Summary

This chapter explores how a team of Lecturers in Academic Development at a UK Russell Group university embedded active learning strategies in their academic development programmes. Using collaborative autoethnography, the authors reflect on their experiences and analyse participant feedback to assess the impact of their approaches. The chapter argues that modelling active learning in academic development programmes is essential for encouraging staff to adopt these methods in their own teaching. Drawing on social constructivist learning theory, threshold concepts, and reflective practice, the authors examine both the benefits and challenges of active learning. These include institutional barriers such as faculty resistance and workload pressures, as well as personal barriers rooted in prior educational experiences and perceptions of authority in the classroom. The chapter also highlights the emotional and affective dimensions of active learning, emphasising the importance of fostering safe, inclusive learning environments. The chapter concludes by encouraging Higher Education (HE) institutions to invest in academic development and integrate active learning more systematically to create sustainable, inclusive, and transformative educational experiences.

Introduction and theoretical underpinning

This chapter explores the experiences and lessons learned by a team of Lecturers in Academic Development at a UK Russell Group University in developing active learning strategies for our academic development programmes. The programmes aim to support staff to develop their teaching/support for learning practice and are delivered to a diverse group of learners: busy academic and professional services colleagues with a range of competing demands on their time, from a range of backgrounds and disciplines. As Keengwe (2022) argues, the sector’s shift toward ‘active learning pedagogies is a change in emphasis that will cause teachers to rethink how they teach and assess their teaching toward the goal of realistic appraisal of student learning’ (p. xvi), a shift that is not always comfortable for many of our colleagues. To transform how our colleagues value active learning, this chapter explores how we sought to lead by example and embody active learning principles in the design and delivery of our accredited Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP) and experiential route to Advance HE Fellowship, and our Introduction to Higher Education Teaching short course. It draws upon our own experiences through the method of collaborative autoethnography and centres our learners’ voices and experiences of engaging with active learning through exploring their feedback.

In this chapter, we argue that modelling active learning approaches on academic development programmes for staff engaged in teaching and supporting learning enables them to see how they might develop within their own students the attributes, behaviours and skills we need for our ever-changing world. The chapter therefore examines the challenges and benefits of active learning approaches for us as Lecturers in Academic Development and for our colleagues/participants who seek to provide inclusive and engaging teaching and learning opportunities for their students. The chapter concludes with three main takeaways for the reader to consider for their own practice.

Theoretical framework

Before exploring our theoretical framework, it is important to set out our definition of academic development – that is, as the broad spectrum of activities that staff who teach and/or support learning in higher education engage in, to develop their professional practice. Our work is predominantly concerned with the delivery of accredited and credit-bearing provision which results in Advance HE recognition for successful completers and is linked to institutional targets around teaching qualifications. As such, the development activities we explore in this chapter are viewed as ‘an explicit part of professional practice, linked to the requirements of membership of a professional body, whereby practitioners are required to demonstrate that they have engaged in CPD in order to ‘remain in good standing’ (King, 2015, p. 28).

Our theoretical framework is underpinned by several interconnected theories which provide a foundation for understanding how staff participate in academic development through experiential and social processes. Social constructivist learning theory (Piaget, 1950; Vygotsky, 1978) offers a fundamental perspective as it emphasises that knowledge is actively constructed through experience and interaction. This aligns well with the principles of active learning as an ongoing process of engagement and interaction (Prince, 2004). As part of our theoretical framework, we draw on threshold concepts (Meyer & Land, 2003) to understand active learning as a transformative shift (Mezirow, 1997) in participants’ building of knowledge, fundamentally altering their approach to learning and teaching. Additionally, the concept of troublesome knowledge (Perkins, 1999) is important to this research as it recognises that active learning can challenge deeply held beliefs about education. Finally, reflective practice (Schön, 1983) further underpins our theoretical approach as it centres the value of self-reflection in academic development. In this chapter, we conduct a rich process of reflective practice through the method of collaborative autoethnography (Grist and Jennings, 2021; Chang et al., 2013). As we will argue, this approach is not only valuable for exploring our own understandings of active learning within the staff development context, but also a powerful tool that others could adopt for their own scholarly and professional development.

