What is this book?

This is a guidebook for those who are thinking about embedding active learning in their own practice or within the practice and philosophy of their wider institutions. It goes beyond thinking about ideas for active learning within individual learning spaces to look at the wider context in which active learning takes place. For active learning to thrive and become sustainably embedded in an institution, individual enthusiasm, although important, is not sufficient. Staff, students and the institution need to work collectively with the common purpose of active learning to ultimately produce a milieu in which active learning will thrive and become a normalised, institutionally supported practice. To structure the guidance offered it presents a conceptual model of the university, or any other place of post-compulsory education, as a system with numerous interconnected ‘parts’ that include mindsets. It uses this systems thinking lens to provide a diagnostic leverage point framework in order to analyse the problem of how to embed and sustain active learning in day-to-day practices and learning experiences.

The aim of the book

The aim of this book is to provide navigable practical ideas in the form of strategies and approaches that educators can use to enable the systematic embedding of active learning in their own practice and their wider institutions, in a sustainable and inclusive way. It acknowledges challenges and barriers, but its focus is on offering solutions.

In this context, sustainable means how the strategy/approach/idea might be supported to last over time beyond one individual or annual cycle of implementation, and includes consideration of how the ideas or approaches could be adopted, or adapted, in other organisations or contexts. Inclusive means making everyone feel welcome and valued and that the thoughts, ideas and perspectives of all individuals matter. Inclusivity might also consider how active learning might make learning more accessible for all students/staff within the group but especially those that might be excluded in other more traditional forms of teaching.

When proposing and developing their contributions, authors from the Active Learning Network’s global community were invited to respond to these definitions and to explore strategies, approaches and practices that focus on challenging and changing the status quo in relation to one or more stakeholder perspectives of staff, student or institution. Their responses are chapters, case studies and opinion pieces that provide strategies, examples and evidence-informed personal perspectives on how active learning can become embedded in individual and institutional practice.

Reflective of the Active Learning Network’s global community, contributions and the perspectives they offer come from Australia, Canada, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Pakistan and the United Kingdom. This is a book by and for the active learning community in its broadest sense: that is, all those interested or who want to know more about making active learning happen for all. Its aim is to show not only what works, or what has been learnt by evaluating approaches and practices to sustain and embed active learning, but to enable others to adopt and/or adapt the approaches and practices within their own contexts. This aim is in keeping with the Active Learning Network’s ethos of reciprocal sharing of practice for sustainable progress and combating isolated struggles for change.

What is active learning and why does it matter?

The definition of active learning used is that of the Active Learning Network available here. This definition highlights that the core elements of active learning are learner activity and engagement in the learning process (see also Prince, 2004), which requires learners to produce observable evidence of their learning:

In active learning, rather than the teacher ‘transmitting’ knowledge through lectures or reading, learners engage in a series of activities which require them to produce observable evidence of their learning. Where possible, these individual, pair and group tasks should aim to develop higher order thinking skills, emotional connection with content and tactile or physical engagement with the environment. (Betts, undated)

As Chickering and Gamson (1987) note, active learning techniques underpin good practice in (undergraduate) education:

Learning is not a spectator sport. Students do not learn much just by sitting in classes listening to teachers, memorising pre-packaged assignments, and spitting out answers. They must talk about what they are learning, write about it, relate it to past experiences, apply it to their daily lives. They must make what they learn part of themselves’ (Chickering and Gamson, 1987, p. 4).

There is strong evidence that active learning as opposed to ‘drill and spill’ or ‘chalk and talk’ is the most effective way to develop subject-specific knowledge, as well as other capabilities and attributes associated with a graduate, including critical thinking, problem solving and effective study habits (see, for example Deslauriers et al., 2019; Freeman et al., 2014; Prince, 2004). There is also evidence that it can narrow the attainment gap for under-represented groups (Ballen et al., 2017; Theobald et al., 2020).

However, it is still not routinely embedded in day-to-day higher, further and other post-compulsory education curriculum practices and this is a situation this publication and its contributions seek to address.

The origins of this book and its approach

The genesis of this book was a conversation about the challenges and barriers posed in embedding active learning in day-to-day practices and learning experiences. The Active Learning Network wanted to create a book that would act as a guidebook to navigate these challenges. As a group, colleagues explored the challenges of active learning in a festival moshpit (where else!), otherwise known as an asynchronous crowdsourced ideas generator, at the Online Global Festival of Active Learning of 2024. Challenges were grouped into challenges for students, challenges for staff and challenges for institutions. The outputs from that moshpit are here.

