40	It analyzes the weight of student value co-creation behavior in a university's image and reputation, the vital role of university websites in engaging student value co-creation behavior, and the relevance of identifying different types of customer value co-creation behavior.
Mostafa (2015)	Journal of Marketing Education	39	It focuses on the concept of student social media engagement, and the nature of the nexus student social media engagement/perceived value.

This descriptive analysis highlights the profile of the papers studied regarding when, where and how the topic has been studied.

4.2 Thematic analysis

A thematic analysis was conducted to obtain a comprehensive view of the published works on the topic of student co-creation in the HE context. Using a deductive method, the selected articles were classified according to the following: (1) Co-creation strategies in HE: (2) Co-creation barriers and benefits for HEIs; and (3) Co-creation barriers and benefits for students. The result of this analysis is presented in the following sections.

(1)#Co-creation strategies in HE

Our analysis identified a diverse representation of co-creation strategies in HE: Electives provision, Crowdsourcing, Games, Student-university identification, Experience sharing/interaction through university website and online platforms, Work-integrated learning, and Educational program design (Figure 4 and Table 2).

Figure 4. Co-creation strategies in HE.

Table 2. Co-creation platform strategies in HE.

Strategies	Platforms strategies	References
Electives provision	Elective subject options	(Dollinger & Lodge, 2019b)
Crowdsourcing	Mobile application and/or a website portal	(Dollinger, 2018), (Taylor et al., 2015), (Sherwood, 2020), (Sutarso, Halim, Balqiah, & Tjiptoherijanto, 2017), and (John-Matthews, Robinson, Martin, Newton, & Grant, 2020)
Games	An assorted series of computer-based education applications Educational software Educational computer games Mobile learning games Educational networks Digital simulation games Online courses Marketing ‘hooks,’ or short in-class exercises Massive open online courses (MOOCS) Open Badges CritIQ, a Mobile Critique App for Undergraduate Communication Design Learners Business Product Owner (BPO)	(Molin, 2017), (Dollinger et al., 2019), (Taylor et al., 2015), (Sherwood, 2020), (Sutarso et al., 2017), (Fang et al., 2022), (Qi, Zhang, & Zhang, 2020), (Pöyry-Lassila et al., 2017), (Sanina et al., 2020), (Magnotta, Thomas, Steffes, Chang, & Vinuales, 2020), (Zhang et al., 2020), (Kuhmonen, Seppälä, Anttila, & Rantanen, 2019), (Lim, Shelley, & Heo, 2019), (Vidakis et al., 2019), (Kuhmonen, Pöyry-Lassila, & Seppälä, 2018), (Antoniou & Bamidis, 2018), (Wong Kung Fong, 2013), and (Baham, 2020)
Student-university identification	University Social Augmenters’ Brand Equity (USABE) Social Brand Engagement (SBE) Consumer-based brand equity (CBBE)	(Wilkins, Butt, & Heffernan, 2018), (Wilkins et al., 2016), (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003), (Eldegwy et al., 2018), (Balaji et al., 2016), (Perera, Nayak, & Nguyen, 2020), (Peruta & Shields, 2018), (Girard & Pinar, 2020), (Manzoor, Ho, & Al Mahmud, 2021), (Abdelmaaboud, Peña, & Mahrous, 2020), and (Aspara et al., 2014)
Experience sharing/interaction through University website and social media platforms	University website and Social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram)	(Hoyer et al., 2010), (Foroudi et al., 2019), (Voropai, Pichyk, & Chala, 2019), (Dollinger, 2018), (Farhat, Mokhtar, & Salleh, 2020), and (Mostafa, 2015)
Work-integrated learning (WIL)	Short or long-term internships at local, regional or international level Gold Standard Project Based Learning (GSPBL) Tec21 Educational Model, Multiple choice questions (MCQs) Self-generated exam activity, Solving real-life challenges for the businesses and subsequently Project-based learning (PBL) Third-party community engagement experiences (TPCE) International service learning; ISL university–student–community engagement (U–S–CE) Timescapes in interdisciplinary projects Participatory action research (PAR) Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) Wicked problems-based learning Startup BusinessLab	(Ruskin & Bilous, 2019), (Catherine Bovill, 2014), (Membrillo-Hernández et al., 2019), (Doyle, Buckley, & Whelan, 2019), (C. Bovill et al., 2016), (Muñoz-Escalona, Savage, Conway, & McLaren, 2018), (Dollinger & Lodge, 2019b), (Vespestad & Smørvik, 2019), (Pee, 2019), (Ho, 2020), (Chemi & Krogh, 2017), (Bowden & D'Alessandro, 2011), (Irick, Eike, Cho, & Kim, 2020), (Fleischman, Raciti, & Lawley, 2019) (Perello-Marín, Ribes-Giner, & Díaz, 2018), (Barbera, Garcia, & Fuertes-Alpiste, 2017), (Burford & Chan, 2017), (Hamby & Brinberg, 2016), (Díaz, Ribes-Giner, & Perello-Marin, 2016), (Bowie & Cassim, 2016), (Sugino et al., 2016), (Fleischman, Raciti, & Lawley, 2015), (De Eyto, 2014), (Wallin, 2020), (Davis & Pamenter, 2020), (Brook, Aitken, MacLaren, & Salmon, 2020), (Elliott, Robson, & Dudau, 2020), (Best, Koski, Walsh, & Vuokila-Oikkonen, 2019), (Antoniou & Bamidis, 2018), (Hiedemann, Nasi, & Saporito, 2017), (Galloway & Edwards, 2017), (Radnor, Osborne, Kinder, & Mutton, 2014), (Kłeczek, Hajdas, & Wrona, 2020), (Mononen, Kortelainen, & Hellgrén, 2016), and (Nuebel, Nowinski, Hemmis, & Lindsley, 2020)
Educational program design	Educational program design workshops A curriculum design team Designing learning environment Producing podcasts/YouTube as curricular learning resources Short animated videos Peer-Assisted Learning (PAL) Pilot project Submitting pictures and articles to magazines Student Relationship Engagement System (SRES) COLABS AMEE Guide No.138 Living Lab Applied Gerontology	(Catherine Bovill, 2014), (Bergmark & Westman, 2016), (Ruskin & Bilous, 2019), (Könings, Mordang, Smeenk, Stassen, & Ramani, 2017), (Catherine Bovill, 2013), (Fraser & Bosanquet, 2006), (Catherine Bovill et al., 2011), (Doyle, Buckley, & Whelan, 2019), (Bovill et al., 2016), (Garland, Khan, & O'Kane, 2015), (Celuch, Bačić, Chen, Maier-Lytle, & Smothers, 2018), (Keegan & Bell, 2011), (Lee et al., 2008), (Loch & Lamborn, 2016), (Dollinger et al., 2019), (Parkes, Benkwitz, Bardy & Myler, and Peters, 2020), (Catherine Bovill, 2019), (Cook-Sather, 2014), (Lubicz-Nawrocka & Simoni, 2018), (Murphy et al., 2017), (Dollinger & Vanderlelie, 2020), (Könings et al., 2020), (Jukema et al., 2019), (Kneale, 2018), and (Perello-Marín, Ribes-Giner, & Díaz, 2018)

