Student Partnership Assessment

Table S1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Table S2. Search terms

Table S3. Search strategy used in each database

Table S4. Quality assessment tool

Table S5. Characteristics of included studies

Table S6. Areas of assessment partnership

Table S7. Student roles

Table S8. Support provided by university staff

Method

This systematic review was conducted according to the standard steps in a systematic review process: formulating the research questions, constructing inclusion and exclusion criteria, developing search strategy, screening studies using selection criteria, extracting data, assessing quality and relevance, and synthesizing results to answer the research questions (Gough 2007). The previous section explains the conceptual framework adopted in this study and how the research questions were derived from the conceptual framework. As Sih, Pollack, and Zepeda (2019) emphasize, systematic review questions should be constructed around a sound conceptual framework. The procedure of the review is described in the following subsections.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Five criteria were devised for the selection of articles (see Table S1). This review aims to explore how student partnership is enacted in assessment communities of practice; therefore, for a publication to be included, it must fulfil the primary criterion of being an empirical study. The rationale for using empirical studies is to enable synthesis of results that is based on collaborative efforts which have been implemented and trialed in reality in order that practice-based conclusions can be drawn. The empirical studies included consist of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research, whereas all theoretical and conceptual papers were excluded from the review.

Table S1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria	Rationale
English language	Languages other than English	A lack of language resources
Published between 2000 and March 2022	Publications before 2000	Consistence with the trend and development of student partnership in assessment literature
Empirical studies	Theoretical/conceptual papers	To provide practice-based conclusions
Assessment activities	Non-assessment related activities	Relevance to the topic of the review
Higher education context	Contexts other than higher education, e.g., primary education, secondary education, professional training	Relevance to the topic of the review
Evidence of student-staff collaboration	Participatory practices without student-staff collaboration	In accordance with the definition of partnership adopted in the review

As the foci of this review are assessment-related activities that involve student partnership and the roles students adopt in partnership, the selected studies must provide sufficiently clear information for such data to be extracted. In addition, there must be clear evidence of collaboration between students and academic staff particularly in the description of the research to qualify a study as empirical work on student partnership. Studies that examined participatory practices where students and staff perform a task without engaging in dialogue and negotiation would not be included in this review. This criterion is in accordance with the definition of partnership as a collaborative and reciprocal process explained in the previous section.

Literature search

The literature search process consisted of three parts. First, searches were performed in four major electronic academic databases, namely, ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycInfo, which host a large number of academic journals covering broad disciplinary areas. Three groups of keywords consisting of the main concepts in the systematic review topic—“student partnership”, “assessment”, and “higher education”—as well as their synonyms and associated terms were used to scan titles and abstracts for relevant articles (see Table S2). Although the notion of student-teacher collaboration in assessment dated back to the 1980s (Boud and Prosser 1980; Falchikov 1986), it began to gain widespread attention in the 1990s (e.g., Birenbaum 1996; Towler and Broadfoot 1992) with the term “partnership” coming into use in late 1990s (Stefani 1998). Therefore, the time period parameter was set to search for articles published between 2000 and 2022. Due to a lack of language resources to support translation work, the literature searches were limited to articles published in English only.

Table S2. Search terms

Concept	Search terms
Student partnership	“student partnership” OR “student-staff partnership” OR “student-faculty partnership” OR “students as partners” OR “student-staff collaboration” OR “student voice” OR “student engagement”
Assessment	“assessment” OR “evaluation” OR “assessment for learning” OR “assessment as learning” OR “co-assessment” OR “co-creation” OR “self-assessment” OR “peer assessment”
Higher education	“higher education” OR “university” OR “college” OR “postsecondary” OR “tertiary”

The second search process was manual searches using the same parameters in the web search engine, Google Scholar, and two online journals, International Journal for Students as Partners and Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education. These two journals were chosen due to their prominent focus on students and staff collaborative work. As Google Scholar is less able to handle complex searches compared to databases, it was used as a secondary method to complement database searches. The search string (“student partnership” AND “assessment” AND “higher education”) was used to search for articles published between 2000 and 2022, excluding patents. About 1,520 results were returned. As most of the results were similar to the database search results, only the first 100 results were screened. Another search strategy was backward reference searching which involved examining the reference lists and works cited in relevant articles and background reading materials to identify other relevant studies. In all three search processes, both peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed publications were included as non-peer reviewed publications such as book chapters, reports, and conference proceedings might also be relevant to the purpose of this study.

Study selection

The database searches yielded 1,775 results, whereas manual and backward reference searching identified 1,670 potential articles (see Table S3). The abstracts of the articles were screened against the third, fourth, and fifth inclusion and exclusion criteria in Table S1 (the first two criteria had been applied through search filters). If the context of the study—whether it was assessment related and whether it was conducted in a tertiary setting—was not clearly stated in the abstract, the article would be included so that the criteria could be evaluated in full-text review. After abstract screening, 120 articles were selected for full-text review. Then, each of the selected articles was read thoroughly to determine its suitability against the last criterion in Table S1 – whether there was evidence of student-staff collaboration in the study reported, and any previous criteria if necessary, resulting in further elimination of 75 articles. In total, 45 empirical studies were selected to undergo the subsequent stage of quality assessment and data extraction – 16 from database searches, 12 from manual searches, and 17 from backward referencing searching. The steps taken to select relevant publications are shown in a flow diagram in Figure S1.

