‘How was it for you?’ The impacts of student-staff partnerships in developing online teaching and learning

ABSTRACT The seemingly relentless drive across Higher Education (HE) Institutions to integrate both face-to-face and online forms of delivery to create blended approaches to teaching and learning shows little sign of abating. Yet, as blended forms of delivery become increasingly prevalent, existing literature suggests that the perspectives and experiences of students often remain overlooked. This article adopts the position that students are expertly situated to provide insider perspectives that are not always accessible to, or recognised by, those implementing these developments, with regular, intentional attempts to draw upon students’ views and perspectives remaining under-utilised and infrequent. Alongside similar studies internationally, this article reveals the potential of establishing collaborative partnerships between students and staff through a process of pedagogic consultancy to better-inform improvements to curriculum and programme design. Employing a participatory action research methodology, this article explores and analyses the lived experiences of ten undergraduate students and five academic staff members working in student-staff partnership (SSP) within a UK HE context. Findings largely endorse the use of SSP, indicating positive implications for promoting student empowerment, improvements in understanding and engagement, and the overall student experience. However, questions are raised relating to an apparent disconnect between differing epistemologies of staff and some students, the legitimacy and agency of student-researchers, and how SSP can be introduced as part of programme delivery in an authentic way. The authors advocate establishing SSP as part of provision, with the caveat that there must be broader institutional buy-in and robust infrastructure in place for it to be successful.


Introduction
Students can be considered as 'expert witnesses' in their education (Lodge 2005, 129), with insider perspectives that are not always accessible to those working with them.Yet, some sources suggest that the extent to which students' views and perspectives are used to inform curriculum design remain relatively under-utilised (R. L. Healey et al. 2019).This study explores the value and impacts of establishing student-staff partnerships (SSP) in developing online teaching and learning.This process engaged students as partners in curriculum design and pedagogic consultancy to collaboratively develop engaging learning opportunities.
CONTACT K. Mulholland kirstin.mulholland@northumbria.ac.ukNorthumbria University, B006, Coach Lane Campus West, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE7 7XA, UK It is important to acknowledge that, in the context of this study, the move to online learning was necessitated by social contact restrictions imposed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.The immediacy of this shift has raised important questions around whether both staff and students were adequately equipped for an online learning environment, with some evidence suggesting that the rapidity of this move could lead to feelings of unpreparedness (Zhou and Wolstencroft 2020), and that success in conventional didactic settings may not be directly transferrable to an online learning context (Aboagye, Yawson, and Appiah 2021;Watkins, Leigh, and Triner 2004).
Although students have now returned to university classrooms, there has been considerable growth in the integration of online learning across High Education (HE) programmes (Bayer and Churaev 2021;Glantz and Gamrat 2020).There is a need to better understand students' lived experiences of online learning yet the extent to which these have been considered remains unclear.This article therefore explores the role of establishing collaborative SSP in developing pedagogical practice.Research centres around three key themes.Firstly, the experiences of those staff and students involved in partnership working.Secondly, to establish the impacts of engaging in SSP on collaborative curriculum design.Finally, consideration of the implications for institutional mechanisms for integrating authentic SSP into practice and programme design.

Students as partners in developing pedagogy
There is a plethora of evidence suggesting the benefits of engaging students as partners across their educational experiences.For the purposes of this study, we adopted the definition proposed by A. Cook-Sather, C. Bovill, and P. Felten (2014, 6-7) which contextualises SSP as a 'collaborative, reciprocal process through which all participants have the opportunity to contribute equally, although not necessarily in the same ways, to curricular or pedagogical conceptualisation, decision making, implementation, investigation, or analysis'.
