1 The Collaborative Syllabus: Empowering Students as Co-creators of their Learning Experience

Chapter Overview

Open pedagogy goes beyond integrating open educational resources (OER) into a course. Instead, it is an approach that can influence every aspect of instructional activity, including course design. This chapter describes how students in an upper division communication course, Social Media for Public Relations, participated in course design through a collaborative syllabus. The collaborative syllabus is a practice that reflects learner-centered teaching, supports social justice, and empowers students. While there are some challenges associated with it, with clear structure and intentional planning it can be a productive activity that serves as a gateway to open pedagogy.

Rationale

In learner-centered teaching, instructors are learning facilitators and students are empowered with agency and influence over their learning experience (Weimer, 2013). This is a model of teaching, reflected in a variety of instructional strategies, which can infuse the classroom experience with energy and excitement and facilitate learning at higher levels (Froyd & Simpson, 2008). For instructors committed to learner-centered teaching, open pedagogy has an inherent appeal. As a learner-centered approach, open pedagogy diverges from a traditional model of instruction by decentering the instructor and empowering students more strongly in their learning.

One way to make a course more learner-centered is to involve students in its design. A variety of tactics can support collaborative course design, including a collaborative syllabus (Aiken et al., 2017). Working together, a collaborative syllabus decenters the instructor by inviting students into course design. In this activity, the term begins with a tentative or partially complete syllabus and students are invited to contribute their ideas to course design.

A collaborative syllabus is an open pedagogy practice – the syllabus is open for student input, which will influence their learning experience (DeRosa & Robison, 2017). For instructors seeking to adopt open pedagogy, a collaborative syllabus is a learner-centered activity that aligns with the values of open pedagogy, including its emphasis on social justice. Moreover, a collaborative syllabus can be a gateway instructional activity that can ease a learning community toward more openness without overwhelming faculty or students.

Learner-Centered Teaching

Learner-centered teaching is an approach to teaching that shifts the focus away from how an instructor teaches to a focus on how students learn (Smart et al., 2012). More than semantics, this shift has practical implications in the classroom. Instead of focusing on what the instructor is doing to transmit knowledge to students, this approach focuses on what students can do (guided by instructional strategies) to learn new knowledge. Weimer (2013) identifies five characteristics of learner-centered teaching that holistically focus on engaging, motivating, and empowering students through collaboration, reflection, and skills development.

Learner-centered teaching is an instructional approach that is informed by several pedagogical and learning theories, including constructivism (Weimer, 2013). Constructivism is a seminal learning theory premised on the notion that the learner does not passively receive knowledge from the instructor. Instead, learners construct knowledge and develop insights through reconciling new information with existing understanding (Fosnot & Perry, 2005).

Constructivism is associated with a range of instructional practices that typically include active learning. Active learning refers to learning by experience or doing things in the classroom (as opposed to at home). Active learning is usually contrasted with learning through listening to lectures, which is seen as passive (Misseyanni et al., 2018; Prince, 2004). For example, Smart et al. (2012) used what they called a “KWL approach” (p. 394) to engage students in learning a new theory. In this approach, when learning a new theory relative to a topic, students are first asked 1) what they know, 2) what they want to learn, and 3) what they learned (captured after the lesson). The authors use this activity to better understand what students know about a topic and to facilitate questions. The work of Bain (2004) was informative in this study for its description of what learners do when they encounter new information, which is, “[learners] try to comprehend it in terms of something [they] already know” (p. 26). Bain explains how existing mental models shape how learners take in new information, which often leads to a very different understanding than what was intended. Thus, identifying what students already know about a topic is helpful in understanding how they might learn new information. Smart et al.’s (2012) activity reflects active learning, anchored in constructivist learning theory.

While the collaborative syllabus does not directly facilitate student learning of new material, it does lay the foundation for forthcoming learning. Through this activity, which was integrated into a communication course: Social Media for Public Relations, students reflect on what they know, what they do not know (or would like to know more about), how they would like to learn, and how they would like to demonstrate their learning. It is learner-centered because it allows students to contribute to the course’s “learning agenda” (Weimer, 2013, p.15). In addition, this activity incorporates both individual reflection and collaboration, a practice supported by constructivism and learner-centered teaching.