Table S3. Search strategy used in each database

Database	Search string	Field searched	Search results
ERIC	AB ( “student partnership” OR “student-staff partnership” OR “student-faculty partnership” OR “students as partners” OR “student-staff collaboration” OR “student voice” OR “student engagement” ) AND AB ( “assessment” OR “evaluation” OR “assessment for learning” OR “assessment as learning” OR “co-assessment” OR “co-creation” OR “self-assessment” OR “peer assessment” ) AND AB ( “higher education” OR “university” OR “college” OR “postsecondary” OR “tertiary” )	Abstract	193
PsycInfo	ab(“student partnership” OR “student-staff partnership” OR “student-faculty partnership” OR “students as partners” OR “student-staff collaboration” OR “student voice” OR “student engagement”) AND ab(“assessment” OR “evaluation” OR “assessment for learning” OR “assessment as learning” OR “co-assessment” OR “co-creation” OR “self-assessment” OR “peer assessment”) AND ab(“higher education” OR “university” OR “college” OR “postsecondary” OR “tertiary”)	Abstract	83
Scopus	ABS ( “student partnership” OR “student-staff partnership” OR “student-faculty partnership” OR “students as partners” OR “student-staff collaboration” OR “student voice” OR “student engagement” ) AND ABS ( “assessment” OR “evaluation” OR “assessment for learning” OR “assessment as learning” OR “co-assessment” OR “co-creation” OR “self-assessment” OR “peer assessment” ) AND ABS ( “higher education” OR “university” OR “college” OR “postsecondary” OR “tertiary” )	Abstract	967
Web of Science	((AB=(“student partnership” OR “student-staff partnership” OR “student-faculty partnership” OR “students as partners” OR “student-staff collaboration” OR “student voice” OR “student engagement”)) AND AB=(“assessment” OR “evaluation” OR “assessment for learning” OR “assessment as learning” OR “co-assessment” OR “co-creation” OR “self-assessment” OR “peer assessment”)) AND AB=(“higher education” OR “university” OR “college” OR “postsecondary” OR “tertiary”)	Abstract	532
Total			1,775

Figure S1. Inclusion and exclusion of studies

Quality assessment and data extraction

In systematic synthesis of research, it is important to assess the quality and relevance of the data obtained from the selected studies. Gough (2007) contends that since questions and foci differ from one systematic review to another, the standards for judging the quality of included studies should comprise both generic and review-specific criteria. The quality assessment tool used in this systematic review was devised with such a goal in mind – to evaluate the general robustness of the research procedure adopted and the trustworthiness of the findings in a selected study, while also to assess whether the selected study was suitable for answering the systematic review questions. The assessment tool consisted of two parts with four questions each (see Table S4). Part 1 contained generic criteria adapted from Hong et al.’s (2018) Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; Part 2 was designed based on the aim and research questions of this systematic review. For a study to be deemed fit for the purpose of this review, it must fulfil:

criteria 1.1, 2.1, and 2.2; and
at least two of the following criteria from Part 1: 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4; and
at least one of the following criteria from Part 2: 2.3 and 2.4.

Table S4. Quality assessment tool

Dimension	Quality criteria
1. Generic assessment	1.1. Are the research objectives/questions clearly stated? 1.2. Is the method of data collection appropriate? 1.3. Is the method of data analysis explained? 1.4. Are the conclusions drawn from the results/findings of the study?
2. Review-specific assessment	2.1. Is student assessment a focus of the study? 2.2. Is the collaborative relationship between students and staff made clear? 2.3. Are students’ activities in the partnership clearly described? 2.4. Are staff’s activities in the partnership clearly described?

Data extraction was performed concurrently with quality assessment using an Excel worksheet. The data extracted include descriptions of individual studies, such as context, year of study, methods, and participants; as well as information related to the review questions, for example, assessment activities, students’ actions/responsibilities, and staff’s actions/responsibilities. Both researchers discussed and agreed on the template before undertaking data extraction independently using the same template. Some of the studies appeared to be relevant at the screening stage but were found to be unsuitable for the purpose of the review upon closer examination. Two studies were excluded because there was insufficient information on student and staff participation for the analysis of assessment partnership. Hence, after quality assessment and data extraction, 43 studies were found to be suitable for the purpose of this review, and the extracted data from these studies were synthesized to answer the review questions. The characteristics of the 43 included studies are presented in Table S5.