Methods: Collaborative autoethnography

The chapter uses a qualitative approach, combining collaborative autoethnography (Grist and Jennings, 2021; Chang et al., 2013) with qualitative feedback obtained via an online survey of current and former participants on our programmes. Together, the data obtained through these two methods were subjected to thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke 2021) to tease out recommendations and key takeaways. Our research was conducted in line with our institutional ethical guidelines and participant quotes are used in this chapter with permission.

The seven authors of this chapter come from a variety of backgrounds, both geographic and academic. Broadly sharing humanities/social sciences disciplinary backgrounds, six of the authors identify as female, one as male, and are all from the UK, Ireland, France or South Africa. We are all white, working in a majority-white institution, and come from a range of age brackets. The authors of this chapter have all worked as academics in various roles in Further Education and Higher Education before moving into Academic Development. Our journeys into this space echo what Mori et al., (2024) articulate as a ‘migration’, suggesting that individuals move into this type of work ‘largely through serendipity, guided by external pulls and internal nudges from different disciplines, bringing along their home disciplinary values, culture, and knowledge’ (p .2).

The recognition that our individual values, culture, and knowledge (Bourdieu, 1977) play an important role in our understandings and applications of active learning approaches in our shared practice influenced our decision to adopt a collaborative autoethnographic approach for this chapter. This methodology enabled us to better understand our individual relationships with active learning and how we have embedded it into our programmes. Collaborative autoethnography has been well-established as an important qualitative approach (Ellis & Bochner, 2000; Boylorn & Orbe, 2014; Adams et al., 2015) in which ‘researchers work in community to collect their autobiographical materials and to analyse and interpret their data collectively to gain a meaningful understanding of sociocultural phenomena,’ (Chang et al., 2013, pp. 23-4). Our process was as follows:

1. Each author independently wrote an autoethnographic response to eight key questions on active learning (e.g. What does active learning mean to you? When and how did you discover active learning? How did that inform your approach to academic development?)
2. In recorded meetings, we conducted a live thematic analysis, identifying key themes, discussing connections to literature, and exploring social and identity-based influences. We also thematically analysed participant feedback from the Active Learning Survey (see below), linking its insights to our autoethnographies and selecting representative quotes.
3. Reflecting on the identified themes, we divided the writing process and collaborated on the writing of this chapter to develop a cohesive narrative.

Methods: Active Learning Survey

We conducted an Active Learning Survey for participants on our accredited programmes to gather feedback on their experiences and how they apply active learning strategies encountered on our programmes in their own teaching (see Table 1). The survey was administered via Jisc Online Surveys and completed by 78 participants (59 former participants, 19 current participants) from a range of disciplinary backgrounds, employed in both academic and professional services roles. 70.5% (n=55) of respondents were academic staff employed on teaching and research, or teaching-only contracts (the target demographic for our programmes), 12.8% (n=10) of respondents were postgraduate research students with teaching responsibilities, 12.8% (n=10) of respondents were academics employed on research-only contracts, and 3.8% (n=3) of respondents were professional services members of staff who teach and/or support learning.

Most respondents were lecturers or senior lecturers. Most participants came from a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) faculty (71.8%) and 25.6% of respondents were based in an Arts, Humanities, or Social Sciences faculty. 53.8% of respondents had been teaching or supporting learning in higher education for more than five years. 96.2% of the respondents had either engaged with our accredited Experiential Route to Advance HE Fellowship or our Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education, and 3.8% of respondents had participated in our non-accredited Introduction to Teaching in Higher Education short course (see Table 1) A small number of participants completed more than one programme.

The following sections explore the main findings from our analysis of our collaborative autoethnographic reflections on designing and embedding active learning approaches on our programmes and our analysis of participant feedback. Together, we hope to demonstrate that, whilst challenges and barriers to active learning exist and persist, our approaches to modelling active learning methods through our programmes has had a positive impact on the ways in which staff understand and have embedded these approaches in their own practice. In the following sections we first explore the definitions of active learning that emerged through our collaborative autoethnographic reflections and through the survey responses from participants. We then focus on three main themes: the institutional contexts that enable and/or inhibit active learning; personal barriers and enablers for active learning; and finally, the affective or emotional dimensions of active learning.

