Summary

This case study describes the approach of the University of Glasgow in relation to capacity- and capability-building initiatives for active learning. We outline how our learning and teaching strategy steered our thinking, document investments and explain what we did to enhance academic practice. Our work involved collaborating with academic colleagues across the university, and with professional services colleagues in timetabling and in our student and academic services teams. Inclusivity and sustainability are at the heart of our values; we describe our approach to these too. We provide the reader with an overview of our strategic approach to make active learning work; elements may be transferable to other institutions.

What did you do?

Strategy

The University of Glasgow’s learning and teaching strategy (2021-2025) positioned an ‘Evolving approach to student-centred learning’ as one of three core pillars alongside ‘Transforming curricula and assessment’ and ‘Students’ professional & skills development’, underpinned by values and enabled by infrastructure and support (Figure 1).

Each pillar was associated with a strategic working group; for student-centred learning, an ‘Evolving teaching practice’ (ETP) workstream (later renamed ‘Enhancing learning and teaching practice’ (ELTP) strategic group) comprised three sub-groups: ‘Implementing and evaluating active learning’, to evaluate the use of active learning (and potential barriers to uptake) and identify and share good academic practice across the university; ‘Hybrid learning’, to assess the potential for more flexible and inclusive access; and ‘Horizon scanning’, to monitor upcoming trends, technologies and challenges. Throughout this case study, we explore the work of these subgroups, combining academic, services and student representation perspectives.

Investing in active learning

Implementing active learning requires various types of resource. The university has renovated teaching spaces and invested millions of pounds in new buildings within a wider campus transformation. However, transforming spaces, whilst important, is not sufficient or always necessary. A commitment to behaviour change has been sustained by a senior leadership commitment over 10+ years, recognising staff who invest time in redesigning their teaching through adapting promotion criteria and giving priority access to new teaching spaces. Strategy-specific financial investments across connected strategy workstreams recognise that changing teaching practice should be done alongside curriculum change and assessment redesign, and within that, we have made new staffing appointments to support institution-wide change.

Smaller investments through our learning and teaching development fund enable academics to make discipline-level changes, evaluate interventions, and support student partnership working. The combination of micro-level investments within a strategic context of symbolic, structural and financial commitment has been important to create momentum and capacity for change.

A sustained effort, consistent messaging, and continuity of vision for individuals to believe that the benefits of adapting their practice will be realised has been crucial and required an appreciation from the highest levels of the university (including our governing body) that change of this nature takes time. Staff development has been crucial, and business processes and systems have been amended to capture new approaches to course design, and new models of workforce planning where staff embark on more radical redesign within blended models of teaching.

Campus infrastructure

The university has greatly benefited from the design and build of the new James McCune Smith Learning Hub (JMS), the first purpose-built facility for active learning classrooms and technology-enabled active learning (TEAL) spaces. The university also undertook a programme of refurbishment of learning spaces across campus, including pilots to inform the design of the JMS (Figure 1).

 

Following the completion of the JMS, the Adam Smith Business School and PGT Hub was created as part of the university’s campus redevelopment, informed by the JMS design and its evaluation, to house more capacity for active learning (Figure 3).

Insights from the new buildings and refurbished spaces are being applied to another new building, the Keystone building; this interdisciplinary teaching and research hub due to open in 2028 will include ‘superlabs’ – large, multidisciplinary, interactive laboratory spaces – some low and others moderately serviced. The scale of each will enable multiple disciplines or courses to take place concurrently in these shared spaces (Figure 4).

A ‘Pedagogy in superlabs’ working group is engaging with staff and students at institutions that have successfully implemented superlabs. Through feedback on accessibility, AV/IT setup, lab configurations, and interdisciplinary opportunities, along with firsthand observations from site visits, we are gathering valuable insights to guide decisions on lab design, layout, and equipment while supporting inclusive, active learning.

Academic practice

We have supported academics over several years to enhance academic practice in active learning, through workshops and at point of need. To promote good practice and encourage wider adoption, a scoping exercise was undertaken inviting academic staff to share examples of their teaching practice. Strategic funding enabled the appointment of interns (Watson & Kurincova, 2025), working with academics to develop full case studies across the four colleges, in various disciplines. These feature in our Active Learning Resources Hub, complementing a suite of evidence-based guides on individual active learning methods. Other professional development initiatives include our Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice and Continuing Professional Development (CPD) activities.

Why did you do it?