Table S5. Characteristics of included studies

Study	Location & year of study	Context	Participants	Study design	Study aim/focus/objectives
Abdelmalak (2016)	USA; Year unknown	15-week graduate-level education course (EDTECH); A medium-sized university in the Southwest of the United States	Six volunteer graduate students (5 doctoral students) – 3 Caucasian female, 3 Mexican male; Age range: 38-55 years old One instructor	Qualitative multiple case studies. Interviews, class observations, student artifacts. Cross case analysis	To understand graduate students’ perceptions of the collaborative construction of course assignments.
Alsford (2012)	UK; 2010-2012	A large London post 1992 university with three campuses	Student Forum leaders formally recruited and employed with part-time hours Student Forum members Staff from the Educational Development Unit (EDU)	Reflective case study Qualitative data by eliciting responses from participants, discussion with the EDU Quantitative data about the participation of student forum members in particular activities	To introduce a model of student engagement based on an experimental project
Andrews et al. (2018)	UK	Portsmouth School of Architecture	Students and academics from the School of Architecture Student representatives from the BA (Hons) Interior Architecture and Design course 12 undergraduate students and 6 Masters of Architecture students participated in focus groups	Case study National Student Survey Focus groups with students Workshops with academics Course-level feedback, module grades Student interviews Interpretative analysis	To evaluate assessment and feedback strategies from across the School resulting in a creation of a new and innovative set of “assessment for learning” tools produced with students as partners
Baerheim and Meland (2003)	Norway 2000-2001	Bergen Medical School, General medicine/family medicine	Sixth-year medical students in family medicine	Marks in examination Scores on self-administered questionnaires Students’ free text evaluation Descriptive statistics, pragmatic approach	To evaluate how sixth-year medical students experienced proposing questions for their own written examination in medical medicine, and to what extent their performance in the examination was influenced
Bell et al. (2019)	Australia	Film studies unit “From Silent to Sound Cinema”	Four student partners, 3 academic staff, professional staff 9 students participated in focus groups; 12 responded to the online survey	Focus groups with students Online survey (25% response rate) Students’ and student partners’ reflective writing Thematic analysis	To investigate the perceptions of students enrolled in the unit of redesigned learning activities and assessment and what student partners gain from working together in a curriculum redesign process
Cecchinato & Foschi (2017)	Italy	A non-compulsory course “e-Learning Technologies” within the Social, Work and Communication Psychology degree programme University of Padua	42 fourth-year students	Indicators of efficacy: attendance (Moodle event reports on the online interaction and participation in laboratory meetings), accountability (observations, forum discussion on divergence of opinions in peer grading), engagement (average grades, student survey)	To present the transformation of a university course inspired by the theoretical background of the student voice approach
Chamunyonga et al. (2018)	Australia	Queensland University of Technology Bachelor of Radiation Therapy programme	2 student representatives Third-year students One lecturer acted as a moderator One senior radiation therapy lecturer The University coordinator for the Students as Partners programme 22 students took Survey 1; 23 students took Survey 2	Semi-structured focus groups Two surveys	To report the development and initial evaluation of alternative approaches to assessing treatment planning skills and knowledge in undergraduate radiation therapy education
Collins (2010)	Australia	An Australian regional university First-year law course “Law in Context”	First-year law students (on-campus and off-campus) Two academic staff The Queensland Debating Society (facilitating assessment) A specialist guest lecturer/senior Queensland Adjudicator	Student evaluation survey Student focus groups	To report the experience of designing and delivering a course in legal theory and jurisprudence
Colson et al. (2021)	Australia	First-year foundational course for 400+ students in health undergraduate programmes – “Genes and Disease” (delivered mixed mode) Griffith University	First-year foundational students Academics teaching the course 123 students responded to the questionnaires	Mixed-methods approach Anonymous online student questionnaires Open-ended questionnaire questions, student public feedback comments and private written reflections Descriptive and inferential statistics Content analysis	To explore how the co-creation assessment task enabled students to develop graduate capabilities and demonstrate their creativity.
Cooper (2017)	UK 2014	Professional practice module on a professional qualifying BA (Hons) Youth & Community Work programme Block placement where students planned, delivered and evaluated a six-week youth work intervention	Students, fieldwork supervisors, university tutors 3 students (out of 18 students who completed the collaborative assessment) 3 supervisors, 3 tutors	Semi-structured interviews Thematic analysis	To investigate the qualitative experiences of students, supervisors, and tutors involved in a summative collaborative assessment of placement learning
Cosker et atl. (2021)	France	Medical Faculty of the University of Larraine 3rd year medical curriculum	303 third-year medical students who had never undertaken the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) 44 novice OSCE tutors 36 tutors and 185 students responded to the questionnaires 3 permanent medical teachers, one pedagogical engineer	Self-assessment questionnaires Descriptive statistics	To study the perceived effectiveness of tutor-student partnership in a practice OSCE module by novice tutors and medical students
Deeley (2014)	UK January – March 2010	Service-learning, an optional Honours course for 3rd and 4th year students in a Public Policy undergraduate degree programme in a Scottish university	8 students (4 female, 4 male) The teacher of the course (co-assessor)	Practitioner research study Semi-structured interviews with students A focus group with students Overarching themes arising from the data were identified; thematic framework was drawn	To investigate the effects of using co-assessed oral presentation with students engaged in service-learning
Deeley (2018)	UK	Service-learning optional honours course in Social and Public Policy in a Scottish university	20 third- and fourth-year undergraduate students studying the degree of MA (Honours) Social Sciences	Three focus groups and five semi-structured individual in-depth interviews with students Sequential data analysis	To examine and critically evaluate a selection of different technological methods that were specifically chosen for their alignment with, and potential to enhance, extant assessment for learning practice
Deeley and Bovill (2017)	UK 2013-2014	A four-year undergraduate MA Social Sciences degree in a Scottish university	27 third- and fourth-year students taking two optional Public Policy honours courses The course instructor	Case study Questionnaires, students’ self-assessment of their essays Identifying prevalent themes in the data	To investigate student perspectives on their learning during a staff-student partnership that engaged students as co-designers within assessment and feedback processes
Doyle et al. (2019)	Ireland	3^rd year undergraduate tax module	159 business students 104 students completed the survey 3 academics – the module leader delivered the lectures, the tutor delivered the tutorials, a third academic was involved in the research design of the co-creation assignment	A short survey Instructors’ reflection	To outline an example of assessment co-creation To explore students’ and instructors’ perceptions of certain aspects of assessment co-creation
El-Mowafy (2014)	Australia 2011-2012	Geospatial Sciences learning unit “GPS Surveying” at Curtin University	30 and 32 third-year undergraduate students in 2011 and 2012 respectively	Questionnaires Marks given by different groups of assessors Descriptive statistics, ICC coefficient	To investigate peer assessment of fieldwork
Geraghty et al. (2020)	USA January – April 2017 (survey period)	University of Illinois College of Medicine-Chicago	Medical students, expert medical education faculty 563 of 753 medical students across all years participated in the survey – 63 were formally involved in the Student Curricular Board	Student survey Chi-squared tests, Cronbach’s alpha, thematic analysis	To examine the impact of a novel student engagement programme known as the Student Curricular Board
Godbold et al. (2021)	Australia	Primary education degree programme in a research-intensive Australian university	61 students enrolled in a final-year course 7 students participated in two focus-group conversations	Exploratory qualitative study Focus group conversations with students Thematic analysis	To investigate how final-year undergraduate students experienced the shift toward partnership in the classroom
Hussain et al. (2019)	UK	First-year class in the Electronics and Electrical Engineering degree programme	202 current students in the Microelectronics Systems course 173 students responded to the feedback questionnaire The instructor, 3 ex-students who took the course in the previous year	Feedback questionnaire for current students Focus group interviews with ex-students	To explore the effectiveness of student involvement in improving the assessment and feedback for larger classes in the transnational educational provision
Kaur et al. (2017)	Malaysia	Masters of Education degree programme in a public university Linguistically diverse classroom with varied levels of English language skills	114 in-service teachers (28-40 years old) in the 3^rd and 4^th semester of the programme 12 students participated in face-to-face interviews	Design-based methodology Focus group discussions, open-ended questionnaire, video recording of group work activity, face-to-face interviews Thematic analysis	To investigate students’ experiences with contextually sensitive assessment protocols for inclusive and fair assessment developed through faculty-student partnership
Kearney (2019)	Australia	An undergraduate primary education programme at the University of Notre Dame	200 out of 232 first-year students in the first semester of study (18-27 years old)	Student surveys	To explore the use of the Authentic Self and Peer Assessment for Learning (ASPAL) model to help acculturate first-year students to tertiary assessment practices
Kiester and Holowko (2020)	US June 2018 – January 2019	An undergraduate first-year seminar course A small liberal arts institution in the mid-Atlantic region	An assistant professor of sociology A computer science and political science double major student partner 16 first-year students	Feedback surveys Faculty and student partners’ observations and reflection Open coding and common themes	To report the co-creation of the curriculum for an undergraduate first-year seminar