Proposed benefits from engaging in SSP include enhanced teaching quality (Mercer-Mapstone, Dvorakova, and Matthews et al. 2017), and improved learning outcomes for students (Cook-Sather, Bovill, and Felten 2014).Prior research suggests a link between SSP and increased engagement and motivation (M.Healey, Flint, and Harrington 2014), as well as feelings of confidence and self-efficacy (Cook-Sather 2018).There is also evidence to suggest that working in SSP can lead to increased opportunities for metacognition (Mercer-Mapstone, Dvorakova, and Matthews et al. 2017), with positive implications for self-awareness and evaluation (Daviduke 2018).Drawing from Lodge (2005), we believe that for staff, creating opportunities to learn from students' insider perspectives can facilitate understanding of how students perceive their learning trajectory (Daviduke 2018;Cook-Sather, Bovill, and Felten 2014), enhancing staff pedagogic understanding (Mercer-Mapstone, Dvorakova, and Matthews et al. 2017), with positive implications for learning and teaching.
The benefits of participating in SSP may also extend to the process skills which support learning, particularly in relation to the relationships between both staff and students.For example, there is evidence that working in SSP leads to increased understanding of partners' perspectives and experiences (Dwyer 2018;R. L. Healey et al. 2019;Matthews et al. 2019), as well as improved relationships between staff and students (R. L. Healey et al. 2019;Matthews et al. 2019) and a shift in underlying power dynamics (Moore-Cherry et al. 2016;Dwyer 2018;R. L. Healey et al. 2019;Mercer-Mapstone, Islam, and Reid 2019).The literature also suggests that partnership-working can lead to an increased sense of community, purpose and belonging (Matthews et al. 2019), as well as providing insight into how research is conducted (Mercer-Mapstone, Dvorakova, and Matthews et al. 2017).
However, despite the myriad of potential benefits of SSP acknowledged in the literature, these remain relatively rare in practice, with decisions relating to learning and teaching usually subject to the control solely of academic staff (Mann 2008;Bovill, Cook-Sather, and Felten et al. 2016).Some authors perceive potential barriers in the institutional systems and procedures within HEIs and the consequent capacity -and appetite -for authentic engagement and change (Dwyer 2018).R. L. Healey et al. (2019) also highlight the potential challenges which can arise through dissimilarityand occasionally conflict -in the expectations and understanding of the nature of SSP, which can impact upon the willingness to engage with the process for both staff and students.
This study contributes to the existing body of literature through offering an honest insight into a case-study of an SSP in which students were engaged as pedagogic consultants in order to codevelop online learning and teaching.This includes exploration of the approaches used to establish partnership working, as well as the benefits and challenges experienced by those involved.This study has potential relevance across the HE sector, for those seeking to strengthen their programme design and enhance the student experience.

Methods & research design
This project was funded by the host institution as part of a drive to increase student inclusivity, and centres around staff and students working on an undergraduate Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programme.Following approval from the HEI's Ethics Committee, a case study approach (Yin 2018) was adopted to gain deeper insight into the experiences and perspectives of those staff and students engaged in the SSP (Thomas 2006).Within HE, case study approaches are well-established as a means of supporting the intense observation of, and enquiry into, specific contexts, facilitating rich understanding.
Although generalising findings from a case study may be perceived as problematic due to the specific nature of the study (Hammersley 2003), we recognise that 'uniqueness in one respect does not entail uniqueness in every respect' (Pring 2000, 258).Whilst individual contexts, students and HE institutions are undoubtedly distinct, there will be similarities which may enable the application of these findings to a new context.In this way, this research provides a starting point for those working across HE to inform judgements for future actions appropriate in their own settings (Rudduck 1985).
This study drew upon a participatory action research (PAR) methodology.PAR emerged from community and social movements outside of academia, and is typified as a collaborative process of research, reflection and action to bring about transformative change (Trott, Sample, and Weinberg 2020).Assuming a participatory research model enabled underlying assumptions relating to the roles of staff and students, and the power dynamics inherent within these, to be deconstructed and democratised (Carl et al. 2018), supporting the formation of an effective SSP.