These challenges are rooted in the complex system that is higher education. To begin to address these challenges a systems thinking approach gives a framework for identifying sustainable solutions. The ambition is to move away from continually treating symptoms, such as lack of motivation, lack of resource or resistance to active learning, to creating a situation in which active learning is normalised as ‘the way we do things around here’. This requires looking at the overall coherence of the social system that a university or another place of higher education is, and intervening or influencing across multiple points of leverage in an aligned way. Thus, all the valuable strategies, approaches and ideas in this book will each be even more powerful in making active learning happen for all when they are brought together in appropriate ways for your context. To this end the following structure is offered to help you navigate this guidebook.

Structure of the book

Like any good guidebook this book is structured in ways that aim to help the reader to navigate the territory, and then to explore the places and spaces that interest them.

Section one: So why is embedding and sustaining active learning a problem and what can we do about it?

Section one analyses the problem of making active learning happen for all and offers an overview of the territory with an accompanying ‘map’ to navigate the various ‘terrains’ within the organisation. This territory overview takes the form of a systems thinking lens where the university, or any other place of post-compulsory education, is viewed as a complex system which is made up of numerous interconnected ‘parts’. With this understanding the map is a leverage points framework which places systems parts into five categories according to their potential to effect (leverage) sustainable change: paradigm, purpose and goals, structure, self-regulation and adaptation, and elements and resources. For example, people, buildings and their rooms, learning technologies, teaching activities and teaching standards are examples of ‘elements and resources’, while deeply-held beliefs about what good teaching looks like are an example of paradigm or mindset. With the leverage points framework map it is possible to analyse the problem of making active learning happen for all and where interventions and influence might produce the most effect to achieve active learning for all. The analysis proposes that only aligned, appropriate interventions across all the leverage point categories are likely to produce the effect of sustainable and inclusive change.

Section two: Approaches to embedding and sustaining active learning across the institution

Section two brings together contributions that provide examples of adopting active learning at large scale across the institution. In line with the section one analysis, all the contributions in this section recognise the importance of different system parts aligning and provide the reader with illustrations of how the different institutions in question have sought to make changes across many if not all of the leverage point categories identified in section one. This provides the reader with useful insights into the form such an aligned approach across appropriate leverage points takes, including: staff and student empowerment and capacity building with a view to shifting mindsets; clear strategic intent and commitment from senior leadership; structural considerations that include policies, regulations, reward and recognition and resource flows; quality assurance processes; digital and learning space infrastructure; and curriculum templates.

Section three: Shifting staff mindsets

Section three focuses on staff and the most challenging leverage point category highlighted in section one, that of paradigms or mindsets that include deeply held beliefs, attitudes and assumptions. An individual’s view or belief about what good teaching looks like will be influenced by their own experience as a learner, personal preferences and other factors. Their beliefs about the form good teaching takes may not align with active learning, or they may assume active learning only takes specific forms or that certain tools, learning environments and even perhaps disciplines are not suited to it. The contributions in this section address common challenges and misconceptions about what active learning is and the forms it can take, especially if active learning is to be fully inclusive. The authors examine misconceptions about technology and active learning, offer an alternative integrated approach to design active learning experiences which iterates between the affordances of technology and underpinning pedagogy, and examine the role of silence in active learning. Together, they show the range of ways active learning can be intentionally designed without prioritising the preferences or needs of one group of learners over another. Finally in this section, one academic explains how active learning helped them to find the joy in teaching and the changes it brought to their perspective on what good and enjoyable teaching is.

Section four: Promoting staff self-regulation and adaptation

One of the leverage point categories offered in section one is self-regulation and adaptation. This involves the use of feedback loops to influence university system functioning. When working well, timely, relevant data and information are used within a feedback loop to monitor system functioning and promote prompt action to maintain progress in a desired direction (to achieve system purpose). However, individual self-regulation and adaptation also need to occur if practices are to be developed and improved. Contributions here focus on promoting staff reflective practice as a catalyst for self-regulation and adaptation in the light of new information such as that gained when experiencing well-designed active learning for themselves. The contributions in this section also aim for a shift in mindsets as part of this process but focus on providing the experiences that will support that process and change practices. Thus, the contributions here all offer different, purposefully designed approaches to staff development that are intended to encourage staff to identify where their practice can be improved in terms of designing and using active learning in their teaching. The last contribution in this section also very deliberately draws our attention to an important point that by simply changing the facilities on offer such as learning spaces (physical and/or virtual) we cannot expect (teaching) practices to change, and that other work must be done at other leverage point categories including targeting mindsets and supporting the learning processes through which these might be shifted. This aligns well with the analysis offered in section one which highlights while it might be tempting to only adjust elements and resources and hope for the best, sustained change needs action within the other leverage point categories too. This also highlights that individual action alone will not, of course, embed and sustain change across the organisation.