Leslie and Gorman (2017)	UK 2011-2013	Project-based modules at the Mechanical Engineering and Design Department Aston University	Group 1: 96 first-year students Group 2: 90 first-year students	Action research Questionnaire Descriptive statistics, t-tests	An action research project to enhance students’ understanding of the principles of the logbook and awareness of how to complete the logbook to a high standard
Lorber et al. (2019)	UK	A law school in a UK university	Five academics Two professional colleagues One member of the university Learning institute Four law students	Case study Views of staff expressed either in committees, via email, or through the staff questionnaire	A student-staff partnership project devised to help improve assessment and feedback practices with a law school
Lorente and Kirk (2013)	Spain	Physical education teacher education Alternative assessment in an optional unit called “Physical Education Assessment” towards the degree “Ciencias de la Actividad Fı´sica y el Deporte” at the ‘Instituto Nacional de Educacio´n Fı´sica de Catalun˜ a’, Spain	40 students The unit teacher	Action research Field notes, documentary analysis of the portfolio of learning materials developed by students, meta-assessment conclusions made by students Grounded theory approach to generate themes and subthemes	To reveal some lessons learned by a teacher educator as she sought to apply alternative, democratic assessment practices in physical education teacher education
Lubicz-Nawrocka (2018)	UK	Scottish universities Across disciplines – education, environmental biology, service learning, medicine, geosciences, psychology, politics, veterinary science	10 staff members from four Scottish universities who engaged in one or more co-creation of the curriculum projects 10 students who had participated in the co-creation projects	Qualitative research Interviews Grounded theory approach	To explore the benefits of co-creation of the curriculum
Matthews et al. (2017)	Australia	A three-year Bachelor of Science degree with an optional Honours-research year and a four-year Bachelor of Biomedical Science degree in the Faculty of Science A research-intensive university	268 students (out of 1,208 students who were emailed)	Quantitative study Online survey Descriptive statistics, paired t-tests	To explore undergraduate students’ perceptions of how involved they were in partnership activities across their degree programmes and whether this matched their desired level of involvement in such practices
Meer and Chapman (2015)	2010-2013	Second year Human Resource Development course of an undergraduate Business and Management degree	24 students divided into four groups of six The course lecturer	Four-year longitudinal action research Semi-structured focus group, written responses to questions, students’ grades	To analyse the differences between marking criteria written by academics and students; to analyse peer, self, and lecturer grading of assessment using co-created marking criteria; to analyse the engagement and performance of the students during the intervention
Murphy et al. (2017)	UK	A large university in the northwest of England Four degree programmes: events management, law, sport and exercise sciences, and quantity surveying	Core project team: Four academic staff members; three student project officers studying full-time master’s degree programmes in sport and exercise science Co-creation workshop: 35 staff members and 60 students 35 staff members responded to the survey; 16 academic staff members took part in the interviews	Mixed-methods sequential explanatory approach Questionnaires, interviews Descriptive statistics, inductive thematic analysis	To explore staff perspectives of a staff-student partnership project aimed at improving feedback strategies
Orsmond et al. (2000)	UK	Two biology modules “Common Skills” and “Life on Earth” at Staffordshire University	An assessing tutor 85 students from two different years of study Group A (16 students); Group B (20 students); Group C (16 students); Group D (16 students); Group E (17 students)	Marks awarded by students and the tutor; evaluation questionnaire Sign test, descriptive statistics	A report of the implementation of a method of student self and peer assessment involving student constructed marking criteria
Orsmond et al. (2002)	UK	The module “Work Experience and Personal Development” in Environmental Sciences and Applied Biology Staffordshire University	22 first-year undergraduate biology students 2 tutors	Poster feedback questionnaire, marks awarded by students and tutors Kolmogorov-Smirnov test	A study on the implementation of a method of student self and peer assessment involving student constructed marking criteria in the presence of exemplars
Peseta et al. (2016)	Australia 2014	Sydney Teaching Colloquium, University of Sydney	6 undergraduates from the areas of education, health sciences, and arts/social sciences	Student ambassadors’ reflections Analysed by the ambassadors themselves to develop a set of themes	An account of an innovative students-as-partners initiative at the University of Sydney
Quesada et al. (2019)	Spain	Elementary Education in Early Childhood Education degree programme at the University of Cádiz	470 first- and second-year undergraduate students; 4 teachers 349 students completed the questionnaire; 31 students participated in focus groups	Questionnaires (teacher survey and student survey), focus groups with students Qualitative analysis – thematic approach	To analyse the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats perceived by students participating in co-assessment practices; to explore the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats perceived by professors participating in the experience
Rivers et al. (2017)	Australia	Second-year molecular genetics course	Two course convenors Students taking the course (typical enrolment of 200) Peer-assisted learning mentors	Student surveys; student comments on PeerWise	A report of the implementation of peer-learning strategies that aim to provide students with greater ownership of the course content and its assessment
Smith et al. (2021a)	UK 2020 – 2021	Business school, University of Sussex	Six students from different years and degrees within and outside the business school 9 staff members (5 female; 4 male) Non-teaching staff – academic developer, student academic success advisor Five student partners and five staff project members	Case study Semi-structured interviews Thematic analysis	A report of a staff-student partnership to co-create generic assessment criteria for the business school of a university
Smith et al. (2021b)	UK 2020 – 2021	Business school, University of Sussex	6 student connectors from different years of study and degrees from within and outside the business school Staff selected from various departments and positions Five student connectors and five staff members participated in interviews	Case study Semi-structured interviews Thematic analysis	A case study of a quality-enhancement staff-student partnership to identify the stages of the partnership co-creation process
Snelling et al. (2019) Only Exemplar 2 is relevant	Australia	University of Adelaide	Exemplar 2: Second- and third-year and academic staff from plant science-related degrees in the Faculty of Science	Pre-workshop survey, course evaluation	A report of three exemplars of practice inspired by emerging evidence that student-staff partnerships have the potential to significantly enhance many areas of higher education Only Exemplar 2 focuses on assessment
Stephenson (2006)	New Zealand	The course “Teacher roles in young children’s learning” in an Early Childhood diploma programme	Class sizes ranged from 16 to 24 students (predominantly female) The course teacher (author of the paper)	Action research over four years Institution’s formal evaluation, an informal end-of-course evaluation, audiotaped sections of the class, teacher	Implementation of new methods of learning/teaching to reposition students as co-constructors of their own knowledge
Taylor et al. (2021)	Australia 2008-2020	Business Faculty	Stage 1 intervention: more than 4,500 UG and PG students Stage 2 intervention: 785 UG and PG students Stage 3 intervention: 318 students All support workshops were hosted by the discipline-based staff members and attended by specialist teaching and learning advisors	Three-stage, targeted intervention Student surveys	To identify the reasons for the limited attainment of positive cross-boundary crossings for all students within the context of an Australian, Business Faculty; to outline the thirteen-year (2008-2020), iterative, intervention process undertaken with 6,000 participating students; to provide post-script reflections related to the post-CV19, online experiences of students
Taylor et al. (2015)	Australia 2010 – 2014	Accounting subjects within the Bachelor of Business degree in an Australian university	Phase 1: approximately 85 students of second-year Financial Accounting in Semesters 1 & 2, 2010 Phase 2: 126 students of International Accounting in Semester 1, 2011 and Semesters 1 & 2, 2012 Phase 3: International Accounting students in Semester 1, 2013 Phase 4: International Accounting students in Semester 2, 2013 and Semester 1 2014	Student surveys	A report of a four-phase, cross-institution, and cross-discipline project designed to embed peer-review processes as part of the assessment in two large, undergraduate accounting classes
Thompson et al. (2017)	Australia 2015	Final-year capstone paramedic practice in a three-year bachelor of paramedic science degree A university in southern Australia	Undergraduate students 90 of the 94 eligible participants enrolled in the subject responded to the questionnaire (96% response rate)	Questionnaire Automated, university-mandated survey: Student Evaluation of Topic (SET) survey	To evaluate students’ perceptions of student-tutor consensus grading of simulation-based practical skills assessments in a final-year paramedic practice capstone subject.
Tiew (2010)	Malaysia 2009	Weekly tutorials of the second- and third-year of studies at the Business School, Curtin University of Technology, Sarawak Campus	Semester 1: 42 students Semester 2: 35 students	Action research Questionnaire Calculation of means and percentages	To collate students’ opinions of peer and self-assessment on tutorial class participation
Ward et al. (2022)	Ireland 2020 – 2021	Three undergraduate degree programmes in School of Computing, Dublin City University: Computer Applications, Enterprise Computing, and Data Science	20 class representatives (representing around 700 students) 18 class representatives participated in the focus group Module coordinators, programme chair and the teaching convenor (student consultations) Quality Promotions Office – upskilling the class representatives	Focus group with student representatives Reflections of the Assistant Head for Teaching Excellence (incorporating findings from academics in the School)	To investigate whether student partnership made a difference to the student learning experience in COVID-19 times