By asking students what they would like to learn and how they would like to learn it, the collaborative syllabus creates a bridge between what students already know to what they don’t know but would like to learn more about. By working through this activity, first individually and then collaboratively, students are not limited to their own individual understanding. This activity lays the foundation for a constructivist approach to learning by providing a framework for students to assimilate new knowledge into their current understanding (Bain, 2004; Weimer, 2013). Moreover, it provides agency to students by asking for their input on what activities help them learn and how they would like to demonstrate their learning.

Encouraging student agency is reflective of learner-centered teaching, as well as open pedagogy. Indeed, as a learner-centered approach, open pedagogy relies on reflection, collaboration, and skills development. Moreover, open pedagogy pushes the notion of learner-centered teaching even further by adding another layer of “student-centeredness” into its perspective: a commitment to social justice and its core values of access and inclusiveness. Similarly, the collaborative syllabus is an activity that can be leveraged to support these values, too.

Open Pedagogy and Social Justice

A key characteristic of open pedagogy is its embrace of diverse cultural voices as design partners (Tietjien & Asino, 2021), emphasizing collaboration among various course elements and stakeholders. A truly participatory and collaborative course must be inclusive, empowering students, especially from marginalized communities, and fostering a more equitable learning environment (Bali et al., 2020; Clinton-Lissell, 2021). A collaborative syllabus can support social justice by inviting all student voices into course design through individual and collective participation. By encouraging students to reflect on the syllabus, share their opinions with the instructor, and collaborate with classmates to develop joint recommendations, the course can become more inclusive. Thoughtful management of class discussions allows the instructor to identify areas of disagreement and encourage a diversity of opinions, further enriching the learning experience.

Indeed, welcoming diverse student voices into course design is an important part of the collaborative syllabus activity. By working together on Day One of the course, we establish a culture of openness, trust, and collaboration (key attributes of open pedagogy) that will undergird the entire course (Hegarty, 2015). Moreover, this activity can be as large or as discrete as an instructor feels comfortable. As such, it offers a manageable first step for instructors who want to wade into open pedagogy without overwhelming themselves or their students.

Gateway to Open Pedagogy

While discussions of open pedagogy often focus on open educational resources (OER), its reach extends far beyond informing all aspects of instruction. A widely referenced framework by Nascimbeni and Burgos (2016) outlines the Open Educator concept, which integrates openness into an educator’s roles in design, content, pedagogy, and assessment. Open course design can involve sharing curricula and co-designing courses with instructors and students, while open course content embraces a variety of sources beyond the instructor, including OERs. Open pedagogy emphasizes teaching practices that foster the co-creation of knowledge through collaboration and content creation with students, and open assessment expands traditional methods to include peer assessment and other innovative approaches. Collaborative syllabus-building exemplifies open course design by inviting students to contribute to the course’s learning architecture (DeRosa & Jhangiani, n.d.), engaging them as active participants in its development (Aiken et al., 2017). Research indicates that involving students in collaborative course design leads to increased perceived learning, higher course satisfaction, and improved professor evaluations (Aiken et al., 2017; Downing et al., 2018; Jafar, 2016).

Nascimbeni and Burgos (2016) identify various pathways to openness in higher education while noting that it is not the default approach for instructors; rather, it requires intentional development. They propose a three-stage process for instructors to enhance their capacity for openness, starting with awareness, progressing to fluency, and ultimately achieving openness as a default practice. The collaborative syllabus plays a role in this journey by supporting instructors in developing fluency with open pedagogy. It serves as an initial step toward open course design, allowing instructors to customize the level of student input based on their comfort and readiness. As instructors build their capacity for openness, the collaborative syllabus can expand in complexity and depth, making it a flexible approach suited to both instructors and their students.

The collaborative syllabus provides an opportunity to integrate both the values of open pedagogy (Werth & Williams, 2022) and the principles of learner-centered teaching (Weimer, 2013) into the fabric of course design. Moreover, it is a manageable activity that helps develop fluency with open approaches because not every element of the syllabus has to be fully open. Pre-established course learning outcomes must continue to be supported. However, in an upper division course whose subject matter is dynamic and also oriented toward participation and engagement, such as a course on social media, the collaborative syllabus is a worthwhile activity.

Assessment Description

While higher education typically emphasizes summative assessments—assessments that occur at the end of a learning module or course that ultimately contribute to final course grades—the collaborative syllabus serves as a tool for formative assessment (Wheatley et al., 2015). Formative assessment includes “those activities undertaken by teachers, and/or by their students, which provide information to be used as feedback to modify the teaching and learning activities in which they are engaged” (Black & William, 1998, p. 8). Indeed, the collaborative syllabus is an activity that yields formative assessment data on students’ current understanding of the topic and where they feel there are gaps in their learning that the course can or should address. In addition, the collaborative syllabus provides an opportunity to seek student feedback on summative assessments—how they think they can best demonstrate their learning. As a formative assessment, though, it is not necessary to apply an assessment rubric or grade to this activity.

