The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0951-354X.htm

Student roles and behaviors Higher

education co-
in higher education co-creation – creation

a systematic literature review

Negin Zarandi 1297
University of Minho and NECE, Braga, Portugal
Received 4 August 2021
Ana Maria Soares Revised 3 January 2022
University of Minho and CICS.NOVA.UMinho, Braga, Portugal, and 10 January 2022
21 January 2022
Helena Alves 29 March 2022
2 August 2022
Department of Economics and Management and NECE, University of Beira Interior, Accepted 11 September 2022
Covilh~a, Portugal

Abstract
Purpose – In today’s global and highly competitive climate among universities, educational developers and
instructors have focused more on trying to make the student experience more engaging. In this manner, student
co-creation activities have recently become a major research priority in marketing and higher education (HE)
research. The purpose of this study is to present a systematic review of the literature on student co-creation
roles and behaviors in HE in order to map extant research on this topic and offer a consolidated view of the co-
creation process and approaches that can be employed by HEIs to motivate students to co-create their HE
experience.
Design/methodology/approach – A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses
(PRISMA) approach was followed to classify, select, synthesize, analyze and assess the most relevant studies
on student participation in co-creation in HE.
Findings – This study’s analysis has identified that the co-creation process in HE includes dialog, access, risk
and transparency. The main approaches used by higher education institutions (HEIs) to motivate students to
co-create their HE experience are student involvement, cognitive engagement, university affiliation and
emotional engagement. Our review also shows that student co-creation behaviors are mainly participation and
citizenship behavior, and their co-creation roles include those of co-producers, participants, change agents and
partners.
Originality/value – This systematic literature review analyses and critically discusses the state of the art in
student co-creation roles in HE and the approaches HEIs use. By providing a map of existing research, the
paper contributes both to the clarification of student co-creation roles and behaviors in HE and the
identification of research gaps and opportunities for further research.
Keywords Co-creation, Co-production, Value-in-use, Student, Higher education
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Recent developments in higher education (HE), such as growing competition in the university
sector, budget reductions, increased quality standards, decreasing demand, as well as
students becoming more demanding and having to compete in a more competitive job
market, call for a re-evaluation of university marketing strategies (Pantoja Dıaz et al., 2016).
Therefore, higher education institutions (HEIs) need to consider the variables that improve
experiences and higher student loyalty rates (Giner and Rillo, 2016). Co-creation can provide a
competitive advantage by offering innovative customer-designed services (Witell et al., 2011).
Co-creation is a process whereby students’ resources are integrated with organizational
resources to facilitate a range of activities and experiences that encourage exchange and International Journal of
Educational Management
Vol. 36 No. 7, 2022
pp. 1297-1320
Funding: This Research is supported by FCT – Fundaç~ao para a Ci^encia e a Tecnologia, reference © Emerald Publishing Limited
0951-354X
UIDB/04630/2020. DOI 10.1108/IJEM-08-2021-0317
IJEM interaction, which in turn can prompt improved practice and innovation (Dollinger et al., 2018)
36,7 and can enhance students’ ability to take on an active role in their education process. Despite
the lack of consensus of what constitutes teaching excellence, it involves allowing students to
play an active role in their learning journey (Johnson, 2021). However, despite its importance,
to the best of our knowledge, there are no systematic literature reviews on student co-creation
roles and behaviors.
In fact, although value co-creation has been applied in HE for some years now (Dıaz-
1298 Mendez and Gummesson, 2012; Navarro-Garcıa et al., 2015; Elsharnouby, 2015), there is no
unanimous conceptual co-creation framework in HE. The literature on student engagement
and student co-creation has made significant progress in comprehending and integrating the
student into the academic aspects of the HE experience (Robinson and Celuch, 2016); hence, it
is crucial to provide a systematic view of the multifaceted roles and behaviors that students
can play in co-creation processes. Systematic literature reviews are an increasingly used
approach to synthesize the existing body of literature, identify research gaps and suggest
directions for future research on a given topic in terms of methodological approaches,
underlying theories, related constructs, and research contexts (Tranfield et al., 2003; Paul and
Criado, 2020). The body of extant research on co-creation in HE to date calls for such a
comprehensive overview.
Hence, this paper aims to analyze and critically discuss student participation in co-creation
in HE through the following research question: “What roles and behaviors are performed by
students in co-creation in HE?” The purpose of this review is to contribute to a clear picture of
the participation of students in co-creation in HE, thus contributing to the state of the art by
mapping extant research on this topic and providing an agenda for future research.
We have followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-
Analyses (PRISMA) approach to classify, select, synthesize, analyze and assess the most
relevant studies on student participation in co-creation in HE. To the best of our knowledge,
this study is the first systematic literature review that maps extant research on these facets of
student co-creation, and provides a combined view of the co-creation process and the
approaches used to allow students to play those roles and co-create behaviors. Our
contribution to the literature is, thus twofold: we contribute to the clarification of student co-
creation roles and behaviors in HE and the to identification of research gaps and
opportunities for further research.

2. Co-creation in HE
According to Elsharnouby and Mahrous (2015), the role of clients in shaping service
experience and determining service outcome has changed from a passive audience to an
active player/participant. Several authors have called for a re-evaluation of student and
instructor roles in HE so that students can become more involved and actively participate in
the teaching and learning process (Brady, 2013; Cook-Sather, 2014). Dollinger et al. (2018)
presented the first conceptual model of value co-creation in HE. They present the key
components of value co-creation, value-in-use (ViU) and co-production, as well as the
anticipated advantages of value co-creation. While there are several examples and extensive
discussion in the literature of partnership and co-creation projects involving students, there
are comparatively few studies that identify applicable co-creation approaches and student’s
co-creation roles and behaviors in learning and teaching in HE (Bovill, 2020). Ranjan and
Read (2016) used the Vargo and Lusch (2004) service-dominant logic (SDL) approach to
measure value co-creation (VCC) using two dimensions: co-production and value-in-use (ViU).
Vargo and Lusch (2004) differentiate between co-creation of value, which takes place in the
usage/consumption stage, and co-production, which can take place in the production phase.
ViU is derived from the client’s usage context and procedures, including time, location, or
uncertain conditions, unique experience, stories, perception, symbols, and social effect Higher
(Gummerus and Pihlstr€om, 2011; Vargo and Lusch, 2004). ViU is the client’s experiential education co-
assessment of the item or service proposition beyond its functional attributes and in
accordance with their individual inspiration, specialized competencies, actions, and
creation
procedures (Ranjan and Read, 2016). Co-production is described by Ostrom (1996) as a
process by which people who are not in the same organization contribute with inputs that are
used to produce a good or service. This refers not only to participation, but also to a greater
degree of interaction and cooperation between service providers and consumers (Elliott 1299
et al., 2020).
The concept of students as co-producers in their learning process has been discussed in
the educational literature (Mavondo et al., 2004; Ng and Forbes, 2009). Students who see
themselves as co-producers “take full responsibility for their learning and use teachers and
other resources to help them succeed” (Mavondo et al., 2004, p. 46), bringing their own
perspectives, experiences, skills, and knowledge to their own activity (Bovill, 2013). Despite
the fact that co-production is not the same as co-creation, some studies use co-creation and co-
production interchangeably, and thus we will focus on both concepts.
In the HE context, the value in the co-creation process can happen both in co-production
(how students contribute to the design, procedures, or implementation of the activity) and in
ViU (how students/teaching staff create value for themselves through the activity) (Dollinger
and Lodge, 2019a). Students progressively have opportunities to take on proactive roles as
consultants, student representatives, co-researchers (Bell, 2009) or curriculum co-designers
(Bovill et al., 2011, 2016; Bovill, 2019; Dıaz-Mendez and Gummesson, 2012). As Dollinger et al.
(2018) noted, while students are not disciplinary experts, they are experts at being students,
and therefore have the necessary ability and knowledge frame to contribute meaningfully to
the advancement of practice. If universities allow students to share knowledge more freely,
this may help them innovate their service while avoiding future risks. Moreover, students can
provide assets such as feedback and novel ideas for innovation. In HE, personalization
through ViU would also allow for students to piece together value propositions, such as
degrees or courses, within their HE experience to suit their own needs or desires. Students’
relationship with their university can similarly influence their feelings towards their
university and their HE experiences (Carini et al., 2006). Students’ positive relationships with
their university can additionally create a community (Zhao and Kuh, 2004) that may give rise
to future collaborative behavior.