Result synthesis

The data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) theoretical thematic analysis approach. The extracted data were organized according to the three research questions in an Excel spreadsheet. Each set of data were examined separately, and an initial code was assigned to describe each data segment. After all the data segments were coded, they were read thoroughly and examined for patterns. Codes that were associated with one another or related to the same issue were grouped together. For example, “create and refine assessment tools/tasks”, “create supporting resources for staff and students”, and “prepare answers for designed tasks” were codes for the second research question on students’ roles. All three codes concerned the action of developing something, so they were put in the same group. A label was then assigned to describe the group of codes. Using the same example for students’ roles, the label assigned was “co-designers”. After all the three sets of data were coded and grouped into categories, the categories were reviewed to inspect whether all the codes were adequately explained by the categories and whether all the data segments fit the codes and categories. Both researchers performed the analysis independently and then met to compare their codes and categories. Discrepancies were resolved through negotiation and discussion. There were 51 codes grouped into 12 categories, which were further organized into three themes to answer the research questions. The naming of the three themes was guided by the research questions. The findings are reported according to the three themes: areas of partnership, roles of students, and support provided by university staff.

Articles included in the systematic review

Abdelmalak, M. M. M. 2016. “Faculty-Student Partnerships in Assessment.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 28 (2): 193-203. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1111135.pdf

Alsford, S. 2012. “An Educational Development Student Forum: Working Partnerships with Students.” Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education 4 (2): 186-202. http://doi.org/10.1108/17581181211273291