Our definitions of active learning

The authors of this chapter and participants from our programmes agree that active learning is fundamentally about engagement and participation, going beyond passive listening in lectures or ‘sitting back and being fed information’ (survey participant, January 2025) to ‘learning by doing’ through discussion, problem solving, role-play, creating something new or failing at something (Kolb, 2015; Gibbs, 1988). Furthermore, rooted in cognitive and social constructivist ideas from scholars such as Piaget (1950) and Vygotsky (1978), active learning emphasises the idea that to learn, individuals need to actively construct or build their understanding.

We agree that successful active learning, which motivates and connects learners with ‘deep learning’ (learning that involves understanding, analysis, synthesis and creation) has the following key characteristics:

• Engages learners in tasks requiring them to consider subject material (or ‘what will the students be doing to stay awake during my lectures?’ (survey participant, January 2025)). Tasks can be hugely wide ranging from quizzes, think-pair-share activities, to case studies and debates.
• Motivates learners to engage and provides feedback. Encouraging learners to participate through frequent low-stakes assessment such as quizzes, polls and group work can be both motivating and enrich learning with feedback (Darby & Lang, 2019).
• Involves collaboration and cooperation where diverse student groups can share ideas and views, challenge each other, and learn from different perspectives, important for recognising and empathising with a range of ‘difficult differences’ such as race, ethnicity and gender (Kuh, 2008, p. 19). This also signals the valuing of individuals’ own experiences and viewpoints, fostering an inclusive learning environment which allows learners to build relationships with each other, crucial to their motivation to learn (Quinlan, 2016).
• Connects learners to real-world contexts and contemporary issues to practice authentic tasks and take the theoretical from abstract to concrete applied situations. Not only is connecting learning to tangible problems motivating (Wijnia et al., 2024) but can produce ‘aha’ moments in understanding difficult concepts (Land et al., 2006). Authentic tasks can range from tackling problems and responding to case studies, to developing code, laboratory experiments and practising clinical skills on simulated patients.
• Engages learners in critical reflection allowing them to internalise their experiences, gain deeper insights and develop their own new perspectives, akin to the idea of learning being transformative (Mezirow, 2008).

From classroom to curriculum

Another key perspective – shared by our survey participants and reflected in our programme design – is that active learning is not just a set of activities within or across sessions, but a guiding approach to curriculum design that requires careful scaffolding. Key active learning curriculum design approaches include:

• Flipped learning. Implicit to the idea of designing an active learning focused curriculum, is that by engaging students more deeply in learning and tasks, there is less room for content. This may lead to reducing the amount of content overall, and/or a flipped learning approach which introduces learners to material ahead of class, thus focusing class time on discussion, application and exploration of material. Ensuring pre-class engagement with content, often through videos and podcasts, can be tricky, but can enable in-class participation in deeper learning (Baig & Yadegaridehkordi, 2023).
• Case-based and problem-based learning are usually collaborative approaches to learning which connect learners to real-world scenarios, challenges and problems (Pinto, 2023). Case-based learning involves detailed and specific cases which contextualise theory for learners to explore and discuss. Problem-based learning involves broader problems which may require more open-ended exploration by learners to find solutions themselves and is often designed as a longer-term project structured over a series of sessions or an entire course.
• Applied projects including dissertation and research projects, projects with community and employer partners, and investigative projects as part of a field trip, can be highly motivating and encourage integration of ideas and skills to solve specific real-world problems (Kuh, 2008). Again, these approaches are often collaborative, and their design should be considered over a series of sessions, modules or an entire course.

In summary our understanding of active learning, and one shared by participants on our programmes, is that it is a student-centred approach that involves diverse groups of learners in a variety of activities within the classroom and across the curriculum. It can lead to deeper, more engaged learning and understanding, and can connect learners to each other, their subject in relation to the world, and their own perspectives and identities. Despite these many benefits, however, our autoethnographies and the reflections shared by participants highlight that the widespread adoption of active learning is often challenged by various systemic constraints.

Institutional barriers to engaging in active learning

The authors of this chapter hold academic positions, including Associate Professor in Learning and Teaching, and Lecturer or Senior Lecturer in Academic Development, and all identify as academic developers. Many institutional barriers experienced by academic developers are identified in the literature, including the contradictory perception of academic developers as both marginalised and an enforcement arm of leadership priorities (Fremstad & Ewins, 2023).  Sugrue et al. (2017) see this tension in the ways academic developers ‘are cast in the role of pedagogical experts in a context where disciplinary knowledge reigns supreme’ (p. 2341) wherein they can face challenges to the value placed on pedagogy and priorities such as active learning.