3. Method
This study adopts a systematic literature review on student co-creation in HE related
research. A systematic analysis aims to define extant knowledge on a study subject and
identify the most relevant gaps, contributing to the development of the theory (Paul and
Criado, 2020). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses
(PRISMA) approach was followed to classify, select, synthesize, analyze and assess the most
relevant studies (Moher et al., 2010).
The search for papers was conducted in two electronic databases, namely Web of Science
(Web of Knowledge/Clarivate analytics) and Scopus. The search parameters were focused on
international peer-reviewed academic journals and conference papers written in English,
therefore excluding forewords, books and book chapters. The records were gathered using the
search terms “student”, “co-creation”, “cocreation”, “co-production”, “coproduction”, “value-in-
use” and “higher education” in the title, abstract and keywords. Target articles were required
to fit at least one term. The research was carried out without time limitations (Figure 1).
As a first step, the papers were screened and repeated entries were excluded, leading to the
identification of 275 studies. Then the topic and abstract were read to check eligibility, and those
IJEM

Identification
36,7 Records identified through Web of Additional records identified
Science through Scopus
(n = 145) (n = 239)

1300 Records after duplicates removed

(n = 275)
Screening

Records screened Records excluded

(n = 275) (n = 109)
Eligibility

Full-text articles assessed Full-text articles excluded,

for eligibility with reasons
(n = 166) (n = 38)

Studies included in
Included

qualitative and quantitative

Figure 1. synthesis
Literature search (n = 128)
diagram

that were not directly linked with the subject nor published in English were excluded (n 5 109).
In addition, 38 papers were excluded on the basis of relevance. A total of 128 papers were
retained for further analysis (Appendix 1).
For each individual study, the following information was selected in the database: a) Author;
b) Year; c) Title d) Source title; e) Type of paper; and f) Cited by and retrieved. The next stage
involved a qualitative content analysis. The purpose of the content analysis was to
systematically categorize the content of the papers and identify relationships (Lane et al., 2006).

4. Results
4.1 Descriptive analysis
While the first paper meeting the inclusion criteria was published in 2003, most of the studies
were published after 2018, which signals that this is a relatively recent area of research.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education (17 articles), Studies in Higher Education (6
articles), Higher Education (6 articles) account for the highest number of papers. However, a
variety of publication outlets focused on education and development were found. Most
studies have been conducted in different countries, mainly the UK, the USA, and Australia, in
terms of the location of the study. A single-country emphasis is followed by most studies.
The methodology employed in the articles is shown in Figure 2. 28% of papers used a
quantitative methodology, accompanied by 56% qualitative approaches to analysis, and
16% using a mixed methodology. The methods of data collection used in quantitative
research include questionnaires and assessment, academic and cognitive tests, while the
qualitative methods used include interviews, case studies, findings and focus groups in Higher
qualitative studies. education co-
To understand the impact of these publications, we examined the number of citations and
identified the 10 most cited articles in Figure 3: McCulloch (2009), Kotze and Du Plessis (2003),
creation
Carey (2013), and Radnor et al. (2014) investigate students as co-producers; Bovill et al. (2016)
address potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching; Ng and Forbes (2009) focus
on understanding the university experience through the service logic; Dıaz-Mendez and
Gummesson (2012) look at value co-creation and university teaching quality; Elsharnouby 1301
(2015) studies student co-creation behavior in HE; and finally, Blau and Shamir-Inbal (2017)
present the role of co-creation and co-regulation in the flipped learning model (Figure 3).

4.2 Thematic analysis

A thematic analysis was conducted to organize a systematic view of the published works on
student co-creation in HE context. Using a deductive approach, the selected papers were
categorized according to three main themes: (1) Co-creation process and approaches in HE;
(2) Student co-creation roles, and (3) Student co-creation behaviors in HE.
(1) Co-creation process and approaches in HE
Service-dominant logic (SDL) is an approach developed by Vargo and Lusch (2004)
expressing that all exchanges are co-created, as value is a joint procedure between what the
organization offers and the client consumes (Dollinger and Lodge, 2019a; Dollinger et al., 2018;
Bryson, 2014; Smørvik and Vespestad, 2020: Qi et al., 2020; Tuzovic, 2016). Dollinger et al.
(2018) present the first conceptual model of value co-creation in HE. Their model incorporates
key components of value co-creation, co-production, and value-in-use, as well as links to the
anticipated advantages of value co-creation that include Knowledge, Equity, Experience,
Personalization, and Relationship. According to this model, HEIs allow students to share
knowledge more freely, which may support them to innovate their service while avoiding
future risks. HEIs also provide assets such as a platform and specific knowledge of the
previous production, and students can in turn provide assets such as feedback and novel
ideas for innovation. Students can also actively participate in HE and take on customer-type
roles. In HE, personalization through ViU also allows students to combine value propositions
in their HE experience to meet their own desires. The relationship between students and the
university also affects their feelings about the university and their HE experience

Qualitative 56% Figure 2.

Mixed-Methodology 16% Studies’
Quantitative 28%
methodological choice
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

McCulloch, (2009) 341

Bovill et al., (2016) 331
Ng & Forbes, (2009) 316
Kotzé & Plessis, (2003) 232
Radnor et al.(2014) 183
Duque, (2013) 164
Díaz-Méndez & Gummesson, (2012) 158
Carey, (2013) 127
Elsharnouby, (2015) 101
Blau & Shamir-Inbal, (2017) 94
Figure 3.
Balaji et al., (2016) 94
Most cited papers
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
IJEM (Carini et al., 2006). Customization is another component that can be supported with
36,7 technology towards a greater scale of co-creation (Dollinger et al., 2018).
Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000) created the dialog, access, risk and transparency model
(DART) to note the most significant components of the co-creation process (Ribes-Giner et al.,
2016). Co-creation implies a mutual procedure that is imaginative, inventive and resourceful.
It draws on ideas from the teaching staff and students (Bovill, 2013). Dialog includes finding a
common platform and a common starting point where every individual can participate,
1302 regardless of their background and experience. Three forms of dialog are emphasized and
encouraged: teacher-student dialog, student-student dialog, and student-company dialog. In a
teaching situation, students must be given access and insight into the same information and
expertise, and must also be provided with the necessary tools to process the information.
Access and transparency include sharing knowledge and making it visible, not only in
communication from lecturer to student, but also from student to lecturer, and student to
student. When students and lecturers are willing to take the risk of engaging in co-creation,
the perceived value of the learning result is prevalent (Smørvik and Vespestad, 2020; Ribes-
Giner et al., 2016; Bovill, 2013).
Our thematic analysis shows that HEIs have been using different strategies and platforms
to engage and involve students in the co-creation process. Several studies, such as Duque
(2014), Mostafa (2015), Dollinger et al. (2018), and Barros et al. (2016), used the student
involvement approach to allow students to co-create. This happens when students play a more
active role by spending more time on campus, devoting energy to studies, actively
participating in student organizations, and interacting with faculty members and other
students. Additionally, a huge number of methods of active engagement, such as willingness
to invest time, energy, money or other resources, has been posited as being a critical state of
reciprocal exchange in the consumption context.
Other studies point to emotional and cognitive student engagement (Bond, 2020; Fredricks
et al., 2004), which allows students to co-create value in their HE experience. Cognitive
engagement is characterized by self-regulated learning, utilizing deep learning strategies, and
exerting the necessary effort for comprehending complex ideas (Fredricks et al., 2004; Pintrich
and De Groot, 1990; Zimmerman, 1990; Fredricks et al., 2004). It is also clarified by Farhat et al.
(2020) that the intellectual brand experience represents the cognitive experiences students
derive from services, such as HEIs brands, which results in students actively connecting with
the brand and sharing the brand’s information with their friends. Emotional engagement
focuses on the extent of positive (and negative) reactions to teachers, classmates, academics, or
school; the individuals’ sense of belonging; and identification with school or subject domains
(Voelkl, 1997). Balaji et al. (2016) indicate that students who identify with their university define
themselves in relationship to the university and consider the university’s successes and failures
as their own. These authors also investigate the impact of student-university identification on
different university supportive behaviors such as advocacy intentions, university affiliation,
suggestions for improvement, and participation in future activities.
University affiliation alludes to the degree to which students personally identify with their
university (Abdelmaaboud et al., 2020) by displaying their university’s logo, stickers, and
merchandise. Participation in future university activities relates to the willingness of
students to attend future events and functions held and sponsored by the university. Balaji
et al. (2016) suggest that as students often utilize the university brand to create and
communicate their self-concept to others, self-brand connection plays a significant role in
communicating the identification-based supportive behaviors to others.
Our analysis shows that student co-creation takes the form of active participation in
planning, designing, and delivering the educational services provided by HEIs. Hence,
student co-creation approaches include the following categories (Table 1):
Student co-creation
Higher
approaches Examples education co-
creation
Co-creating teaching Designing short animated videos; designing web-based solutions; working as
approaches peer mentors; game design and development projects; improving the use of
resources and learning aids; co-design of content; co-creation of learning
experience and outcomes; embedded co-assessment for learning; producing
podcasts or YouTube videos as curricular learning resources; creating 1303
prototypes and redesigns, and even implementing new ideas and solutions;
identifying and posting journal articles, popular press articles and videos to an
online forum. Moreover, the students’ final assessment task consists in designing
a resource in a form of their choice related to a lesson they learnt through their
placement activity or a theme covered in the unit
Co-creating course design Participating in educational program design workshops; forming a curriculum
design team to write or refine a unit guide; and designing the learning
environment
Co-producing knowledge Discipline-based or action research; scholarship of teaching and learning; gaining Table 1.
and sharing knowledge; co-teaching; service learning community engagement; Student co-creation
co-research approaches