4.2.1 Electives provision

Students should choose what they want to learn and be provided with elective subject options, which represents a value-in-use (Dollinger & Lodge, 2019), rather than following a mandatory course curriculum. This helps students to choose the subject they need for future careers and also helps HE institutions to identify their clients’ needs.

4.2.2 Crowdsourcing

The crowdsourcing approach allows engaging a larger audience in co-creation. This production and distributed problem-solving model utilizes online technology to encourage clients to actively participate (Brabham, 2008). Often supporting user-generated ideas and suggestions, crowdsourcing can be applied via different methods and across different points of the value chain. Crowdsourcing is an easy way to collect data on students’ perspectives and opinions via a mobile application and/or a website portal (Dollinger, 2018). Additionally, Sherwood (2020) indicates that all range of evaluations of student learning experiences, mainly in the form of storytelling when they describe their own experiences, are vital for the advancement of teaching and learning (methodologies/activities).

4.2.3 Games

Games and game-based learning has been highlighted by several studies as a strategy for student co-creation in HE. Sanina et al. (2020) clarified the digital simulation game as a re-enactment of a real-world system, phenomenon or procedure planned to foster the learning of academic content and created in the form of software or utilizing a digital platform. Pöyry-Lassila, Kuhmonen, and Marjanen (2017)’s findings additionally highlight the potential of game design and development projects as explicit learning environments supporting intensive interaction and knowledge co-creation in HE.

