Summary

This case study explores the redevelopment of the Curriculum Evaluation and Development (CED) module within a postgraduate certificate programme (PGCert) in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (LTHE) at a UK post-1992 university. CED was reimagined by a new staff team to emphasise active, dialogic, and creative learning, enabling educators-as-students to consolidate and apply their learning through module redesign and evaluation. The changes aimed to enhance participants’ ownership of learning and support the transfer of active teaching practices to their own classrooms. The redesigned module demonstrated the transformative potential of active learning. Thus, this case study advocates for embedding active learning praxes in professional development to inspire pedagogical creativity and inclusive growth in all Higher Education (HE) programmes.

Introduction: What we did

The CED module is part of the PGCert in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (LTHE) for lecturers at a UK post-1992 university. It is a long thin module running over the course of the academic year and the last in a sequence of three core modules (see Figure 1). The module is synoptic, allowing participants to harness everything learned across the PGCert as a whole when re-designing their own modules for their students. Traditionally the more formal and teacher-led of the three core modules, a new leadership team with expertise in active learning decided to transform CED by embedding more interactive, dialogic, and creative teaching strategies into its design. This shift aimed to immerse educators-as-students in active, experiential pedagogy across the whole PGCert, fostering ownership of learning and thus enhancing the transferability of these approaches to their own classrooms. This case study outlines the changes that we made to CED and the responses of our staff-as-students to those changes.

Rationale: Why this was a valuable and worthwhile project

Following on from the Facilitating Student Learning (FSL) and Managing the Assessment and Feedback Process (MAF) modules, CED creates the space for participants to explore curriculum theory as they develop and evaluate their own existing modules – or devise new ones. FSL and MAF are intensely active and whilst they do tackle theory, it is through the lens of creative and embodied practice (see Figure 2).

CED was the more teacherly module, seemingly at odds with its assignment of re-developing a real module in action. When CED got a new lead and co-tutor, opportunity was created to evaluate it in-action (Schön, 1983; Oprandi et al., 2022) to explore how to transform it to make it more active and interactive – and to create a more nuanced, dialogic, and creative PGCert overall. The goal was that participants would have seen, theorised, and experienced in embodied ways all that a more active learning approach can do to make their own modules more inclusive.

Context

The PGCert is situated within a widening participation, inner-London university, reflecting its diverse and dynamic context. It serves educators-as-learners who are navigating a complex academic landscape and who are supporting a wide range of student needs. The programme is offered to all new lecturers at the university – and is compulsory for those with less than three years teaching experience – as part of their professional development, designed to empower them through immersion in active, inclusive, and engaging teaching practices. Led by a committed staff team, the programme aligns with the university’s mission to enhance teaching excellence through innovative and inclusive methodologies (Education for Social Justice Framework, London Metropolitan University, 2024).

The PGCert operates as a supportive Community of Practice (CoP) among educators (Lave & Wenger, 1991). It is active learning and reflection in action and on action (Schön, 1983). Through immersion, participants build, alongside a ‘toolkit’ of active learning strategies and processes (see also Oprandi & Betts, 2022), a robust theoretical foundation, enabling them to confidently design, teach and evaluate curricula that foster liberation and transformative education for their own students.

Method and methodology

As with our PGCert participants, reflection in and on action (Schön, 1983) is part of our ongoing action teaching. This creates a cycle of active learning, both within the modules and on the modules: an embedded Action Research (Reason et al., 2001).

True to the motto, ‘Active Learning Happens for All’ (Active Learning Network, 2025), we made immediate adjustments to CED to sustain the active and inclusive learning approaches harnessed in the previous modules, such that staff become more confident to implement such approaches themselves. As a first step, we changed the module delivery to a predominantly workshop mode with participants engaged in researching and presenting on key topics in groups, rather than experiencing a more lecture-based programme. Next, a proposal-writing workshop was introduced, incorporating peer review early in the process to encourage collaborative reflection and active engagement. Additionally, the assessment components were reduced, with no mark now awarded for the proposal, and rather than grading peer feedback, participants were asked to reflect on the impact of the peer review process, emphasising growth and learning. These initial changes were implemented as part of a continuous improvement approach, with plans to evaluate and refine the module further, ensuring it aligned more closely with active learning principles. As per evidence (Prince, 2004), active learning is not just worthwhile; it does work, and it is demonstrably effective in enhancing learning outcomes.

How staff-as-students responded

Evaluation

Evaluation can have many purposes – appraisal and accountability are often at the forefront of people’s thinking – but with CED, the purpose is developmental, with a focus on deep learning. We wanted this evaluation process to seed a more active, engaging and dialogic CED module, and thus a more liberatory and coherent PGCert programme with a clearer impact on the participants’ own active learning pedagogy and practice.

Student feedback is routinely collected via an online survey as part of the end-of-year PGCert course evaluation and is shared anonymously in this case study with PGCert participants’ consent. All feedback data were handled with care to ensure confidentiality and in accordance with institutional procedures, with contributions represented in ways that honour participants’ voices and intentions.