Developing a student-staff partnership
M. Healey, A. Flint, and K. Harrington (2014) propose four key forms and areas of focus for SSP.These include: learning, teaching and assessment; subject-based research and inquiry; scholarship of teaching and learning; and curriculum design and pedagogic consultancy.The partnership developed within this study engaged students as pedagogic consultants through creating space and opportunities for collaboration in the collection and analysis of data to gauge students' experiences of online learning.The process of pedagogic consultancy enabled staff and students to critically evaluate existing provision and work collaboratively to identify possible solutions to improve the student experience and enhance the quality of teaching and learning (M.Healey and Healey 2018).
Establishing this partnership allowed the co-construction of pedagogic approaches which increased levels of involvement and ownership in programme design, leading to improved outcomes and a stronger sense of belonging (Bland and Atweh 2007;Rudduck and Flutter 2004;Ramsden 2003).We also posited that by engaging students in the action research process, we could not only educate these future teachers in the value and practical process of engaging in research, but also increase engagement and improve retention (Levin 2000).
The project ran throughout the first semester of the academic year, between September and January.The partnership was built to include a total of ten student-researchers, including six first-year undergraduates and four students in their final year of study.All students were volunteers who expressed interest in joining the SSP in response to an open call, shared via email, with all undergraduate students on the ITE programme.Five staff members were also part of the research team.These staff members were also volunteers who expressed an interest in working in partnership with students to develop their own professional practice as well as to gain greater understanding of students' lived-experiences of online learning.
The pedagogic consultancy process involved staff-and student-partners collaborating to review existing provision and consider developments necessary to improve the student-experience.Adopting an action research cycle (Reason and Bradbury 2008), the SSP team collected both 'feedforward' and 'feed-back' information (Reimann, Sadler, and Sambell 2019).Feed-forward data was systematically collected following teaching to allow for reflection and further planned action which informed subsequent teaching.This was completed a total of five times across the semester.This facilitated the construction of a feedback loop which allowed staff to rapidly respond to students' lived experiences in order to monitor and develop student engagement.A visual representation of this process can be found in Figure 1.
Feed-forward data was qualitative in nature, and was collected in a range of formats.These were co-constructed with the student-research team, taking into account student participation and feedback.These included the use of Padlet, a real-time collaborative web platform; online surveys; reflective thinking tools; focus group discussions; and Microsoft Forms 'exit tickets'.Each time feedforward data was collected, the SSP team met to conduct a critical review.This involved an approach to analysis common to action research, consisting of a rapid process of interpreting and categorising data, informing decision-making for future action (Kemmis and McTaggart 2005).This analysis then informed discussions between staff and student members of the SSP around specific pedagogical approaches in order to identify potential strategies for improving practice and the studentexperience.

Findings and discussion
The following section seeks to explore the role of SSP in developing pedagogical practice, centring around three key areas, namely the experiences of those staff and students involving in partnership working; the impacts of engaging in SSP on collaborative curriculum design; and finally the implications for institutional mechanisms for integrating authentic SSP into practice and programme design.Across the data, it is acknowledged by all parties that establishing SSP was fundamental to promoting student engagement in online learning.Three prominent themes were evident within the data: (1) Establishing SSP had implications for mutual understanding and student empowerment.
(2) Collaborating with students in curriculum design and pedagogic consultancy facilitated adaptations to pedagogic practice and led to improvements in student engagement and the overall student experience.
(3) Engaging with students as partners provided a means of reflecting on student voice feedback, helping to better understand and address tensions arising from the differing epistemologies of staff and students.However, it became apparent that there was a disconnect between the views and perceptions of student-partners and the wider student cohort, leading to questions relating to the extent to which student-partners are representative of the student body.
These findings operate on three distinct, yet interconnecting, dimensions.The first of our findings considers the implications of SSP for those directly involved within these.Within the second finding, implications are extended beyond this initial group with broader impacts for the wider student cohort.Finally, our third finding has implications which radiate beyond the confines of this project, presenting considerations for future student-staff partners within HE settings.A representation of this can be found in Figure 2 below.The following section will consider each of these findings in turn.