4.2.4 Student-university identification

The importance of student-university identification and university brand equity on student co-creation has been noted by Abdelmaaboud, Peña, and Mahrous (2020), Balaji et al. (2016), Eldegwy, Elsharnouby, and Kortam (2018), Girard and Pinar (2020), Manzoor et al. (2021), Wilkins et al. (2016), Peruta and Shields (2018), Perera et al. (2020), and Wilkins et al. (2016).

University brand identification refers to students defining their own selves in terms of some association with their university brand (Eldegwy et al., 2018). Balaji et al. (2016) characterize university identification as a sense of belongingness or oneness with an organization perceived by an individual. The authors indicate that individuals who are identified with the organization usually define themselves in relation to the organization and view the successes and failures of the organization as their own. The authors investigate the impact of student-university identification on different university-supportive behaviors such as advocacy intentions, suggestions for improvement, university affiliation, and participation in future activities.

4.2.5 Experience sharing/interaction through university website and online platforms

Many reviewed studies discuss university website and other online platforms for student co-creation such as Dollinger et al. (2018), Farhat et al. (2020), Foroudi et al. (2019), Foroudi et al. (2020), and Voropai et al. (2019). Foroudi et al. (2020) indicate that a university website is the front entrance for students and other partners. They examine how student value co-creation behavior contributes to university image and reputation, the importance of a university website in engaging student value co-creation behavior, and the significant role of identifying different types of customer value co-creation behavior (participation behavior and citizenship behavior). A university website can function as a first channel of contact for students to interact and co-create value for the university through other associated social networking sites. Voropai et al. (2019) discuss how internet-based social platforms, such as Instagram, Facebook and Twitter, also offer a collaborative environment that empowers partners to gain and share knowledge. Moreover, communication tools such as social media and reviews utilized by the recruitment team allow students to share their university experiences via online social networks or review sections, which influence community behaviors and their decision making regarding their HE selection (Dollinger et al., 2018; Voropai et al., 2019).

4.2.6 Work-integrated learning

As a curricular technique, Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) provides students with real professional experiences in workplaces or in the context of classroom-based projects, a truly co-operative education as part of their learning experience. Universities offer various WIL methods, namely short or long-term internships at local, regional, or international level, opportunities for students to participate in competitions mentored by business leaders or to engage in classroom-based projects centered on developing solutions to real challenges presented by workplace partners (Barbera et al. (2017), Bovill et al. (2016), Bryson (2016), Doyle et al. (2019), Fitch (2011), Fleischman et al. (2019), Irick et al. (2020), Membrillo-Hernández et al. (2019), Muñoz-Escalona et al. (2018), Ruskin and Bilous (2019), Smith and Worsfold, (2014), Tarı Kasnakoğlu and Mercan (2022)). Workplace partners can thus contribute to a critical component of student learning in WIL. The association's location, field of work, and culture provide the context for learning experiences (Ng et al., 2009), or the unit structure comprising learning results and assessment tasks and expect students to co-design and create discipline content (Bovill, 2014; Ruskin & Bilous, 2019). Workplace partners and students foster the sustainability of the WIL unit by assisting with deciding topics encompassed by the unit, and this in turn guarantees that the unit meets their needs.

Another WIL method such as multiple choice questions (MCQs) can bolster the procedure of formative assessment and feedback. Doyle et al. (2019) indicate that co-creation can take an assortment of structures incorporating the involvement of students in the evaluation of both course content and learning and teaching processes; redesigning the content of courses; undertaking disciplinary research; researching learning and teaching; designing assessments (e.g. essay questions) or opting between different assessment methods; and grading both their work own and others’ (Bovill et al., 2016).

4.2.7 Educational program design

Educational program design fosters co-creation and includes partnerships between students and universities participating in an educational program design such as: workshops, implementing a curriculum design team to write or refine a unit guide, designing the learning environment, designing short animated videos, designing content, designing of the web-based solution, working as peer mentors.

