This book’s focus is on the question of how to make active learning happen for all. We have therefore included contributions that speak directly to how the challenges of implementing active learning have been successfully addressed in practice to be both inclusive and sustainable for staff, students and institutions.

We have explored how the challenges associated with making active learning widely available can be tackled, using a systems thinking lens (Wilson-Medhurst). Our central question has been: what have we learned from these contributions about making active learning happen for all? These insights are encapsulated in Figure 1, which represents the key factors that drive engagement with active learning.

Figure 1 highlights the complex interactions between various factors, with mindset being a central driving force. A key conclusion is that the mindsets of staff, students and institutional leaders are crucial to making active learning successful. However, those mindsets and associated narratives are in turn influenced by the working and learning institutional context in which those individuals are situated. Nonetheless when staff hold a mindset that views active learning as important and worthwhile, perceived challenges and barriers are more likely to be addressed and overcome. When learners see learning as something they actively engage in, rather than as a spectator activity (Chickering & Gamson, 1987), active learning will be well received. When leaders see their role to steward coherence among strategy, policies, incentives and cultural norms so that active learning is the accepted choice rather than an option, active learning will become the norm. Figure 1 illustrates the way in which mindsets are shaped and influenced by the organisational (and wider) context in which they reside. Another central conclusion is that relying on individual mindset and personal effort to overcome challenges and barriers is not sustainable, nor inclusive.

The examples in Section 2 explore the institutional context in more depth. They demonstrate how different institutional parts that include policies, practices, information and resource flows can shape the institutional narrative and accompanying mindsets, and foster institution-wide engagement with active learning.

At an individual level, mindsets both influence and are influenced by personal goals and the capacity to reflect on practice. Reflective approaches to teaching are not automatic (Bray & Fotheringham, 2022). Developing a reflective mindset can begin when staff themselves adopt the role of learners within active learning scenarios. Section 4 provides several examples of how experiencing active learning can promote reflective practice and provide the catalyst to change practice, while Section 3 focuses on ways in which staff mindsets can be surfaced, influenced and contested as appropriate. Individual goals also shape mindset; while these goals may be personal, they are strongly influenced by the broader purpose and priorities of the institution.

Similarly, when students are or become self‑regulated, reflective learners, their confidence and ‘comfort’ with active learning increases. Crucial to this development is the scaffolding of active learning activities in an environment that builds learner confidence and normalises active participation from the outset of their studies, as described in Section 5 and Section 6.

Institutional purpose and values also play an important role. For example, institutions that place a high value on teaching and provide an environment conducive to investing time and effort in planning, developing and implementing active learning may influence the goals and priorities of individuals working within them. In turn, such institutions may attract staff who value teaching using active learning approaches and methods. Section 2 includes several contributions that describe how institutions have developed strategies to promote and embed active learning. This institutional support is shaped by organisational purposes and goals, such as teaching and learning strategies, but also structural influences including policies, practices, information and resource flows.

The availability of resources further influences the implementation of active learning. These include time to invest in developing active learning as well as physical resources (such as appropriate learning spaces), organisational resources (such as timetabling), and human resources, including the skills and capabilities of staff and students. Together, these factors support staff in implementing active learning approaches effectively.

Figure 1 illustrates the central role of mindset in engagement with active learning, while also demonstrating how interventions in other parts of the system can influence mindset. We can use this diagram to think about several scenarios where we want to make active learning happen for all.

• Example 1: Intervention in resources and practices.
  A staff member adopts an active learning approach such as those described in Section 7 with their students. This experience prompts broader reflection on teaching practice, leading to a shift in mindset towards active learning and, potentially, a greater recognition of the importance of teaching.
• Example 2: Intervention in self‑regulation and adaptation.
  Students receive scaffolded support to participate in the active learning elements of their programme based on the contributions in Section 5. As they experience the benefits of active learning, there is a change in mindset, and they become more willing and able to engage actively in future learning activities. This encourages other staff to adopt active learning approaches.
• Example 3: Professional development through active learning.
  A professional development programme for staff is itself delivered using active learning approaches based on the contributions in Section 4. This experience influences staff mindset and increases motivation to seek out resources and opportunities to implement active learning in their own practice. They may perhaps influence institutional policy and process to make them more conducive to active learning.
• Example 4: An institution wide approach.
  The institution’s overarching strategy as well as its teaching and learning strategy is revised to include a commitment to active learning. This institution uses the framework in Section 1 and the examples in Section 2 to inform how it draws together system components to make active learning happen for all. Leaders, staff and students start to see this is ‘the way we do things around here’, and staff who were sceptical of active learning are encouraged to try active learning after supportive staff development and seeing that active learning is valued and rewarded.

