Opinion Piece: Sustaining Staff Engagement in Active Learning
Isobel Gowers
Active learning has gained momentum across higher education as a growing body of evidence suggests increased engagement and better outcomes for students (Freeman et al., 2014). While implementation of active learning can create some enthusiasm, sustaining staff confidence and commitment is more challenging. Without ongoing support, active learning is not always sustainable over time, so what can be done to create longer-lasting cultural change?
Staff engagement is central to the success of active learning. When academics feel confident and supported, they are more likely to experiment, adapt and embed active learning within their practice. This benefits students by fostering a more inclusive and dynamic learning environment. Institutions must invest in long-term strategies that enhance this development.
University leadership plays a vital role in sustaining active learning. At Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) in the UK, active learning has been central to the education strategy for nearly a decade. A two-year collaboration between staff and students led to the Active Curriculum Framework, which was embedded into courses via Course Design Intensives (Middleton et al., 2021). Even embedded within their university’s strategy, many staff remained unaware or unconvinced of the evidence base for the active curriculum framework (Thomas et al., 2023). This highlights that a strategic approach alone is not sufficient and demonstrates the need for broader support for active learning.
Involvement with the wider global Active Learning Network in combination with running a satellite community within ARU has provided a space where staff can share ideas, reflect on experience and build collective expertise. One of the advantages of this group is that it can help normalise active learning and reduce the isolation felt by staff when they are introducing new active learning techniques into the practice, giving them confidence to continue.
One area that still needs development is alignment of institutional systems with active learning. Paperwork, curriculum templates, policies and quality assurance processes should reflect and reinforce active learning principles. Avoiding paperwork that suggests all teaching falls within the categories of lecture/seminar/practical would be a starting point. Furthermore, ensuring that regulations allow the use of alternative assessments which combine alignment of active learning principles and inclusion are key, especially considering recent guidance on supporting disabled students (Office for Students, 2025).
Sustaining active learning needs more than just a few enthusiastic individuals; it requires infrastructure, culture and appropriate support. By utilising institutional frameworks, communities of practice and appropriate development, we can ensure that active learning is not just a short-term activity but a sustainable practice.
References
Active Learning Network (n.d.) The Active Learning Network. Retrieved 27 October 2025 from https://activelearningnetwork.com/
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Middleton, A., Pratt-Adams, S., & Priddle, J. (2021). Active, inclusive and immersive: Using course design intensives with course teams to rethink the curriculum across an institution. Educational Developments, 22(1), 9–13. https://www.seda.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Ed-Devs-22.1.pdf
Office for Students (2025). One size doesn’t fit all: Equality of opportunity for disabled students. https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/one-size-doesn-t-fit-all-equality-of-opportunity-for-disabled-students/
Thomas, L., Warnes, M., & Pratt-Adams, S. (2023). Addressing the challenges of evaluating curriculum enhancement and learning development: An institutional case study using programme theory evaluation. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 62(1), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2293958
About the author
Isobel is Associate Professor and Academic Lead for Active Learning and has been working in higher education for over 20 years. She has been involved in the Active Learning Network (ALN) since 2019 and has collaborated on several of its initiatives. She also co-chairs the ALN satellite group at ARU.