A possible partnership between students and university staff could include inviting a group of students to participate as paid consultants in educational program design workshops (Bovill, 2014). Input by students occurs during the workshop, and university staff are responsible for designing the curriculum resulting from such student input. Student perspective can be utilized to empower future students to make their contribution to the program (Cook-Sather et al., 2018; Dollinger & Vanderlelie, 2020; Jukema et al., 2019; Könings et al., 2020; Ruskin & Bilous, 2019). Additionally, students produce YouTube videos or podcasts as curricular-based learning resources (Bovill, 2019; Cook-Sather, 2014; Keegan & Bell, 2011; Kneale, 2018; Lee et al., 2008; Lubicz-Nawrocka & Simoni, 2018; Murphy et al., 2017; Perello-Marín et al., 2018) students may design a novel online learning space by incorporating case studies, as well as written, audio and video resources that first-year students can benefit from (Bovill et al., 2011). Dollinger et al. (2019) explain and compare differentiated approaches of human-centered design via an analysis of participatory contexts in Learning Activities (co-design, co-creation). These strategies can be delivered through different technological platforms.

Table 2 presents an inventory of these strategies found in the literature.

(2)#Co-creation benefits and barriers for higher education institutions

Our analysis identified a number of perceived co-creation benefits from the institutions’ perspective, including pedagogical, reputational, brand love and positive word of mouth regarding the curriculum design process (Bovill, 2014; Ribes-Giner et al., 2016; Sahi et al., 2019). Students create emotional bonds with service providers/brands and also participate in brand building via close involvement and positive feedback.

Other advantages of co-creation for HE institutions are enhanced teaching and classroom experiences; increased meta-cognitive awareness and a more robust sense of identity; improved student-staff relationships and the implementation of a series of graduate attributes (Bryson, 2016; Muramalla, & Alqahtanib, 2019). According to Robinson and Celuch (2016), customer orientation is a highly significant and critical priority for universities, for it can positively impact relational outcomes associated with student commitment, retention, and positive word of mouth. Celuch et al. (2018) and Hasan and Rahman (2016) indicate that utilizing online platforms for student co-creation will help HEIs and other service sectors to both achieve better global market positioning and to differentiate themselves among other competitors.

Moreover, some scientists have pointed out that the procedures are continually being co-created as students or clients bring their own resources and actions to learning environments or platforms. Roberts and Alpert (2010) mention that active engagement provides inestimable feedback, stronger business relationships and a minimized risk to the business as clients (students) are engaged in solving problems (Gibbs & Kharouf, 2020). ‘The anticipated benefits for institutions are student loyalty, university image, and student university identification’ Dollinger et al. (2018, p. 224). Student participation benefits for the university include better services and enhanced university marketing (Fagerstrøm & Ghinea, 2013; FLuckiger et al., 2010). Sahi et al. (2019) believe that the relationship between universities and students would boost university brand survival (Azoury et al., 2014). Specifically, social co-creation processes via web-based collaborations foster increased market acceptance of HEIs while decreasing market risk (Hoyer et al., 2010).

Our analysis also identified a number of barriers: risks of poor task performance by unskilled customers, exposure to opportunism by associated partners, and potential social stigmas related to the performance of some tasks. Some co-creation activities require physical effort and older students or individuals with health issues may find them too strenuous. Students on the verge of engaging in co-creation activities may also guard against the psychological effort implied in the act of making decisions, learning new skills, and searching for information in an active way (Alioon & Delialioğlu, 2019; Bouta et al., 2012; Chen et a.l, 2010; Pöyry-Lassila et al., 2017; Rashid & Asghar, 2016) Lastly, co-creation may require students to make cultural and behavioral adjustments (Etgar, 2008; Junco, 2012; Kelley et al., 1990; Salaber, 2014; Monavvarifard, Baradaran, & Khosravipour, 2019)

(3) Co-creation benefits and barriers for students

Finally, our analysis identified a number of perceived benefits of co-creation from the students’ perspective. Bond (2020) mentions that co-creation improves student persistence, achievement and retention. Bryson (2016) investigated the incorporation of a personal learning platform via ‘Students as Partners’ activity and found that it resulted in increased student engagement and generated unanticipated benefits for students from their reflections about their own experiences. This suggests that co-creation influences reinforcement and shared emotional connection (Crough, & Love, 2019). The positive effect of collaborative participation on co-creation includes:

4.2.8 Improving learning skills

Some of the authors indicate that one of the advantages of co-creation in HE is improving the learning skills – for instance, Hounsell and colleagues indicate that co-creation develops personal and lifelong learning skills and improves learning (Bryson, 2016). Co-creation in HE encourages active learning; evidence suggests that students co-creating curricula are not just effectively learning, but also transforming their perspectives about learning (Bovill, 2013). Moreover, it contributes positively to student self-regulated learning and increasing ownership of learning (Crough et al., 2019), and learning flexibility (Bowden & D’Alessandro, 2011; Ribes-Giner et al., 2016). According to Hussain (2012), students are improving their learning skills and taking more personal responsibility for achieving their learning goals due to their engagement in a highly motivating learning environment. Duque (2013) expects that involvement of student in co-creation affects their cognitive learning outcomes. The points of co-created curricular procedures assume that there are various ways to learn and to teach.