(2) Student co-creation roles

Cook-Sather (2014. p. 187) argues that student and teacher roles need to be challenged and
reconsidered in HE towards regarding students as “full partners with faculty in analyses and
revisions of pedagogical practice”. According to Xu et al. (2018), multiple roles of students
incorporate “client”, “partner”, “co-producer”, “product”, and “citizen”. In the university,
students progressively have opportunities to play roles as consultants, student
representatives, co-researchers (Bell, 2009) or curriculum co-designers (Bovill et al., 2016).
Dollinger and Mercer-Mapstone (2019) unpack the five metaphors frequently used to redefine
student roles in HE: students as consumers, students as producers, students as co-creators,
students as partners, and students as change agents.
Our review has identified the following roles of students in value co-creation in HE (Table 2):
Students as producers: Positioning students as producers is to argue that all knowledge in
HE is co-produced by those who interact in HE communities, including students. Thus, the
concept of students as producers highlights the intellectual and experiential value that students
bring to HE. Co-production can happen on an individual level as students co-produce their
education through socialization, interaction, and knowledge formation in HEIs environments
(Kotze and Du Plessis, 2003; Dollinger and Mercer-Mapstone, 2019). The term co-creation
identifies students as knowledge producers and further suggests that students have valuable
resources, such as perspectives, ideas, opinions, and experiences, which can stimulate HE
(Dollinger, 2018). Some examples of student as producers include co-creating course design
(faculty, students, and academic development staff at the university have experimented with an
assortment of approaches to partner in “course design teams” that co-create, or re-create, a
course syllabus (Kay et al., 2019)). These activities, similar to the co-creation of teaching
approaches and curricula, encourage the progress of dialog between students and teaching
staff, from the design of the activity or procedure to the outputs and final dissemination.
Students as participants: Some co-creation activities that feature student roles as academic
participants include: co-creating of teaching approaches (faculty and students engage in
intelligent exchange about what is happening and what could be happening in HE
classrooms (Kay et al., 2019; Barbera et al., 2017); co-governance and student participation in
subjects or work-integrated learning opportunities (Dollinger, 2018; Dollinger and Mercer-
IJEM Student co-creation behaviors and roles References
36,7
Student co- Co-producer Co-creator of Sanina et al. (2020), Smørvik and Vespestad
creation roles Co-creator teaching (2020), Qi et al. (2020), Mamica and Mazur (2020),
Change Agent approaches Partington (2021), Gkogkidis and Dacre (2020),
Participant Bovill (2020), Cook-Sather (2020), Kaminskiene
Partner et al. (2020), Doyle and Buckley (2020), Tarı
1304 Kasnako glu and Mercan (2020), Davis and
Parmenter (2020), Kłeczek et al. (2020), Vespestad
and Smørvik (2019), Vidakis et al. (2019),
Kuhmonen et al. (2019), Cavallone et al. (2019),
Dollinger and Lodge (2019a, b), Dollinger and
Mercer-Mapstone (2019), Doyle et al. (2018),
Bovill (2019), Luckner et al. (2019), Ruskin and
Bilous (2020), Cassidy et al. (2019), Pee (2020),
Lim et al. (2019), Ribes-Giner et al. (2018),
Ranjbarfard and Sureshjani (2018), Uskokovic
(2018), Blau and Shamir-Inbal (2018), Kuhmonen
et al. (2018), Antoniou and Bamidis (2018),
Perello-Marın et al. (2018), Blau and Shamir-Inbal
(2017), Burford and Chan (2017), P€oyry-Lassila
et al. (2017), Barbera et al. (2017), Beighton (2017),
Pantoja Dıaz et al. (2016), Haraldseid et al. (2016),
Tuzovic (2016), Bowie and Cassim (2016),
Mononen et al. (2016), Phillips and Napan (2016),
Bovill et al. (2016), Garland et al. (2015), Wong
Kung Fong (2013), Zulkefli and Uden (2013),
Kotze and Du Plessis (2003)
Co-creator of course Parkes et al. (2020), Irick et al. (2020), K€onings
design et al. (2020), Baumber et al. (2020), Davis and
Parmenter (2020), Brook et al. (2020), Elliott et al.
(2020), Dollinger and Vanderlelie (2020),
Niinikoski (2019), Cavallone et al. (2019),
Dollinger and Lodge (2019a, b), Niinikoski (2019),
Jukema et al. (2019), Cassidy et al. (2019), Ruskin
and Bilous (2020), Bovill et al. (2016), Bovill
(2019), Taylor and Bovill (2018), Tsui and
Dragicevic (2018), Blau and Shamir-Inbal (2018),
Bovill and Woolmer (2019), Kneale (2018),
Perello-Marın et al. (2018), Kuhmonen et al.
(2018), Lubicz-Nawrocka and Simoni (2018), Blau
and Shamir-Inbal (2017), Hiedemann et al. (2017),
Murphy et al. (2017), Pantoja Dıaz et al. (2016),
Bowie and Cassim (2016), Sugino et al. (2016),
Fleischman et al. (2015), Radnor et al. (2014),
Cook-Sather (2014), Carey (2013), Zulkefli and
Uden (2013), Zulkefli and Uden (2013)
Co-producer of Ogunmokun et al. (2021), Dollinger and
knowledge Vanderlelie (2020), Wallin (2020), Davis and
Pamenter (2020), Ruskin and Bilous (2020),
Dollinger and Mercer-Mapstone (2019), Perello-
Marın et al. (2018), Kuhmonen et al. (2018), Ribes-
Giner et al. (2018), Galloway and Edwards (2017),
Pantoja Dıaz et al. (2016), Bovill et al. (2016),
Hamby and Brinberg (2016), Fillery-Travis
Table 2. (2014), Fleischman et al. (2010), McCulloch (2009)
Student co-creation
behaviors and roles (continued )
Student co-creation behaviors and roles References
Higher
education co-
Student Co- Student Information Foroudi et al. (2020), Torkzadeh et al. (2020), Tarı creation
creation Participation seeking Kasnako glu and Mercan (2020), Farhat et al.
Behavior Behavior Information (2020), Voropai et al. (2019), Foroudi et al. (2019),
sharing Monavvarifard et al. (2019), Sutarso et al. (2019),
Responsible Sahi et al. (2019), Manzoor et al. (2019),
behavior Fleischman et al. (2019), Eldegwy et al. (2018), 1305
Personal Antoniou and Bamidis (2018), Elsharnouby
interaction (2015)
Prosumer behavior Dollinger (2018)
Student Citizenship Feedback Farhat et al. (2020), Torkzadeh et al. (2020),
Behavior Baham (2020), St. John-Matthews et al. (2020),
Manzoor et al. (2021), Tarı Kasnako glu and
Mercan (2020), Foroudi et al. (2020), Luckner et al.
(2019), Manzoor et al. (2019), Sahi et al. (2019),
Foroudi et al. (2019), Monavvarifard et al. (2019),
Sutarso et al. (2019), Tøndel et al. (2018),
Dollinger (2018), Nixon et al. (2017), Wardley
et al. (2017), Robinson and Celuch (2016),
Elsharnouby (2015), Dıaz-Mendez and
Gummesson (2012)
Advocacy Girard and Pinar (2020), Hashim et al. (2020),
Farhat et al. (2020), Perera et al. (2020), Manzoor
et al. (2021), Tarı Kasnako glu and Mercan (2020),
Foroudi et al. (2020), Abdelmaaboud et al. (2020),
Abdelmaaboud et al. (2020), Torkzadeh et al.
(2020), Manzoor et al. (2019), Sahi et al. (2019),
Foroudi et al. (2019), Monavvarifard et al. (2019),
Voropai et al. (2019), Wilkins et al. (2018),
Dollinger et al. (2018), Wardley et al. (2017), Balaji
et al. (2016), Barros et al. (2016), Elsharnouby
(2015), Nguyen et al. (2012)
Helping Manzoor et al. (2021), Tarı Kasnako glu and
Mercan (2020), Farhat et al. (2020), Torkzadeh
et al. (2020), Foroudi et al. (2019), Monavvarifard
et al. (2019), Sahi et al. (2019), Manzoor et al.
(2019), Sutarso et al. (2019), Elsharnouby (2015)
Tolerance Farhat et al. (2020), Torkzadeh et al. (2020),
Foroudi et al. (2019), Monavvarifard et al. (2019),
Elsharnouby (2015), Manzoor et al. (2019) Table 2.