Across many of our autoethnographies this tension became most evident through the contexts in which our participants undertake our programmes. Author B noted ‘some participants will not want to engage in the workshops or active learning as they may have different motivations for attending the sessions, such as contractual obligations’. Where staff are engaging in these terms, they may lack the intrinsic motivation that would lead to a more open and deep approach to learning. Author A reflected on the challenge of having to ‘convince particularly stubborn academic colleagues enrolled on our CPD Schemes’ to participate in active learning strategies, perhaps because of the institutional directive that has led them to our programmes.

What emerged in the autoethnographies was the importance of both effective design and clear guidance. But as Author F noted, we need to have confidence in our participants as well as our teaching methods: ‘you need to have faith participants will be willing to engage with the activities you have planned for them. If it is designed well, participants should see the relevance of the activity’. This confidence can be built by encouraging an open dialogue about activities – what we are doing and why we are doing it. For Author B it is vital that our participants (and their own students) understand the purpose of active learning tasks if we are expecting them to engage positively with them, noting that otherwise ‘it will be an uphill battle’.

To support the efficacy of our learning design, we co-create our workshops within the teaching team and seek feedback from participants. For Authors C and F, having someone to ‘bounce ideas off’ helps brings variety and richness to our teaching, and while Author E notes the rewarding nature of this collaborative approach, she also cautions of the care that needs to be taken to ensure ‘our sessions and design cohere overall’.

A further barrier coalesced around workload and time pressures: from our own time as academic developers to embed active learning in our academic development programmes, to our participants’ time to engage actively with the programmes, and in turn embed more active learning approaches in their own practice. For example, constraints on staff time to undertake training is a common experience. Ndebele and Maphosa (2014, p. 176) refer to this structural constraint as ‘staff overload’ caused by competing demands. In theory, all staff should expect their workload model to be adjusted to allow time to undertake staff training. In practice, however, there is variability in the level of workload allocation: ‘Some colleagues are given time to complete the programme while others have to fit it in somehow’ (Author F). As highlighted by Ramsden (2004), participants often want quick answers and succinct didactic experiences, rather than engaged active experiences that are more time consuming but potentially transformative. This was an experience Author A reflected on:

Active learning is arguably more time intensive (for both teacher and student) and emotionally intensive than a traditional didactic approach […] they just want to be given the content as quickly as possible.

This highlights how time constraints shape programme development and delivery, potentially intensified by the co-creation approach.  Furthermore, several authors reflected on the compromises that we make due to the limited time we have with our participants and the impact this has on the relationships we can build. For example, Author F reflected: ‘I feel I would need more time to design and more contact time with participants to build strong relationships and be more adventurous in the activities offered’.

As already observed, building strong relationships with our participants builds confidence in our capacity for dialogue and sharing in a collaborative, mutually beneficial learning experience. To accommodate the workload pressures of our participants we have adopted flexible approaches across our programmes where all workshops are delivered in-person, online and asynchronously which Author E notes ‘has been extremely popular with participants,’ but adds to our workload. However, the value of this approach is clear from participant feedback, where many of our participants highlighted changes in their practices towards more active learning approaches because of engaging with our programmes. For example:

• ‘I began using more online tools (such as Padlet and Menti) in my teaching as a result of the programme’.
• ‘My lecturing approach is strongly informed by the programme. In particular, the use of short problem-solving exercises in small groups is essentially an adaptation of “Think-pair-share”’.
• ‘I am using flipped classrooms, case-based pedagogy, and student-peer interaction, which helps me create a live-learning environment that ensures critical engagement’.
• – (Survey participants, January 2025).

Our autoethnographies explored the notion of transformation (Mezirow, 1997) as we moved towards active learning approaches in our individual careers and as we developed our programmes together. They also reflected widely on both the personal challenges and the key factors that supported us in adopting and sustaining active learning practices, which we explore in the next section.