A four-step process outlined in Table 1, modeled on earlier scholarship (i.e., Aiken et al., 2016; Jafar, 2016; Kaplan & Renard, 2015; Murray, 2021), describes how this activity was applied in an upper division course. These steps include:

1. presenting a “tentative” syllabus to students on Day One of the course;
2. soliciting student feedback through individual reflection, collaborative group work, and whole class discussion;
3. integrating student feedback into course design, as appropriate, and
4. sharing the modified syllabus with students during the second week of the term.
5. An additional step that brings the process full circle is using the annotated syllabus to structure a final review during the last class.

By following this process, described in detail below, students are invited to invest and engage in the course by suggesting how it can best meet their needs.

Table 1: Four-step Process to a Collaborative Syllabus.

Step	Who?	What?	When?	Where?	How long?
1.	Instructor	Present “tentative” syllabus to students for their feedback.	First class	In class	20 minutes
2.	Students	Provide feedback to the instructor through individual reflection, group work, and full-class discussion.	First class	In class	1 hour
3.	Instructor	Analysis and integration of student feedback into syllabus, as appropriate.	Week 1	Out of class	2 hours
4.	Instructor	Share annotated final syllabus with students indicating changes made.	Week 2	In class	20 minutes

Context

The course, Social Media for Public Relations, is an advanced public relations course in which students learn the theories and practices that guide effective social media planning and implementation in the context of organizational public relations. The course is set in the context of a large public university, with a typical class size of 40-50 students.

This course can be challenging to teach because of the dynamic nature of its subject matter. While the course is anchored in theory and research related to effective social media practice, because of the ever-changing social media landscape, course materials are continually evolving. Moreover, this course confronts student expectations that are influenced by their own personal and pre-professional experience with social media, as well as their future career aspirations. In other words, students come to the course with a lot of “hands-on” experience with social media in terms of both production and consumption, and they often have specific career interests that motivate them to take this course.

Thus, because this is an advanced course predominately taken by seniors, students are far enough along into their education to identify (to some degree) what they know and what they do not know and would like to learn more about (i.e., conscious competence and conscious incompetence) (Burch, 1970). This makes this course, along with its subject matter that is also predicated on engagement and participation, particularly suitable for a collaborative syllabus.

Activity

This activity begins on the first day of class after students are welcomed and introduced to the instructor, their peers, and the course topic. The instructor presents a tentative syllabus. How tentative (or open) the syllabus is varies, as deemed appropriate by the instructor to facilitate course learning outcomes. For example, some theories, topics, or assessments might be “non-negotiable,” whereas others might be more flexible.

Once the syllabus is introduced and its “in progress” status is explained, the instructor invites student contributions to the syllabus. Student contributions are facilitated in class through individual and collaborative participation. Firstly, inspired by earlier work (e.g., Aiken et al., 2016), students are individually asked to write answers to these three questions:

1. What would you like to learn?
2. What kinds of assignments help you learn best?
3. What is your Big Question? (see Appendix A).

This part of the process typically takes around 10 minutes. As needed, student feedback can also be solicited on other relevant issues, such as the most appropriate channel for office hours (face-to-face or Zoom) and more targeted questions related to assessment, if appropriate, such as determining the preferred graded weight of exams to papers. At the end of class, individual responses are collected by the instructor.

After time is provided for individual reflection, students are then assigned to small groups and asked to compare their perspectives. As a group, they synthesize the individual perspectives into one cohesive response to the questions and write them on a large, adhesive-backed note paper, which is then posted on the wall (see Appendix B). Next, the instructor facilitates a whole-class discussion by moving through each group’s response, looking for similarities and differences, and making connections with the existing syllabus. Altogether, this small group and whole-class discussion can take approximately one hour. Although, the amount of time it takes varies based on the prompts, how much of the syllabus is open, and how much class time the instructor has available to commit to it. The instructor photographs and collects these large, sticky note papers at the end of class.