Andrews, M., R. Brown, and L. Mesher. 2018. “Engaging Students with Assessment and Feedback: Improving Assessment for Learning with Students as Partners.” Practitioner Research in Higher Education 11 (1): 32-46. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1180136.pdf
Baerheim, A., and E. Meland. 2003. “Medical Students Proposing Questions for Their Own Written Final Examination: Evaluation of an Educational Project.” Medical Education 37 (8): 734-738. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01578.x
Bell, A., S. Potter, L.-A. Morris, M. Strbac, A. Grundy, and M. Z. Yawary. 2019. “Evaluating the Process and Product of a Student-Staff Partnership for Curriculum Redesign in Film Studies.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 56 (6): 740-750. http://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1588768
Cecchinato, G., and L. C. Foschi. 2017. “Flipping the Roles: Analysis of a University Course Where Students Become Co-Creators of Curricula.” Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education 1 (22): 1-9. https://repository.brynmawr.edu/tlthe/vol1/iss22/5
Chamunyonga, C., J. Burbery, P. Caldwell, P. Rutledge, and C. Hargrave. 2018. “Radiation Therapy Students as Partners in the Development of Alternative Approaches to Assessing Treatment Planning Skills.” Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 49 (3): 309-315. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2018.04.023
Collins, P. 2010. “Inclusive Team Assessment of Off-Campus and On-Campus First Year Law Students Using Instantaneous Communication Technology.” The Law Teacher 44 (3): 309-333. http://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2010.524032
Colson, N., M.-A. Shuker, and L. Maddock. 2021. “Switching on the Creativity Gene: A Co-Creation Assessment Initiative in a Large First Year Genetics Course.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education: 1-18. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2011133
Cooper, S. 2017. “A Collaborative Assessment of Students’ Placement Learning.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (1): 61-76. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1083093
Cosker, E., V. Favier, P. Gallet, F. Raphael, E. Moussier, L. Tyvaert, M. Braun, and E. Feigerlova. 2021. “Tutor-Student Partnership in Practice OSCE to Enhance Medical Education.” Medical Science Educator 31: 1803-1812. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01421-9
Deeley, S. J. 2014. “Summative Co-Assessment: A Deep Learning Approach to Enhancing Employability Skills and Attributes.” Active Learning in Higher Education 15 (1): 39-51. http://doi.org/10.1177/1469787413514649
Deeley, S. J. 2018. “Using Technology to Facilitate Effective Assessment for Learning and Feedback in Higher Education.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (3): 439-448. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1356906
Deeley, S. J., and C. Bovill. 2017. “Staff Student Partnership in Assessment: Enhancing Assessment Literacy through Democratic Practices.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (3): 463-477. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1126551
Doyle, E., P. Buckley, and J. Whelan. 2019. “Assessment Co-Creation: An Exploratory Analysis of Opportunities and Challenges Based on Student and Instructor Perspectives.” Teaching in Higher Education 24 (6): 739-754. http://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1498077
El-Mowafy, A. 2014. “Using Peer Assessment of Fieldwork to Enhance Students’ Practical Training.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 39 (2): 223-241. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.820823
Geraghty, J. R., A. N. Young, T. D. M. Berkel, E. Wallbruch, J. Mann, Y. S. Park, L. E. Hirshfield, and A. Hyderi. 2020. “Empowering Medical Students as Agents of Curricular Change: A Value-Added Approach to Student Engagement in Medical Education.” Perspectives on Medical Education 9 (1): 60-65. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-00547-2
Godbold, N., T.-Y. A. Hung, and K. E. Matthews. 2021. “Exploring the Role of Conflict in Co-Creation of Curriculum through Engaging Students as Partners in the Classroom.” Higher Education Research and Development 41 (4): 1104-1118. http://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1887095
Hussain, S., K. A. A. Gamage, W. Ahmad, and M. A. Imran. 2019. “Assessment and Feedback for Large Classes in Transnational Engineering Education: Student-Staff Partnership-Based Innovative Approach.” Education Sciences 9 (3): 221-231. http://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030221
Kaur, A., M. Noman, and H. Nordin. 2017. “Inclusive Assessment for Linguistically Diverse Learners in Higher Education.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (5): 756-771. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1187250
Kearney, S. 2019. “Transforming the First-Year Experience through Self and Peer Assessment.” Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice 16 (5): 20-35. http://doi.org/10.14453/jutlp.v16i5.3
Kiester, E., and J. Holowko. 2020. “Redefining the Roles of Master and Apprentice: Crossing the Threshold through the Co-Creation of a First-Year Seminar.” International Journal for Students as Partners 4 (1): 66-81. http://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v4i1.3826
Leslie, L. J., and P. C. Gorman. 2017. “Collaborative Design of Assessment Criteria to Improve Undergraduate Student Engagement and Performance.” European Journal of Engineering Education 42 (3): 286-301. http://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2016.1158791
Lorber, P., S. Rooney, and M. Van Der Enden. 2019. “Making Assessment Accessible: A Student-Staff Partnership Perspective.” Higher Education Pedagogies 4 (1): 488-502. http://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2019.1695524
Lorente, E., and D. Kirk. 2013. “Alternative Democratic Assessment in PETE: An Action-Research Study Exploring Risks, Challenges and Solutions.” Sport, Education and Society 18 (1): 77-96. http://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2012.713859
Lubicz-Nawrocka, T. 2018. “From Partnership to Self-Authorship: The Benefits of Co-Creation of the Curriculum.” International Journal for Students as Partners 2 (1): 47-63. http://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v2i1.3207
Matthews, K. E., L. J. Groenendijk, and P. Chunduri. 2017. “We Want to Be More Involved: Student Perceptions of Students as Partners across the Degree Program Curriculum.” International Journal for Students as Partners 1 (2): 1-16. http://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i2.3063
Meer, N., and A. Chapman. 2014. “Co-Creation of Marking Criteria: Students as Partners in the Assessment Process.” Business and Management Education in HE: 1-15. https://doi.org/10.11120/bmhe.2014.00008
Murphy, R., S. Nixon, S. Brooman, and D. Fearon. 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 1 (1): 1-16. http://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i1.3055
Orsmond, P., S. Merry, and K. Reiling. 2000. “The Use of Student Derived Marking Criteria in Peer and Self-Assessment.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 25 (1): 23-38. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602930050025006
Orsmond, P., S. Merry, and K. Reiling. 2002. “The Use of Exemplars and Formative Feedback When Using Student Derived Marking Criteria in Peer and Self-Assessment”. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 27 (4): 309-323. http://doi.org/10.1080/0260293022000001337
Peseta, T., A. Bell, A. Clifford, A. English, J. Janarthana, C. Jones, M. Teal, and J. Zhang. 2016. “Students as Ambassadors and Researchers of Assessment Renewal: Puzzling over the Practices of University and Academic Life.” International Journal of Academic Development 21(1): 54-66. http://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015.1115406
Quesada, V., M. A. G. Ruiz, M. B. G. Noche, and J. Cubero-Ibáñez. 2019. “Should I Use Co-Assessment in Higher Education? Pros and Cons from Teachers and Students’ Perspectives.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 44 (7): 987-1002. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1531970
Rivers, J., A. Smith, D. Higgins, R. Mills, A. G. Maier, and S. M. Howitt. 2017. “Asking and Answering Questions: Partners, Peer Learning, and Participation.” International Journal for Students as Partners 1 (1): 1-10. http://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i1.3072
Smith, S., K. Akhyani, D. Axson, A. Arnautu, and I. Stanimirova. 2021a. “Learning Together: A Case Study of a Partnership to Co-Create Assessment Criteria.” International Journal for Students as Partners 5 (2): 123-133. http://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v5i2.4647
Smith, S., K. Akhyani, D. Axson, A. Arnautu, and I. Stanimirova. 2021b. “The Partnership Co-Creation Process: Conditions for Success?” International Journal for Students as Partners 5 (2): 48-66. http://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v5i2.4772
Snelling, C., B. R. Loveys, S. Karanicolas, N. J. Schofield, W. Carlson-Jones, J. Weissgerber, R. Edmonds, and J. Ngu. 2019. “Partnership through Co-Creation: Lessons Learnt at the University of Adelaide.” International Journal for Students as Partners 3 (2): 62-77. http://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v3i2.3799
Stephenson, A. 2006. “Troubling Teaching.” Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 31 (1): 51-56. http://doi.org/10.1177/183693910603100108
Taylor, S., M. Ryan, and L. Elphinstone. 2021. “Generating Genuine Inclusion in Higher Education Utilising an Original, Transferable, and Customisable Model for Teaching and Assessing Reflective Learning.” Reflective Practice 22 (4): 531-549. http://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2021.1933408
Taylor, S., M. Ryan, and J. Pearce. 2015. “Enhanced Student Learning in Accounting Utilising Web-Based Technology, Peer-Review Feedback and Reflective Practices: A Learning Community Approach to Assessment.” Higher Education Research & Development 34 (6): 1251-1269. http://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1024625
Thompson, J., D. Houston, K. Danise, T. Rayner, T. Pointon, S. Pope, A. Cayetano, B. Mitchell, and H. Grantham. 2017. “Student & Tutor Consensus: A Partnership in Assessment for Learning.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (6): 942-952. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1211988
Tiew, F. 2010. “Business Students’ View of Peer Assessment on Class Participation.” International Education Studies 3 (3): 126-131. http://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v3n3p126
Ward, M., M. Senchea, and C. Gormley. 2022. “Teaching, Learning and Assessment within a School of Computing: Did Student Partnership Have an Impact?” All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (AISHE-J) 14 (1): 1-19. https://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/view/609/979