While all the elements of the system are important, our analysis indicates that stakeholder and organisational mindsets remain a primary driver of implementing active learning. When leaders, staff and students are enthusiastic about active learning, and the organisation signals that it values active learning above all other forms, they are more likely to engage with available resources and sustain active learning approaches across their teaching and learning.

We must consider however that mindset and a desire to implement active learning are not enough if they are not supported by the other parts of the system. Using the iceberg analogy in Figure 2, the visible aspects of active learning, activities, physical infrastructure, and people participating in active learning are supported not only by an active learning mindset but also by other factors. These are: the institution’s purpose and goals; structure such as policies, regulations, information flows, reward and recognition, and workload allocation models; and feedback dynamics (at the individual level the capacity to gather, reflect on, and respond to feedback and at the institutional level gathering accurate and timely data to monitor progress towards desired goals). When these ‘invisible’ elements are missing, the active learning iceberg becomes unstable and cannot be sustained.

As illustrated in Figure 3, if the institution sets its purpose and goals to support active learning but fails to nurture the staff mindset and develop a reflective approach then active learning will not be sustainable and, to continue our analogy the iceberg will topple. Likewise, if the institution develops data gathering processes and fosters reflective responsive practice among staff but has not aligned this work with its broader purpose and goals then again, the iceberg is unstable and active learning will not be sustained. The same is true if staff are committed to active learning but institutional priorities and its structure are misaligned and there is little opportunity to reflect and evaluate the impact of active learning.

The challenge for the active learning community, if we want to make active learning happen for all, is to strengthen all the parts that make active learning sustainable. Enthusiasm alone is not enough. And while, of course, the onus is not solely on us, we should take every opportunity to influence the purpose and goals of our institutions, and the choices they make in relation to all the organisational (system) parts highlighted in this book. One of the ways we can do this is to continue to provide evidence that active learning is effective, inclusive and sustainable. Gathering and providing such evidence is our ‘call to arms’ and one each of us might continue to influence and work on within our means.

References

Bray, R., & Fotheringham, H. (2022). How, why and why not – the reflective practice of teaching staff at a Scottish university. Reflective Practice, 23(5), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2022.2090325

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. AAHE Bulletin, 39, 3-7. aahea.org/articles/sevenprinciples1987.htm

About the editors

Sarah Wilson-Medhurst

SWM CONSULTING

Sarah Wilson-Medhurst is an Independent HE Consultant and Researcher, and until recently CTL (Centre for Teaching and Learning) Associate, University of Oxford. As a scientist who moved from working in industry into higher education first as a lecturer, Sarah has over two decades of experience in educational development as a leader, researcher, mentor, advisor and teacher.  She is a long-time champion of active or activity-led learning and creating the environments in which such learning and teaching practices thrive. Her current research interests focus on systems science and systems thinking and what this offers change leadership and bringing about sustainable, inclusive organisational, curricula and pedagogical innovation.

sarah.wilsonmedhurst@gmail.com

Janet Horrocks

ABERTAY UNIVERSITY

Janet Horrocks is a Lecturer at Abertay University. She began her career teaching across the Biomedical Science programme and now leads the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice. Her work focuses on strengthening active and enquiry-based learning, and she has played a key role in integrating investigative, student-centred approaches within Biomedical Science. Through the PGCAP workshops, Janet supports colleagues by sharing practical, research-informed teaching methods that enhance everyday academic practice. She is committed to fostering curiosity, critical thinking, and reflective learning, and to creating inclusive learning environments that support both students and staff.

j.horrocks@abertay.ac.uk