After the first class, the instructor compares the individual responses submitted by students and their collective responses with the tentative syllabus. The instructor does this work outside of class, preferably between Week One and Two. First, the instructor organizes the individual student feedback and conducts both a quantitative analysis of it (i.e., how many students responded in a particular way) and a qualitative, thematic analysis of it. Then, these analyses, as well as the collaborative responses, are compared to the tentative syllabus. Once the feedback is analyzed, the instructor decides how to most effectively integrate it into the syllabus.

In reviewing student feedback, the instructor can modify the course schedule to include topics suggested by students, or they may determine that some topics suggested by students are outside the scope of the course. Likewise, the instructor can decide how and where to integrate student feedback about the preferred learning activities and assessments. To keep the class on schedule, this analysis and its related syllabus adjustments should be made before the second week of class.

By the second week of class, the instructor shares the analyses of the individual and group feedback with students. For this process, an annotated syllabus is helpful because it can indicate how the original, tentative syllabus already aligned with student interests, in addition to showing how the syllabus was modified in response to student feedback. This presentation finalizes the syllabus, and the course proceeds as designed.

The last optional step of this activity brings this process full circle when, at the end of the term, the feedback solicited from students on Day One is used to frame a review of the entire course. This provides an opportunity to reiterate the educational value of the course and how it was planned collaboratively with students to meet their needs and interests. This is a positive way to end the term and resituates students at the center of their learning experience. Moreover, it is also an effective way to show how course content supported course learning outcomes.

Debrief

I have integrated this activity twice into the same upper division social media course. Overall, it is an engaging practice with which to start a school term that yields formative assessment data, invites students into the course as co-creators (Campbell, 2022; Hudd, 2003; Jafar, 2016), and sets expectations for student participation and collaboration. Moreover, this activity can take up as much or as little time as appropriate and remains a valuable exercise.

In my applications of this activity, I have varied the scope of student contributions to the syllabus, given other priorities I may have had for students that term. For example, the first time I integrated the collaborative syllabus after the pandemic, I invited student feedback on the topics addressed in the course and the assessment plan. I had decided on the overall structure of assessments (a mixture of low-stakes quizzes and applied activities, along with exams and longer written work). Still, I invited student suggestions regarding the graded weight of the larger assignments and exams and the ratio of exams relative to the written work. Thus, I asked students during the initial exercise, “What is the best way for you to demonstrate your learning in this course?” In class, we discussed the various potential options. After receiving student feedback, I changed the variety and scope of the assignments, which included adding another midterm exam and another shorter writing assignment.

The second time I applied this activity, I had already reorganized course assignments and integrated a new assignment in response to the increasing prevalence of generative AI. Therefore, I did not solicit student feedback on summative assessment methods; instead, student feedback was centered on course topics and identifying activities that support student learning. After receiving student feedback, which expressed an interest in career and professional skills development, I modified the course schedule and added two guest speaker lectures. Making this change illustrates how the course is enhanced by student feedback and demonstrates how students can influence their learning experience.

It is important to note that this activity is effective at initiating dialogue and cultivating a student-centered environment; however, it does not mean the instructor has to forfeit their role as the subject matter and pedagogical expert. Ultimately, the instructor has to make the final decisions related to course content, assessment, and scheduling. Still, this activity fosters a more democratic process whereby the instructor demonstrates they are listening to students and that students’ perspectives matter.

Ultimately, students are diverse, and this process does not guarantee that all students’ needs and interests are addressed. Still, it provides an opportunity for the instructor to acknowledge them. For example, the second time I did this activity, a student expressed interest in learning about monetizing social media platforms—i.e., generating revenue as an influencer or content creator. However, monetization is outside the course’s scope and the instructor’s expertise. Therefore, while I shared this student’s interest with the class, I explained how we would not explicitly address it due to the reasons already mentioned. Yet, throughout the term, where there were learning opportunities that connected with monetization, I certainly highlighted that for students in an ongoing effort to address this interest.

This activity is designed to be inclusive and welcoming of diverse student perspectives— through both individual and collective feedback. Admittedly, while all students are encouraged to voice their perspectives, there is still a chance that students may hold back their genuine opinions in the group discussion. However, with intentional and supportive discussion facilitation, the instructor can tease out any intra-or cross-group disagreements and minority opinions. Moreover, a lack of consensus provides a great opportunity for a deeper discussion. In this upper division class, though, students are typically more comfortable voicing contrarian opinions than students in lower division classes and these diverse opinions tend to be appreciated by peers.