Participant feedback

By prioritising active learning in the redesign of CED and its teaching approach, educators-as-students participating in the newly designed module appeared more empowered to explore and further refine the creative and inclusive practices they experienced and adapt them with confidence in their own classrooms. As one participant at the end of the academic year said: ‘Doing the action research gave me the opportunity to critically review and improve my own practice.’

And another, stressing the longevity of CED impact:

[the lecturer] helped me immensely on my CED module, giving me confidence when I felt a bit out of my depth, and then feeding me a light-bulb moment when guiding me towards a more student-centred solution to a particular assessment problem I had. I’ve just today set up assessment guidance activities on [the institution’s virtual learning environment] for a new level 4 cohort based on that light-bulb moment.

Their students, in turn, gained access to more dynamic, inclusive, and engaging educational experiences, fostering greater self-efficacy, agency, and creativity, as illustrated by one CED participant who said: ‘The tutors have made this module exceptionally interactive and enjoyable. I loved every moment of it… Thank you for teaching me how to be a great teacher.’

This illustrates the ripple effect active teaching and learning can have, effectively extending beyond the immediate classroom. This is also illustrated by less tangible developments, such as PGCert participants inviting their students to ‘take over’ parts of their modules, and co-presenting with their students at the university’s annual learning and teaching conference.

The CED/PGCert course team benefited from seeing their creativity and expertise channelled into transformative outcomes for the participants and their students. Through collaborative reflection and writing, the CED team contributed not only to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) but also to the broader dissemination of best practices. These efforts aim to inspire the development of more active, dialogic, and creative professional development programmes in the future.

Conclusion

The PGCert as a whole is designed to de-school (Illich, 1971) and un-school (Holt, 1990) educators – to shake up normative notions of what education is, could, and should be. Teaching team changes created the space to reimagine CED in a way that sustained active and engaging practice across the PGCert. We wanted the participants in turn to develop more active, inclusive and liberatory practice of their own – and with a much greater degree of confidence. Reflection on the module, and the small changes made at the start of that year, indicated that participants were more engaged and attended more when the teaching was actively developed and delivered by the participants themselves. Interestingly, in those moments, they are again more involved, actively being simultaneously both students and educators, as they are in the two preceding modules on the PGCert.

The initial development to harness the workshop mode and peer teaching in CED was so successful that an immediate further development will be to make the majority of the module cooperatively developed and actively delivered peer-to-peer. Not only will participants take ownership of the material in embodied ways, they will be modelling the active teaching, learning and assessment practices that they have learned holistically across the PGCert to harness in their own praxes. As underscored in the rephrased CED assessment brief:

Choose a module that you actually teach – or one that you would like to teach – and design it. You must harness all that you have learned across the PGCert as a whole to make it (more) active, accessible, sustainable, and successful with respect to increasing student engagement, self-efficacy and deep learning. Justify your choice and approach – including with reference to the appropriate literature – and to practice.

Key takeaways

If we want active education, we need radical, creative and liberatory practice infused in those that are in the classroom: the educators themselves. Empowering staff development has to be done through active, embodied, experiential, and reflective learning. It has to be experienced, not just theorised.

For those developing, evaluating and redesigning courses similar to our PGCert for colleagues teaching and supporting learning in HE, we would urge you to:

1. embed a variety of active, playful and dialogic opportunities throughout the course
2. welcome, value and foreground contributions from every participant
3. encourage individual and collective reflection on the experience by all involved.

Not only will the learning and teaching experience be richer for all, but the participants will also be inspired and empowered to adopt and adapt active practice, collaborate with like-minded colleagues and create inclusive, accessible and active classrooms of their own.

Acknowledgement

In memory of Tom Burns (1959-2024), Associate Teaching Professor, London Metropolitan University, UK – CED module leader and much-loved colleague.

References

Active Learning Network (2025). Home. https://activelearningnetwork.com/

Holt, J. (1990). Learning all the Time. Da Capo Lifelong Books.

Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling Society. Penguin.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press.

London Metropolitan University (2024). Education for Social Justice Framework. https://www.londonmet.ac.uk/about/centre-for-equity-and-inclusion/a-fair-outcomes-approach-to-teaching-and-learning/the-degree-awarding-gap/education-for-social-justice-framework/

Oprandi, P., & Betts, T. (Eds.) (2022). 100 Ideas for Active Learning. Open Press University of Sussex. https://openpress.sussex.ac.uk/ideasforactivelearning/

Oprandi, P., Ogamba, I., & Middleton, A. (2022). Introduction to Theory and Curriculum Design. In P. Oprandi & A. Betts (Eds.), 100 Ideas for Active Learning. Open Press University of Sussex. https://openpress.sussex.ac.uk/ideasforactivelearning/chapter/introduction-to-theory-and-curriculum-design/

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

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) (2001). Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage.

Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Temple Smith.

About the authors

Sandra Abegglen is a Researcher at the University of Calgary and co-leads innovative projects on playful and digital learning. Associate Teaching Professors Tom Burns and Sandra Sinfield, with Senior Lecturers John Desire and Janet Gordon, are the PGCert Learning and Teaching in Higher Education teaching team at London Metropolitan University.

Corresponding author: Janet Gordon, j.gordon@londonmet.ac.uk