Mapstone, 2019); and co-creating of educational plans (the co-creation of curricula leads
students and academic staff to work in partnership to create some or all aspects of the
planning, implementation and assessment of the learning experience (Kay et al., 2019)).
Students as change agents: This construct defines processes similar to partnership, but places
leadership and agency directly within the student’s domain. One example is a group of students
exploring how technology can be used in their curriculum-designing of original resources and
measuring student engagement and satisfaction with those resources. A further argument for
the importance of student agency in shaping their own HE experiences is to redress the frequent
positioning of students as objects in HE research and practice, rather than as responsible and
valuable participants and agents (Fleischman et al., 2015; Dollinger and Mercer-Mapstone, 2019).
Students as partners: This concept is characterized as student-faculty-department
collaboration towards the procedure and results of the teaching and learning experience.
Partnership is a specific type of values-based relationship (Kaminskiene et al., 2020; Bovill,
2019; Fleischman et al., 2015; Baumber et al., 2020; Partington, 2021; Duque, 2014; Dollinger
IJEM et al., 2018 (Kay et al., 2019); Ruskin and Bilous, 2020; Bryson, 2014; Farhat et al., 2020;
36,7 Fleischman et al., 2019). “It is a collaborative, reciprocal procedure through which all
participants have the opportunity to contribute equally, although not necessarily in the same
ways, to curricular or pedagogical conceptualization, decision-making, implementation,
investigation, or analysis” (Bovill et al., 2014, pp. 6–7). Johnson (2021) argues that considering
students as active partners is one of the key features of teaching excellence. The academic
partnership is a framework for engaging university students in overlapping and reinforcing
1306 areas of (1) learning, teaching and evaluation, (2) curriculum design and consultancy (Bovill
et al., 2016; Bovill, 2019; Cook-Sather, 2014; Lubicz-Nawrocka and Simoni, 2018; Murphy et al.,
2017; Jukema et al., 2019), (3) discipline-based research (Maunder et al., 2013), and (4) the
scholarship of learning and teaching (Ruskin and Bilous, 2020; Bryson, 2014; Cassidy et al.,
2019; Kneale, 2018; Perello-Marın et al., 2018; Barbera et al., 2017).
(3) Student co-creation behaviors
Several studies (Elsharnouby, 2015; Sutarso et al., 2019; Balaji et al., 2016) utilized Yi and Gong’s
(2013) and Tarı Kasnako glu and Mercan’s (2020) model to measure student co-creation
behavior in HE. Yi and Gong (2013) developed a scale for estimating client co-creation behavior.
They operationalized co-creation behavior as a multidimensional construct entailing two
variables: client participation behavior (CPB) and client citizenship behavior (CCB). These two
authors distinguished four CPB components that include information seeking, information
sharing, responsible behavior, and personal interaction, as well as four other dimensions of
CCB: helping, advocacy, tolerance, and feedback (Elsharnouby, 2015; Foroudi et al., 2019).
These co-creation behavior components have been applied in several studies (Table 2).
Dollinger (2018) added “prosumer behaviour”: when clients produce content or other related
value in the service. Student co-creation behaviors identified in the present study include:
Information seeking – students look for data to clarify service requirements, understand
their expected roles, and learn how to perform their tasks. Students can look for data by
asking other students or employees, can search for information on the university’s website or
other online platforms, or watch other students’ behaviors while getting the service
(Elsharnouby, 2015; Foroudi et al., 2019).
Information sharing – giving essential information to the HEI service provider’s personnel
to enable them to perform their duties and provide the service that meets their needs (Yi and
Gong, 2013). Examples include giving information about the scheduling of replacement
classes, asking a lecturer to provide information about coursework, looking for information
about course materials, informing a lecturer about their assignments, and communicating
difficulty in understanding a course (Sutarso et al., 2019).
Responsible behavior – taking on students’ responsibilities and duties, such as completing all
coursework given by the lecturer, meeting a minimum level of class attendance, listening
carefully when a lecturer explains lessons, following the directions of a lecturer on how to perform
in class, and greeting when meeting a lecturer (Ennew and Binks, 1999; Sutarso et al., 2019).
Personal interaction – engaging in interpersonal relationships with the HEI service
provider’s employees that are necessary for effective service delivery (Elsharnouby, 2015;
Ennew and Binks, 1999; Foroudi et al., 2019).
Helping behavior – assisting different fellow students with difficulties, briefing a fellow
student who was absent or arrived late, sharing personal creation of an important model with
their colleagues, and helping individual students run a software application (Mazen et al.,
2008; Allison et al., 2001). According to Sutarso et al. (2019), helping refers to the degree to
which a student helps others in the learning procedure, such as assisting fellow students who
have difficulty in completing coursework or who have issues in understanding course
material, as well as teaching other students on how to understand the course material.
 Tolerance – dealing with inconveniences such as having to endure a change of classrooms, Higher
accepting inconvenient study conditions, accepting alternative class meeting times to education co-
accommodate the majority, and undertaking an extra assignment not included in the syllabus
but relevant to the course goals (Elsharnouby, 2015; Foroudi et al., 2019). Other examples are
creation
trying to understand when the class is rescheduled by a lecturer, being patient when a lecturer
takes inappropriate actions, and adjusting when a lecturer postpones a class (Sutarso et al., 2019).
Advocacy – incorporates speaking positively about the class to outsiders and recommending
the course to other people (Mazen et al., 2008), consistently supporting their college’s social 1307
activities (Khalid et al., 2013), being willing to recommend the institution to other people, keeping
in touch with the staff, selecting the organization again for future study or joining the alumni
groups (Elsharnouby, 2015). Advocacy intentions in Balaji et al. study (2016) allude to the act of
promoting and safeguarding the interests of the university. Student advocacy behaviors include
positively speaking about the university, representing the university to external publics (Peruta
and Shields, 2018), recruiting for the university, and lending support to the university.
Feedback – refers to voluntary acts in which organizational members engage in the
learning process, such as responding when a lecturer gives an appealing explanation, telling
a lecturer when they have an idea from learning activities or when they have an issue in
receiving an explanation in class. Suggestions for improvement are valid contributions, with
students voluntarily sharing their opinions and contributing with ideas for the university to
provide a better service to the students (Sutarso et al., 2019; John-Matthews et al., 2020).
Prosumer behavior – sometimes known as “presumption”, it can support the scalability of
co-creation. Prosumer behavior occurs when clients produce content or other related value in
the service (Toffler, 1980). Famous examples involve platforms such as Facebook and
Twitter, where HEIs have a profile but whose content is written by the students. Prosumer
behavior can lead to brand communities, or groups of clients who strongly identify with a
brand and are willing to donate resources (Dollinger, 2018).
Table 2 shows all student co-creation behaviors and roles.

5. Research agenda
In this review, we analyzed how student co-creation has been conceptualized in previous
studies and examined how this research topic has been explored over the years. A framework
is proposed (Figure 4) summing up the results that emerged from this review. This image
constitutes a map of extant research on student co-creation in HE.
This study revealed some gaps in the literature that need to be further addressed. Based
on our systematic review, we propose three mains directions for further research:

5.1 Co-creation strategies and platforms in HE

HEIs have been using different strategies to involve and engage students to co-create their
HE experience. More research efforts are needed to further the understanding of co-creation
strategies and platforms in HE with regard to every aspect covered in the present review.
Examples include collaborative learning projects, namely inter-institutional and
international projects, digital platforms, new approaches such as game-based
methodologies, open educational resources, etc.

5.2 Identifying the motivations that prompt students to engage in co-creation in HE

Future studies can investigate the initial motivations, process, and outcomes of co-creation in
HE to adopt participatory design. In order to incorporate other antecedents, such as culture
and ethical values — which would provide interesting insight into how the process is affected
by the different cultures of a nation —, it would be useful to investigate the boundary
IJEM
36,7

1308

Figure 4.
Map of student co-
creation process,
behaviors and roles
in HE

conditions or moderating factors that could impact students’ motivation to co-create their HE
experience.

5.3 Understanding value from the perspective of the different HE stakeholders

Further studies can focus on students’ perceived value related to co-creation in HE to identify
relevant motivation segments to prompt students to co-create. Future research can also
explore the benefits and costs of co-creation for students and explore students’ perceived
price and risks of co-creation.

5.4 Identifying the consequences of co-creation in HE

The analysis to identify the consequences and outcomes of co-creation in HE is still in its
infancy. Although some scholars have proposed models and processes of analysis, the
question involving how effectiveness of co-creation in HEIs can be measured remains open
and calls for increased research efforts. The topic is of utmost importance for both academics
and practitioners, as it can help boost the performance of co-creation in HEIs and their
commitment to co-creation practices: How can technology and innovation advance co-
creation approaches in HE? How does cognitive dissonance and satisfaction/dissatisfaction
influence students’ co-creation behaviors and roles? What is the opinion of faculty, governing
bodies, employees, alumni and staff or industries regarding the co-creation process? Finally,
it may be worthwhile to explore the benefits of curriculum co-creation for both students and
faculty staff, since there is only anecdotal evidence to suggest that this way of working might
also benefit workplace partners. Given the increasing internationalization of HE, it is essential
to understand how different student co-creation behaviors are impacted by different cultures.

6. Conclusion
Over the last decade, there has been a growing interest within the HE sector in students
becoming producers, partners and co-creators of their HE experience (Bovill, 2013).
By providing opportunities to co-create value at levels consistent with student preference, Higher
HEIs need to identify how to encourage students to engage in value creation. As indicated by education co-
Bryson (2014), educational developers and instructors have tried to make the student
experience more engaging based on the premise that engagement leads to greater
creation
persistence, improved learning, and achievement.
This paper provides a systematic review of the literature on student co-creation
approaches in order to consolidate the view on co-creation approaches used in HE that can
contribute to clarifying a co-creation model in HE based on current literature on student co- 1309
creation in HE. By using the PRISMA approach to report and analyze the body of work on
this theme, we have contributed to an integrated view of extant research on this theme. This
allows not only synthesizing the existing body of literature but also to identify research gaps
and suggest directions for the future (Tranfield et al., 2003; Paul and Criado, 2020). Based on
this, we have provided a research agenda.
From the descriptive analysis results, we conclude that most publications were issued
after 2018, mostly in higher education journals. These studies were mostly conducted in the
USA and the UK.
We identified that the main approaches used by HEIs to identify the student co-creation
process in HE derive from the SDL approach. We also identified that the main student co-
creation roles in HE are students as producers, students as co-creators, students as change
agents, students as partners, and students as participants. Moreover, student co-creation
approaches identified by this study include co-creating of teaching approaches, co-creating of
course design, and co-producing knowledge. Student co-creation behaviors in HE include
information seeking, information sharing, responsible behavior, personal interaction, helping
behavior, tolerance, advocacy, feedback, and prosumer behavior.