Student-staff partnerships to promote understanding and empowerment
The first of our findings considers the implications of partnership working for both the staff and students involved.Our findings suggest that the benefits of working in SSP for curriculum design to promote engagement were multi-faceted.These benefits included improved contextual understanding of each other's lived experiences and environments.Establishing SSP facilitated increased discourse regarding day-to-day concerns, activities and anxieties which ultimately led to tangible improvements in developing mutual understanding of each other's situations.Working with students as partners provided an opportunity for active involvement in curriculum design leading to increased ownership and a greater sense of empowerment.Within this process, SSP provided a means of developing bridges of understanding, involving a two-way flow of reflective communication with a focus on sharing experiences of teaching and learning.Establishing SSP created a conduit for continual dialogue which provided insight into students' experiences of online learning, allowing frequent and timely consultation and facilitating rapid adaptations to practice where appropriate.Staff-partner accounts supported findings in the wider literature (M.Healey and Healey 2018) which indicate that the continual dialogue enabled through working in SSP provided a more immediate, authentic and impactful alternative to forms of student voice data more routinely collected through existing university systems and procedures, such as end of module evaluation data, and the National Student Survey.
There's a lack of responses that year on year just seem to go round in circles.One year a cohort enjoys x and the following cohort prefer y.I've never been happy with the whole . . .you said, we did approach.(Staff-partner) The student-researcher role [. ..] was really helpful and having a group of students as support, to bounce ideas off as well as to receive input on the delivery or specific content could be utilised by each module lead.Speaking with the student researchers has broadened my understanding of the many different contexts and backgrounds the students come from in terms of space to work, demands on their time, etc.These wider aspects affect the individual student's engagement on the course (Staff-partner).
For staff-partners, engaging in dialogue with student-partners deepened our awareness of the realities of students' lived-experiences.Staff accounts suggested that this insight ensured staff were able to demonstrate understanding and empathy in relation towards these underlying issues.For student-partners, engaging in continual dialogue permitted insight into staff perspectives and challenges, supporting increased understanding of the initial rationale underpinning specific pedagogic choices made by staff, whilst fostering an active and increasingly invested role in the coconstruction of learning.
. . . the vulnerability of the lecturers in this time has been quite beautiful to see.[. ..]I think you've all shown to be very teachable in this time.And that was actually quite a big thing, I think.We see lecturers as these big people who are experienced . . .And, of course, you are.[. ..]You've been through everything that we will be going through in the next two or three decades.[. ..]And there's so much we can learn from you.But there's equally so much you can learn from us -without sounding very big-headed.You are teaching us -and if you teach us like you were taught, like, a few years ago or whatever, then you won't get engagement.And so I think you do need to learn from the people you are teaching.And that's exactly what you're doing -perfectly -by doing focus groups like this.By asking student opinions.(Third-year student-partner) In particular, it is important to recognise the vulnerability that this student-partner recognised in her interactions with staff-partners, and the ways in which this influenced her understanding of the power dynamics inherent within this: It feels like we're all equals to some extent.I mean, we don't get paid, and you do.But, hey.(Third-year studentpartner) These accounts reflect a shift in this student-partner's perceptions around student-staff relationships, where improved relationships, empathy and trust emerged as a result of working in SSP (Slates and Cook-Slater 2021;Matthews et al. 2019).Student-partners also suggested that this consultancy imbued a sense of purpose and contribution towards improving the learning experiences of their peers, in providing an improved sense of belonging and community (Matthews et al. 2019).For example, one first-year student-partner shared her view of the key benefits of this role as . . .reflecting on myself and others; evaluating teaching and learning; a sense of purpose and belonging and that your voice is being heard.(First-year student-partner) Partnership-working suggested that many students' experiences of online learning contrasted with the plethora of literature and existing institutional tools and policies, both of which promote the value of technology-enhanced learning (Dror 2008;Sharma and Hannafin 2007;Kirkwood and Price 2014).For example, there were a number of concerns around the utilisation of technology and IT infrastructure issues, as well as students' willingness and preparedness to engage with learning in this context: . . .there's an issue of vulnerability in that you are essentially inviting somebody [. ..] into your home and your personal space, which I know for some people can be quite a difficult thing to do [. ..]I mean, my bed's a mess at the minute and I'm glad you can't see but because we don't have a dedicated space for . . .say we don't have a Home Office . . . it becomes difficult.[. ..]It is putting yourself on the line in a sense because you're literally inviting people to sort of be in whatever space you have.(Third-year student-partner) The insights afforded through working in SSP supported staff-partners to recognise potential barriers to learning, and work collaboratively with student-partners as pedagogic consultants to identify, implement and evaluate potential solutions.This was felt to be particularly important due to the challenges inherent to using staff's well-established formative assessment strategies in an online learning environment.
