Choosing the Right Level of Collaboration: Adapting Collaborative Syllabus Design to Different Teaching Contexts – Faculty Focus | Higher Ed Teaching & Learning

Collaborative syllabus design is gaining momentum in higher education, but many instructors still hesitate to move beyond a traditionally designed syllabus (Jafar 2016; Hanna-Benson et al. 2020). Concerns about maintaining academic rigor, instructor responsibility, institutional policies, program requirements, accreditation or licensure expectations, and student readiness often make collaboration feel impractical (Jafar 2016; Fuentes et al. 2021). 

Although collaborative course and syllabus design can take many forms, these approaches are not equally appropriate for every teaching context. An introductory course, a licensure program, and a graduate seminar may all benefit from student collaboration, but the decisions that can be shared will differ. Collaborative syllabus design is therefore better understood as a continuum of practices rather than a single instructional approach. 

Building on scholarship in Universal Design for Learning (CAST 2024), Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (Paris & Alim 2017), and collaborative course design (Jafar 2016; Hanna-Benson et al. 2020), this framework demonstrates one practical approach to integrating these pedagogical perspectives across diverse teaching contexts. Rather than asking whether collaborative syllabus design is appropriate, instructors may find greater success by asking: What level of collaboration best supports learning in my course? This article introduces a practical three-level framework to help instructors select an approach that aligns with their course goals, students, and teaching context. 

Preparing for Collaborative Syllabus Design 

Collaborative syllabus design begins with understanding the teaching context. Student experience, course level, disciplinary expectations, and institutional policies all influence which decisions can be meaningfully shared. Before inviting students into the design process, instructors should identify the course’s non-negotiable elements, including outcomes, program requirements, institutional policies, and other essential expectations. Together, these considerations establish the foundation for meaningful collaboration. 

These factors can help instructors determine which aspects of the course are appropriate for shared decision-making and select the level of collaboration that best aligns with their teaching context (Jafar 2016). The question is not whether collaboration is possible, but which decisions can be shared to best support learning in a particular course. 

Implementing Collaborative Syllabus Design 

Collaborative syllabus design exists along a continuum of shared decision-making not a single approach. The three levels are not intended as a progression toward greater collaboration. Instead, they represent flexible approaches instructors can intentionally select based on their teaching context, student readiness, and course requirements. 

Level 1: Revise Together 

In Level 1, the instructor creates a complete draft of the syllabus before the course begins and identifies specific sections where students are invited to revise existing course components. This approach introduces shared decision-making while maintaining responsibility for the overall course structure. 

Level 1 is well suited for courses with: 

• Students new to the discipline with limited knowledge to contribute to broader course design decisions  

• Students new to collaborative learning who would benefit from structured shared decision-making  

• Large enrollments where extensive collaboration is impractical or unsustainable  

• Instructors beginning collaborative syllabus design without redesigning the course 

Shared decision-making may focus on revising instructor-identified course components, such as classroom expectations, assignment due dates, communication norms, and course policies. 

Level 2: Develop Together 

In Level 2, the instructor develops the foundational elements of the syllabus before the course begins while intentionally leaving selected sections unfinished. Students and instructor then develop these sections together, allowing students to shape aspects of the course while the instructor maintains responsibility for learning outcomes, academic expectations, and course coherence. 

Level 2 is well suited for courses with: 

• Students with sufficient disciplinary knowledge to contribute to selected course decisions 

• Students with collaborative learning experience ready for greater shared decision-making 

• Flexibility in achieving learning outcomes  

• Instructors seeking student input while maintaining the overall instructional framework 

Shared decision-making may focus on developing selected aspects of the course, such as assignment options, project criteria, learning resources, and assessment. 

Level 3: Design Together 

In Level 3, the instructor begins the course with only the non-negotiable elements established. All remaining aspects of the course are intentionally left open for collaboration as students and instructor design the learning experience together throughout the semester. The instructor continues to guide learning, maintain academic expectations, and ensure course coherence. 

Level 3 is well suited for courses with: 

• Students with sufficient disciplinary knowledge to design course components aligned with learning outcomes, and program expectations 

• Students demonstrating the communication and shared decision-making skills needed to serve as course design partners  

• Smaller classes where diverse perspectives can be meaningfully incorporated  

• Time and flexibility to collaboratively shape the learning experience while meeting course outcomes 

Shared decision-making extends to designing substantial aspects of the learning experience, including major projects, course topics, assessment, and course expectations. 