6.1 Implications and recommendations

Co-creation in HE is of paramount importance since being perceived as (more) customer-
oriented is an increasingly critical strategic priority for HEIs. Universities seek to be viewed
as customer-oriented, as this can positively impact important relational outcomes such as
satisfaction, retention, and positive word of mouth. Such efforts can assist HEIs in better
balancing and aligning interests between academics and students as a means of increasing
the many experiential aspects (touchpoints) of the HE service model. The present study
emphasizes the importance of HEIs comprehending the appropriate co-creation approaches
and processes. Understanding students’ intention to co-create can help universities maintain
or gain competitive advantage through customer co-creation, student suggested/influenced
improvements and innovations (Robinson and Celuch, 2016).
Co-creation in HE places students at the center of the process, rather than policymakers or
professionals, and has significant implications for process management, such as how HE
innovations are developed and how risk is managed in the innovation process. Moreover, it
implies that student co-production is improving the quality and impact of existing HE
services and bringing students’ experience together with participative planning to generate
new approaches to HE services (Radnor et al., 2014). For co-creation to take place, both HEIs
and students should be united and work hand in hand to create a better service and a
differentiated product (Giner and Peralt Rillo, 2016). This study provides a map of student co-
creation in HE by identifying the approaches and the process that allow students to play co-
creating roles and behaviors and participate in co-creating the HE experience.
This paper brings together prior research prior research and draws decision-makers’
attention to the co-creative role played by students throughout the production and delivery of
services. HE managers, educational developers and instructors should be aware that when
students engage in participation and citizenship behaviors, it impacts their evaluations of
IJEM service quality, their feelings of satisfaction, perceptions of goal attainment, and behavioral
36,7 intentions. As our systematic literature shows, there are several approaches to the process of
co-creation that institutions can pursue. HEIs have tremendous potential to devise strategies
for leveraging students’ participation and their inputs as an unlimited resource (Torkzadeh
et al., 2020). HEIs need to find ways to devise the most adequate approaches depending on the
profile of the institution, the resources available, the area of study, etc. In addition, the
manifold roles and behaviour that students can take on as part of a co-creation approach
1310 make this a very flexible strategy for promoting student persistence, learning, and
achievement.

6.2 Limitations
Although the concept of co-creation in HE has been around for a long time, this review has
shown that literature development is still at an early stage. This work has several limitations.
First, it does not include all possible academic sources, but it is focused on major databases of
scientific journals. Relevant knowledge might also come from investigations that are not
included in the selected list, such as textbooks, working papers, or editorial contributions.
Second, the cloud of keywords could be enriched or modified to extend the coverage of
potentially interesting articles. Moreover, some studies might utilize different labels of
keywords to refer to co-creation depending on the theoretical development, which constitutes
the foundation of the study.
The descriptive analysis revealed that the number of published articles is still limited, thus
calling for a growing commitment of academics. Moreover, most of the works considered are
case studies or conceptual development papers, whereas research aimed at exploring broader
data sets is scarce. Hence, more research efforts are needed to further the understanding of co-
creation in HE about every aspect covered in the present review.