Utilizing technology in co-creation strategies in HE can make instructing and learning processes more vigorous, enhance student personal efficacy and self-regulation (Alioon & Delialioğlu, 2019; Bouta et al., 2012; Bond et al., 2020). For example, game-based learning seems to substantially enhance learning performance and achievement (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018) and active learning within the classroom (Bond, 2020). Sanina et al. (2020) also accept that simulations and games foster enhanced engagement in the learning procedure, facilitate the assimilation of classroom information and knowledge in a friendlier way for students, and provide opportunities to exercise skills that are impossible to practice in reality. It is pointed out that students can also create pertinent games to facilitate their learning, and the co-creative procedure is considered a powerful tool to promote communication, student creativity, and effective group dynamics. The utilization of digital simulation games provides students both with a risk-free environment and instant feedback on actions taken by the players involved. Co-creation enhances student engagement and involvement in the learning process by making them a valuable part of the instructional procedure (Blau & Shamir-Inbal, 2017).

4.2.9 Enjoyment and enthusiasm

There are numerous reports of improved student motivation in co-creation environment in HE (Bovill, 2013, 2014; Bovill et al., 2011; Bryson, 2016, Celuch et al., 2018, Crough et al., 2019, Dollinger and Lodge, 2019, Ho, 2020; Hounsell et al., 2007, Könings et al., 2020, and Sahi et al., 2019). Meanwhile, students often grow in confidence through taking more responsibility for designing their own learning experience and many authors assumed that it enhances student enjoyment and enthusiasm. Students are happy, and they are enjoying learning in a collaborative environment because of the friendly and co-operative learning environment (Bovill, 2013, 2014; Bovill et al., 2011, Celuch I., 2018, Dollinger and Lodge, 2019; Hounsell et al., 2007, Ho, 2020; Hussain, 2012, Muramalla et al., 2019, Sanina et al., 2020, and Sahi et al., 2019). Students enjoy the ‘social’ value provided by HEIs (Cavallone Ciasullo, Manna, & Palumbo, 2020; guyen Hau & Thuy, 2016).

4.2.10 Deeper understanding of subject

Co-creation advantages for HE include the development of shared understanding. Recent studies have provided evidence that student co-creation fosters deeper subject awareness and greater comprehension of knowledge (Bovill, 2014; Bovill et al., 2011). Sanina et al. (2020) and Sahi, Devi, and Dash (2019) indicate that students actively engaged in their learning can improve their critical reasoning, and students also have opportunities to incorporate their identity, beliefs, and social interactions into their learning process (Bovill et al., 2011: Dollinger & Lodge, 2019).

4.2.11 Self-awareness and self-efficiency

According to Sanina et al. (2020, p.3), ‘co-creation makes students equal subjects in the educational process by enhancing their self-awareness’. The engagement of students in curriculum design at classroom level and program level can boost student confidence, sense of belonging and evaluation (Ogunmokun, Unverdi-Creig, Said, Avci, & Eluwole, 2020). As Fagerstrøm and Ghinea (2013) and Luckiger et al. (2010) indicate, student benefits include enhanced student employability, confidence, and self-efficacy (Dollinger and Lodge, 2019a). WIL experiences, for instance, allow students to assimilate a variety of technical skills such as working with data analytics tools and competencies such as self-management and self-awareness (Jackson, 2015). The value of educational services contributions to the personal and professional advancement of students (Brooks & Everett, 2009). Additionally, co-creation and student partnership in HE communicate and exceed high expectations, and honor different talents and multiple ways of learning. Having high expectations will be a self-fulfilling prophecy (Bovill, 2013; Crough et al., 2019). In the context of Higher Education, it is critical to boost communication among students, teachers, staff and the wider community, always aiming at improving learning experiences (Pinar et al., 2011).