The ETP strategic group sought ‘to create a shared understanding and approach to developing and supporting active learning across the university’, entailing ‘the articulation of long-term ambitions for active learning, consistent and coherent messaging around active learning and clear articulation of the requirements of the associated physical and digital infrastructure’.

We know that students benefit from an active learning approach, and that this helps them to build the skills required for effective study and a successful career. Students relay a positive experience of active learning, being more engaged (King, 1993), and it promotes deep learning (Andrews et al., 2020). The study/work skills students develop include critical thinking and problem solving (Snyder & Snyder, 2008). It enhances their academic performance (Freeman et al., 2014). Importantly, it also closes the performance gap between traditional and non-traditional learners (McNeil, 2019).

How did students/staff respond?

Internal evaluations of staff and student experiences of active learning spaces were conducted to capture the extent to which active learning was embedded in practice and associated challenges. This was internal work not subject to ethical approval and not reported here. However, feedback relating to staff and student experiences of the JMS helped inform our thinking about academic development support for pedagogical change, as well as infrastructure such as furniture, timetabling, and audio-visual/IT issues.

A minority of staff are hesitant about active learning; some are unsure whether they will be regularly assigned their preferred active learning spaces, and others are reluctant to make pedagogical changes, individually or because they encounter opposition from colleagues in their course teams. This is recognised in the sector (Pundak & Rozner, 2008). We will continue to work with staff to ascertain their needs and support them ‘where they are at’. We also know that not all students are ready for active learning; international students may fear ‘losing face’ by speaking up in class (Hodkinson & Poropat, 2014), and neurodiverse learners may struggle with the social element of collaborative learning (Spaeth & Pearson, 2023).

We continue to evaluate active learning from staff and student perspectives, at the course, programme and institutional level. We are currently working with colleagues in the Adam Smith Business School to evaluate how staff and students are making effective use of the active learning spaces there, to also inform developments in the Keystone building.

How do you make sure your approach is inclusive?

Accessibility and inclusivity have previously been overlooked in planning learning spaces in the sector, and need to be considered at an institutional level, involving relevant stakeholders (Power et al., 2024). From the outset, the JMS was foregrounded by an inclusivity of active learning spaces literature review (McIntyre, 2018), which found a paucity of research on inclusivity for active learning. This prompted a scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) project that took a rich pictures approach (Bell et al., 2016), investigating the needs of students with a range of disabilities, through discussion and visualisation. This meant that in the JMS, for example, attention was given to access and mobility, with height adjustable table ends provided in the active learning classrooms, available at each table cluster to offer choice. Quiet booths were also designed so that students could take a break from a noisy collaborative environment. For the superlabs in the new Keystone building, inclusion is being considered as one of the foci from a planning perspective, with the working group investigating issues of navigating spaces with mobility aids, sound proofing/bubbles, neurodiversity requirements, and lines of sight – issues that have been raised in relation to existing learning spaces, but which are magnified in the superlab context.

The ‘Hybrid learning’ group investigated technologies that promote flexibility to support student preferences and inclusion, and how timetabling supports student choice and innovative teaching practices. Work to advise colleagues on the potential for hyflex learning was undertaken through visits of the workstream members to Zoom headquarters, and presentations given by hyflex educators. Due to the challenges of engaging on-campus and remote learners simultaneously, the university decided that hyflex would not be adopted as standard, but some schools within the university who were keen to adopt hyflex would be supported. Scholarship work by a colleague (Finkel-Gates, 2025) revealed a clear preference for online engagement for students from more disadvantaged socio-economic areas. Survey work to capture staff understanding of terminology around hybrid learning was also conducted and revealed strong agreement about the definitions of ‘blended’ and ‘hyflex’; however, ‘hybrid’ learning was variously interpreted in relation to modality and choice (Nordmann et al., 2024). This work has implications for how we support our staff and students to engage flexibly.

How do you ensure that it is sustainable?

The ‘Horizon scanning’ group follows sector updates in Generative AI, skills driven curriculum development, and digital assessment, with a view to preparing the university and stakeholders for upcoming opportunities and challenges. Work has also been conducted to investigate the expectations of school leavers with respect to coming into higher education and the systems that support that.

Alongside this work, ongoing efforts to best prepare students for active learning recognise that many need to be supported to appreciate the value of active learning and develop the requisite skills to engage effectively with independent, self-directed learning (Pringle-Barnes et al., 2023).

Active learning does not happen in isolation; this work has been implemented alongside other strategic projects focused on assessment and feedback, curriculum transformation, and student skills development. All of this work informs the forthcoming renewed learning and teaching strategy. Moreover, it has all received support from the university’s leadership team continuously since 2012 and this sustained commitment to and investment in pedagogical innovation, and learning and teaching space design, has been essential to support sustained change in practice.