Personal barriers and enablers to engaging in active learning

Without exception, all our autoethnographies reflected on our prior educational experiences, particularly on the ways in which didactic, teacher-centred approaches resulted in a sense of alienation and disengagement (Case, 2008). In her autoethnography, Author E noted that on her own undergraduate Economics degree she had had ‘little connection with the staff, some of whom fixed their gaze at the back of the lecture theatre rather than the students within it and insisted on silence in class when we copied down maths proof after maths proof.’ Similarly, Author A reflected on her undergraduate History degree, a time

characterised by long lectures in huge lecture theatres, where well-practiced professors would – with closed eyes, in hushed tones too far away from the mic – recount dates, facts and figures of historical note, which reached our ears like a lullaby.

Author F recalled an episode from her Modern Languages degree: ‘a professor reading his book to a whole lecture theatre of us for one hour each week for a whole term’. In a reflection that captured the sentiment of the whole team, Author E suggested that her experiences as an undergraduate left her with a ‘desire to engage students in learning in ways I hadn’t, and some unformed ideas about what this might look like’.

Our research confirms that teaching approaches are often shaped by how we were taught ourselves, a phenomenon known as the ‘apprenticeship of observation’ (Borg, 2004). Sometimes we copy familiar methods which strengthens disciplinary traditions (Neumann, 2001) and replicates what we experienced ourselves, if it worked well for us. However, negative past experiences as students may also lead us to consciously reject certain approaches, prompting us to adopt alternative teaching strategies (Henderson & Dancy, 2007). At times, this shift is shaped more by personal experiences than by evidence-based practices (as Author E noted in her reflection, she had some ‘unformed ideas’ about what active learning might look like when she started her career as an educator). Encouraging critical reflection and professional development is therefore essential to ensure that teaching evolves in keeping with contemporary research on effective learning (Freeman et al., 2014). In support of this argument, in reflecting on how their approach to learning and teaching had been shaped by their exposure to the active learning strategies employed on our programmes, a previous participant reflected that:

I was previously quite ‘old-school’ in my approach and basically just mimicked what I’d seen in my own undergrad program […] However, the program exposed me to a lot of ideas and techniques I’d not seen before and also encouraged us to explore the research literature (survey participant, January 2025).

Perceptions of authority in the classroom play a crucial role in shaping student engagement. Traditional, lecture-based models often position teachers as the primary source of knowledge, the ‘sage on the stage,’ reinforcing hierarchical relationships that can discourage active participation (Freire, 1996). In contrast, active learning approaches can challenge these traditional power structures by fostering a more collaborative and student-centred environment (Weimer, 2013). Both students and teachers may struggle with this shift, however, as deeply ingrained expectations about the roles of teacher and learner may create resistance to more participatory methods (Brookfield, 2017). In her autoethnography, Author C reflected on the pedagogic shift she experienced in her early career:

I don’t think I truly embraced active learning until I had the confidence to allow students to take more control in the classroom. It took a lot of time to see students as partners in learning rather than enforcing the traditional student-teacher dynamic which I had experienced in my education. If I was in control, I knew that they had the right information which would enable them to pass their exams (very strategic I know), not fun or engaging, but safe.

Reflecting on her current practice and thinking about perceptions of authority and formality in her autoethnography, Author G noted:

In my classroom, I don’t care about things like formality, fidgeting, noise or mess. I want to create a liberated space unbounded by convention or spectral intellectual barriers. I also want to foster a sense of freedom to be oneself, accepted and at ease to make mistakes. The most successful learning space, to me, is one filled with joy, where the air is electric with potential!

Questions of confidence, freedom to be one’s authentic self, and risk-taking highlighted in the reflections above link to the final theme that emerged from analysis of our collaborative autoethnography, and the experiences shared by our participants – the emotional or affective dimensions associated with active learning.

The affective dimensions of active learning

As discussed above, past feelings of alienation and disengagement prompted us to champion social constructivist principles and foster community building within our teaching practice which was lacking in our own learning as students. Active learning, for us, is therefore a way of creating a space where diverse voices can contribute, learn from one another and feel a sense of belonging. We value making the learning environment a positive and dynamic space, where learning is viewed as a shared responsibility between teachers and students (hooks, 1994). As Author A suggested:

To me, active learning is about offering the learner shared responsibility and accountability in the learning process, it’s about opening up spaces where learners can interact with each other, with the subject matter, and engage with us as teachers who are there to scaffold and support their learning.