4.2.12 Better opportunities in the labor market

Co-creation of knowledge can enhance student knowledge and skills (Fagerstrøm & Ghinea, 2013; Ribes-Giner et al., 2016; Yeo, 2009). According to Celuch et al. (2018), students engaged in co-creation are provided with opportunities to work with a professional team, to evaluate their level of skills (Seale et al., 2015), and trust that their opinions are respected and valued (Cook-Sather et al., 2018), such as to creativity, presentation skills, critical thinking and problem-solving skills, and teamwork (Celuch et al., 2018). Co-creation also focuses on giving students prompt feedback and suggestions for ways to improve their execution (Bovill, 2013).

The labor market offers better opportunities to students who have been involved in co-creation as they have a better understanding of their efforts and the significance of what they are working on. They develop competencies, such as negotiation (Bovill et al., 2011) and cooperation (Bergmark & Westman, 2016) that may foster career advancement (Ruskin & Bilous, 2020). Cavallone et al., (2020) and Sanina Kutergina, and Balashov (2020) highlight that digital simulation games assist in training a series of crucial skills such as analytical and strategic skills, self-monitoring, problem-solving skills, as well as social skills such as collaboration, teamwork, group decision-making skills, negotiation, interpersonal communication, knowledge sharing.

Our analysis also identified a number of barriers: according to Etgar (2008), perceived risks incorporate physical (bodily harm), financial (the risk of financial loss or risk of product received needing to be repaired or left unused), psychological and social (product consumption may negatively impact customer self-esteem or the way they are perceived by others, brands and providers experiencing reduced freedom of choice from associating with particular production partners), performance (when a product or a brand fails to perform as expected and does not deliver the promised benefits), and time-related risks (consumer’s time may be lost in purchasing the wrong product). During co-creation in HE, students might feel uneasiness in some partnership relationships (Cook-Sather & Luz, 2015; Mercer-Mapstone et al., 2017), experience role unsureness (Lizzio & Wilson, 2009), and uncertainty regarding their possible contribution, lack of time (Bovill et al., 2011), the question of assessment (Meer & Chapman, 2014), and power imbalances (Mercer-Mapstone et al., 2017).

In sum, our analysis exposed a quantity of co-creation strategies that can be used by HEIs, such as Choice providing, Crowdsourcing, Games, Student-university identification, Experience sharing/interaction through university website and online platforms, Work-integrated learning, and Educational program design. Figure 5 summarizes the findings of this study.

Figure 5. Map of extant research of student co-creation in HE.

Our analysis identified a number of perceived benefits of co-creation from the institutions’ point of view, including pedagogical, financial and brand equity. Student co-creation in HE enhances university reputation, brand love and student positive word of mouth. The curriculum design process, teaching and classroom experiences are positively impacted through student high involvement in co-creation process and their feedback. HE’s brand equity such as awareness and a stronger sense of identity, longer business relationships university image, and student university identification are enhanced through student-staff relationships and being seen as customer-oriented. However co-creation causes some barriers for HEIs mainly age, disabilities, psychological problems cultural and behavioral adjustments of student or individuals prevent co-creation or decrease the co-creation possibility.

In what concerns the students’ perspective, the following perceived benefits of co-creation have been identified: improving their learning skills, enjoyment and enthusiasm, deeper understanding of subject, self-awareness and self-efficiency, better opportunities in the labor market. The co-creation barriers that identified for the analyses are included: physical, financial, psychological, social, time and performance risks. In the following section we are presenting the future lines of research.

5. Future lines of research

Based on our analyses, we can point to a number of gaps which need to be further addressed. Studies have investigated how co-creation in HE can advance the development of resources; however, there some areas of potential investigation that have been left unattended:

5.1 Co-creation approaches in HE

Further research efforts must be directed towards understanding co-creation approaches (student co-creation behaviors and roles) in HE regarding every facet analyzed in this review. In this sense, more calls for research would encourage development of the field. Studies could then investigate initial motivations to engage in co-creation (both from the students perspective as well as HEIs), process, and results of any approach in order to subsequently adopt participatory design founded on extant knowledge.

