Building Together: Reflections on a Collaborative Curriculum Process

As part of GSGC’s 2024–2027 Sustainability Plan, mentors identified a need for more structured, relevant and adaptable content to support their sessions. They wanted guidance that could strengthen consistency across clubs while still allowing flexibility to respond to local contexts. The curriculum emerged directly from this need—not as a centrally designed product, but as a collaborative, mentor-led process grounded in real experience across clubs in Zimbabwe and Zambia.

This has been an important shift for GSGC, moving towards a more intentional and supported approach to mentorship, while still holding onto the relational, mentor-led heart of the clubs.

A Collaborative Approach

I came in to develop the curriculum for the GSGC clubs, working closely with mentors across Zimbabwe and Zambia. While I brought experience in literacy and programme design, I quickly realised how much I still needed to learn.

From the beginning, it became clear that this would not be a process of designing for mentors, but rather designing with them.

An early intensive workshop with mentors helped define the pillars of the curriculum and generate a set of session topics. But it was only through ongoing engagement—and observing clubs in practice—that I began to understand how sessions really worked.

I developed draft session guides, each reviewed by mentors. As we became more comfortable with one another, feedback grew more robust and useful. Mentors also completed weekly evaluations, and when concerns arose, I followed up directly.

What We Learned

A recurring concern soon emerged: the sessions were too long, and there were too many. Mentors working with junior clubs also found the content too difficult. It became clear that we needed a junior curriculum, fewer sessions per term, and more than one year’s worth of content, as members typically stay in clubs for two to three years.

This marked a shift—from developing individual session guides to co-creating a longer-term curriculum structure.

It also reinforced the importance of listening closely to mentors and allowing their experience to guide the direction of the work.

We gathered again in Victoria Falls, where mentor representatives worked together to design a three-year curriculum for both seniors and juniors. It felt like a mammoth task, but by this stage we understood both the work and each other better, and the process was highly productive.

At this stage, we were referring to the session guides as the “curriculum”. However, it became important to clarify that these were not prescriptive, school-like materials, but flexible guides to support mentors. The intention is not to standardise delivery, but to strengthen it.

The aim is to provide a shared foundation, while still leaving space for mentors to respond to their members and communities in ways that feel meaningful and relevant.

Looking Ahead

Some of the most valuable insights came informally. One session I developed, Drawing Fun, appeared not to be used, and I was close to discarding it. However, in conversation with Fwilane from Project Luangwa, I discovered that she used it when visitors came to the club. The activities worked as great levellers—fun, accessible, and requiring little English. I retained the session and now recommend it for this purpose.

On another occasion, I tested a scaffolded poetry activity with mentors. I was delighted to see them using it to write powerful poems, with Fwilane later sharing the first poem she had ever written on LinkedIn.

These moments reminded me that the value of the curriculum is not only in the content itself, but in how it opens up space for creativity, confidence, and connection.

At the general GSGC meet-up, feedback from Thembi at Tikobane reassured me that the guides were achieving their aims:

“We are able to save time… We now have enjoyable sessions… The session guides have improved participation… because of the use of role plays.”

Racheal from Believe reflected on the process, noting how collaborative and practical it felt, and how adapting content to local contexts made sessions more relevant and meaningful for the girls.

The curriculum continues to evolve as a living, responsive framework, shaped by ongoing mentor feedback and reflection.

When I think of these guides in use, I imagine small epiphanies—boys recognising that they can be vulnerable, or girls discovering their agency. Or perhaps it is the slower build-up of these realisations over time.

Ultimately, the greatest satisfaction comes from seeing how the guides support mentors in facilitating meaningful engagement. No matter how well-designed they are, the guides are lifeless without the safe spaces and caring relationships that mentors create.