While this activity has the potential to be a renewable assignment, according to the typology of OER-enabled pedagogy (Wiley & Hilton, 2018), it has not yet reached the level of OER in this course. Instead, it is an authentic assignment: “it has value beyond supporting its creator’s learning” (Wiley & Hilton, 2018, p. 137). In this course, the collaborative syllabus supports individual and peer learning, thus making it authentic. While each co-created syllabus from one course term informs the tentative syllabus for the following cohort of students, it is not a renewable assignment because it has not been shared more broadly.

Appraisal

The collaborative syllabus works well in an upper division course. It is a learner-centered activity that conveys expectations to students about participation and collaboration, provides a formative assessment of students’ knowledge about the topic, and invites students into the course as co-creators. Moreover, it is anchored in constructivist learning theory, supports social justice values, and can provide a gateway to open pedagogy. Despite these benefits, there can also be some challenges with this activity.

Foremost, it requires time to integrate into the course schedule since it is an in-class activity. Thus, it is important for the instructor to be realistic about the time they have to devote to the collaborative syllabus and the scope of feedback they can realistically apply to course design. It works well as an activity for the first week of class because it is a nice way to introduce students to the course and slowly accelerate their learning. Moreover, since this activity shifts the traditional roles of instructor and students, it requires the instructor to cede some control over the course structure. However, this can be mitigated by slowly opening up only parts of the syllabus to student input as the instructor gains fluency with this approach (i.e., Nascimbeni & Burgos, 2016). Lastly, this activity may work better with upper level students because it relies on students having some understanding of the subject matter and metacognition related to how they learn best. Students must know what they don’t know (i.e., conscious incompetence) to identify topics they would like to know more about (i.e., Burch, 1970). Lower level students may not be able to participate in this and, consequently, they may be overwhelmed (Jafar, 2016). Therefore, there can be challenges with implementing this activity, yet these can be addressed with thoughtful planning and clearly communicated expectations.

Thus far, in my application of this activity, I have been fairly conservative with the scope of student input on the syllabus. Through this activity, I have sought student feedback on course topics, assignments, and assessments, and their feedback has influenced course design. However, the course is very much co-created with me and I have not left critical aspects of course design solely up to students. This ensures the course remains aligned with learning outcomes and supports student learning through effective pedagogy.

In future applications, I would like to open the course up even further by integrating more student feedback across more course elements. For example, beyond the essential course learning outcomes, students can be asked to identify one or two more that they would like to achieve. In addition, students can be asked to identify how the course could be more inclusive in its design. Practices from Lutz et al. (2021) that focus on inclusive design, delivery, and assessment can be shared with students for their consideration in the syllabus. These practices include diverse theoretical perspectives and researchers, presenting materials in diverse formats, and using multiple assessment methods. Opening this course to more student input will further support student learning through increased opportunities for student agency, active learning, and metacognition (see Stanton et al., 2021).

Moving forward, identifying how this activity could be made into a renewable assignment deserves some attention, too. This syllabus could be shared more broadly with other learning communities that could also build on it. Moreover, this activity could be expanded within the context of this course to include a historical perspective wherein students compare their interests and feedback to past cohorts. This could potentially provide an informal trend analysis that could further extend student learning.

Another potential iteration is to leverage this activity more systematically and comprehensively as a benchmark for student learning. For example, at the beginning of the course, students could be asked to reflect upon one aspect of course design, such as topics they think are important to address and why. Students could then respond to a similar prompt as a summative assessment at the end of the course. This comparative reflection would demonstrate how their understanding, analysis, and evaluation have changed over the duration of the course.

Summary

Open pedagogy represents a transformative shift in higher education, empowering students to take greater agency in their learning by contributing to course design, collaborating with peers, and engaging in assessments in new ways. This modern approach necessitates a re-conceptualization of roles for both instructors and students. Recognizing that significant changes in established institutions take time, the chapter highlights the collaborative syllabus as a valuable entry point into this new educational paradigm, enabling both students and instructors to embark on their journey toward open pedagogy while achieving various instructional goals.

References

Aiken, K. D., Heinze, T. C., Meuter, M. L., & Chapman, K. J. (2016). Innovation through collaborative course development: Theory and practice. Marketing Education Review, 26(1), 57-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2015.1091679

Aiken, K.D., Heinze, T.C., Meuter, M.L., & Chapman, K.J. (2017). The impact of collaboration, empowerment, and choice: An empirical examination of the collaborative course development method. Marketing Education Review, 27(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2016.1255852

Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Harvard University Press.