Online you lose that ability to read the room, so the only thing you have to go on is engagement, and that is sometimes difficult to gauge.(Staff-partner) This account was echoed in responses from all staff-partners involved in this project, therefore emphasising the benefits of creating opportunities to learn from students' insider perspectives in enhancing staff pedagogic understanding (Lodge 2005;Mercer-Mapstone, Dvorakova, and Matthews et al. 2017).

The impact of student pedagogic consultancy on curriculum design
From the findings, the second emergent theme outlined the benefits of collaborating with student-partners in curriculum design.The impacts of this are broader than the first, with implications for the wider student cohort.This evidence suggested that collaborating with students as pedagogic consultants ensured deeper insight into underlying perceptions and experiences of current provision, enabling adaptations which then led to improvements in both student engagement and their overall experience of the online learning strategies employed.Furthermore, engaging in SSP revealed a disconnect between students' perceptions and experiences and accepted notions of 'best' practice.This prompted questions relating to our underlying assumptions about effective pedagogies for online learning whilst also highlighting the importance of harnessing student input and consultancy when seeking to understand and develop practice (Lodge 2005;Mulholland 2020).
One aspect of practice modified as a result of the consultation process related to the use of breakout rooms to provide space for small-group discussion and collaboration.University policy and existing research literature (Chandler 2016;Sharmin and Zhang 2022) promoted this as a key aspect of effective practice for online learning.This also corresponded to underpinning theoretical notions regarding the importance of peer-interactions for the development of understanding, following social-constructivist pedagogic principles (Bandura 1977;Vygotsky 1978).However, student-partners indicated the problematic nature of breakout rooms, providing insight into students livedexperiences of the realities of engaging in discussions in these spaces: I do find that our year group can be a bit cliquey and I think if you're put in a room with some random people who you've not necessarily spoken to in real life, you're not going to want the first experience to be online.If we don't know those people, we don't have the rapport with those people to then be putting your opinions out there . . .and you wouldn't be shot down, I'm sure . . .no-one's that bad, but it does cross your mind and there have been times, to be honest, where I've been put in a breakout group and I've seen the people and I've been like "Oh, my microphone's broken now.(Third-year student-partner) This account is representative of the experiences of the student cohort more broadly.For example, when asked about less effective elements of online learning, 44 first-year students (48% of all respondents) explicitly identified breakout room discussion tasks as problematic.More than half of this group (55%) identified non-participation in these discussions as the reason why this strategy was ineffective for supporting learning.
Working in partnership with students as pedagogic consultants, facilitated an honest and collaborative reflection around the initial strategies employed for promoting online student discussion.Through reflecting on this student-voice feedback as a research team, both staff-and studentpartners were able to draw upon students' insider perspectives (Lodge 2005;Mercer-Mapstone, Dvorakova, and Matthews et al. 2017) to identify alternative practices to improve their experience.Consequently, the research team implemented a pedagogical intervention to address some of the concerns identified by student-partners and work towards developing a more collaborative learning community.Fixed collaborative 'study groups' were established to enable students to develop working and social relationships with peers over a more prolonged period of time, supporting students to develop their own communities of practice (Monaghan 2007).