References
Allison, B.J., Voss, R.S. and Dryer, S. (2001), “Student classroom and career success: the role of
organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 76 No. 5,
pp. 282-288.
Bell, L., Neary, M. and Stevenson, H. (Eds) (2009), The Future of Higher Education: Policy, Pedagogy
and the Student Experience, A&C Black, London, Vol. 34, pp. 845-846.
Bond, M. (2020), “Facilitating student engagement through the flipped learning approach in K-12:
a systematic review”, Computers and Education, Vol. 151, pp. 1-36, 103819.
Bovill, C. (2013), “Students and staff co-creating curricula: an example of good practice in higher
education”, The Student Engagement Handbook: Practice in Higher Education, Vol. 5,
pp. 461-475.
Bovill, C. (2019), “A co-creation of learning and teaching typology: what kind of co-creation are you
planning or doing?”, International Journal for Students As Partners, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 91-98.
Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A. and Felten, P. (2011), “Students as co-creators of teaching approaches,
course design, and curricula: implications for academic developers”, International Journal for
Academic Development, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 133-145.
Bovill, C., Felten, P. and Cook-Sather, A. (2014), “Engaging students as partners in learning and
teaching (2): practical guidance for academic staff and academic developers”, International
consortium on educational development conference, Stockholm, pp. 16-18.
Brady, M.P. (2013), “Multiple roles of student and instructor in university teaching and learning
processes”, The International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 93-106.
Bryson, C. (2014), “Clarifying the concept of student engagement”, in Bryson, C. (Ed.), Understanding
and Developing Student Engagement, Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 1-22.
Carini, R.M., Kuh, G.D. and Klein, S.P. (2006), “Student engagement and student learning: testing the Higher
linkages”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 1-32.
education co-
Cassidy, K.J., Sullivan, M.N. and Radnor, Z.J. (2019), “Using insights from (public) services
management to improve student engagement in higher education”, Studies in Higher Education,
creation
Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 1190-1206.
Cavallone, M., Ciasullo, M.V., Douglas, J. and Palumbo, R. (2019), “Framing higher education quality
from a business perspective: setting the conditions for value co-creation”, Studies in Higher
Education, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 1099-1111. 1311
Cook-Sather, A. (2014), “Multiplying perspectives and improving practice: what can happen when
undergraduate students collaborate with college faculty to explore teaching and learning”,
Instructional Science, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 31-46.
Dıaz-Mendez, M. and Gummesson, E. (2012), “Value co-creation and university teaching quality:
consequences for the European higher education area (EHEA)”, Journal of Service Management,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 571-592.
Doyle, E., Buckley, P. and Whelan, J. (2018), “Assessment co-creation: an exploratory analysis of
opportunities and challenges based on student and instructor perspectives”, Teaching in Higher
Education, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 739-754.
Elsharnouby, T.H. and Mahrous, A.A. (2015), “Customer participation in online co-creation experience:
the role of e-service quality”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 313-336.
Ennew, C.T. and Binks, M.R. (1999), “Impact of participative service relationships on quality,
satisfaction and retention: an exploratory study”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46 No. 2,
pp. 121-132.
Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C. and Paris, A.H. (2004), “School engagement: potential of the concept,
state of the evidence”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 59-109.
Gummerus, J. and Pihlstr€om, M. (2011), “Context and mobile services’ value-in-use”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 521-533.
Johnson, M. (2021), “Teaching excellence in the context of business and management education:
perspectives from Australian, British and Canadian universities”, The International Journal of
Management Education, Vol. 19 No. 3, 100508.
 ziunaite, V., Jurgile, V. and Ponomarenko, T. (2020), “Co-creation of learning:
Kaminskiene, L., Zyd
a concept analysis”, European Journal of Contemporary Education, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 337-349.
Kay, R., MacDonald, T. and DiGiuseppe, M. (2019), “A comparison of lecture-based, active, and flipped
classroom teaching approaches in higher education”, Journal of Computing in Higher Education,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 449-471.
Khalid, S.A., Rahman, N.A., Madar, A.R.S. and Ismail, M. (2013), “Undergraduates’ organizational
citizenship behavior: the role of religiosity”, International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 7, p. 572.
Lane, P.J., Koka, B.R. and Pathak, S. (2006), “The reification of absorptive capacity: a critical review
and rejuvenation of the construct”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 833-863.
Lubicz-Nawrocka, T.M. and Simoni, H. (2018), “Co-researching co-creation of the curriculum:
reflections on arts-based methods in education and connections to healthcare co-production”,
International Journal for Students As Partners, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 157-165.
Manzoor, S.R., Ho, J.S.Y. and Al Mahmud, A. (2021), “Revisiting the ‘university image model’for higher
education institutions’ sustainability”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 220-239.
Maunder, R.E., Cunliffe, M., Galvin, J., Mjali, S. and Rogers, J. (2013), “Listening to student voices:
student researchers exploring undergraduate experiences of university transition”, Higher
Education, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
IJEM Mavondo, F.T., Tsarenko, Y. and Gabbott, M. (2004), “International and local student satisfaction:
resources and capabilities perspective”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 14
36,7 No. 1, pp. 41-60.
Mazen, A., Herman, S. and Ornstein, S. (2008), “Professor delight: cultivating organizational
citizenship behavior”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 563-579.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. and Altman, D.G. (2010), “Preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement”, International Journal of Surgery, Vol. 8
1312 No. 5, pp. 336-341.
Murphy, R., Nixon, S., Brooman, S. and Fearon, D. (2017), “I am wary of giving too much power to
students: Addressing the ‘but’ in the principle of staff-student partnership”, International
Journal for Students As Partners, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-16, 1.
Navarro-Garcıa, A., Peris-Ortiz, M. and Rueda-Armengot, C. (2015), “Value Co-creation, collaborative
learning and competences in higher education”, in Peris-Ortiz, M. and Merigo Lindahl, J. (Eds),
Sustainable Learning in Higher Education. Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge
Management, Springer, Cham, pp. 37-45, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10804-9_3.
Ogunmokun, O.A., Unverdi-Creig, G.I., Said, H., Avci, T. and Eluwole, K.K. (2021), “Consumer well-
being through engagement and innovation in higher education: a conceptual model and
research propositions”, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 21 No. 1, e2100.
Ostrom, E. (1996), “Private transfers to cope with a natural disaster: evidence from Bangladesh*”,
World Development, Vol. 24, pp. 1073-1087.
Paul, J. and Criado, A.R. (2020), “The art of writing literature review: what do we know and what do
we need to know?”, International Business Review, Vol. 29 No. 4, 101717.
Peruta, A. and Shields, A.B. (2018), “Marketing your university on social media: a content analysis of
Facebook post types and formats”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 175-191.
Pintrich, P.R. and De Groot, E.V. (1990), “Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
classroom academic performance”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 1, p. 33.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2000), “Co-opting customer competence”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 79-90.
Ranjan, K.R. and Read, S. (2016), “Value co-creation: concept and measurement”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 290-315.
Ranjbarfard, M. and Sureshjani, M.H. (2018), “Offering a framework for value co-creation in virtual
academic learning environments”, Interactive Technology and Smart Education,
Vol. 15, pp. 2-27.
Sugino, R., Mizoguchi, S., Kimita, K., Muramatsu, K., Matsui, T. and Shimomura, Y. (2016), “A method
for consensus building between teachers and learners in higher education through co-design
process”, International Conference on Human Interface and the Management of Information
HIMI 2016, Part II, LNCS 9735, pp. 197-208.
Toffler, A. (1980), “The third wave: the corporate identity crisis”, Management Review, Vol. 69 No. 5, pp. 8-17.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Voelkl, K.E. (1997), “Identification with school”, American Journal of Education, Vol. 105 No. 3,
pp. 294-318.
Witell, L., Kristensson, P., Gustafsson, A. and L€ofgren, M. (2011), “Idea generation: customer co-
creation versus traditional market research techniques”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 140-159.
Yi, Y. and Gong, T. (2013), “Customer value co-creation behavior: scale development and validation”, Higher
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 9, pp. 1279-1284.
education co-
Zhao, C.M. and Kuh, G.D. (2004), “Adding value: learning communities and student engagement”,
Research in Higher Education, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 115-138.
creation
Zimmerman, B.J. (1990), “Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview”,
Educational Psychologist, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 3-17.
1313
Appendix
Abdelmaaboud, A.K., Pe~ na, A.I.P. and Mahrous, A.A. (2020), “The influence of student-university
identification on student’s advocacy intentions: the role of student satisfaction and student
trust”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 197-219.
Antoniou, P.E. and Bamidis, P.D. (2018), “Devising a Co-creative digital content development pipeline
for experiential healthcare education”, CC-TEL/TACKLE@ EC-TEL, Vol. 2190, pp. 1-10.
Aspara, J., Aula, H.M., Tienari, J. and Tikkanen, H. (2014), “Struggles in organizational attempts to
adopt new branding logics: the case of a marketizing university”, Consumption Markets and
Culture, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 522-552.
Baham, C. (2020), “Improving business product owner commitment in student scrum projects”, Journal
of Information Technology Education: Research, Vol. 19, pp. 243-258.
Balaji, M.S., Roy, S.K. and Sadeque, S. (2016), “Antecedents and consequences of university brand
identification”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 3023-3032.
Barbera, E., Garcia, I. and Fuertes-Alpiste, M. (2017), “A co-design process microanalysis: stages and
facilitators of an inquiry-based and technology-enhanced learning scenario”, International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning: IRRODL, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 104-126.
Barros, T., Martins, F.V. and Barandas, H.G. (2016), “Corporate brand identity measurement-an
application to the services sector”, International Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 214-231.
Baumber, A., Kligyte, G., van der Bijl-Brouwer, M. and Pratt, S. (2020), “Learning together:
a transdisciplinary approach to student–staff partnerships in higher education”, Higher
Education Research and Development, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 395-410.
Beighton, C. (2017), “Groundhog day? Nietzsche, Deleuze and the eternal return of prosumption in
lifelong learning”, Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 695-712.
Best, S., Koski, A., Walsh, L. and Vuokila-Oikkonen, P. (2019), “Enabling mental health student nurses
to work co-productively”, The Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice,
Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 411-422.
Blau, I. and Shamir-Inbal, T. (2017), “Re-designed flipped learning model in an academic course: the
role of co-creation and co-regulation”, Computers and Education, Vol. 115, pp. 69-81.
Blau, I. and Shamir-Inbal, T. (2018), “Digital technologies for promoting “student voice” and co-creating
learning experience in an academic course”, Instructional Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 315-336.
Bovill, C. (2020), “Co-creation in learning and teaching: the case for a whole-class approach in higher
education”, Higher Education, Vol. 79 No. 6, pp. 1023-1037.
Bovill, C. and Woolmer, C. (2019), “How conceptualisations of curriculum in higher education influence