As already noted, a shift in power dynamics is required to achieve this type of environment which challenges the traditional hierarchies and gives learners more autonomy. The teacher in an active learning space facilitates peer-to-peer learning, a key aspect of active learning, as Author G reflected: ‘Active learning challenges traditional hierarchical norms. That appeals to me greatly as I see it as a liberating mechanism.’

This transition to more student-centred approaches, however, has not come about without discomfort and anxiety. Having the confidence to move from safe and structured teaching formats (that are usually teacher-centred) comes with risk and uncertainty. Being vulnerable in front of students and sharing power with them can lead to unexpected outcomes and deviate from learning outcomes and expectations. Yet, this very same vulnerability can build trust and show authenticity to learners developing strong relationships between teacher and student (Quinlan, 2016). By taking risks and making mistakes in our teaching, we model the kinds of activities and behaviours that can emerge in a challenging yet safe active learning environment (Palmer, 2017) encouraging participants to do the same in their own practice. But it takes courage to challenge norms and take risks, and the notion of bravery came through strongly in our autoethnographies, as Author D reflects:

It requires almost an act of bravery to welcome silences and welcome opportunities for students and teachers to reflect and discuss in more open terms what they have learnt, encountered or experienced in a lesson and to just see where it goes.

Our autoethnographies revealed that we aim to be the teachers that we would have loved to have in our own learning as students. To do this, in our design and delivery of our programmes we have a real focus on inclusive practice – another vital pillar for active learning. To build a community, the diverse backgrounds of students must be recognised to contribute to their learning experiences (Booker & Campbell-Whatley, 2018). On our programmes, participants are therefore not only learning from each other and hearing different perspectives, but as the teachers we are also hearing those different experiences and learning from our participants – again modelling practice that participants later take on and implement in their own teaching. As Author B reflected in her autoethnography:

Having taught in a variety of contexts to people from many different backgrounds, I am very much aware that everyone brings something unique to the learning experience, and they all have something to contribute in their own ways, they are not empty vessels by any means.

An inclusive, safe environment encourages risk-taking and mistake-making when supported and scaffolded. Peer-to-peer relationships should be encouraged for all voices to be heard and valued, and within this process educators building their confidence iteratively will be key to success. In an active learning classroom students are supported and encouraged to develop all four key relationships in teaching and learning: ‘students with subject matter; students with teachers; students with other students; and students with their developing selves,’ (Quinlan, 2016, p.101). To make the most of active learning, it is therefore key to build an emotionally safe space through setting clear expectations and requiring structured interaction, but also one which requires bravery and a willingness to take risks. As our autoethnographic reflections and feedback from participants has revealed, then, the process of engaging in active learning is not just an effective process but also a deeply affective one.

Application to other contexts: Making active learning happen for all

Our autoethnographic reflections and thematic analysis of participant feedback has deepened our understanding of ourselves as Lecturers in Academic Development and how our programmes support staff who teach and/or support learning in adopting active learning strategies. We hope the following suggestions are valuable to those teaching and supporting learning in higher education in many different roles and might be applied in a range of contexts to make active learning happen for all.

Engaging in collaborative autoethnography is a powerful method for critically reflecting on academic practice, offering a structured yet flexible approach to examining what is working and what works less well in particular teaching or learning contexts. By systematically documenting and analysing our own experiences with active learning, we were able to identify key challenges, successes, and areas for growth in ways that individual reflection alone might not have revealed. Incorporating participant feedback alongside personal reflections further enriched this process, providing multiple perspectives that validated, challenged, and expanded our insights. This approach not only deepens our own understanding but also creates a model for continuous improvement in teaching practice. We encourage others in HE to adopt collaborative autoethnography as a research and professional development tool, using it to refine pedagogical strategies, foster innovation, and ensure that teaching methods are truly effective and responsive to student needs.

Our research project has confirmed that active learning is a student-centred approach that emphasises interaction, participation, and learning by doing, fostering deeper understanding through discussion, problem-solving, and real-world application. This approach is, and can be, further applied in a wide variety of HE contexts in higher or lower stakes ways, by incorporating active strategies such as flipped classrooms, peer-led discussions, and collaborative projects to enhance student engagement across disciplines. In doing so, active learning supports sustainability in education by fostering critical thinking, adaptability, and lifelong learning skills, ensuring that our students are prepared for a rapidly changing world.