The introduction of study groups helped massively.I now feel like I know people on my course well enough without fully meeting them, to feel comfortable.(First-year student) This account is representative of student responses more widely.Collaborative tasks within study groups were the most frequently identified aspect of effective online learning, representing 33% of all student responses.Furthermore, findings emerging from student voice data suggest that students perceived that learning outcomes also improved as these relationships became more established.
I believe that now our group knows each other and we are familiar with each other, the level of work and quality of work is much improved.(First-year student) In this example, working in SSP delivered an immediate, positive impact on the student experience as a result of the process of pedagogic consultancy.This can therefore be seen to support wider existing literature relating to the potential benefits of SSP for curriculum design (Bovill 2019).
It is important to acknowledge that the impacts of the pedagogic consultancy process were not limited to this single example, but also offered wider implications for the perceptions of the student cohort as a whole.Student voice data indicated that 89% of students agreed or strongly agreed that online teaching and learning had improved as a result of the collaboration between staff and students.Many students reported changes which had been made to practice as a result of the pedagogic consultancy process, and student-partners acknowledged a sense that their perspectives were recognised and valued, but also acted upon to develop educational provision, leading to increased engagement and ownership of learning (Matthews et al. 2019).

Wider considerations for effective student-staff partnerships
The final theme introduces another dimension to the findings emergent from this study, positing considerations beyond the scope of this project, and suggesting broader implications for students' role and responsibilities in shaping their educational experience.This includes questions relating to the ways in which working in SSP allowed staff-and student-partners to identify and understand contrasting epistemologies relating to the nature of effective pedagogic practice in order to alleviate potential tensions between staff and students' perspectives.
Student voice survey data collected from the wider cohort revealed an unexpected disconnect between staff and student perceptions of effective strategies for online learning.For staff, tensions arose as student perceptions did not always align with professional beliefs around effective learning as expressed in the wider literature (EEF 2020;Coe et al. 2014;Rosenshine 2012;Dunlosky et al. 2013), and the perceived notion of students as consumers (Woodall, Hiller, and Resnick 2014), underscored by institutional pressures arising from formal quality assurance mechanisms including the National Student Survey and Teaching Excellence Framework.For example, some students requested more frequent use of passive learning approaches, such as 'giving clear notes for us to copy on the slides' which is in contrast with our understanding of effective pedagogic practices relating to the importance of the co-construction of understanding (Bandura 1977;Vygotsky 1978).Similarly, some students did not recognise the potential value of summarising important information, including assignment criteria, in contrast with principles of generative learning (Fiorella and Mayer 2016).
I felt comfortable with the sentences already so I didn't really need to simplify them and this was said in my breakout room too.(First-year student) For staff-partners, working in SSP provided opportunities to discuss these differing perspectives with student-partners in order to better understand potential tensions.This led to greater understanding of the need to more clearly articulate the underlying rationale for pedagogical choices.This was particularly pertinent in the context of this study due to the dual role of students as both learners and aspiring teachers.Providing a more explicit justification for the approaches adopted can support the development of students' metacognition through improved understanding of research relating to effective practice, and therefore their understanding of how to be a successful learner.However, it also provides a potential model which can then inform their own future practice as both teachers, and metacognitive role models to the pupils they teach (Wall and Hall 2016).