 Section five: Shifting student mindsets

Section five, like section three, focuses on the most challenging leverage point category highlighted in section one, that of paradigms or mindsets that include deeply held beliefs, attitudes and assumptions. In this case the focus is on student ‘actors’ in the system and addressing common challenges and misconceptions about what good teaching is, the role of active learning in that process and the forms it can take. In this section a student offers their perspective on the process of becoming an active learner, giving helpful insights into some of the initial concerns they had, but also the significant gains they made from being an active learner. There can be hesitancy or resistance to engaging with active learning for a variety of reasons that might include expectations about what good teaching is (that don’t align with active learning), lack of confidence perhaps because certain skills and attributes need further development, or concerns about making mistakes. This section explores how student mindsets, including the confidence to engage with active learning, can be shifted through providing an appropriate learning environment where mistakes can be made, ideas shared and alternative perspectives and inputs valued. The authors suggest this creates a sense of belonging and connection and supports development of the capabilities and attributes, including critical thinking, creativity and reflection, needed to productively engage in active learning. Section six examines approaches to developing the knowledge, capabilities and attributes for active learning.

Section six: Promoting student self-regulation and adaptation

Section six focuses on students and supporting their capacity to be self-regulated active learners. Aligning with the analysis in section four, the contributions here focus on students developing the knowledge, capabilities and attributes to be confident active learners. This involves creating the learning environment and conditions that will operate as catalysts for reflection, self-regulation and adaptation that then result in the development or enhancement of targeted knowledge, capabilities and attributes. Of course, such development and learning are taking place within an ever-evolving context in which tools like generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) are having an impact on the forms that active learning might take, and perhaps inhibiting learning if not used appropriately. Contributions in this section examine ways in which such tools can be incorporated as part of active learning design strategies to support student development. The final contribution in part six also highlights the significance of considering other leverage point categories (see section one) when supporting individuals to self-regulate and adapt; in this case, how a core part of the digital infrastructure can help to sustain practice rather than relying on individual (staff) motivation to design the opportunities and on students to engage with them.

 Section seven: Designing and implementing sustainable and inclusive active learning experiences

As shown in the analysis in section one, active learning cannot happen for all without well-designed implementations that also prepare students for their next steps, whatever those may be. This section explores innovative approaches to embedding and sustaining active learning in day-to-day practices in a range of different disciplinary contexts. The authors highlight how their approaches can be adapted to other contexts. These examples in the leverage point category of elements and resources identified in section one form the largest section. They are subdivided into five sub-parts to facilitate navigation. These are: session design; incorporating gameplay; co-creation; interdisciplinary collaboration; and embedding the principles of Universal Design for Learning. This section therefore offers the reader the opportunity to explore ideas around implementing active learning experiences that they can adapt to their context.

Please use this guidebook to suit your needs

This book can support you in a range of different ways. If you are uncertain about using active learning, you will get some insight into the benefits of active learning from practitioners and students. If you are new to active learning, you should find some advice on how to get active learning to work for your students, and for your colleagues. If you are an active learning practitioner there are new ideas to adopt and adapt. If you are supporting staff to develop their active learning practice, there are examples of how to support staff and enable them to systematically embed active learning in their practice. If you have an opportunity to influence institutional strategy and its implementation, then there are examples of how institutions have approached embedding active learning at an institutional level. If you want fresh insights into how all the parts of the educational system can be connected to work better together to sustain active learning for all then there is a framework that can help. We invite you to select and use relevant sections, chapters, case studies and opinion pieces to meet your needs.

Finally if you would like to get involved in the network or set up and lead your own local satellite group, please get in touch by sending us an email to activelearningnetwork@gmail.com, or by visiting our website at www.activelearningnetwork.com.

References

Ballen, C. J., Wieman, C., Salehi, S., Searle, J. B., & Zamudio, K. R. (2017). Enhancing diversity in undergraduate science: Self-efficacy drives performance gains with active learning. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(4), ar56. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-12-0344

Betts, T. (undated). How do we define active learning? Active Learning Network. https://activelearningnetwork.com

Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251-19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordta, 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

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

Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., Chambwe, N., Cintrón, D. L., Cooper, J. D., Dunster, G., Grummer, J. A., Hennessey, K., Hsiao, J., Iranon, N., Jones, L., Jordt, H., Keller, M., Lacey, M. E., Littlefield, C. E., … Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6476-6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117

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