student-staff co-creation in and of the curriculum”, Higher Education, Vol. 78 No. 3, pp. 407-422.
Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L. and Moore-Cherry, N. (2016), “Addressing potential
challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: overcoming resistance, navigating institutional
norms and ensuring inclusivity in student–staff partnerships”, Higher Education, Vol. 71 No. 2,
pp. 195-208.
Bowie, A. and Cassim, F. (2016), “Linking classroom and community: a theoretical alignment of
service learning and a human-centered design methodology in contemporary communication
design education”, Education as Change, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
IJEM Brook, J., Aitken, L., MacLaren, J.A. and Salmon, D. (2020), “Co-production of an intervention to
increase retention of early career nurses: acceptability and feasibility”, Nurse Education in
36,7 Practice, Vol. 1 No. 47, p. 102861.
Burford, M.R. and Chan, K. (2017), “Refining a strategic marketing course: is a ‘flip’a good ‘fit”, Journal
of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 152-163.
Cao, J.T., Foster, J., Yaoyuneyong, G. and Krey, N. (2019), “Hedonic and utilitarian value: the role of
shared responsibility in higher education services”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,
1314 Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 134-152.
Carey, P. (2013), “Student as co-producer in a marketised higher education system: a case study of
students’ experience of participation in curriculum design”, Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 250-260.
Cavallone, M., Ciasullo, M.V., Manna, R. and Palumbo, R. (2020), “A tale of two stakeholders: achieving
excellence by merging quality expectations in Higher Education institutions”, Studies in Higher
Education, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 244-258.
Cavallone, M., Ciasullo, M.V., Douglas, J. and Palumbo, R. (2021), “Framing higher education quality
from a business perspective: setting the conditions for value co-creation”, Studies in Higher
Education, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 1099-1111.
Cook-Sather, A. (2020), “Respecting voices: how the co-creation of teaching and learning can support
academic staff, underrepresented students, and equitable practices”, Higher Education, Vol. 79
No. 5, pp. 885-901.
Cassidy, K.J., Sullivan, M.N. and Radnor, Z.J. (2021), “Using insights from (public) services
management to improve student engagement in higher education”, Studies in Higher Education,
Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 1190-1206.
Celuch, K., Bacic, D., Chen, M.W., Maier-Lytle, J. and Smothers, J. (2018), “The potential of student co-
creation in extracurricular experiences”, Marketing Education Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 230-243.
da Silva, M., da Silva, L.C.A. and Brambilla, F.R. (2020), “A bibliographical analysis in the literature of
value co-creation in private higher education between the years 2006 to 2016”, Independent
Journal of Management and Production, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 1323-1341.
Davis, C. and Parmenter, L. (2020), “Student-staff partnerships at work: epistemic confidence,
research-engaged teaching and vocational learning in the transition to higher education”,
Educational Action Research, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 292-309.
Dollinger, M. (2018), “Technology for the scalability of co-creation with students”, ASCILITE 2018 -
Conference Proceedings - 35th International Conference of Innovation, Practice and Research in
the use of Educational Technologies in Tertiary Education: Open Oceans: Learning Without
Borders, pp. 346-350.
Dollinger, M. and Lodge, J. (2019a), “Student-staff co-creation in higher education: an evidence-
informed model to support future design and implementation”, Journal of Higher Education
Policy and Management, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 1-15.
Dollinger, M. and Lodge, J. (2019b), “Understanding value in the student experience through student–
staff partnerships”, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 940-952.
Dollinger, M., Lodge, J. and Coates, H. (2018), “Co-creation in higher education: towards a conceptual
model”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 210-231.
Dollinger, M. and Mercer-Mapstone, L. (2019), “What’s in a name? Unpacking students’ roles in higher
education through neoliberal and social justice lenses”, Teaching and Learning Inquiry, Vol. 7
No. 2, pp. 73-89.
Dollinger, M. and Vanderlelie, J. (2020), “Closing the loop: co-designing with students for greater
market orientation”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 41-57.
Dollinger, M., Liu, D., Arthars, N. and Lodge, J.M. (2019), “Working together in learning analytics
towards the co-creation of value”, Journal of Learning Analytics, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 10-26.
Doyle, E. and Buckley, P. (2020), “The impact of co-creation: an analysis of the effectiveness of student Higher
authored multiple choice questions on achievement of learning outcomes”, Interactive Learning
Environments, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 494-507. education co-
Dusi, D. and Huisman, J. (2020), “It’s more complex than it seems! Employing the concept of
creation
prosumption to grasp the heterogeneity and complexity of student roles in higher education”,
Higher Education, Vol. 81 No. 5, pp. 935-948.
Duque, L.C. (2014), “A framework for analysing higher education performance: students’ satisfaction,
perceived learning outcomes, and dropout intentions”, Total Quality Management and Business 1315
Excellence, Vol. 25 Nos 1-2, pp. 1-21.
Eldegwy, A., Elsharnouby, T.H. and Kortam, W. (2018), “How sociable is your university brand? An
empirical investigation of university social augmenters’ brand equity”, International Journal of
Educational Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 912-930.
Elliott, I.C., Robson, I. and Dudau, A. (2020), “Building student engagement through co-production and
curriculum co-design in public administration programmes”, Teaching Public Administration,
Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 318-336.
Elsharnouby, T.H. (2015), “Student co-creation behavior in higher education: the role of satisfaction
with the university experience”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 238-262.
Farhat, K., Mokhtar, S.S.M. and Salleh, S.B.M. (2020), “Role of brand experience and brand affect in
creating brand engagement: a case of higher education institutions (HEIs)”, Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 107-135.
Fillery-Travis, A.J. (2014), “The framework of a generic DProf programme–a reflection on its design,
the relational dimension for candidates and advisers and the potential for knowledge co-
creation”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 608-620.
Fleischman, D., Raciti, M. and Lawley, M. (2015), “Degrees of co-creation: an exploratory study of
perceptions of international students’ role in community engagement experiences”, Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 85-103.
Fleischman, D., Raciti, M.M. and Lawley, M. (2019), “Examining international students’ expectations
of third-party community engagement as a value co-creation mechanism”, Journal for
Advancement of Marketing Education, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 42-57.
Fleischman, D., Lawley, M.A. and Raciti, M. (2010), “Enhancing the international student experience
with community engagement: a conceptual model”, E-journal of Business Education and
Scholarship of Teaching, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 13-26.
Foroudi, P., Nazarian, A., Ziyadin, S., Kitchen, P., Hafeez, K., Priporas, C. and Pantano, E. (2020),
“Co-creating brand image and reputation through stakeholder’s social network”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 114, pp. 42-59.
Foroudi, P., Yu, Q., Gupta, S. and Foroudi, M.M. (2019), “Enhancing university brand image and
reputation through customer value co-creation behaviour”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 138, pp. 218-227.
Galloway, S. and Edwards, R. (2017), “Co-producing a recognition of prior learning (RPL) toolkit for
adult educators: reflections on the REAL deal?”, Studies in the Education of Adults, Vol. 49
No. 1, pp. 109-125.
Garland, N., Khan, Z. and O’Kane, P. (2015), “Surgical appliance design through student co-creation at
PAL-Week”, DS 82: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Engineering and
Product Design Education (E&PDE15), Great Expectations: Design Teaching, Research and
Enterprise, Loughborough, pp. 424-429.
Giner, G.R. and Rillo, A.P. (2016), “Structural equation modeling of co-creation and its influence on the
student’s satisfaction and loyalty towards university”, Journal of Computational and Applied
Mathematics, Vol. 291, pp. 257-263.
IJEM Girard, T. and Pinar, M. (2020), “An empirical study of the dynamic relationships between the core
and supporting brand equity dimensions in higher education”, Journal of Applied Research in
36,7 Higher Education, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 710-740.
Gkogkidis, V. and Dacre, N. (2020), “Co-creating educational project management board games to
enhance student engagement”, European Conference on Games Based Learning, Academic
Conferences International, pp. 210-219.
Hamby, A. and Brinberg, D. (2016), “International service learning as social value cocreation”, Journal
1316 of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 209-233.
Haraldseid, C., Friberg, F. and Aase, K. (2016), “How can students contribute? A qualitative study of
active student involvement in development of technological learning material for clinical skills
training”, BMC Nursing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Hasan, N. and Rahman, A.A. (2016), “Exploring factors that influence customer engagement in value
co-creation in higher education institutions using online platforms”, Journal of Theoretical and
Applied Information Technology, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 247-260.
Hasan, N. and Rahman, A.A. (2017), “Ranking the factors that impact customers online participation
in value co-creation in service sector using analytic hierarchy process”, International Journal of
Information Systems in the Service Sector (IJISSS), Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 37-53.
Hasan, N., Rahman, A.A. and Saeed, F. (2015), “Motivations for value co-creation in higher education
institutions using online platforms: case of idea bank”, Jurnal Teknologi, Vol. 73 No. 2.
Hashim, S., Mohd Yasin, N. and Ya’kob, S.A. (2020), “What constitutes student–university brand
relationship? Malaysian students’ perspective”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 180-202.
Hiedemann, A.M., Nasi, G. and Saporito, R. (2017), “A public service-dominant logic for the executive
education of public managers”, Teaching Public Administration, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 66-87.
Irick, E., Eike, R.J., Cho, S. and Kim, M. (2020), “Repurposing apparel: a guided process for sustainable
design education”, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 280-291.
John-Matthews, J.S., Robinson, L., Martin, F., Newton, P.M. and Grant, A.J. (2020), “Crowdsourcing:
a novel tool to elicit the student voice in the curriculum design process for an undergraduate
diagnostic radiography degree programme”, Radiography, Vol. 26, pp. S54-S61.
Jukema, J.S., Veerman, M., Van Alphen, J., Visser, G., Smits, C. and Kingma, T. (2019), “Nurturing
gerontology students’ intrinsic motivation to cocreate: the design of a powerful learning
environment”, Gerontology and Geriatrics Education, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 432-441.
Kłeczek, R., Hajdas, M. and Wrona, S. (2020), “Wicked problems and project-based learning: value-in-
use approach”, The International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, 100324.
Kneale, P.E. (2018), “Where might pedagogic research focus to support students’ education in a REF-
TEF world”, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 487-497.
K€onings, K.D., Mordang, S., Smeenk, F., Stassen, L. and Ramani, S. (2020), “Learner involvement in the
co-creation of teaching and learning”, AMEE Guide No. 138, Vol. 43 No. 8, pp. 924-936.
Kotze, T.G. and Du Plessis, P.J. (2003), “Students as ‘co-producers’ of education: a proposed model of
student socialisation and participation at tertiary institutions”, Quality Assurance in Education,
Vol. 11, pp. 186-201.
Kuhmonen, A., P€oyry-Lassila, P. and Sepp€al€a, H. (2018), “Open badges: experiences from a game
development skills open badge co-creation process”, Proceedings of the European Conference on
Games Based Learning, pp. 307-315.
Kuhmonen, A., Sepp€al€a, H., Anttila, A. and Rantanen, P. (2019), “Motivating students to learn law
through Co-creation and participation in game designing and gameplay”, The Proceedings of