5.2 Impact and measurement of co-creation in HE performance and outcomes

The analysis of the measurement of co-creation in HE performance and other outcomes such as student satisfaction and perceived value and employability is still in its early stages. Despite models and processes of analysis having been proposed by some scholars, the issue of measuring effectiveness of co-creation in HEI remains and increased research efforts are called for. This question is of paramount importance for practitioners and academics, as it may contribute to boosting the performance of co-creation in HEIs and the commitment of HEIs to co-creation practices. Future studies could focus on the relationship between brand attitudes and its results, such as negative word of mouth, and on advancing employability development and comprehending the potential for new power dynamics.

5.3 Technology and innovation impacts on co-creation in HE

The recent flow of research papers focused on the impact of technology and innovation on co-creation (Antoniou & Bamidis, 2018) in HE is yet another implication of this study. There is a need for an in-depth discussion of the benefits derived from participatory strategies can bring, especially regarding issues with large-scale adoption and continued usage, are needed, such as how can be existing technology advance well-established learning strategies such as choice providing, cooperative learning (Baumber, Kligyte, van der Bijl-Brouwer, & Pratt, 2020) etc.

5.4 The influence of culture and background on co-creation in HE

Investigating how the behaviors of multinational partners in the different contexts, such as other countries, cultures, off-campus, housing, library and religious services at the universities, is of extreme importance. As Abdelmaaboud et al., 2020 suggest to improve the generalizability of the results, future studies might apply this approach in more individualistic societies and examine its applicability across cultures. With the increasing internationalization of HE, it is crucial to understand how co-creation strategies are impacted by different cultures. In this vein, future research could explore how individual behavior (such as supportive intentions and complaining) is influenced by cognitive dissonance and satisfaction/dissatisfaction,; what is the faculty, governing bodies, employees, alumni and staff or industries opinion about the co-creation process (Gkogkidis & Dacre, 2020); integrate antecedents, such as ethical values and culture, as they may provide relevant insight into how benefits and barriers are affected by the different cultures; and what are the boundary conditions or moderating factors in student the co-creation process.

6. Implications and conclusions

Universities are under more pressure than ever before to attract and retain students. Consequently, a large number of universities are improving outdated marketing tactics in order to provide holistic student experiences. The findings imply that for a better marketing strategy, we think that the co-creation concept can be applied in HE with effectiveness. It provides multifaceted roles for students and may foster a more profound comprehension/characterization of their experience in all its complexity. Since brand positioning is identified as a co-creation benefit for HEIs in this study, HEIs should be aware of students’ intentions or needs for getting involved in different co-creation activities. While some students may get involved in curriculum co-designing activities for personal reasons (such as fun, enjoyment, interest, and experience), others may participate for external reasons (such as gaining peer recognition, promotion, social identification, and rewards). HEIs’ must understand such dynamics in order to devise an effective strategy. Furthermore, HEI should develop or implement various co-creation strategies that enhance student’s perceived competence. The more confident students are in their talents, the more likely they are to actively engage in their co-creator role.

The role of students has evolved from passive attendance to active participation as they themselves shape the learning experience and determine the outcome. Universities ought to determine how to support a student in value creation by providing opportunities for value co-creation in alignment with the students’ desire. This study identifies the benefits and barriers of co-creation for HEI’s and students. Starting from 398 articles that were identified via a keyword search, 128 central journal articles have undergone a systematic review using qualitative and quantitative analysis methods. The descriptive analysis results show that the majority of studies were published after 2018, and mostly in higher education journals. These researches were located mostly in the USA, the UK and Malaysia. The descriptive analysis demonstrated that the number of published articles is still quite modest, and there is a need for increased commitment by academics.

Although there are some barriers to co-creation, the analysis identified motivational and educational benefits for students and pedagogical and competitive benefits for HEIs. Moreover, our analysis uncovered a number of co-creation strategies that can be used by HEIs, namely Choice providing, Crowdsourcing, Games, Student-university identification, Experience sharing/interaction through university website and online platforms, Work-integrated learning, and Educational program design. Hence, there is a variety of ways that HEIs can use in fostering co-creation and allowing students to engage as active actors in their education process.

Future research directions are proposed based on our analysis of extant research.

This work is not without limitations. First, not all possible academic sources were contemplated in our systematic literature review, which focused on the databases of leading scientific publications. Important information might also be found in investigations not covered in the selected list, e.g. textbooks, conference proceedings, editorial contributions or working papers. Second, other keywords could be used to encompass articles of potential interest. Moreover, some studies might utilize different keywords to reference co-creation contingent on the development of the theoretical framework that upholds our study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).