4. Co-creating

Co-creation through a feedback loop is the least challenging way for students to co-create as the elements of co-creation are minor and less demanding. Students do not work in mixed international groups, only in national groups. Here they begin to create a product. The students then co-create by supporting each other in refining the product. The focus is on continuous feedback given by a group from another country in an iterative process to develop and refine the product.

The circus project example: In the circus project co-creation in a feedback loop took place between pedagogical students from Denmark and Norway in a COIL. The project aimed to critically reflect on how to work with circus as a theme for children with different abilities. Before the co-creating phase, various forms of knowledge exchange took place.  

In the co-creating feedback loop process students were divided into national groups, working on an inclusive circus performance to present to a group from the other country. The presentations was in the first phase done asynchronously through exchanges of videos (see example below). After watching the videos, the groups met for feedback sessions, where the group from the other country was responsible for giving feedback to strengthen the product development. Following this feedback, the groups changed and developed their performance product.   

As part of the process, the students had access to a padlet to support an ongoing dialogue and critical reflection on the process and the product development.

The students worked toward an end product: an online international circus show through live-streaming, screen-to-screen as shown below:

Co-creation through transformation is a more involving process. Students still work in national groups, but the product is no longer primarly owned by one group. In stead students in one group start with an input, which is then transformed into something new by an international partner group . The co-creation happens in a serial production aiming at transforming the product. Hence, the input you started out with can then in the end be transformed quite dramatically, which sparks reflections on new perspectives on the input first given.

The dance, fight and play project example: In the dance, fight and play project, co-creation through transformation took place between pedagogical students from Ghana and Denmark. The project aimed at teaching students to use their body for dance, play and fight activities offered to children in various preschool settings. 

The transformation process:

1. To begin with, each national group had to produce a video showing a dance/ play/ childrens game/a play-fight they could do in  early childhood institutions.
2. This initial product was then forwarded to the international partner group.
3. First the partner group had to reflect on the video they received (what do you expect children to gain from this activity? What does the activity offer the children to explore, and experience, and what competencies could they develop from the activity? What is the role of the professional in this activity?)
4. Secondly, the partner group had to creatively adapt the activity, by first, trying to imitate in, and then transform it into an activity they could see themselves doing in their own professional arena and local context.
5. This newly transformed activity was then sent back to the partner group to reflect upon the process and the outcome.
6. A grand finale was included where the transformed play, play fight or dance was shown, and even tried out together.

The transformations were quite dramatic – the students hardly recognized their own, traditional childrens dances/plays! These transformations provided students with new experiential insights on how body language and ways of expressing ourselves can vary tremendously in different profesional arenas. This insight led to strong reflections on students’ own contexts as well as new ways of approaching childrens figh, play and dance. 

to reflect on the transformation the following was asked:

• What did you change and why, in the first version of the dance/play/fight? 
• What do you expect the children to gain from the new activity? 
• What does the activity offer the children to explore, and experience, and what competencies can they develop? 
• Does the final activity represent an intercultural design, a collaboration between Ghanaian and Danish students? 
• How can the intercultural aspect be a part of the activity with children?   

Co-creating through a joined production is probably most commonly associated with a co-creating process. It is also the most challenging. When co-creating through a joined production, students work in internationally mixed groups to co-create a joined product in relation to the COIL theme chosen. The challenge is to design this process in a way where one national perspective does not dominate the process. This require clearly facilitated steps, that allows all students to include individual and national aspects as stepping stones towards a joined production.

The ideal playground project example: In the ideal playground project, students had to co-create an ideal playground as a joined product in internationally mixed groups. The ambition was for students to learn about playgrounds, inclusion and risky play from a Basque and Danish perspective. Before co-creating a joined production, the students exchanged knowledge from each country on risky play, play, and playgrounds.

The joined production process:

1. Each student was asked to bring pictures from national playgrounds in early childhood instituitons from their own country (10 pictures per student) + pictures of visions for their ideal playground (10 pictures per student). 
2. A reflective dialogue was supported on the interesting variations in picture choices from different students
3. In the mixed groups, students should now build up their ideal playground, making sure that both nationalities of students added something to the final product. In this project a Jambord platform was used, allowing students to draw, add posters and pictures to create the ideal playground together online.
4. Finally, the students presented their ideal playground to other mixed groups. They had to focus on certain aspects (e.g., inclusion, risky play, the role of the teacher and norms and ideal behind their choices) and reflect on these aspects in their presentation and the feedback. Another group was responsible for giving thorough feedback and asking further questions.

As part of a final joint reflection, the students jointly had to reflect on the following questions:  

Reflective questions:

1. What do you expect the children to gain from the playground? 
2. What does the playground offer the children to explore, and experience, and what competencies can they develop? 
3. To what extent does the Dream Playground represent an intercultural design, a collaboration between Basque and Danish students? 
4. Does the playground focus on inclusion and gender perspectives?  

Example of products: