Three Decades of Codesigning Pedagogies: A Scientometric Trend Analysis of Student Partnership in Pedagogical Codesign

Three Decades of Codesigning Pedagogies: A Scientometric Trend Analysis of Student Partnership in Pedagogical Codesign | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Three Decades of Codesigning Pedagogies: A Scientometric Trend Analysis of Student Partnership in Pedagogical Codesign Paschal Kpimekuu Boruzie, Muhammad Mustafa Hassan, Nabeela Kausar This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7470705/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Pedagogical codesign has taken significant attention in recent decades in the modern world. Involving the target student group in designing pedagogies, curricula, or entire programs has become increasingly popular. Several forces drive this change, including changing mindsets, shifting learning theories, increased educational commercialization, etc. Nonetheless, this list is not exhaustive, and several other motives exist. Current research finds that the field of codesigning pedagogies has grown over the past three decades. This study provides a comprehensive overview of the evolution of codesign pedagogies over the past three decades, highlighting the shift from teacher-centered approaches to collaborative, student-centered learning. The research employs scientometric analysis to examine the growth and impact of codesign pedagogies in education, focusing on publications from 1993 to 2023. The analysis reveals a significant increase in the involvement of students and stakeholders in designing educational experiences, driven by technological advancements and the evolving needs of learners. The study’s methodology includes a robust review protocol, utilizing databases such as Web of Science and Scopus, and a detailed screening process to identify relevant articles. The findings indicate an increasing trend; however, the majority of included articles are from the fields of educational sciences and STEM, with most research conducted in school and university settings. The bibliometric analysis, including co-occurrence networks and three field plots, offers insights into the key themes and contributors to the field. The study highlights the importance of co-design pedagogies in promoting active learning and engagement and their increasing relevance in the 21st-century educational landscape.in fostering active learning and engagement, and their growing relevance in the 21st-century educational landscape Educational Philosophy and Theory Codesign scientometric bibliometric student collaborative learning pedagogical Biblioshiny Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 1. Introduction Codesigning pedagogies are collaborative approaches to teaching and learning that engage multiple stakeholders, including teachers, students, researchers, and practitioners, in the design of educational activities, materials, and environments [ 1 ]. Over the past three decades, the field of codesigning pedagogies has evolved significantly, shaped by the changing landscape of education and the growing importance of student-centered and collaborative learning approaches [ 2 ]. This evolution reflects a broader shift in the paradigm toward inclusivity, shared responsibility, and participatory frameworks in education. According to Khanova et al. [ 3 ], there has been a marked increase in the development and implementation of pedagogical strategies that actively involve students and other stakeholders in the design and refinement of learning experiences. This study addresses a research gap in the scientometric analysis of pedagogical codesign, particularly focusing on student partnership. Previous systematic reviews have not adequately explored this niche, necessitating a targeted bibliometric approach. Hence, the study addresses the following research questions: RQ1 How has the field of pedagogical codesign involving student partners evolved over the past three decades? RQ2 What are the dominant themes, contributors, and educational domains in this field? Codesigning pedagogies, also referred to as co-design, co-creation, or participatory learning, respond to a growing demand for educational experiences that are not only effective but also engaging and student-centered [ 4 ], [ 5 ]. While the principles of student-centered learning can be traced back to constructivist and humanistic approaches in the 1960s [ 6 ], [ 7 ], the specific practice of codesigning curricula with students gained prominence in the 1990s. During this period, education began to shift from teacher-centered models, where educators made most decisions about curricula and teaching methods, to approaches emphasizing collaboration and student agency [ 8 ]. The importance of codesigning pedagogies extends beyond enhancing individual learning experiences. It has profound implications for the educational system and society as a whole. Involving students as partners in the design process helps create curricula, courses, policies, and practices that are more relevant, equitable, and impactful [ 9 ]. Codesigned pedagogies foster critical skills, including collaboration, communication, and problem-solving, preparing students to actively participate in a rapidly changing, interconnected world [ 10 ] Moreover, codesign promotes equity and inclusion by amplifying student voices, particularly those from underrepresented or marginalized groups, thereby addressing systemic educational disparities [ 11 ]. According to Su, Zhong, and Ng [ 12 ] and Nghiem et.al. [ 13 ], pedagogical innovations like problem-based learning, project-based learning, inquiry-based learning, flipped classrooms, and blended learning have contributed to contemporary education's focus on active learning, engagement, and digital literacy. However, the rise of codesigning pedagogies is deeply rooted in values such as participation, shared power, trust, and agency. These principles reflect a broader societal shift toward collaboration and democratization in decision-making processes, making codesign not only a pedagogical strategy but also a social imperative. In the 21st century, codesign pedagogy has gained further momentum due to shifting student demographics, the increasing demand for lifelong learning, and the recognition of students as active partners in their educational journey [ 14 ]. While technological advancements, including learning management systems (LMS), online collaboration tools, and educational data analytics, have facilitated the implementation of codesign practices [ 15 ], the core drivers remain the human values of inclusion, trust, and shared agency. These factors have influenced pedagogical practices across K-12, higher education, and adult education, fostering a culture of participation and adaptability that benefits both learners and educators [ 16 ]. Given this context, this study aims to explore the trends and developments in codesign pedagogies using a scientometric analysis to better understand their growth, impact, and potential. Scientometric analysis, which examines the evolution and dynamics of scientific fields through bibliometric tools such as citation patterns and collaboration networks [ 17 ], [ 18 ], is particularly suited to investigating the progress of codesign pedagogies. This study focuses on relevant research publications between 1993 and 2023(standardized across all databases), analyzing how pedagogical codesign involving student partners has evolved and identifying the impact of these practices on educational systems and society. Importantly, this study considers codesigning in the context of student partnership, where the outcomes are applied to the same student populations that contributed to their design. This collaborative approach underscores the transformative potential of codesign for creating educational systems that are inclusive, adaptive, and prepared to address the challenges of a dynamic world. 2. Review Protocol The authors designed a review protocol to find scientometric data on the codesigning pedagogies with student partners. The protocol included elements from topic selection to accumulating the search results in a bibliographic dataset for further scientometric analysis. An overview of the protocol is illustrated in Fig. 1 . The authors selected two primary research databases to search for articles, namely Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. The keywords “codesign/co-design” and “pedagogy” were selected based on a preliminary scan of literature and terminology trends. These terms consistently appeared in relevant publications and reflect the core concepts of the study. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria : Included Peer-reviewed articles in English, focused on pedagogical codesign with student partners, published between 1993 and 2023. Excluded Non-English articles, editorials, and papers not involving student partnership. No other databases were included in the search because the authors believed that these two databases jointly could provide all articles related to the codesign of pedagogies. For example, the searches were not separately done on ACM or IEEE, since the author believed that all articles included in ACM/IEEE were already indexed on WoS and Scopus. Since the search format of WoS and Scopus is different, different search strings were formed. However, the reader shall note that these strings were searched multiple times and were refined in a pilot phase. The pilot phase included activities such as defining search terms, running searches on databases, and then injecting experience back into search string formation, reading a handful of articles, etc. All the pilot’s experience was used to create a robust protocol. 2.1 Search Strings and Results The results are organized according to the research questions: RQ1 Trends over time are shown in Figs. 4 , 5, and 21 . RQ2 Themes and contributors are analyzed in Figs. 13 – 16 and Table 2 . The Scopus search query used was: (TITLE-ABS-KEY (codesign* OR co-design*) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (pedagogy*)) , covering all periods from “1993” to October 2023. The first relevant paper identified by Scopus based on the title/abstract/keyword combination was published in 2005. The search yielded 385 results, encompassing various document types, including theses, conference papers, reviews, books, book chapters, and journal articles. The results included documents in multiple languages other than English, such as Spanish (13), French (2), Italian (2), and German (1), with the number in parentheses representing the count for each language. Interestingly, the language-tagged articles totaled 387, exceeding the 385 results reported. This discrepancy is unexplained but may stem from some documents having multiple language tags in their metadata (Scopus, 2023). Articles in languages other than English were excluded, leaving 369 English-language documents for review. These covered a range of disciplines, with the highest representation from social sciences, computer science, and engineering. A summary of the Scopus data is provided in Fig. 2 . The Web of Science (WoS) query used the key terms “codesign OR co-design” ** and “pedagogy”* as topics. The search spanned the period from 1993 to 2023, as suggested by the WoS interface, yielding 199 results. The authors conducted the query across all available databases within the WoS core collection. Despite selecting "All Times," no documents from 1975 were retrieved; the earliest document appeared in 2008 but was not directly relevant to the topic of this study. Upon reviewing abstracts, the first relevant publication addressing pedagogical codesign was identified in 2003. The WoS results included various document types, such as articles, conference papers, reviews, and book chapters. For analysis, the authors only considered documents in English, excluding 10 reports in Spanish, resulting in 189 articles for further review. A quick descriptive summary of the results is presented in Fig. 3. Interestingly, both databases demonstrated similar trends in the annual number of articles published, as shown in Fig. 4 , highlighting the field's evolution over time. While the exact number of records differed between databases, the overall trend was consistent. Additionally, a significant overlap in articles was observed between the databases, with some entries duplicated within the same database, as depicted in Fig. 5. 2.2 Article screening and selection The bibliographic files from both WoS and Scopus databases were imported into Zotero and subsequently merged into a single bibliographic database. This consolidated file was then uploaded to Rayyan.ai for article screening and selection. While Rayyan.ai automatically identified duplicate articles, the authors opted to manually review each duplicate to determine its removal. Ultimately, 168 duplicates were eliminated from the database. A quick WordCloud analysis of the remaining articles in Rayyan.ai revealed that the most prominent terms were “students,” “learning,” “codesigns,” and “design,” indicating key themes within the dataset as shown in Fig. 6 . The screening process involved reading titles and abstracts of articles. The articles that did not get an “included” status here were entered into the next phase, in which the authors downloaded full articles and read methodology sections. Similarly, the articles were either “included” based on their methodology sections or were entered into the next phase, in which authors skimmed the entire paper to find pedagogical codesign information. The papers that were not “included” in this phase were marked as “excluded”. In a few instances, an article was marked as “maybe”, however, only to be collapsed later into “included” or “excluded” status. An overview of the inclusion process is described in Fig. 7 . During the selection and reading process, the authors focused exclusively on studies involving pedagogical codesign with student partners. Other forms of codesign were excluded, such as studies on pedagogical codesign without student partners or those involving software codesign with student partners, even if they appeared related to the research theme [ 19 ]. The authors utilized Rayyan.ai’s notes tool to annotate each paper with comments and discussions. The first round of screening revealed significant differences in the authors' opinions regarding article inclusion. The review process was conducted blindly, ensuring that no reviewer could see the decisions made by others [ 20 ]. Overall, the number of conflicted articles exceeded the number of agreed articles. However, pairwise conflicts—disagreements between two reviewers at a time—were notably fewer, as depicted in Fig. 8 . Conflicts among the three reviewers are represented as R1-R2-R3, while pairwise conflicts are shown as R1-R2, R1-R3, and R2-R3 (where "R" stands for Reviewer). Of the articles reviewed, 22% (n = 87) were unanimously agreed upon for inclusion, 4% (n = 16) were agreed upon for exclusion, and the remaining 74% (n = 287) were classified as conflicted, as shown in Fig. 9. A quick analysis of the metadata tags created by the reviewers in this phase is illustrated in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 . Most of the articles, irrespective of the fact that they related to pedagogical codesign or not, were published in educational fields of STEM, design sciences, educational sciences, etc. (Fig. 10 ). The fields of computer science and engineering were amongst the middle scorers. Similarly, an analysis of the level of education reported similar numbers for research works in schools (45%) and universities (44%) (Fig. 11 ). 