Table S6. Areas of assessment partnership

Area	Sub-areas	Studies
Assessment and feedback design	Assessment tasks	Abdelmalak (2016), Baerheim and Meland (2003), Bell et al. (2019), Chamunyonga et al., 2018, Cosker et al. (2019), Deeley and Bovill (2017), Doyle et al. (2019), Hussain et al. (2019), Kiester and Holowko (2020), Lorente and Kirk (2013), Lubicz-Nawrocka (2018), Quesada et al. (2019), Rivers et al. (2017), Snelling et al. (2019)
	Assessment criteria	Abdelmalak (2016), Andrews et al. (2018), Colson et al. (2021), El-Mowafy (2014), Hussain et al. (2019), Kearney (2019), Kiester and Holowko (2020), Leslie and Gorman (2017), Lorber et al. (2019), Lorente and Kirk (2013), Matthews et al. (2017), Meer and Chapman (2015), Orsmond et al. (2000), Orsmond et al. (2002), Smith et al. (2021b), Tiew (2010)
	Grading method	Abdelmalak (2016), Godbold et al. (2021), Lorente and Kirk (2013), Matthews et al. (2017), Stephenson (2006)
	Assessment process	Abdelmalak (2016), Godbold et al. (2021), Kaur et al. (2017), Matthews et al. (2017), Ward et al. (2022)
Execution and implementation	Self-assessment	Cooper (2017), Deeley (2014, 2018), Deeley and Bovill (2017), Kearney (2019), Lorente and Kirk (2013), Matthews et al. (2017), Meer and Chapman (2015), Orsmond et al. (2002), Quesada et al. (2019), Thompson et al. (2017), Tiew (2010)
	Peer assessment	Cecchinato and Foschi (2017), Collins (2010), Colson et al. (2021), Cosker et al. (2021), El-Mowafy (2014), Hussain et al. (2019), Kaur et al. (2017), Kearney (2019), Lorente and Kirk (2013), Meer and Chapman (2015), Orsmond et al. (2002), Taylor et al. (2015), Tiew (2010)
	Peer review	Andrews et al. (2018), Chamunyonga et al. (2018), Cosker et al. (2021), Deeley and Bovill (2017), Hussain et al. (2019), Lubicz-Nawrocka (2018), Matthews et al. (2017), Taylor et al. (2021)
Quality assurance	Surveys	Andrews et al. (2018), Bell et al. (2019), Kearney (2019), Kiester and Holowko (2020), Smith et al. (2021a, 2021b), Taylor et al. (2015)
	Discussions/focus groups	Andrews et al. (2018), Cosker et al. (2021), Murphy et al. (2017), Smith et al. (2021b), Snelling et al. (2019)
	Reports from student representatives	Geraghty et al. (2020), Peseta et al. (2016), Rivers et al. (2017), Smith et al. (2021b), Ward et al. (2022)
Policy establishment	Implementation of assessment and feedback	Alsford (2012), Andrews et al. (2018), Geraghty et al. (2020), Lorber et al. (2019), Murphy et al. (2017), Peseta et al. (2016), Ward et al. (2022)
	Grading systems	Geraghty et al. (2020), Lorber et al. (2019), Smith et al. (2021a)
	Dissemination of policy	Peseta et al. (2016), Smith et al. (2021a, 2021b)
	Practical issues	Alsford (2012), Geraghty et al. (2020), Lorber et al. (2019), Ward et al. (2022)