We argue that active learning extends beyond individual activities to curriculum design, incorporating flipped learning, problem-based learning, and applied projects to create a more engaging educational experience. We contend that all of these active learning approaches involve implicitly rethinking the amount and focus of content taught. We suggest that others might meaningfully integrate these strategies in their own practice by designing learning opportunities that emphasise hands-on problem-solving, interdisciplinary collaboration, and industry-relevant case studies to better prepare students for real-world challenges.

Our research suggests that systemic barriers, including faculty resistance, workload pressures, and institutional constraints, often hinder the adoption of active learning, highlighting the need for well-designed, flexible, and clearly communicated approaches. Universities can address these barriers by providing colleagues with training, workload adjustments, and institutional support for embedding active learning into teaching practice. We argue that through our modelling of active learning approaches on our programmes, participants are exposed to a range of best practices and are supported to take risks, learn from experiences through critical reflection, and adopt active learning for their students in their own practice. By embedding active learning more deeply across disciplines, universities can help develop teaching excellence, ensuring that pedagogical innovations take root and continue to evolve over time.

Through our autoethnographic reflections and from our participant feedback, our research has found that teachers’ own past experiences influence their teaching approaches, their engagement with professional development, and their approach to critical reflection. We argue that exposure to new teaching and learning methods is essential for shifting toward active learning, to making active learning work for all. HE institutions can support this shift through investing in and supporting their academic developers and valuing their academic development programmes, and by encouraging communities of practice around learning and teaching. Our research provides evidence that this approach works in supporting teachers in their transition to active learning methods. By embedding and championing active learning approaches within academic development programmes and ensuring support for all, institutions can create a sustainable culture of pedagogical innovation which improves student outcomes.

Our research has demonstrated that active learning involves a shift in power dynamics, requiring teachers to embrace vulnerability, foster inclusivity, and create emotionally safe spaces where all learners feel empowered to take risks, make mistakes, and actively participate. It has demonstrated that this is affective work, that it requires effort, courage, and careful consideration of student diversity. We argue that this can be modelled through academic development programmes where those leading demonstrate the value of embracing challenge and trying something different. Designing learning that prioritises student agency, using co-creation models, and incorporating diverse perspectives to build more inclusive and transformative learning environments will support the goal of making active learning happen for all. Moreover, these approaches contribute to the sustainability of inclusive education by fostering resilient learning communities where diverse voices are valued and empowered.

Key takeaways

In summary, three key takeaways from this chapter are:

• Engage with collaborative autoethnography as a reflective tool: Engaging in collaborative autoethnography offers a powerful way to critically reflect on academic practice, providing structured insights into what works and what works less well in teaching and learning. Bringing in feedback from diverse groups of learners further enriches this process, ensuring a holistic understanding of active learning. Additionally, this approach fosters team building and boosts morale by encouraging shared reflection, mutual support, and collective problem-solving. This method can be applied in various HE contexts to refine teaching practices, foster innovation, enhance professional development, and strengthen communities of practice.
• See active learning as a sustainable, student-centred approach: Active learning enhances engagement, participation, and real-world application, supporting critical thinking and lifelong learning skills. By embedding active strategies such as flipped classrooms, peer-led discussions, and problem-based learning, teachers can prepare diverse groups of students for complex, evolving challenges. This approach contributes to the sustainability of education by fostering adaptable, independent learners equipped for the future. Modelling this on academic development programmes focussed on learning and teaching is essential to helping teachers experience and implement active learning effectively in their own practice.
• Seek institutional support for active learning: Systemic challenges, including faculty resistance and workload pressures, can hinder the adoption of active learning. Universities can address these barriers through targeted academic development programmes, workload adjustments, and institutional support. By embedding active learning into teaching cultures and championing inclusive, student-centred approaches, institutions contribute to the long-term sustainability of pedagogical innovation and teaching excellence.

References

Adams, T. E., Holman-Jones, S., & Ellis, C. (2015). Autoethnography: Understanding Qualitative Research. Oxford University Press.

Baig, M. I., & Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2023). Flipped classroom in higher education: a systematic literature review and research challenges. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00430-5

Boylorn, R. M., & Orbe, M. P. (Eds.) (2014). Critical autoethnography: intersecting cultural identities in everyday life. Left Coast Press.

