The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Technology for the scalability of co-creation with students
Open accessAbstract
Student-staff co-creation is a growing topic in higher education research. Framed as a mechanism for universities to better modify and meets the needs and expectations of students, student co-creation has a wealth of potential benefits. However, with the expansion of research, many scholars have stumbled upon a similar limitation, the scalability of co-creation. This issue is due to co-creation currently occurring in face-to-face (f2f) interactions (e.g. pedagogical consultants). However, co-creation can also arise in online spaces, enabled by technology, that could allow for greater scalability. In this paper, three strategies supported with technology to enhance the scalability of co-creation will be discussed including, crowdsourcing, customisation and prosumer behaviour with relevant industry examples for each as well as suggestions for practice in higher education. The limitations, benefits, and new directions for research will further be discussed. It is the aim of the paper to provoke ideas on how co-creation can be made more accessible to all students.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The co-creation or co-design of assessments further utilises the student experience and perspective and, although students are not experts in the discipline, they can make important contributions to change and improvements in assessment practice (Dollinger, 2018).”
From Assessment design through co-creation (2025) · cites this paper as Dollinger, 2018
In the citing paper
“The co-creation or co-design of assessments further utilises the student experience and perspective and, although students are not experts in the discipline, they can make important contributions to change and improvements in assessment practice (Dollinger, 2018).”
From Assessment design through co-creation (2025) · cites this paper as Dollinger, 2018
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Assessment design through co-creation
Williams, A., & Ingle, E. (2025) · International Journal for Students as Partners · doi:10.15173/ijsap.v9i1.5802 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Dollinger, M.
- Affiliations
- La Trobe University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Dollinger, Mollie
- ORCID
- Dollinger, Mollie
- Venue
- ASCILITE Publications
- Publisher
- Open Access Publishing Association
- Published
- 2018-11-20
- Pages
- 346-350
- ISSN
- 2653-665X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3211076965
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 3.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- ASCILITE Publications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- La Trobe University (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Practises and Engagement
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Service and Product Innovation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
- Keywords
- scalability, online co-creation, crowdsourcing, customization, higher education, student engagement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