3. Preliminary Data Analysis All the conflicts and maybe papers were discussed among the researchers to reach an accord. The conflicts were negotiated; however, in cases where negotiation was unsuccessful, a majority vote was considered to break the tie. Finally, the authors settled on 30.5% of articles (n = 119) to include in the study. For the exclusion decisions, the authors agreed 69.5% (n = 271). Each of the exclusion cases was given a reason for exclusion. The reasons ranged from missing information on pedagogical codesigns to not involving student partners in the codesign of pedagogies to the report not being a research article. A summary of the exclusion decision reasons is provided in Table 1 . Among the 119 included articles, most were categorized under Educational Sciences and STEM fields. It is important to note that the STEM classification was defined by the authors and encompassed all articles reporting on codesigning pedagogies with student partners in any science discipline, including biology, chemistry, physics, and related fields. However, some scientific domains that had a significant number of publications, for example, social sciences and design sciences, were not tagged as STEM. Moreover, the fields of Computer Science and Engineering were also tagged separately, though with a couple of reports only. Finally, 12 articles reported on codesigning pedagogies with student partners, but the authors could not find any information on the educational domain under design in those reports. A complete report on the number of articles in each field is presented in Table 2 . Two additional rows in the table, namely miscellaneous and No Education Field Mentioned, accounted for articles that were either missing the information on their educational field or were from an educational field that had fewer than 3 articles reported in it. Table 1 A Summary of Exclusion reasons for 271 articles originally included in the bibliographic dataset. Exclusion Reason Instances No Pedagogical Information Found 7 No Pedagogical Design 124 No Student Partners 113 Preface, Editorial, Commentary, etc. 6 Preface to Conference Proceedings 8 Reviews / Surveys 13 Total 271 Table 2 Number of included research articles by educational field. Educational Field Number of articles Educational Sciences 18 STEM 16 Health Sciences 13 Design Science 9 Social Sciences 9 Environmental Sciences 7 Linguistics 5 Lifelong Learning 5 Engineering 4 Business Studies 4 Computer Science 4 Miscellaneous 13 No Education Field Mentioned 12 Total 119 Most of the work was reported in the context of schools or universities, with a few reports where the experiments were conducted in hospitals, or a college in one case. Some articles, though, did not mention the institution where the codesign activities took place. A field-wise division of the institutions of the codesign is illustrated in Fig. 12 . 3. Bibliometric Results and Analysis 3.1 Keyword Co-Occurrence Network A co-occurrence network is a type of network representation that captures relationships or associations between entities based on their co-occurrence patterns in a given context. Co-occurrence networks are used to analyze and visualize the relationships between items, words, or entities that frequently appear together. Co-occurrence networks provide a powerful tool for understanding and visualizing relationships between entities based on their co-occurrence patterns in various domains. This network maps the relationships between keywords that frequently appear together in the selected literature. Nodes (circles) represent keywords, and edges (lines) signify co-occurrence connections. Larger nodes indicate more frequent occurrence relationships. Central nodes, calculated using metrics like betweenness and closeness, highlight keywords most relevant to other keywords. This analysis identifies key themes and their interconnections within the field. For example, “student” and “codesign” are prominent keywords, suggesting their centrality in this domain. 3.2 Three Fields Plot In bibliometric analysis, a "Three Fields Plot" visualizes the relationships among three bibliographic variables. This figure displays connections between journals, authors, and topics. The rectangles represent these entities, with size proportional to their frequency. The size of each rectangle reflects the number of papers associated with a particular journal, author, or topic, making it easier to identify influential sources, key contributors, and prominent research themes within the field. Lines link related entities, showing, for example, which authors publish on specific topics in certain journals. Gray lines represent these relationships, starting with the journal name, followed by the associated authors, and then linking each author to their publication's topic. The figure highlights the most influential journals and researchers in pedagogical codesign. This visualization helps uncover patterns and relationships that inform the development of research on codesigning pedagogies. Figure 14 below illustrates the connections between journal names, authors, and topics. 3.3 Word Cloud In bibliometrics, word clouds are used to explore the content of academic literature, identify research trends, highlight important keywords, and support literature review and analysis. The figure highlights the most frequently used keyboards in the corpus of papers. Larger words signify higher frequency in the analyzed literature. They are particularly useful for providing a quick overview of large document collections and aiding in the initial stages of research exploration. It provides a quick and intuitive way to visualize the frequency or importance of words or phrases, including "learning," "students," and "codesign", within a corpus. Researchers can interpret the word cloud to gain insights into the main themes, topics, or trends within the corpus. This can help identify key concepts, research areas, or emerging topics of interest. Hence, the word cloud in Fig. 15 presents a visualization of the words that appeared most frequently in the papers on the topic of codesign pedagogies. The most common words were “students”, followed by “teaching”, “design”, “learning” codesigns”, “curricula”, “computer-aided instructions”, “participatory design”, and so on. The word cloud displays words in various sizes according to the number of times they appear. The placement of words is somewhat random, but the predominant words are placed in the middle so that they are more visible, given their large size as indicated in Fig. 15 below. 3.4 Thematic Map A thematic Map divided into four topological regions was also generated based on the density (frequency) and centrality (relevance to other topics) as indicated in Fig. 16 . These regions' results were obtained from a semi-automatic algorithm by viewing the titles of all references analyzed in this study and additional relevant keyword co-occurrences (apart from the authors’ keywords) to capture deeper variations. The upper right quadrant shows “motor” or driving” topics, indicated as high density and centrality; these topics, which include “students”, “teaching”, “codesign”, “learning”, and “artificial intelligence”, should be developed further given their importance for future research. The quadrant in the top left shows specific and under-represented topics that nonetheless are areas of rapid development and are indicated by high density but low centrality. Included topics in this quadrant are architectural design, innovation, COVID-19, digital storage, children, and blended learning. The lower left quadrant contains topics that have been used but have experienced a downward trend. These topics (social interactions, higher education, and learning objectives) in this region indicate a low centrality and density. Finally, the lower right quadrant contains basic topics that indicate high centrality but low density. However, these topics (product design, design process, human-computer interaction, pedagogy, engineering, and education computing) in this region are important for research as general topics. Topics’ placement indicates their role and importance. For example, “students” in the motor quadrant reflects its relevance and frequent discussion. This map guides researchers toward influential and emerging themes. 3.5 Country’s Collaboration Network Map A country's collaboration network map provides insights into the collaborative relationships between researchers or institutions across different countries. Nodes represent countries, and edges denote collaborative links. Larger nodes and thicker edges indicate higher collaboration intensity. This map identifies key contributors and global partnerships driving the field. Insights from the collaboration network map can inform policy decisions, funding allocation, and strategic planning in research institutions and funding agencies. For example, policymakers may use the map to identify potential partners for international research collaboration, allocate resources to facilitate collaboration in specific areas, or assess the effectiveness of existing collaborative initiatives. 3.6 Co-Citation Network The Co-citation network displays the connection between cited works based on shared citations. This network enables the researchers to analyze and interpret the relationships between documents and identify influential works, seminal authors, or emerging trends within the study’s topic. Nodes represent documents, and edges indicate co-citations. Metrics such as betweenness centrality, degree centrality, and clustering coefficient were computed to quantify the importance and structure of the network. Co-citation networks are powerful tools for visualizing and analyzing the relationships between documents in scholarly literature, facilitating knowledge discovery and interdisciplinary research collaboration. In bibliometrics, a co-citation network is a graphical representation of the relationships between documents based on their co-citation patterns. Co-citation occurs when two documents are cited together by a third document. Co-citation networks are used to identify clusters of related documents, authors, or topics, and to uncover patterns of influence and association within a scholarly domain. Co-citation highlights the foundational and emerging literature in pedagogical codesign. 3.7 Conceptual Structure Map A conceptual structure map is the visualization of the contextual structure of each word that appeared often in research papers on the topic of codesign pedagogies. The map is generated by mapping the relationship between one word and another through regional mapping (see Fig. 19 ). Each word is placed according to the values of the Dim where Dim is a diminutive particle, which is a specific term in bibliometric science, thereby producing a mapping between words whose values did not differ to a considerable extent. Keywords with similar Dimensional (Dim) values are grouped, reflecting their conceptual proximity. This map reveals how concepts interrelate, aiding in identifying cohesive research areas. 3.8 Most Relevant Trending Topics This Fig. presents the frequency and evolution of key topics over time. This offers insights into historical and emerging areas of focus. Figure 20 identifies prominent topics, while Fig. 21 shows their trends. Figure 20 highlights the most relevant words that frequently occurred in the searched articles under the topic of study. 3.9 Most Cited Countries In bibliometric analysis, identifying the most cited countries involves assessing the number of citations received by publications linked to researchers or institutions in each country [ 21 ]. Countries with higher citation counts typically indicate greater influence and impact in the research landscape. This analysis offers valuable insights into the research output and global influence of different countries across various fields of study, highlighting those leading in scientific productivity and shaping advancements in their respective domains [ 22 ]. 4. Observations and Discussions During the inclusion/exclusion reading process, several remarkable points were noted. Each moment was documented with tags and notes appended to the respective article. These tags and notes were analyzed after the inclusion/exclusion phases ended, leading to several observations. Several articles reported on codesign and described the codesigning of pedagogies [ 1 ], [ 19 ], [ 24 ]. However, these studies did not include student partners in the design process. Given the focus of this study on the codesign of pedagogies involving student partners, such articles were excluded. It is important to note that the involvement of target end-users in the design phase is a critical aspect of codesign, although opinions on this may vary ([ 25 ]. The term codesign, in the context of learning, was sometimes used ambiguously. The question arises, “Is learning to codesign defined as learning for codesign or codesign of learning?” Some articles conflicted with learning codesign studies with codesign of learning (pedagogical codesign) studies. Some teacher training programs claimed to employ codesign but did not involve student partners in codesigning pedagogies [ 26 ]. According to Irgens et al. [ 27 ], when participants in a teacher training program codesign lessons for their classrooms, it does not constitute a student-teacher partnership. However, if their lesson on how to teach in their classes is codesigned with their participation, it becomes a student-teacher partnership and consequently codesigning of pedagogies. Since the first scientific article on the codesign of pedagogy in 2008, the trend has generally increased each year. However, there was a dip in the trend in 2021. The reasons for this dip are unknown. It is hypothesized that it may be attributed to COVID-19, but this is speculative and requires further investigation. In some fields, codesign seemed to have taken place only at a certain level. For example, in the case of Computer Science Education, only four articles were found that claimed to have some form of codesigning pedagogies for computer science curriculum at the school level [ 28 ], [ 29 ], [ 30 ]. Most of the work in this field came from the university level, but the curriculum under design belonged to the school level, and hence the target learner group. Similarly, all business and engineering-related studies took place at the university level. The case of educational science was unusual. Most of the educational sciences education takes place in universities, so it was expected that most of the articles reported in this domain would be at the university level. However, a significant number were reported to be held in schools. This can be explained by the difference between pre-service and in-service teachers. Where the pedagogies were codesigned with “teacher-to-be” students, it normally took place in universities. Conversely, where pedagogies were designed with “in-service teacher” students’ participation, it normally took place in schools as teacher training programs. The field of health sciences had hospitals as an additional place where the codesigning pedagogies were reported. All such studies were included if they met the criteria because many hospitals are also places of teaching medical students. The domain of design sciences, which included all forms of design education, ranging from architecture design education to product design education, was tagged under design sciences. Most of the work in this field came from universities, with only a single study reported from a school’s context. Finally, a handful of articles originally included in the search results were found not to provide any information on the claimed codesign of pedagogies. For example, no pedagogical information was found in posters; only a few were returned in search results, though seemingly related. Similarly, several review studies that aggregated data from other pedagogical codesign articles did not include any empirical data of their own. Such articles were dropped from research. 4.1 Bibliometric Analysis Results Based on the bibliometric analysis results, it appears that research on students’ codesign pedagogy has been widely published by various journals and numerous authors, with a broad range of specific topics. The three fields plot, which visualized three parameters (journals, authors, and topics) and allowed their relationships to be analyzed, showed the topics discussed by the authors and the journal that published their research. This plot also presented the quantity of each element, the journals with the most publications on the relevant topics, and the most productive writers. The “Interaction Design and Architecture(s)” journal was shown to be the most productive journal in the three fields plot, as it published articles by many writers on the topic of students’ codesign pedagogy. Interestingly, it was also the only high-impact journal, with an h-index of 3, while the other journals only had h-indices of 1. Hence, the “Interaction Design and Architecture(s)” journal dominated other journals in terms of the quantity and impact of research on the theme of students’ codesign pedagogy. This will serve as a resource for researchers who are looking for references regarding research on this theme. The most frequently used words in articles on the theme of student codesign pedagogy were students, teaching, learning, design, codesigns, computer-aided learning, and so on. Thus, most articles searched were focused on these topics and hence covered various sectors of the study’s theme. However, other words like blended learning, COVID-19, active learning, co-creation, etc, were also highlighted, and this shows the comprehensive search of this study’s scope. The topic development shown by the thematic map provides an overview of the position of each topic in a quadrant, comparing the density and centrality of the topic. The upper left quadrant and the lower right quadrant were most extensively populated. The upper left quadrant, which shows topics that are rarely investigated, but whose development is quite rapid, was occupied by the words “innovation”, “blending learning”, “architectural design”, “COVID-19”, and “children”. These words seem to have developed rapidly, with high density but low centrality. Therefore, these topics are experiencing developments in the research on students’ codesign pedagogy. The lower right quadrant, which contains basic topics with low centrality but high density, was occupied by words such as education, computing, design process, human-computer interaction, pedagogy, product design, and engineering. These words were widely used, although the level of development was not as high as for concepts in the upper left quadrant; nonetheless, the high quantity of these terms indicates that these themes can continue to be developed through further studies to address existing research gaps and to provide more comprehensive insights. One interesting finding from the thematic map of this study was that the word engineering occupied part of the lower right quadrant and part of the upper right quadrant. Since the upper right quadrant corresponds to high density and centrality, it can be concluded that the “engineering” topic was widely used and that it developed quite rapidly. It can also be seen that the topic “engineering is widely used and is growing quite rapidly. This also shows that many papers are examining the relationship between engineering and students’ codesign, especially when considering the collaborative work involved in the field of engineering. Apart from being able to see these keywords in the word cloud and thematic map, the conceptual structure map placed each word based on its Dim values. The cluster shows connections between the words used in the research on the theme of students’ codesign pedagogy. In this map, several popular keywords were included, but the five most popular occurrences were “students”, “codesign”, “teaching”, “learning”, and “curricula”. 5. Conclusions and Future Work The field of pedagogical codesign has gained significant attention in recent decades. However, a significant number of studies report on codesign experiences that do not involve target student populations. This highlights a gap in the current research landscape and underscores the need for more inclusive co-design practices. The authors believe that codesigning pedagogies should be used when student partners are involved, as this approach can lead to more effective and engaging learning experiences. Moreover, the analysis reveals that certain educational fields, such as Computer Science Education, have fewer reports of codesign at school levels. This finding suggests that researchers and practitioners in these fields need to emphasize creating pedagogical designs with student participation. By doing so, they can ensure that their teaching methods are tailored to the needs and preferences of their students, thereby enhancing the quality of education. The implications of these findings are far-reaching. They highlight the importance of student involvement in pedagogical design and underscore the need for more research in this area. Furthermore, they provide valuable insights for educators and policymakers who are seeking to improve the quality of education. In the future, the authors plan to delve deeper into this bibliographic dataset to uncover more insights. Specifically, they aim to create bibliometric maps to visualize the relationships between different research topics, strategic diagrams to identify key trends and patterns, and burst direction algorithms to detect sudden increases in the popularity of certain topics. They also plan to use temporal visualizations to track the evolution of research trends over time. These planned analyses will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the field of pedagogical codesign and its development over the past three decades. Declarations Availability of data and materials The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon request. Competing interests We declare no conflict of interest and/or competing interests. Funding There is no available funding for the research, aside from the support of the Authors involved. Ethical Consideration This study did not involve human/participants for any data collection. We carried out a systematic literature review. However, the procedures used in this study adhered to the views of the Declaration of Helsinki. Consent to Participate Not Applicable Consent to Publish Not Applicable Authors’ contributions Paschal Kpimekuu Boruzie conceptualized the research idea. Paschal Boruzie and Muhammed M. Hassan worked on the data collection, screening, and analysis. Muhammed and Nabeela Kuasar proofread and edited the paper and made recommendations for improvement. All authors contributed to the discussion of the results and contributed to the final drafting of the paper. Acknowledgements We acknowledged Dr. Ismaila Sanusi for his invaluable support, comments, and directions in this research. References M. Aksela, “Towards student-centred solutions and pedagogical innovations in science education through co-design approach within design-based research,” LUMAT , vol. 7, no. 3, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.31129/LUMAT.7.3.421. L. Markauskaite, P. Goodyear, and L. Sutherland, “Learning for knowledgeable action: The construction of actionable conceptualisations as a unit of analysis in researching professional learning,” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction , vol. 31, p. 100382, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100382. J. Khanova, J. E. McLaughlin, D. H. Rhoney, M. T. Roth, and S. Harris, “Student Perceptions of a Flipped Pharmacotherapy Course,” American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education , vol. 79, no. 9, p. 140, Nov. 2015, doi: 10.5688/ajpe799140. R. Nicholson, T. Bartindale, A. Kharrufa, D. Kirk, and C. Walker-Gleaves, “Participatory Design Goes to School: Co-Teaching as a Form of Co-Design for Educational Technology,” in CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , New Orleans LA USA: ACM, Apr. 2022, pp. 1–17. doi: 10.1145/3491102.3517667. D. McMillin and O. Baiocchi, “CO-DESIGNING INNOVATIONS: CENTERING STUDENT VOICES IN REMOTE LEARNING,” presented at the 13th annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Online Conference, Nov. 2020, pp. 6241–6243. doi: 10.21125/iceri.2020.1341. M. Gordon, “Toward A Pragmatic Discourse of Constructivism: Reflections on Lessons from Practice,” Educational Studies , vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 39–58, Feb. 2009, doi: 10.1080/00131940802546894. F. Gatongi, “Person-centred approach in schools: Is it the answer to disruptive behaviour in our classrooms?,” Counselling Psychology Quarterly , vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 205–211, June 2007, doi: 10.1080/09515070701403406. J. Schreurs and R. Dumbraveanu, “A Shift from Teacher Centered to Learner Centered Approach,” Int. J. Eng. Ped. , vol. 4, no. 3, p. 36, June 2014, doi: 10.3991/ijep.v4i3.3395. W. R. Penuel, “Co-design as Infrastructuring with Attention to Power: Building Collective Capacity for Equitable Teaching and Learning Through Design-Based Implementation Research,” in Collaborative Curriculum Design for Sustainable Innovation and Teacher Learning , J. Pieters, J. Voogt, and N. Pareja Roblin, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 387–401. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-20062-6_21. A. Cook-Sather, “Student-faculty partnership in explorations of pedagogical practice: a threshold concept in academic development,” International Journal for Academic Development , vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 186–198, July 2014, doi: 10.1080/1360144X.2013.805694. C. Bovill, A. Cook-Sather, P. Felten, L. Millard, and N. Moore-Cherry, “Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student–staff partnerships,” High Educ , vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 195–208, Feb. 2016, doi: 10.1007/s10734-015-9896-4. J. Su, Y. Zhong, and D. T. K. Ng, “A meta-review of literature on educational approaches for teaching AI at the K-12 levels in the Asia-Pacific region,” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , vol. 3, p. 100065, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100065. X.-H. Nghiem, R. Yadav, M. Yadav, N. J. Dewasiri, and A. Ranasinghe, “Project-Based Learning and Inquiry-Based Learning:,” in Exploration of K-12 Teaching and Learning for Teacher Educators , M. A. Wilkins, Ed., IGI Global, 2025, pp. 231–260. doi: 10.4018/979-8-3693-9370-3.ch009. A. Harrison and L. Hutton, Design for the Changing Educational Landscape , 0 ed. Routledge, 2013. doi: 10.4324/9780203762653. C. León and J. Lipuma, “Collaborative Co-Design: Transforming Traditional Professional Development,” RGSA , vol. 18, no. 10, p. e06461, Sept. 2024, doi: 10.24857/rgsa.v18n10-089. C. C. Johnson, J. B. Walton, L. Strickler, and J. B. Elliott, “Online Teaching in K-12 Education in the United States: A Systematic Review,” Review of Educational Research , vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 353–411, June 2023, doi: 10.3102/00346543221105550. A. Najmi, T. H. Rashidi, A. Abbasi, and S. Travis Waller, “Reviewing the transport domain: an evolutionary bibliometrics and network analysis,” Scientometrics , vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 843–865, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-2171-3. A. Darko, A. P. C. Chan, M. A. Adabre, D. J. Edwards, M. R. Hosseini, and E. E. Ameyaw, “Artificial intelligence in the AEC industry: Scientometric analysis and visualization of research activities,” Automation in Construction , vol. 112, p. 103081, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103081. A. O. Sunday, F. J. Agbo, and J. Suhonen, “Co-design Pedagogy for Computational Thinking Education in K-12: A Systematic Literature Review,” Tech Know Learn , vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 63–118, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10758-024-09765-y. S. Abubakr Muntaka, J. K Appiah, and H. Said, “Evolution of Information Technology in Industry: A Systematic Literature Review,” presented at the InSITE 2024: Informing Science + IT Education Conferences, 2024, p. 011. doi: 10.28945/5322. W. Li and Y. Zhao, “Bibliometric analysis of global environmental assessment research in a 20-year period,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review , vol. 50, pp. 158–166, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2014.09.012. W. Hamdan and H. Alsuqaih, “Research Output, Key Topics, and Trends in Productivity, Visibility, and Collaboration in Social Sciences Research on COVID-19: A Scientometric Analysis and Visualization,” Sage Open , vol. 14, no. 4, p. 21582440241286217, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1177/21582440241286217. M. Aria and C. Cuccurullo, “bibliometrix : An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis,” Journal of Informetrics , vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 959–975, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007. X. Du and C. Breazeal, “Exploring changes in special education teachers’ attitudes and design belief towards pedagogical agents in co-designing with children,” in Interaction Design and Children , Braga Portugal: ACM, June 2022, pp. 472–478. doi: 10.1145/3501712.3535289. H. Eyles et al. , “Co-design of mHealth Delivered Interventions: A Systematic Review to Assess Key Methods and Processes,” Curr Nutr Rep , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 160–167, Sept. 2016, doi: 10.1007/s13668-016-0165-7. T. Fawns, G. Aitken, Y. Maheswaran, and K. Yasotharan, “Expanding the Pedagogical Space: Co-design and Participation in an Online Postgraduate Course,” in Postdigital Participation in Education , A. Weich and F. Macgilchrist, Eds., in Palgrave Studies in Educational Media. , Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023, pp. 125–147. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-38052-5_7. G. Arastoopour Irgens, S. Hirsch, D. Herro, and M. Madison, “Analyzing a teacher and researcher co-design partnership through the lens of communities of practice,” Teaching and Teacher Education , vol. 121, p. 103952, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2022.103952. I. T. Sanusi, S. S. Oyelere, and J. O. Omidiora, “Exploring teachers’ preconceptions of teaching machine learning in high school: A preliminary insight from Africa,” Computers and Education Open , vol. 3, p. 100072, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100072. E. Novak and J. I. Khan, “A Research-Practice Partnership Approach for Co-Designing a Culturally Responsive Computer Science Curriculum for Upper Elementary Students,” TechTrends , vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 527–538, May 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11528-022-00730-z. M. Apiola and E. Sutinen, “Design science research for learning software engineering and computational thinking: Four cases,” Comp Applic In Engineering , vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 83–101, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1002/cae.22291. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7470705","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":506321998,"identity":"c153a3a9-17f5-4789-8dc2-1912b7e6ae1c","order_by":0,"name":"Paschal Kpimekuu Boruzie","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3460-0687","institution":"University of Eastern Finland","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Paschal","middleName":"Kpimekuu","lastName":"Boruzie","suffix":""},{"id":506322667,"identity":"386deb56-8efe-4da9-9ee2-4207c9642239","order_by":1,"name":"Muhammad Mustafa Hassan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Eastern Finland","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Muhammad","middleName":"Mustafa","lastName":"Hassan","suffix":""},{"id":506322668,"identity":"22e4672d-1986-40e1-bf8f-a14cf2539348","order_by":2,"name":"Nabeela Kausar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Eastern Finland","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nabeela","middleName":"","lastName":"Kausar","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-27 10:35:33","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":true,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7470705/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7470705/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":90092036,"identity":"bfef4337-2e44-44ee-ac4c-505078f836a7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:25:38","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":150549,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSearch Protocol to Create the Bibliographic Dataset\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/23f3f57a7a5e48db8122189e.png"},{"id":90091239,"identity":"f52dfa0c-4706-43ae-b1f3-5eb05ac704e1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:17:38","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":25674,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSummary of Article Domains on Scopus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/ef481ac718d29364b30efd40.png"},{"id":90092540,"identity":"c031e426-8eab-42b7-b801-6a7f4e297144","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:33:38","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":35982,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSummary of Article domains on WoS\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/56190860c4046c7842f71ecf.png"},{"id":90093539,"identity":"b6be2c40-b64e-4728-9d14-9d161d4dcab9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:41:38","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":33398,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe trend of articles reported in Scopus and WoS.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/4b9b0933730f5cc87bff0c8b.png"},{"id":90092039,"identity":"3984c49a-f11a-4197-9fa6-afa8b79d6072","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:25:38","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":31384,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDuplication of articles in Scopus and WoS\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/100c3737230c3025da7a8ebb.png"},{"id":90091248,"identity":"924ab17e-bbaa-4695-a05c-8da97a9f1adb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:17:38","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":123648,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWord cloud shows the most used words in all the articles' abstracts in the bibliographic dataset.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/12f5c89feb541b2c0461e4c9.png"},{"id":90091243,"identity":"437fd3d4-5602-4457-8538-1dd989b3ad81","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:17:38","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":9797,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe flow of the screening process to decide the inclusion/exclusion of an article.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/42f50a4194b71dac5f36ca62.png"},{"id":90091265,"identity":"6402f3e5-4b97-40c2-b929-209f5a932b87","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:17:38","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":30852,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConflicts and Agreements between all three reviewers (R1-R2-R3),\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/78a7e745789cc8634ae4523f.png"},{"id":90092041,"identity":"7e85f102-c851-4f67-8401-62752a8d0215","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:25:38","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":23758,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe ratio of Agreement on and pairwise (R1-R2, R1-R3, R2-R3) Inclusion / Exclusion, and conflicts\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/705300cce4ae022c023154d0.png"},{"id":90092055,"identity":"72467060-6dbc-4661-a78b-a21926552e53","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:25:39","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":68967,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeveral articles are found in each respective educational domain institution context of the respective\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"10.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/ffa3ea47ebe8e2ece5ca4a8e.png"},{"id":90091266,"identity":"df5ba648-8477-4bc3-93ba-0c15dccb7dfb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:17:38","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"Figure 11","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":30412,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePercentage of articles found in Fig. 10\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"11.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/7e45552d355c0178cca0c8f5.png"},{"id":90092543,"identity":"ce4860c3-da14-4684-8084-9759fb2e7361","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:33:38","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"Figure 12","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":173390,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eA Sunburst map of the entire field illustrating the educational level of reported work in each respective field.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"12.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/c8901772a842dceb3f8f5759.png"},{"id":90092542,"identity":"2f730052-b4c4-4960-86ac-b80fc911654a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:33:38","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"Figure 13","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":69596,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCo-occurrence networks\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"13.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/d2431e7d5fee4ca06b1611f2.png"},{"id":90091274,"identity":"6974c045-87d7-4b80-9dbc-3fad8314b097","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:17:39","extension":"png","order_by":14,"title":"Figure 14","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":169688,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIllustration of three elements, consisting of a list of journal names, authors, and topics\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"14.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/27929ac1edad49d4645d30d8.png"},{"id":90092061,"identity":"c09a70ae-6020-473a-b0f8-cf5dda45005b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:25:39","extension":"png","order_by":15,"title":"Figure 15","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":241215,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVisualization of the words that appeared most frequently in the papers on the study’s topic\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"15.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/90c53edc659ccbc93e58660e.png"},{"id":90092047,"identity":"293daf64-78d9-4a26-abe6-619d5f68628a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:25:38","extension":"png","order_by":16,"title":"Figure 16","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":67446,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThematic map based on density and centrality, divided into four topological regions.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"16.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/57629cf68695fc694578c94b.png"},{"id":90091256,"identity":"801682e3-7a6a-422b-9032-85ec2bf2a987","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:17:38","extension":"png","order_by":17,"title":"Figure 17","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":67691,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCountry’s Collaboration Network Map\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"17.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/12d4bc2b6a234a0044dd811e.png"},{"id":90091267,"identity":"e5800615-2465-42af-b571-76af110b757d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:17:38","extension":"png","order_by":18,"title":"Figure 18","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":68925,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCo-Citation Network\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"18.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/771d0d85f7668ea0f69cacd6.png"},{"id":90091292,"identity":"35b5ddc5-dfc6-40af-9e96-e187bc2ae711","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:17:39","extension":"png","order_by":19,"title":"Figure 19","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":76370,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eA conceptual structure map containing a visualization of the contextual structure of each word.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"19.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/6b9d3a6b0e76a4df2cd55baa.png"},{"id":90092544,"identity":"70adb276-ff40-4d1d-94b0-3ff9d39ca6a1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:33:38","extension":"png","order_by":20,"title":"Figure 20","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":31690,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMost relevant words appeared in the searched articles of the study’s topic\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"20.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/deede9619013bb06b220fd7a.png"},{"id":90091268,"identity":"03ed41f7-9062-4cce-a318-294e9d1e234e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:17:38","extension":"png","order_by":21,"title":"Figure 21","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":56810,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWords’ frequency over time of the study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"21.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/db07fe9cee244bbd87a26280.png"},{"id":90092048,"identity":"b50e5420-948d-4005-8712-1f36e57010b6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:25:38","extension":"png","order_by":22,"title":"Figure 22","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":35082,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMost cited countries of the study’s topic\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNote:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e These analyses were conducted using Biblioshiny \u003c/em\u003e[23]\u003cem\u003e and VOSviewer. The tools were not developed by the authors.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"22.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/b96d4cf1d2519e1736421b80.png"},{"id":90093624,"identity":"984a4227-6ba6-4c39-89d1-9b157710fa2e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-28 11:49:39","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2331593,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7470705/v1/652799c0-ab99-447f-b101-032acc055402.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThree Decades of Codesigning Pedagogies: A Scientometric Trend Analysis of Student Partnership in Pedagogical Codesign\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eCodesigning pedagogies are collaborative approaches to teaching and learning that engage multiple stakeholders, including teachers, students, researchers, and practitioners, in the design of educational activities, materials, and environments [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. Over the past three decades, the field of codesigning pedagogies has evolved significantly, shaped by the changing landscape of education and the growing importance of student-centered and collaborative learning approaches [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. This evolution reflects a broader shift in the paradigm toward inclusivity, shared responsibility, and participatory frameworks in education. According to Khanova et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e], there has been a marked increase in the development and implementation of pedagogical strategies that actively involve students and other stakeholders in the design and refinement of learning experiences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study addresses a research gap in the scientometric analysis of pedagogical codesign, particularly focusing on student partnership. Previous systematic reviews have not adequately explored this niche, necessitating a targeted bibliometric approach. Hence, the study addresses the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRQ1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow has the field of pedagogical codesign involving student partners evolved over the past three decades?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRQ2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat are the dominant themes, contributors, and educational domains in this field?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCodesigning pedagogies, also referred to as co-design, co-creation, or participatory learning, respond to a growing demand for educational experiences that are not only effective but also engaging and student-centered [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. While the principles of student-centered learning can be traced back to constructivist and humanistic approaches in the 1960s [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e], the specific practice of codesigning curricula with students gained prominence in the 1990s. During this period, education began to shift from teacher-centered models, where educators made most decisions about curricula and teaching methods, to approaches emphasizing collaboration and student agency [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe importance of codesigning pedagogies extends beyond enhancing individual learning experiences. It has profound implications for the educational system and society as a whole. Involving students as partners in the design process helps create curricula, courses, policies, and practices that are more relevant, equitable, and impactful [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Codesigned pedagogies foster critical skills, including collaboration, communication, and problem-solving, preparing students to actively participate in a rapidly changing, interconnected world [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e] Moreover, codesign promotes equity and inclusion by amplifying student voices, particularly those from underrepresented or marginalized groups, thereby addressing systemic educational disparities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. According to Su, Zhong, and Ng [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e] and Nghiem et.al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e], pedagogical innovations like problem-based learning, project-based learning, inquiry-based learning, flipped classrooms, and blended learning have contributed to contemporary education's focus on active learning, engagement, and digital literacy. However, the rise of codesigning pedagogies is deeply rooted in values such as participation, shared power, trust, and agency. These principles reflect a broader societal shift toward collaboration and democratization in decision-making processes, making codesign not only a pedagogical strategy but also a social imperative.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the 21st century, codesign pedagogy has gained further momentum due to shifting student demographics, the increasing demand for lifelong learning, and the recognition of students as active partners in their educational journey [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. While technological advancements, including learning management systems (LMS), online collaboration tools, and educational data analytics, have facilitated the implementation of codesign practices [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e], the core drivers remain the human values of inclusion, trust, and shared agency. These factors have influenced pedagogical practices across K-12, higher education, and adult education, fostering a culture of participation and adaptability that benefits both learners and educators [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGiven this context, this study aims to explore the trends and developments in codesign pedagogies using a scientometric analysis to better understand their growth, impact, and potential. Scientometric analysis, which examines the evolution and dynamics of scientific fields through bibliometric tools such as citation patterns and collaboration networks [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e], is particularly suited to investigating the progress of codesign pedagogies. This study focuses on relevant research publications between 1993 and 2023(standardized across all databases), analyzing how pedagogical codesign involving student partners has evolved and identifying the impact of these practices on educational systems and society. Importantly, this study considers codesigning in the context of student partnership, where the outcomes are applied to the same student populations that contributed to their design. This collaborative approach underscores the transformative potential of codesign for creating educational systems that are inclusive, adaptive, and prepared to address the challenges of a dynamic world.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Review Protocol","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe authors designed a review protocol to find scientometric data on the codesigning pedagogies with student partners. The protocol included elements from topic selection to accumulating the search results in a bibliographic dataset for further scientometric analysis. An overview of the protocol is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. The authors selected two primary research databases to search for articles, namely Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. The keywords \u0026ldquo;codesign/co-design\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;pedagogy\u0026rdquo; were selected based on a preliminary scan of literature and terminology trends. These terms consistently appeared in relevant publications and reflect the core concepts of the study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInclusion and Exclusion Criteria\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIncluded\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeer-reviewed articles in English, focused on pedagogical codesign with student partners, published between 1993 and 2023.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExcluded\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eNon-English articles, editorials, and papers not involving student partnership.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo other databases were included in the search because the authors believed that these two databases jointly could provide all articles related to the codesign of pedagogies. For example, the searches were not separately done on ACM or IEEE, since the author believed that all articles included in ACM/IEEE were already indexed on WoS and Scopus. Since the search format of WoS and Scopus is different, different search strings were formed. However, the reader shall note that these strings were searched multiple times and were refined in a pilot phase. The pilot phase included activities such as defining search terms, running searches on databases, and then injecting experience back into search string formation, reading a handful of articles, etc. All the pilot\u0026rsquo;s experience was used to create a robust protocol.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Search Strings and Results\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results are organized according to the research questions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRQ1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eTrends over time are shown in Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, 5, and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig18\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRQ2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eThemes and contributors are analyzed in Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig10\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig13\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e and Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Scopus search query used was: \u003cem\u003e(TITLE-ABS-KEY (codesign* OR co-design*) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (pedagogy*))\u003c/em\u003e, covering all periods from \u0026ldquo;1993\u0026rdquo; to October 2023. The first relevant paper identified by Scopus based on the title/abstract/keyword combination was published in 2005. The search yielded 385 results, encompassing various document types, including theses, conference papers, reviews, books, book chapters, and journal articles. The results included documents in multiple languages other than English, such as Spanish (13), French (2), Italian (2), and German (1), with the number in parentheses representing the count for each language. Interestingly, the language-tagged articles totaled 387, exceeding the 385 results reported. This discrepancy is unexplained but may stem from some documents having multiple language tags in their metadata (Scopus, 2023). Articles in languages other than English were excluded, leaving 369 English-language documents for review. These covered a range of disciplines, with the highest representation from social sciences, computer science, and engineering. A summary of the Scopus data is provided in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Web of Science (WoS) query used the key terms \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;codesign OR co-design\u0026rdquo; ** and \u0026ldquo;pedagogy\u0026rdquo;*\u003c/em\u003e as topics. The search spanned the period from 1993 to 2023, as suggested by the WoS interface, yielding 199 results. The authors conducted the query across all available databases within the WoS core collection. Despite selecting \"All Times,\" no documents from 1975 were retrieved; the earliest document appeared in 2008 but was not directly relevant to the topic of this study. Upon reviewing abstracts, the first relevant publication addressing pedagogical codesign was identified in 2003. The WoS results included various document types, such as articles, conference papers, reviews, and book chapters. For analysis, the authors only considered documents in English, excluding 10 reports in Spanish, resulting in 189 articles for further review.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA quick descriptive summary of the results is presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;3. Interestingly, both databases demonstrated similar trends in the annual number of articles published, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, highlighting the field's evolution over time. While the exact number of records differed between databases, the overall trend was consistent. Additionally, a significant overlap in articles was observed between the databases, with some entries duplicated within the same database, as depicted in Fig.\u0026nbsp;5.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Article screening and selection\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe bibliographic files from both WoS and Scopus databases were imported into Zotero and subsequently merged into a single bibliographic database. This consolidated file was then uploaded to Rayyan.ai for article screening and selection. While Rayyan.ai automatically identified duplicate articles, the authors opted to manually review each duplicate to determine its removal. Ultimately, 168 duplicates were eliminated from the database. A quick WordCloud analysis of the remaining articles in Rayyan.ai revealed that the most prominent terms were \u0026ldquo;students,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;learning,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;codesigns,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;design,\u0026rdquo; indicating key themes within the dataset as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe screening process involved reading titles and abstracts of articles. The articles that did not get an \u0026ldquo;included\u0026rdquo; status here were entered into the next phase, in which the authors downloaded full articles and read methodology sections. Similarly, the articles were either \u0026ldquo;included\u0026rdquo; based on their methodology sections or were entered into the next phase, in which authors skimmed the entire paper to find pedagogical codesign information. The papers that were not \u0026ldquo;included\u0026rdquo; in this phase were marked as \u0026ldquo;excluded\u0026rdquo;. In a few instances, an article was marked as \u0026ldquo;maybe\u0026rdquo;, however, only to be collapsed later into \u0026ldquo;included\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;excluded\u0026rdquo; status. An overview of the inclusion process is described in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDuring the selection and reading process, the authors focused exclusively on studies involving pedagogical codesign with student partners. Other forms of codesign were excluded, such as studies on pedagogical codesign without student partners or those involving software codesign with student partners, even if they appeared related to the research theme [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. The authors utilized Rayyan.ai\u0026rsquo;s notes tool to annotate each paper with comments and discussions. The first round of screening revealed significant differences in the authors' opinions regarding article inclusion. The review process was conducted blindly, ensuring that no reviewer could see the decisions made by others [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Overall, the number of conflicted articles exceeded the number of agreed articles. However, pairwise conflicts\u0026mdash;disagreements between two reviewers at a time\u0026mdash;were notably fewer, as depicted in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e. Conflicts among the three reviewers are represented as R1-R2-R3, while pairwise conflicts are shown as R1-R2, R1-R3, and R2-R3 (where \"R\" stands for Reviewer). Of the articles reviewed, 22% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;87) were unanimously agreed upon for inclusion, 4% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16) were agreed upon for exclusion, and the remaining 74% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;287) were classified as conflicted, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;9.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA quick analysis of the metadata tags created by the reviewers in this phase is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e and Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e. Most of the articles, irrespective of the fact that they related to pedagogical codesign or not, were published in educational fields of STEM, design sciences, educational sciences, etc. (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e). The fields of computer science and engineering were amongst the middle scorers. Similarly, an analysis of the level of education reported similar numbers for research works in schools (45%) and universities (44%) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Preliminary Data Analysis","content":"\u003cp\u003eAll the conflicts and maybe papers were discussed among the researchers to reach an accord. The conflicts were negotiated; however, in cases where negotiation was unsuccessful, a majority vote was considered to break the tie. Finally, the authors settled on 30.5% of articles (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;119) to include in the study. For the exclusion decisions, the authors agreed 69.5% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;271). Each of the exclusion cases was given a reason for exclusion. The reasons ranged from missing information on pedagogical codesigns to not involving student partners in the codesign of pedagogies to the report not being a research article. A summary of the exclusion decision reasons is provided in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAmong the 119 included articles, most were categorized under Educational Sciences and STEM fields. It is important to note that the STEM classification was defined by the authors and encompassed all articles reporting on codesigning pedagogies with student partners in any science discipline, including biology, chemistry, physics, and related fields. However, some scientific domains that had a significant number of publications, for example, social sciences and design sciences, were not tagged as STEM. Moreover, the fields of Computer Science and Engineering were also tagged separately, though with a couple of reports only. Finally, 12 articles reported on codesigning pedagogies with student partners, but the authors could not find any information on the educational domain under design in those reports. A complete report on the number of articles in each field is presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. Two additional rows in the table, namely miscellaneous and No Education Field Mentioned, accounted for articles that were either missing the information on their educational field or were from an educational field that had fewer than 3 articles reported in it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA Summary of Exclusion reasons for 271 articles originally included in the bibliographic dataset.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExclusion Reason\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInstances\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo Pedagogical Information Found\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo Pedagogical Design\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e124\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo Student Partners\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e113\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePreface, Editorial, Commentary, etc.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePreface to Conference Proceedings\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReviews / Surveys\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e271\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber of included research articles by educational field.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducational Field\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber of articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducational Sciences\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSTEM\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHealth Sciences\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDesign Science\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial Sciences\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnvironmental Sciences\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLinguistics\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLifelong Learning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEngineering\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBusiness Studies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComputer Science\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMiscellaneous\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo Education Field Mentioned\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e119\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMost of the work was reported in the context of schools or universities, with a few reports where the experiments were conducted in hospitals, or a college in one case. Some articles, though, did not mention the institution where the codesign activities took place. A field-wise division of the institutions of the codesign is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig9\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Bibliometric Results and Analysis","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1 Keyword Co-Occurrence Network\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA co-occurrence network is a type of network representation that captures relationships or associations between entities based on their co-occurrence patterns in a given context. Co-occurrence networks are used to analyze and visualize the relationships between items, words, or entities that frequently appear together. Co-occurrence networks provide a powerful tool for understanding and visualizing relationships between entities based on their co-occurrence patterns in various domains. This network maps the relationships between keywords that frequently appear together in the selected literature. Nodes (circles) represent keywords, and edges (lines) signify co-occurrence connections. Larger nodes indicate more frequent occurrence relationships. Central nodes, calculated using metrics like betweenness and closeness, highlight keywords most relevant to other keywords. This analysis identifies key themes and their interconnections within the field. For example, \u0026ldquo;student\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;codesign\u0026rdquo; are prominent keywords, suggesting their centrality in this domain.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Three Fields Plot\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn bibliometric analysis, a \u0026quot;Three Fields Plot\u0026quot; visualizes the relationships among three bibliographic variables. This figure displays connections between journals, authors, and topics. The rectangles represent these entities, with size proportional to their frequency. The size of each rectangle reflects the number of papers associated with a particular journal, author, or topic, making it easier to identify influential sources, key contributors, and prominent research themes within the field. Lines link related entities, showing, for example, which authors publish on specific topics in certain journals. Gray lines represent these relationships, starting with the journal name, followed by the associated authors, and then linking each author to their publication\u0026apos;s topic. The figure highlights the most influential journals and researchers in pedagogical codesign. This visualization helps uncover patterns and relationships that inform the development of research on codesigning pedagogies. Figure \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e below illustrates the connections between journal names, authors, and topics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Word Cloud\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn bibliometrics, word clouds are used to explore the content of academic literature, identify research trends, highlight important keywords, and support literature review and analysis. The figure highlights the most frequently used keyboards in the corpus of papers. Larger words signify higher frequency in the analyzed literature. They are particularly useful for providing a quick overview of large document collections and aiding in the initial stages of research exploration. It provides a quick and intuitive way to visualize the frequency or importance of words or phrases, including \u0026quot;learning,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;students,\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;codesign\u0026quot;, within a corpus. Researchers can interpret the word cloud to gain insights into the main themes, topics, or trends within the corpus. This can help identify key concepts, research areas, or emerging topics of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHence, the word cloud in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e presents a visualization of the words that appeared most frequently in the papers on the topic of codesign pedagogies. The most common words were \u0026ldquo;students\u0026rdquo;, followed by \u0026ldquo;teaching\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;design\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;learning\u0026rdquo; codesigns\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;curricula\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;computer-aided instructions\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;participatory design\u0026rdquo;, and so on.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe word cloud displays words in various sizes according to the number of times they appear. The placement of words is somewhat random, but the predominant words are placed in the middle so that they are more visible, given their large size as indicated in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e below.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Thematic Map\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA thematic Map divided into four topological regions was also generated based on the density (frequency) and centrality (relevance to other topics) as indicated in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e. These regions\u0026apos; results were obtained from a semi-automatic algorithm by viewing the titles of all references analyzed in this study and additional relevant keyword co-occurrences (apart from the authors\u0026rsquo; keywords) to capture deeper variations. The upper right quadrant shows \u0026ldquo;motor\u0026rdquo; or driving\u0026rdquo; topics, indicated as high density and centrality; these topics, which include \u0026ldquo;students\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;teaching\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;codesign\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;learning\u0026rdquo;, and \u0026ldquo;artificial intelligence\u0026rdquo;, should be developed further given their importance for future research. The quadrant in the top left shows specific and under-represented topics that nonetheless are areas of rapid development and are indicated by high density but low centrality. Included topics in this quadrant are architectural design, innovation, COVID-19, digital storage, children, and blended learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe lower left quadrant contains topics that have been used but have experienced a downward trend. These topics (social interactions, higher education, and learning objectives) in this region indicate a low centrality and density. Finally, the lower right quadrant contains basic topics that indicate high centrality but low density. However, these topics (product design, design process, human-computer interaction, pedagogy, engineering, and education computing) in this region are important for research as general topics. Topics\u0026rsquo; placement indicates their role and importance. For example, \u0026ldquo;students\u0026rdquo; in the motor quadrant reflects its relevance and frequent discussion. This map guides researchers toward influential and emerging themes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.5 Country\u0026rsquo;s Collaboration Network Map\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA country\u0026apos;s collaboration network map provides insights into the collaborative relationships between researchers or institutions across different countries. Nodes represent countries, and edges denote collaborative links. Larger nodes and thicker edges indicate higher collaboration intensity. This map identifies key contributors and global partnerships driving the field. Insights from the collaboration network map can inform policy decisions, funding allocation, and strategic planning in research institutions and funding agencies. For example, policymakers may use the map to identify potential partners for international research collaboration, allocate resources to facilitate collaboration in specific areas, or assess the effectiveness of existing collaborative initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.6 Co-Citation Network\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Co-citation network displays the connection between cited works based on shared citations. This network enables the researchers to analyze and interpret the relationships between documents and identify influential works, seminal authors, or emerging trends within the study\u0026rsquo;s topic. Nodes represent documents, and edges indicate co-citations. Metrics such as betweenness centrality, degree centrality, and clustering coefficient were computed to quantify the importance and structure of the network. Co-citation networks are powerful tools for visualizing and analyzing the relationships between documents in scholarly literature, facilitating knowledge discovery and interdisciplinary research collaboration. In bibliometrics, a co-citation network is a graphical representation of the relationships between documents based on their co-citation patterns. Co-citation occurs when two documents are cited together by a third document. Co-citation networks are used to identify clusters of related documents, authors, or topics, and to uncover patterns of influence and association within a scholarly domain. Co-citation highlights the foundational and emerging literature in pedagogical codesign.