Bali, M., Cronin, C., & Jhangiani, R. S. (2020). Framing open educational practices from a social justice perspective. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1(10), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.565

Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102

Burch, N. (1970). The four stages for learning any new skill. Gordon Training International.

Campbell, L. M. (2022). Open education and OER in the curriculum. (Curriculum Transformation Programme). The University of Edinburgh. https://www.docs.hss.ed.ac.uk/iad/Learning_teaching/CTP/OER_in_the_Curriculum.pdf

Clinton-Lisell, V. (2021). Open pedagogy: A systematic review of empirical findings. Journal of Learning for Development, 8(2), 255-268. https://doi.org/10.56059/jl4d.v8i2.511

DeRosa, R., & Jhangiani, R. (n.d.). Open pedagogy. Open Pedagogy Notebook. https://openpedagogy.org/open-pedagogy/

DeRosa R. & Robison S. (2017). From OER to open pedagogy: Harnessing the power of open. In R.S. Jhangiani & R. Biswas-Diener (Eds.), Open: The philosophy and practices that are revolutionizing education and science (pp. 115-124). Ubiquity Press. https://doi.org/10.5334/bbc.i

Downing, J. A., Aiken, D., McCoy, D., Matthews, M. E., & Deatley, K. (2018). Collaborative course development: A comparison of business and non-business students’ perceptions of class experience. The International Journal of Management Education, 16(2), 256-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2018.04.002

Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (2005). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C.T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 8– 38). Teachers College Press.

Froyd J., & Simpson N. (2008). Student-centered learning addressing faculty questions about student centered learning [Conference session]. Course, Curriculum, Labor, and Improvement Conference, Washington, DC, United States.

Hegarty, B. (2015). Attributes of open pedagogy: A model for using open educational resources. Educational Technology, 55(4), 3-13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44430383

Hudd, S. S. (2003). Syllabus under construction: Involving students in the creation of class assignments. Teaching Sociology, 31(2), 195-202. https://doi.org/10.2307/3211308

Jafar, A. (2016). Student engagement, accountability, and empowerment: A case study of collaborative course design. Teaching Sociology, 44(3), 221-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X16644489

Kaplan, D. M., & Renard, M. K. (2015). Negotiating your syllabus: Building a collaborative contract. Journal of Management Education, 39(3), 400-421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562914564788

Lutz, C., Untaru, L., & van Goch, M. (2021, July). Developing a shared syllabus template as a living document of inclusive practices in a teaching and learning community. In 7th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’21) (pp. 481-489). Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València. http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/HEAd21.2021.12967

Misseyanni, A., Papadopoulou, P., Marouli, C., & Lytras, M.D. (2018). Active learning stories in higher education: Lessons learned and good practices in STEM education. In A. Misseyanni, M.D. Lytras, P. Papadopoulo, & C. Marouli (Eds.), Active learning strategies in higher education: Teaching for leadership, innovation, and creativity (pp. 75-106). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78714-487-320181004

Murray, M. B. (2021). Collaborative syllabus building: The “buffet-style” career preparation course for dance majors. Dance Education in Practice, 7(2), 9-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/23734833.2021.1916287

Nascimbeni, F., & Burgos, D. (2016). In search for the open educator: Proposal of a definition and a framework to increase openness adoption among university educators. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(6), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i6.2736

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x

Smart, K. L., Witt, C., & Scott, J. P. (2012). Toward learner-centered teaching: An inductive approach. Business Communication Quarterly, 75(4), 392-403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569912459752

Stanton, J. D., Sebesta, A. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2021). Fostering metacognition to support student learning and performance. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(2), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-12-0289

Tietjen, P., & Asino, T. I. (2021). What is open pedagogy? Identifying commonalities. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(2), 185-204. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i2.5161

Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. John Wiley & Sons.

Werth, E., & Williams, K. (2022). The why of open pedagogy: A value-first conceptualization for enhancing instructor praxis. Smart Learning Environments, 9(10), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00191-0

Wheatley, L., Lord, R., McInch, A., & Fleming, S. (2015). Feeding back to feed forward: Formative assessment as a platform for effective learning. Kentucky Journal of Higher Education Policy and Practice, 3(2), 1-31. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kjhepp/vol3/iss2/2/

Wiley, D., & Hilton III, J. L. (2018). Defining OER-enabled pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4), 133-147. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3601