the 13th International Conference on Game Based Learning ECGBL2019, Odense, 3-4 October
2019, The University of Southern Denmark, Academic Conferences and Publishing
International, pp. 423-431.
Lim, G., Shelley, A. and Heo, D. (2019), “The regulation of learning and co-creation of new knowledge Higher
in mobile learning”, Knowledge Management and E-Learning: An International Journal, Vol. 11
No. 4, pp. 449-484. education co-
Lubicz-Nawrocka, T. and Bovill, C. (2021), “Do students experience transformation through co-
creation
creating curriculum in higher education?”, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 18, pp. 1-17.
Luckner, N., Purgathofer, P. and Fitzpatrick, G. (2019), “Involving students in the Co-creation of a
complex, evolving learning environment”, Interaction Design and Architecture(s), Vol. 42,
pp. 70-92. 1317
Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (2014), The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and
Directions, Routledge, New York.
Magnotta, S., Thomas, V.L., Steffes, E., Chang, H. and Vinuales, G. (2021), “hook, line, and sinker:
catching and maintaining students’attention with marketing hooks”, Marketing Education
Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 162-168.
Mamica, Ł. and Mazur, B. (2020), “Expectations versus reality: what matters to students of economics
vs. What they receive from universities?”, Education Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 1, p. 2.
Manzoor, S.R., Malarvizhi, C. and Mahdee, J.B.M. (2019), “Investigating value Co-creation behaviour
among international postgraduate students in Malaysia’s HEI’s”, Indian Journal of Public
Health Research and Development, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 1367-1372.
McCulloch, A. (2009), “The student as co-producer: learning from public administration about the
student–university relationship”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 171-183.
Membrillo-Hernandez, J., Mu~ 
noz-Soto, R.B., Rodrıguez-Sanchez, A.C., Dıaz-Qui~
nonez, J.A., Villegas,
P.V., Castillo-Reyna, J. and Ramırez-Medrano, A. (2019), “Student engagement outside the
classroom: analysis of a challenge-based learning strategy in biotechnology engineering”, 2019
IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), IEEE, pp. 617-621, (pp. 617-621).
8725246.
Monavvarifard, F., Baradaran, M. and Khosravipour, B. (2019), “Increasing the sustainability level in
agriculture and Natural Resources Universities of Iran through students’ engagement in the
value Co-creation process”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 234, pp. 353-365.
Mononen, A., Kortelainen, M. and Hellgren, A. (2016), “Students as customers: service process
development for improved student’s customer experience at BusinessLab of Laurea university
of applied sciences, Finland”, in Manuel da Costa Gomes, O. and Antonio Fanha Martins, H.
(Eds), Advances in Applied Business Research: The L.A.B.S. Initiative, Nova Science Publishers,
Hauppauge, pp. 220-236.
Mostafa, R.B. (2015), “Engaging students via social media: is it worth the effort?”, Journal of
Marketing Education, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 144-159.
noz-Escalona, P., Savage, K., Conway, F. and McLaren, A. (2018), “Promoting undergraduate
Mu~
student engagement through self-generated exam activity”, International Journal of Mechanical
Engineering Education, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 252-273.
Muramalla, V.S.S.R. and Alqahtanib, H.A. (2019), “Quality of services and the impact on students’
satisfaction in universities”, International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change,
Vol. 7 No. 7.
Naylor, R., Dollinger, M., Mahat, M. and Khawaja, M. (2021), “Students as customers versus as active
agents: conceptualising the student role in governance and quality assurance”, Higher
Education Research and Development, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1026-1039.
Ng, I.C. and Forbes, J. (2009), “Education as service: the understanding of university experience
through the service logic”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 38-64.
Nguyen, T.D., Shirahada, K. and Kosaka, M. (2012), “A consideration on university branding based on
SDL (Service Dominant Logic): the lens of stakeholders’ value co-creation”, ICSSSM12, IEEE,
pp. 779-784, (pp. 779-784). 6252346.
IJEM Nixon, S., Brooman, S., Murphy, B. and Fearon, D. (2017), “Clarity, consistency and communication:
using enhanced dialogue to create a course-based feedback strategy”, Assessment and
36,7 Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 812-822.
Niinikoski, S. (2019), “Co-creating legal design curriculum for Master s degree: further-developing
curriculum based on future megatrends and student learning experience”, ICERI2019
Proceedings, pp. 2827-2834.
Nuebel, E., Nowinski, S.M., Hemmis, C.W. and Lindsley, J.E. (2019), “A curriculum design and teaching
1318 experience created by and for bioscience postdoctoral fellows in a medical school”, Medical
Science Educator, Vol. 30, pp. 97-101.
Pantoja Dıaz, O., Ribes-Giner, G. and Perello-Marin, M.R. (2016), “The impact of cocreation on the
student satisfaction: analysis through structural equation modeling”, in Abstract and Applied
Analysis, December, Vol. 2016, Hindawi.
Parkes, S., Benkwitz, A., Bardy, H., Myler, K. and Peters, J. (2020), “Being more human: rooting
learning analytics through re distance and re connection with the values of higher education”,
Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 113-126.
Partington, A. (2021), “Personalised learning for the student-consumer”, Academic Advising and
Tutoring for Student Success in Higher Education: International Perspectives, Vol. 5, 529628.
Pedro, I.M., Mendes, J.D.C. and Pereira, L.N. (2020), “Understanding alumni-alma mater commitment
relationships upstream and downstream”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 31
No. 2, pp. 1-22.
Pee, L.G. (2020), “Enhancing the learning effectiveness of ill-structured problem solving with online co-
creation”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 45 No. 11, pp. 2341-2355.
Perello-Marın, M.R., Ribes-Giner, G. and Pantoja Dıaz, O. (2018), “Enhancing education for sustainable
development in environmental university programmes: a co-creation approach”, Sustainability,
Vol. 10 No. 1, p. 158.
Perera, C.H., Nayak, R. and Nguyen, L.T.V. (2020), “Social brand engagement and brand positioning
for higher educational institutions: an empirical study in Sri Lanka”, Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1080/08841241.2020.1841068.
Phillips, L. and Napan, K. (2016), “What’s in the’co’? Tending the tensions in co-creative inquiry in
social work education”, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol. 29 No. 6,
pp. 827-844.
P€oyry-Lassila, P., Kuhmonen, A. and Marjanen, P. (2017), “TradeAway: collaborative game design and
development as a learning environment”, Academic Conferences and Publishing International
LimitedP ECGBL 2017, pp. 546-553.
Qi, D., Zhang, M. and Zhang, Y. (2020), “Resource integration, value co-creation and continuance intention
in MOOCs learning process”, Interactive Learning Environments, pp. 1-13, doi: 10.1080/10494820.
2020.1802299.
Radnor, Z., Osborne, S.P., Kinder, T. and Mutton, J. (2014), “Operationalizing co-production in public
services delivery: the contribution of service blueprinting”, Public Management Review, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 402-423.
Ribes-Giner, G., Perello-Marın, M.R. and Dıaz, O.P. (2018), “Co-Creation in undergraduate engineering
programs: effects of communication and student participation”, The International Journal of
Engineering Education, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 236-247.
Ribes-Giner, G., Perello-Marın, M.R. and Dıaz, O.P. (2016), “Co-creation impacts on student behavior”,
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 228, pp. 72-77.
Robinson, N.M. and Celuch, K.G. (2016), “Strategic and bonding effects of enhancing the student
feedback process”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 20-40.
Ruskin, J. and Bilous, R.H. (2020), “A tripartite framework for extending university-student co-creation
to include workplace partners in the work-integrated learning context”, Higher Education
Research and Development, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 806-820.
Sahi, G.K., Devi, R. and Dash, S.B. (2019), “Examining the role of customer engagement in augmenting Higher
referral value”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 Nos 5/6, pp. 539-564.
education co-
Sanina, A., Kutergina, E. and Balashov, A. (2020), “The Co-Creative approach to digital simulation
games in social science education”, Computers and Education, Vol. 149, 103813.
creation
Smørvik, K.K. and Vespestad, M.K. (2020), “Bridging marketing and higher education: resource
integration, co-creation and student learning”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 256-270.
1319
Sutarso, Y., Halim, R.E., Balqiah, T.E. and Tjiptoherijanto, P. (2017), “The role of co-creation activities”,
Trust and Gender on Higher Education Marketing Performance, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 843-863.
Sutarso, Y., Halim, R.E., Balqiah, T.E. and Tjiptoherijanto, P. (2019), “Understanding customer co-
creation activities in higher education: groupings, characteristics and implications”,
International Journal of Business and Society, 20, Vol. 20, S1, pp. 42-56.
Tarı Kasnakoglu, B. and Mercan, H. (2020), “Co-creating positive outcomes in higher education: are
students ready for co-creation?”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, pp. 1-16, doi:
10.1080/08841241.2020.1825031.
Taylor, C.A. and Bovill, C. (2018), “Towards an ecology of participation: process philosophy and co-
creation of higher education curricula”, European Educational Research Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 112-128.
Tøndel, M., Kiønig, L., Schult, I., Holen, S. and Vold, T. (2018), “Students as co-developers of courses in
higher education”, ICEL 2018 13th International Conference on E-Learning, Academic
Conferences and Publishing, pp. 448-453, (p. 448).
Torkzadeh, S., Zolfagharian, M. and Iyer, P. (2020), “Customer value co-creation behaviors and service
outcomes: insights from a transformative service”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 8,
pp. 635-657.
Tsui, E. and Dragicevic, N. (2018), “Use of scenario development and personal learning environment
and networks (PLE&N) to support curriculum co-creation”, Management and Marketing,
Vol. 13 No. 2, p. 848.
Tuzovic, S. (2016), “Value co-creation in faculty-led study abroad programs: a service-dominant logic
approach”, Handbook of Research on Study Abroad Programs and Outbound Mobility, IGI
Global, pp. 325-348.
Uskokovic, V. (2018), “Flipping the flipped: the co-creational classroom”, Research and Practice in
Technology Enhanced Learning, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Vespestad, M.K. and Smørvik, K.K. (2020), “Co-creation as a tool to overcome cross-cultural differences
in educational experiences?”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 156-166.
Vidakis, N., Barianos, A.K., Trampas, A.M., Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M. and Vassilakis, K. (2019),
“Generating education in-game data: the case of an ancient theatre serious game”, CSEDU,
Vol. 1, pp. 36-43.
Voropai, O., Pichyk, K. and Chala, N. (2019), “Increasing competitiveness of higher education in
Ukraine through value co-creation strategy”, Interdisciplinary Approach to Economics and
Sociology, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 228-240.
Wallin, P. (2020), “Student perspectives on co-creating timescapes in interdisciplinary projects”,
Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 766-781.
Wardley, L.J., Belanger, C.H. and Nadeau, J. (2017), “A co-creation shift in learning management: work
design for institutional commitment and personal growth”, Higher Education, Vol. 74 No. 6,
pp. 997-1013.
Wilkins, S., Butt, M.M. and Heffernan, T. (2018), “International brand alliances and co-branding:
antecedents of cognitive dissonance and student satisfaction with co-branded higher education
programs”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 32-50.
IJEM Wong Kung Fong, M. (2013), “CritIQ: a mobile critique app for undergraduate communication design
learners”, Design and Culture, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 313-332.
36,7
Xu, J., Lo, A. and Wu, J. (2018), “Are students customers? Tourism and hospitality students’ evaluation
of their higher education experience”, Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 236-258.
Zulkefli, N. and Uden, L. (2013), “A service quality framework for higher education from the
perspective of service dominant logic”, 7th International conference on knowledge management
1320 in organizations: Service and cloud computing KMO, AISC, Vol. 172, Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg, pp. 307-317.

Corresponding author
Negin Zarandi can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]