Booker, K. C., & Campbell-Whatley, G. D. (2018). How faculty create learning environments for diversity and inclusion. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 13, 14-27.

Borg, M. (2004). The apprenticeship of observation. ELT Journal, 58(3), 274-276. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.3.274

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812507

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. Sage.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X211058251

Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Jossey-Bass.

Case, J. M. (2008). Alienation and Engagement: Development of an Alternative Theoretical Framework for Understanding Student Learning. Higher Education, 55(3), 321–332. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29735185

Chang, H., Ngunjiri, F., & Hernandez, K. (2013). Collaborative Autoethnography. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315432137

Darby, F., & Lang, J. (2019). Small teaching online: applying learning science in online classes. Jossey-Bass.

Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. (2000). Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexivity: Researcher as Subject. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) The Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, 733-768.

Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25349-4_25

Fremstad, E., & Ewins, K. (2023). The critical-constructive potential of academic development: a case study. Studies in Higher Education, 48(7), 1097–1110. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2182875

Grist, H., & Jennings, R. (2021). Carers, Care Homes and the British Media: Time to Care. Palgrave MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35768-9

Henderson, C. R., & M. Dancy (2007). Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020102

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: education as the practice of freedom. Routledge.

Keengwe, J. (Ed). (2022). Handbook of Research on Active Learning and Student Engagement in higher Education. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-9564-0

King, H. (2015). Continuing professional development in higher education: what do academics do? Planet, 13(1), 26-29. https://doi.org/10.11120/plan.2004.00130026

Kolb, D. (2015). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Pearson Education.

Kuh, G. D. (2008). High Impact Education Practices: what they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges & Universities.

 Land, R., Cousin, G., Meyer, J., & Davies, P. (2006). Implications of threshold concepts for course design and evaluation. In: J. Meyer and R. Land (Eds.) Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding. Routledge, 195–206.

Mårtensson, K., & Roxå, T. (2021). Academic developers developing: aspects of an expanding lifeworld, International Journal for Academic Development, 19(3), 405-417. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1950725

Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge 1 – Linkages to ways of thinking and practicing. In C. Rust (Ed.). Improving Student Learning: Ten Years On., OCSLD., 412-424.

Mezirow, J. (1994). Transformative learning: theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5-12.

Mori, Y., Wald, N., & Harland, T. (2024). A model of academic developers’ formation and growth of professional identity: a focus on the affective factors. Higher Education Research & Development, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2424158

Ndebele, C., & Maphosa, C. (2014). Voices of Educational Developers on the Enabling and Constraining Conditions in the Uptake of Professional Development Opportunities by Academics at a South African University, International Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(1), 169-182. https://doi.org/10.31901/24566322.2014/07.01.17

Palmer, P. J. (2017). The courage to teach (20th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57 (3) 6-12.

Piaget, J. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence. Brace. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203164730

Pinto, B. L. (2023). Distinguishing between Case Based and Problem Based Learning. International Journal of Kinesiology in Higher Education 7(3), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/24711616.2022.2111286

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x

Quinlan, K. M. (2016). How Emotion Matters in Four Key Relationships in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. College Teaching, 64(3), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2015.1088818

Ramsden, P. (2004). Learning to teaching in higher education. Routledge.

Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315237473

Sugrue, C., Englund, T., Solbrekke, T. D., & Fossland, T. (2017). Trends in the practices of academic developers: trajectories of higher education? Studies in Higher Education, 43(12), 2336–2353. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1326026

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4

Weimar, M. (2013). Learner Centred Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice, Jossey-Bass.

Wijnia, L., Noordzij, G., Arends, L. R., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Loyens, S. M. M. (2024). The Effects of Problem-Based, Project-Based, and Case-Based Learning on Students’ Motivation: a Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09864-3

About the authors

Hannah Grist, Ros O’Leary, Fiona Hartley, Louise Howson, Julian Kendell, Emilie Poletto-Lawson, and Aisling Tierney lead academic development at the University of Bristol. Their expertise covers curriculum design, assessment, feedback, AI, learning innovation, sustainability, student co-production, and academic practice.

Corresponding author: Hannah Grist, hannah.grist@bristol.ac.uk