Design Considerations for Successful Implementation 

After identifying the teaching context, establishing the course’s non-negotiable elements, and selecting an appropriate level of collaboration, successful implementation requires intentional planning. Across repeated implementation, I found these practices consistently created meaningful opportunities for shared decision-making while maintaining clear academic expectations and course coherence. 

Select Participation Structures That Support the Goal  

The structure used to facilitate collaboration should reflect the type of decision being made. Whole class discussions may be appropriate for developing classroom norms, while anonymous surveys or polls can gather feedback on course policies or assignment options. Collaborative documents, discussion boards, and small group discussions encourage broad participation before ideas are shared with the class. Using varied participation structures creates multiple opportunities for students to contribute and helps ensure diverse perspectives inform decision-making. 

Prepare Students for Their Role  

Many students have never been invited to help design a course and may initially question whether their contributions are truly valued. Intentionally introducing students to their role as collaborative partners helps establish trust and encourages participation. This may include discussing the purpose of collaborative syllabus design, modeling respectful dialogue, and creating visible opportunities for students to see their contributions reflected in the course. For example, I invite students to add their photo and a fun fact to our shared syllabus. This simple activity signals that students are co-authors of the learning experience and that their perspectives will continue to shape the course throughout the semester. 

Facilitate Meaningful Dialogue 

The instructor remains responsible for ensuring that final decisions support equitable learning opportunities for all students. While discussion and polling offer valuable insight into student perspectives, they do not replace professional judgment. When proposed solutions conflict with course expectations or disadvantage some students, instructors should explain their rationale while guiding discussion or making the final decision. This transparency helps students understand that collaborative syllabus design is not about majority rule, but about balancing diverse perspectives with sound educational decision-making. 

Continue the Conversation 

Collaborative syllabus design is not limited to the beginning of the semester. As the course unfolds, new questions, challenges, and opportunities may emerge that warrant additional discussion. Beyond a static document distributed on the first day of class, the syllabus becomes a shared plan for learning that evolves through ongoing dialogue and shared decision-making. Revisiting the syllabus allows students and instructors to respond thoughtfully to ongoing needs, refine decisions when appropriate, and strengthen the partnership that supports student learning. In this way, the syllabus becomes more than a course document. It serves as an ongoing commitment to shared responsibility, dialogue, and equitable learning opportunities. 

Conclusion 

Collaborative syllabus design does not require instructors to redesign an entire course or relinquish responsibility for student learning. Instead, it begins by identifying opportunities for shared decision-making that align with the teaching context, course requirements, and student readiness. Whether instructors choose to revise, develop, or design together, the most effective level is the one that creates authentic opportunities for student voice while supporting course goals.  

Across multiple semesters of implementation, I found that the greatest transformation was not the syllabus itself, but the relationships that developed through the process. As students became active partners in course design, the syllabus evolved from a static course document into a space for ongoing dialogue. Ultimately, it became a foundation for partnerships that shaped learning throughout the semester. 

Kerri Olore, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Special Education at Bridgewater State University. Her scholarship focuses on inclusive course design, equitable assessment practices, and practical strategies that strengthen student learning and engagement in higher education. She is particularly interested in translating evidence-based teaching practices into sustainable approaches that support both students and instructors. 

References 

CAST. 2024. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, Version 3.0. 

Fuentes, M., D. Zelaya, and J. Madsen. 2021. “Rethinking the Course Syllabus: Considerations for Promoting Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion.” Teaching of Psychology 48 (1): 69–79. 

Hanna-Benson, C., S. Kroeze, R. Gandhi, T. Haffie, and L. M. Wahl. 2020. “Students as Partners in Collaborative Course Design and Educational Research.” International Journal for Students as Partners 4 (2): 61–80. 

Jafar, A. 2016. “Student Engagement, Accountability, and Empowerment: A Case Study of Collaborative Course Design.” Teaching Sociology 44 (3): 221–232. 

Paris, D., and H. S. Alim, eds. 2017. Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies: Teaching and Learning for Justice in a Changing World. New York: Teachers College Press.