Table S7. Student roles

Role	Activities	Studies
Co-designers	Create and refine assessment tools/tasks	Andrews et al. (2018), Baerheim and Meland (2003), Cecchinato and Foschi (2017), Chamunyonga et al. (2018), Cosker et al. (2021), Deeley and Bovill (2017), Hussain et al. (2019), Kiester and Holowko (2020), Lorente and Kirk (2013), Lubicz-Nawrocka (2018), Quesada et al. (2019), Rivers et al. (2017), Snelling et al. (2019)
	Develop and review assessment criteria/rubrics including feedback strategies	Abdelmalak (2016), Andrews et al. (2018), Colson et al. (2021), El-Mowafy (2014), Hussain et al. (2019), Kaur et al. (2017), Kearney (2019), Kiester and Holowko (2020), Leslie and Gorman (2017), Lorber et al. (2019), Lubicz-Nawrocka (2018), Matthews et al. (2017), Meer and Chapman (2015), Murphy et al. (2017), Orsmond et al. (2000), Orsmond et al. (2002), Smith et al. (2021a, 2021b), Stephenson (2006), Tiew (2010)
	Create supporting resources for staff and students	Peseta et al. (2016), Smith et al. (2021a, 2021b)
	Prepare answers for designed tasks	Baerheim and Meland (2003)
	Justify design of tasks	Chamunyonga et al. (2018)
	Design methods to gather feedback from students	Smith et al. (2021b)
	Devise strategies based on feedback	Andrews et al. (2018), Smith et al. (2021b)
Assessors	Evaluate/grade peers’ work	Cecchinato and Foschi (2017), Chamunyonga et al. (2018), Collins (2010), Colson et al. (2021), Cosker et al. (2021), El-Mowafy (2014), Hussain et al. (2019), Kaur et al. (2017), Kearney (2019), Lorente and Kirk (2013), Meer and Chapman (2015), Orsmond et al. (2000), Orsmond et al. (2002), Taylor et al. (2015), Tiew (2010)
	Comment on peers’ work	Abdelmalak (2016), Andrews et al. (2018), Chamunyonga et al. (2018), Colson et al. (2021), Cosker et al. (2021), Deeley and Bovill (2017), Hussain et al. (2019), Lubicz-Nawrocka (2018), Matthews et al. (2017), Taylor et al. (2021)
	Evaluate/grade one’s own work	Cooper (2017), Deeley (2014), El-Mowafy (2014), Kearney (2019), Lorente and Kirk (2013), Matthews et al. (2017), Meer and Chapman (2015), Orsmond et al. (2000), Orsmond et al. (2002), Quesada et al. (2019), Thompson et al. (2017), Tiew (2010)
	Reflect on one’s own performance	Colson et al. (2021), Deeley (2014), Quesada et al. (2019)
	Negotiate/moderate grades	Deeley (2014), El-Mowafy (2014), Hussain et al. (2019), Lorente and Kirk (2013), Meer and Chapman (2015), Quesada et al. (2019), Thompson et al. (2017)
	Justify grades/marks	Quesada et al. (2019), Thompson et al. (2017)
	Evaluate effectiveness of assessment strategies/tasks/policies	Andrews et al. (2018), Cosker et al. (2021), Geraghty et al. (2020), Smith et al. (2021a, 2021b), Snelling et al. (2019)
	Evaluate experiences with assessment	Bell et al. (2019), Kearney (2019), Kiester and Holowko (2020), Taylor et al. (2015), Ward et al. (2022)
Consultants	Identify/highlight issues in existing practice	Alsford (2012), Andrews et al. (2018), Lorber et al. (2019), Kiester and Holowko (2020), Smith et al. (2021b), Ward et al. (2022)
	Propose changes/strategies for improvement	Bell et al. (2019), Cosker et al. (2021), Kiester and Holowko (2020), Lorber et al. (2019), Peseta et al. (2016), Snelling et al. (2019)
	Collect and report feedback from students	Geraghty et al. (2020), Murphy et al. (2017), Peseta et al. (2016), Rivers et al. (2017), Smith et al. (2021b)
	Facilitate discussions/workshops with students	Murphy et al. (2017), Peseta et al. (2016)
	Revise and test assessment ideas	Bell et al. (2019)
Decision makers	Decide on grading methods	Abdelmalak (2016), Lorente and Kirk (2013), Stephenson (2006)
	Negotiate deadlines	Godbold et al. (2021), Matthews et al. (2017), Ward et al. (2022)
	Choose assessment topics/tasks	Kaur et al. (2017), Matthews et al. (2017), Ward et al. (2022)
	Negotiate weightings	Godbold et al. (2021), Matthews et al. (2017)
	Vote on curricular and policy issues	Geraghty et al. (2020), Lorber et al. (2019)

Table S8. Support provided by university staff

Type of support	Actions	Studies
Essential knowledge	Provide specific instructions/guidelines	Abdelmalak (2016), Chamunyonga et al. (2018), Cosker et al. (2021), Deeley (2014), Deeley and Bovill (2017), El-Mowafy (2014), Hussain et al. (2019), Kearney (2019), Lorente and Kirk (2013), Taylor et al. (2015), Tiew (2010)
	Explain assessment and partnership principles	Andrews et al. (2018), Chamunyonga et al. (2018), Doyle et al. (2019), Lorente and Kirk (2013), Murphy et al. (2017), Rivers et al. (2017), Snelling et al. (2019)
	Clarify key concepts	Andrews et al. (2018), Cecchinato and Foschi (2017), Chamunyonga et al. (2018), Collins (2010), Orsmond et al. (2000, 2002)
	Prepare relevant reading resources	Abdelmalak (2016), Doyle et al. (2019)
Training and coaching	Provide samples of work and exemplars	Abdelmalak (2016), Andrews et al. (2018), Collins (2010), El-Mowafy (2014), Hussain et al. (2019), Meer and Chapman (2015), Orsmond et al. (2002), Taylor et al. (2015)
	Organise and conduct training workshops	Bell et al. (2019), Cosker et al. (2021), Geraghty et al. (2020), Ward et al. (2022)
	Conduct pilot marking sessions	Colson et al. (2021), El-Mowafy (2014), Kearney (2019), Taylor et al. (2021), Taylor et al. (2015), Tiew (2010)
Accuracy and quality check	Review student-developed tools	Abdelmalak (2016), Andrews et al. (2018), Baerheim and Meland (2003), Bell et al. (2019), Colson et al. (2021), Cosker et al. (2021), Doyle et al. (2019), Godbold et al. (2021), Hussain et al. (2019), Lorber et al. (2019), Murphy et al. (2017), Quesada et al. (2019), El-Mowafy (2014)
	Verify appropriateness of design/ideas	Baerheim and Meland (2003), Bell et al. (2019), Cecchinato and Foschi (2017), Chamunyonga et al. (2018), Doyle et al. (2019), Hussain et al. (2019), Kiester and Holowko (2020)
	Moderate student assessment	Deeley (2014, 2018), El-Mowafy (2014), Lorente and Kirk (2013), Meer and Chapman (2015), Thompson et al. (2017)
Partnership management	Facilitate negotiation and discussion	Abdelmalak (2016), Andrews et al. (2018), Chamunyonga et al. (2018), El-Mowafy (2014), Godbold et al. (2021), Hussain et al. (2019), Kaur et al. (2017), Lorente and Kirk (2013), Meer and Chapman (2015), Orsmond et al. (2002), Tiew (2010)
Partnership management	Collate and synthesise student reponses	Andrews et al. (2018), Leslie and Gorman (2017), Tiew (2010)