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.7 Conceptual Structure Map\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA conceptual structure map is the visualization of the contextual structure of each word that appeared often in research papers on the topic of codesign pedagogies. The map is generated by mapping the relationship between one word and another through regional mapping (see Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e). Each word is placed according to the values of the Dim where Dim is a diminutive particle, which is a specific term in bibliometric science, thereby producing a mapping between words whose values did not differ to a considerable extent. Keywords with similar Dimensional (Dim) values are grouped, reflecting their conceptual proximity. This map reveals how concepts interrelate, aiding in identifying cohesive research areas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.8 Most Relevant Trending Topics\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis Fig. presents the frequency and evolution of key topics over time. This offers insights into historical and emerging areas of focus. Figure \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e identifies prominent topics, while Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e shows their trends. Figure \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e highlights the most relevant words that frequently occurred in the searched articles under the topic of study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.9 Most Cited Countries\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn bibliometric analysis, identifying the most cited countries involves assessing the number of citations received by publications linked to researchers or institutions in each country [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. Countries with higher citation counts typically indicate greater influence and impact in the research landscape. This analysis offers valuable insights into the research output and global influence of different countries across various fields of study, highlighting those leading in scientific productivity and shaping advancements in their respective domains [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Observations and Discussions","content":"\u003cp\u003eDuring the inclusion/exclusion reading process, several remarkable points were noted. Each moment was documented with tags and notes appended to the respective article. These tags and notes were analyzed after the inclusion/exclusion phases ended, leading to several observations. Several articles reported on codesign and described the codesigning of pedagogies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. However, these studies did not include student partners in the design process. Given the focus of this study on the codesign of pedagogies involving student partners, such articles were excluded. It is important to note that the involvement of target end-users in the design phase is a critical aspect of codesign, although opinions on this may vary ([\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. The term codesign, in the context of learning, was sometimes used ambiguously. The question arises, \u0026ldquo;Is learning to codesign defined as learning for codesign or codesign of learning?\u0026rdquo; Some articles conflicted with learning codesign studies with codesign of learning (pedagogical codesign) studies. Some teacher training programs claimed to employ codesign but did not involve student partners in codesigning pedagogies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. According to Irgens et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e], when participants in a teacher training program codesign lessons for their classrooms, it does not constitute a student-teacher partnership. However, if their lesson on how to teach in their classes is codesigned with their participation, it becomes a student-teacher partnership and consequently codesigning of pedagogies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSince the first scientific article on the codesign of pedagogy in 2008, the trend has generally increased each year. However, there was a dip in the trend in 2021. The reasons for this dip are unknown. It is hypothesized that it may be attributed to COVID-19, but this is speculative and requires further investigation. In some fields, codesign seemed to have taken place only at a certain level. For example, in the case of Computer Science Education, only four articles were found that claimed to have some form of codesigning pedagogies for computer science curriculum at the school level [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. Most of the work in this field came from the university level, but the curriculum under design belonged to the school level, and hence the target learner group. Similarly, all business and engineering-related studies took place at the university level. The case of educational science was unusual. Most of the educational sciences education takes place in universities, so it was expected that most of the articles reported in this domain would be at the university level. However, a significant number were reported to be held in schools. This can be explained by the difference between pre-service and in-service teachers. Where the pedagogies were codesigned with \u0026ldquo;teacher-to-be\u0026rdquo; students, it normally took place in universities. Conversely, where pedagogies were designed with \u0026ldquo;in-service teacher\u0026rdquo; students\u0026rsquo; participation, it normally took place in schools as teacher training programs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe field of health sciences had hospitals as an additional place where the codesigning pedagogies were reported. All such studies were included if they met the criteria because many hospitals are also places of teaching medical students. The domain of design sciences, which included all forms of design education, ranging from architecture design education to product design education, was tagged under design sciences. Most of the work in this field came from universities, with only a single study reported from a school\u0026rsquo;s context. Finally, a handful of articles originally included in the search results were found not to provide any information on the claimed codesign of pedagogies. For example, no pedagogical information was found in posters; only a few were returned in search results, though seemingly related. Similarly, several review studies that aggregated data from other pedagogical codesign articles did not include any empirical data of their own. Such articles were dropped from research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1 Bibliometric Analysis Results\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on the bibliometric analysis results, it appears that research on students\u0026rsquo; codesign pedagogy has been widely published by various journals and numerous authors, with a broad range of specific topics. The three fields plot, which visualized three parameters (journals, authors, and topics) and allowed their relationships to be analyzed, showed the topics discussed by the authors and the journal that published their research. This plot also presented the quantity of each element, the journals with the most publications on the relevant topics, and the most productive writers. The \u0026ldquo;Interaction Design and Architecture(s)\u0026rdquo; journal was shown to be the most productive journal in the three fields plot, as it published articles by many writers on the topic of students\u0026rsquo; codesign pedagogy. Interestingly, it was also the only high-impact journal, with an h-index of 3, while the other journals only had h-indices of 1. Hence, the \u0026ldquo;Interaction Design and Architecture(s)\u0026rdquo; journal dominated other journals in terms of the quantity and impact of research on the theme of students\u0026rsquo; codesign pedagogy. This will serve as a resource for researchers who are looking for references regarding research on this theme.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe most frequently used words in articles on the theme of student codesign pedagogy were students, teaching, learning, design, codesigns, computer-aided learning, and so on. Thus, most articles searched were focused on these topics and hence covered various sectors of the study\u0026rsquo;s theme. However, other words like blended learning, COVID-19, active learning, co-creation, etc, were also highlighted, and this shows the comprehensive search of this study\u0026rsquo;s scope. The topic development shown by the thematic map provides an overview of the position of each topic in a quadrant, comparing the density and centrality of the topic. The upper left quadrant and the lower right quadrant were most extensively populated. The upper left quadrant, which shows topics that are rarely investigated, but whose development is quite rapid, was occupied by the words \u0026ldquo;innovation\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;blending learning\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;architectural design\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;COVID-19\u0026rdquo;, and \u0026ldquo;children\u0026rdquo;. These words seem to have developed rapidly, with high density but low centrality. Therefore, these topics are experiencing developments in the research on students\u0026rsquo; codesign pedagogy. The lower right quadrant, which contains basic topics with low centrality but high density, was occupied by words such as education, computing, design process, human-computer interaction, pedagogy, product design, and engineering. These words were widely used, although the level of development was not as high as for concepts in the upper left quadrant; nonetheless, the high quantity of these terms indicates that these themes can continue to be developed through further studies to address existing research gaps and to provide more comprehensive insights.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne interesting finding from the thematic map of this study was that the word engineering occupied part of the lower right quadrant and part of the upper right quadrant. Since the upper right quadrant corresponds to high density and centrality, it can be concluded that the \u0026ldquo;engineering\u0026rdquo; topic was widely used and that it developed quite rapidly. It can also be seen that the topic \u0026ldquo;engineering is widely used and is growing quite rapidly. This also shows that many papers are examining the relationship between engineering and students\u0026rsquo; codesign, especially when considering the collaborative work involved in the field of engineering. Apart from being able to see these keywords in the word cloud and thematic map, the conceptual structure map placed each word based on its Dim values. The cluster shows connections between the words used in the research on the theme of students\u0026rsquo; codesign pedagogy. In this map, several popular keywords were included, but the five most popular occurrences were \u0026ldquo;students\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;codesign\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;teaching\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;learning\u0026rdquo;, and \u0026ldquo;curricula\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusions and Future Work","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe field of pedagogical codesign has gained significant attention in recent decades. However, a significant number of studies report on codesign experiences that do not involve target student populations. This highlights a gap in the current research landscape and underscores the need for more inclusive co-design practices. The authors believe that codesigning pedagogies should be used when student partners are involved, as this approach can lead to more effective and engaging learning experiences. Moreover, the analysis reveals that certain educational fields, such as Computer Science Education, have fewer reports of codesign at school levels. This finding suggests that researchers and practitioners in these fields need to emphasize creating pedagogical designs with student participation. By doing so, they can ensure that their teaching methods are tailored to the needs and preferences of their students, thereby enhancing the quality of education. The implications of these findings are far-reaching. They highlight the importance of student involvement in pedagogical design and underscore the need for more research in this area. Furthermore, they provide valuable insights for educators and policymakers who are seeking to improve the quality of education.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the future, the authors plan to delve deeper into this bibliographic dataset to uncover more insights. Specifically, they aim to create bibliometric maps to visualize the relationships between different research topics, strategic diagrams to identify key trends and patterns, and burst direction algorithms to detect sudden increases in the popularity of certain topics. They also plan to use temporal visualizations to track the evolution of research trends over time. These planned analyses will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the field of pedagogical codesign and its development over the past three decades.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe declare no conflict of interest and/or competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere is no available funding for the research, aside from the support of the Authors involved.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Consideration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study did not involve human/participants for any data collection. We carried out a systematic literature review. However, the procedures used in this study adhered to the views of the Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot Applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent to Publish\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot Applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors’ contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaschal Kpimekuu Boruzie conceptualized the research idea. Paschal Boruzie and Muhammed M. Hassan worked on the data collection, screening, and analysis. Muhammed and Nabeela Kuasar proofread and edited the paper and made recommendations for improvement. All authors contributed to the discussion of the results and contributed to the final drafting of the paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe acknowledged Dr. Ismaila Sanusi for his invaluable support, comments, and directions in this research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eM. Aksela, \u0026ldquo;Towards student-centred solutions and pedagogical innovations in science education through co-design approach within design-based research,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eLUMAT\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 7, no. 3, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.31129/LUMAT.7.3.421.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eL. Markauskaite, P. Goodyear, and L. Sutherland, \u0026ldquo;Learning for knowledgeable action: The construction of actionable conceptualisations as a unit of analysis in researching professional learning,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eLearning, Culture and Social Interaction\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 31, p. 100382, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100382.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJ. Khanova, J. E. McLaughlin, D. H. Rhoney, M. T. Roth, and S. Harris, \u0026ldquo;Student Perceptions of a Flipped Pharmacotherapy Course,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Pharmaceutical Education\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 79, no. 9, p. 140, Nov. 2015, doi: 10.5688/ajpe799140.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eR. Nicholson, T. Bartindale, A. Kharrufa, D. Kirk, and C. Walker-Gleaves, \u0026ldquo;Participatory Design Goes to School: Co-Teaching as a Form of Co-Design for Educational Technology,\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems\u003c/em\u003e, New Orleans LA USA: ACM, Apr. 2022, pp. 1\u0026ndash;17. doi: 10.1145/3491102.3517667.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eD. McMillin and O. Baiocchi, \u0026ldquo;CO-DESIGNING INNOVATIONS: CENTERING STUDENT VOICES IN REMOTE LEARNING,\u0026rdquo; presented at the 13th annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Online Conference, Nov. 2020, pp. 6241\u0026ndash;6243. doi: 10.21125/iceri.2020.1341.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eM. Gordon, \u0026ldquo;Toward A Pragmatic Discourse of Constructivism: Reflections on Lessons from Practice,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eEducational Studies\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 39\u0026ndash;58, Feb. 2009, doi: 10.1080/00131940802546894.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eF. Gatongi, \u0026ldquo;Person-centred approach in schools: Is it the answer to disruptive behaviour in our classrooms?,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eCounselling Psychology Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 205\u0026ndash;211, June 2007, doi: 10.1080/09515070701403406.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJ. Schreurs and R. Dumbraveanu, \u0026ldquo;A Shift from Teacher Centered to Learner Centered Approach,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Eng. Ped.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 4, no. 3, p. 36, June 2014, doi: 10.3991/ijep.v4i3.3395.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eW. R. Penuel, \u0026ldquo;Co-design as Infrastructuring with Attention to Power: Building Collective Capacity for Equitable Teaching and Learning Through Design-Based Implementation Research,\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eCollaborative Curriculum Design for Sustainable Innovation and Teacher Learning\u003c/em\u003e, J. Pieters, J. Voogt, and N. Pareja Roblin, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 387\u0026ndash;401. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-20062-6_21.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA. Cook-Sather, \u0026ldquo;Student-faculty partnership in explorations of pedagogical practice: a threshold concept in academic development,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal for Academic Development\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 186\u0026ndash;198, July 2014, doi: 10.1080/1360144X.2013.805694.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eC. Bovill, A. Cook-Sather, P. Felten, L. Millard, and N. Moore-Cherry, \u0026ldquo;Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student\u0026ndash;staff partnerships,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eHigh Educ\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 195\u0026ndash;208, Feb. 2016, doi: 10.1007/s10734-015-9896-4.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJ. Su, Y. Zhong, and D. T. K. Ng, \u0026ldquo;A meta-review of literature on educational approaches for teaching AI at the K-12 levels in the Asia-Pacific region,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eComputers and Education: Artificial Intelligence\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 3, p. 100065, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100065.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eX.-H. Nghiem, R. Yadav, M. Yadav, N. J. Dewasiri, and A. Ranasinghe, \u0026ldquo;Project-Based Learning and Inquiry-Based Learning:,\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eExploration of K-12 Teaching and Learning for Teacher Educators\u003c/em\u003e, M. A. Wilkins, Ed., IGI Global, 2025, pp. 231\u0026ndash;260. doi: 10.4018/979-8-3693-9370-3.ch009.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA. Harrison and L. Hutton, \u003cem\u003eDesign for the Changing Educational Landscape\u003c/em\u003e, 0 ed. Routledge, 2013. doi: 10.4324/9780203762653.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eC. Le\u0026oacute;n and J. Lipuma, \u0026ldquo;Collaborative Co-Design: Transforming Traditional Professional Development,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eRGSA\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 18, no. 10, p. e06461, Sept. 2024, doi: 10.24857/rgsa.v18n10-089.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eC. C. Johnson, J. B. Walton, L. Strickler, and J. B. Elliott, \u0026ldquo;Online Teaching in K-12 Education in the United States: A Systematic Review,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eReview of Educational Research\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 353\u0026ndash;411, June 2023, doi: 10.3102/00346543221105550.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA. Najmi, T. H. Rashidi, A. Abbasi, and S. Travis Waller, \u0026ldquo;Reviewing the transport domain: an evolutionary bibliometrics and network analysis,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eScientometrics\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 843\u0026ndash;865, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-2171-3.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA. Darko, A. P. C. Chan, M. A. Adabre, D. J. Edwards, M. R. Hosseini, and E. E. Ameyaw, \u0026ldquo;Artificial intelligence in the AEC industry: Scientometric analysis and visualization of research activities,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAutomation in Construction\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 112, p. 103081, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103081.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA. O. Sunday, F. J. Agbo, and J. Suhonen, \u0026ldquo;Co-design Pedagogy for Computational Thinking Education in K-12: A Systematic Literature Review,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eTech Know Learn\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 63\u0026ndash;118, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10758-024-09765-y.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eS. Abubakr Muntaka, J. K Appiah, and H. Said, \u0026ldquo;Evolution of Information Technology in Industry: A Systematic Literature Review,\u0026rdquo; presented at the InSITE 2024: Informing Science + IT Education Conferences, 2024, p. 011. doi: 10.28945/5322.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eW. Li and Y. Zhao, \u0026ldquo;Bibliometric analysis of global environmental assessment research in a 20-year period,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 50, pp. 158\u0026ndash;166, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2014.09.012.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eW. Hamdan and H. Alsuqaih, \u0026ldquo;Research Output, Key Topics, and Trends in Productivity, Visibility, and Collaboration in Social Sciences Research on COVID-19: A Scientometric Analysis and Visualization,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eSage Open\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 14, no. 4, p. 21582440241286217, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1177/21582440241286217.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eM. Aria and C. Cuccurullo, \u0026ldquo;bibliometrix : An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Informetrics\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 959\u0026ndash;975, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eX. Du and C. Breazeal, \u0026ldquo;Exploring changes in special education teachers\u0026rsquo; attitudes and design belief towards pedagogical agents in co-designing with children,\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eInteraction Design and Children\u003c/em\u003e, Braga Portugal: ACM, June 2022, pp. 472\u0026ndash;478. doi: 10.1145/3501712.3535289.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eH. Eyles \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026ldquo;Co-design of mHealth Delivered Interventions: A Systematic Review to Assess Key Methods and Processes,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eCurr Nutr Rep\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 160\u0026ndash;167, Sept. 2016, doi: 10.1007/s13668-016-0165-7.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eT. Fawns, G. Aitken, Y. Maheswaran, and K. Yasotharan, \u0026ldquo;Expanding the Pedagogical Space: Co-design and Participation in an Online Postgraduate Course,\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003ePostdigital Participation in Education\u003c/em\u003e, A. Weich and F. Macgilchrist, Eds., in Palgrave Studies in Educational Media. , Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023, pp. 125\u0026ndash;147. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-38052-5_7.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eG. Arastoopour Irgens, S. Hirsch, D. Herro, and M. Madison, \u0026ldquo;Analyzing a teacher and researcher co-design partnership through the lens of communities of practice,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eTeaching and Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 121, p. 103952, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2022.103952.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eI. T. Sanusi, S. S. Oyelere, and J. O. Omidiora, \u0026ldquo;Exploring teachers\u0026rsquo; preconceptions of teaching machine learning in high school: A preliminary insight from Africa,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eComputers and Education Open\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 3, p. 100072, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100072.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eE. Novak and J. I. Khan, \u0026ldquo;A Research-Practice Partnership Approach for Co-Designing a Culturally Responsive Computer Science Curriculum for Upper Elementary Students,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eTechTrends\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 527\u0026ndash;538, May 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11528-022-00730-z.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eM. Apiola and E. Sutinen, \u0026ldquo;Design science research for learning software engineering and computational thinking: Four cases,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eComp Applic In Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 83\u0026ndash;101, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1002/cae.22291.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"University of Eastern Finland","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Codesign, scientometric, bibliometric, student, collaborative, learning, pedagogical, Biblioshiny","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7470705/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7470705/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003ePedagogical codesign has taken significant attention in recent decades in the modern world. Involving the target student group in designing pedagogies, curricula, or entire programs has become increasingly popular. Several forces drive this change, including changing mindsets, shifting learning theories, increased educational commercialization, etc. Nonetheless, this list is not exhaustive, and several other motives exist. Current research finds that the field of codesigning pedagogies has grown over the past three decades. This study provides a comprehensive overview of the evolution of codesign pedagogies over the past three decades, highlighting the shift from teacher-centered approaches to collaborative, student-centered learning. The research employs scientometric analysis to examine the growth and impact of codesign pedagogies in education, focusing on publications from 1993 to 2023. The analysis reveals a significant increase in the involvement of students and stakeholders in designing educational experiences, driven by technological advancements and the evolving needs of learners. The study’s methodology includes a robust review protocol, utilizing databases such as Web of Science and Scopus, and a detailed screening process to identify relevant articles. The findings indicate an increasing trend; however, the majority of included articles are from the fields of educational sciences and STEM, with most research conducted in school and university settings. The bibliometric analysis, including co-occurrence networks and three field plots, offers insights into the key themes and contributors to the field. The study highlights the importance of co-design pedagogies in promoting active learning and engagement and their increasing relevance in the 21st-century educational landscape.in fostering active learning and engagement, and their growing relevance in the 21st-century educational landscape\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Three Decades of Codesigning Pedagogies: A Scientometric Trend Analysis of Student Partnership in Pedagogical Codesign","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-28 11:17:33","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7470705/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"55a0bc18-1e14-487a-8822-3c13b6583ab7","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 28th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":53779266,"name":"Educational Philosophy and Theory"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-08-28T11:17:33+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-28 11:17:33","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7470705","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7470705","identity":"rs-7470705","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}