Regarding succession planning, we are working with early adopters to showcase their practice to other academic staff. This sharing of good practice is being extended through our Active Learning Network satellite group, with an accompanying Teams site. The renewed strategy, with accompanying resources, will seek to uncover further examples of good practice, and support early adopters to support other staff through peer observation and buddy schemes. Thus, we anticipate a momentum of change that is resilient to staff turnover or leadership changes.

Key takeaways

Although we have benefited from significant capital investment to enable change, pedagogical change can still happen in traditional spaces. An enhancement ethos is key to transformation. In order to adapt our approach to your context we would advise institutions to:

• Collaborate with stakeholders across the institution from all relevant services as well as seeking academic and student input; while we might all work differently, we are committed to the core goal of enhancing learning and teaching. Backing from senior management is key for this collaboration to work effectively, to align the vision and provide essential resources.
• Allow significant time for changes to be considered and implemented; from the design and build of learning spaces themselves, to evaluations, through to the development of resources for staff and students, and time for students and staff to adjust their approaches to learning and teaching.
• Remain open-minded as to the direction of travel, bearing in mind the wider context of higher education, speed of technological change, and potential barriers. Future-proof as much as possible and appreciate this is a continuous process of innovation and evaluation.

References

Andrews, D. A., Sekyere, E. O., & Bugarcic, A. (2020). Collaborative active learning activities promote deep learning in a chemistry-biochemistry course. Medical Science Educator, 30(2), 801-810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-00952-x

Bell, S., Berg, T., & Morse, S. (2016). Rich pictures: Encouraging resilient communities. Routledge.

Finkel-Gates, A. (2025). Embracing inclusivity and flexibility in higher education: A study of HyFlex delivery and its impact on diverse undergraduates in the post-pandemic era. Open Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Journal, 4(1), 12-31. https://doi.org/10.56230/osotl.113

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, 111(23), 8410-8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Hodkinson, C. S., & Poropat, A. E. (2014). Chinese students’ participation: The effect of cultural factors. Education + Training, 56(5), 430-446. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-04-2013-0057

King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1993.9926781

McIntyre, N. (2018, July). Inclusive active learning spaces report. University of Glasgow.

McNeil, J. (2019). Addressing barriers to student success: Scaling up active collaborative learning for student success. https://aclproject.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/NTU-ABSS-final-report-Jan-21.pdf

Nordmann, E., Hronska, B., & MacKay, J. (2024). How do higher education staff understand the terms hybrid, hyflex, and blended learning? Choice, modality, and uncertainty. EdArXiv. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/fjkq8

Power, K., O’Flynn, F., Murphy, T., & O’Mahony, M. J. (2024). The development of an inclusive higher education framework for learning spaces. International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education, 13(1), 1948-1958. https://doi.org/10.20533/ijtie.2047.0533.2024.0242

Pringle Barnes, G., Levesque, M., & Vecino, A. T. (2023, July 28). Onboarding students to active learning. UofGADD blog: Good Practice in Academic and Digital Development at the University of Glasgow. https://uofgadd.team/2023/07/28/onboarding-students-to-active-learning/

Snyder, L. G., & Snyder, M. J. (2008). Teaching critical thinking and problem solving skills. The Journal of Research in Business Education, 50(2), 90.

Spaeth, E., & Pearson, A. (2023). A reflective analysis on neurodiversity and student wellbeing. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 11(2), 109-120. https://doi.org/10.56433/jpaap.v11i2.517

University of Glasgow. (no date). Active learning resources hub. https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/learningandteaching/activelearning/

University of Glasgow. (no date.) Learning and teaching strategy 2021-25. https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/learningandteaching/about/strategy/

Watson, A., & Kurincova, K. (2025, March 19). Active learning case studies internships. UofGADD blog: Good Practice in Academic and Digital Development at the University of Glasgow. https://uofgadd.team/2025/03/19/active-learning-case-studies-internships/

About the authors

Dr Vicki Dale is a Principal Academic and Digital Development Adviser. Nic Kipar is the Director of Academic and Digital Development. Professor Moira Fischbacher-Smith is Vice-Principal (Learning and Teaching). Craig Brown is a Strategic Learning and Teaching Technologist. Karen Lee is the Director of Strategy, Performance and Transformation.

Corresponding author: Vicki Dale, vicki.dale@glasgow.ac.uk