However, in discussing these tensions within the SSP team, it became apparent that there was an unintended mismatch between the views and perceptions of student-partners and the wider student cohort.To illustrate, when working collaboratively to review student voice data from the wider cohort, it was evident that student-partners often shared the frustrations of staff-partners: I think that it does, at the end of the day, sort of come down to that you can do a lot as lecturers, but it only really works when we, as students, reciprocate that.(Third-year student-partner) I think the main issue is it comes back to people not responding to things that you generally need them to respond to.So, it's lovely that we can say we're going to set up a mentoring system where we're paired -but then if none of your group respond . . .I guess that's the issue.I'm sorry, I feel like I've been overly negative with all of these things . . .(Third-year student-partner) This prompted questions regarding the extent to which student-partners are representative of the student body as a whole.For example, although this opportunity was offered to all students, those who volunteered for this role were all high-attaining, with all four of the third-year student-partners ultimately receiving a first-class honours degree.This may reflect findings in the wider literature relating to the correlation between engagement in non-contributory activities and high-levels of academic achievement (Farsides and Woodfield 2007).However, the possible association between those students who voluntarily assume the role of student-partner and their academic attainment also raises fundamental questions.The authors suggest that this consideration presents an avenue for further investigation in order to better understand whether higher-attaining students are more likely to volunteer for such roles, or if the process of engaging in SSP is itself associated with gains in academic outcomes.
The question regarding the extent to which student-partners can, and should, be representative of the wider student body is significant, with potential implications for the extrapolation of findings.The disconnect evident in this study demonstrates that the views of student-partners are not necessarily representative of the larger student group, and may therefore curtail the potential for insight into more typical student cohorts.The authors propose that, in order to ensure a more representative group of student-partners, consideration must be given to support inclusivity and accessibility for a wider student group.This may include reform to university systems to incentivise engagement in SSP, including through the provision of financial rewards, to address potential disparities of engagement (Dwyer 2018).
Offering financial incentives may also help to address the perceived imbalance of power inherent to the relationship between staff and students, as identified by the student-partners working within our own SSP.
It feels like we're all equals to some extent.I mean, we don't get paid, and you do.But, hey.(Third-year student-partner) However, although in simplistic terms this appears to provide a possible solution, it is important to be cognisant of potential challenges presented by introducing SSP within the broader HE context.Working in SSP provides a means of addressing power dynamics, alongside the potential for improving teaching quality through pedagogic consultancy, however, to establish a meaningful and authentic environment would require substantial systemic and organisational change.There is also a need to be mindful of the potential marketisation of SSP, which could contribute towards the increasing positionality of students as consumers across HE (Cannella and Koro-Ljungberg 2017;Tomlinson, Enders, and Naidoo 2020).In a system where student feedback is considered a key indicator of success (Young and Jerome 2020), there is a risk that pedagogic consultancy may be presented in opposition to the professional knowledge and integrity of academic staff, leading to added pressure to tailor the curriculum to the requests of students at the expense of delivering a high-quality learning experience.

Conclusions
In this article, the authors have explored the potential of working in SSP to develop pedagogical practice, providing insight into the experiences of both staff-and student-partners, together with considerations for integrating authentic SSP into practice and programme design.This study adds to the body of existing knowledge by acknowledging the honest accounts of students and academic staff as collaborators in pedagogic design and partnership working.The authors therefore promote the benefits and insights afforded by working in SSP across the wider HE sector, with relevance for those seeking to strengthen both programme design and the student experience.
This article endorses the integration of pedagogic consultancy through SSP into existing organisation and delivery mechanisms.This approach has positive implications for promoting mutual understanding and student empowerment, improvements in student engagement and the overall student experience, whilst providing a means of better-understanding tensions arising from the differing epistemologies of staff and students.These findings support those evident in the wider literature, demonstrating the myriad benefits of working in SSP (Bovill 2019;Slates and Cook-Slater 2021;M. Healey and Healey 2018;Matthews et al. 2019).However, the authors also encourage caution, and suggest that any attempts to establish SSP must be tempered through careful consideration of the nature to which student-partners can, and should, be representative of the wider student body, in order to prevent a diminution of the emancipatory and inclusive aims of SSP into a more tokenistic and neo-liberalist agenda.

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

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.The data collection process.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Representation of the dimensions of impact presented in the findings.