2 Approaches to Embedding and Sustaining Active Learning Across the Institution
This section brings together contributions that highlight how practitioners have sought to embed and sustain active learning across all disciplines and places of learning at their institutions. Aligning with the analysis offered in Section 1, they all adopt an approach that explicitly considers important parts of the system that need to align to bring about active learning for all.
Gower’s opinion piece highlights the elements that need to be in place to sustain staff engagement with active learning. Gower emphasises that while vital, a strategic approach and commitment from senior leadership on their own are not sufficient to make active learning happen for all. Policies, regulations, curriculum templates and quality assurance processes all need to align with active learning principles and intent. Spaces for staff to grow and develop their active learning teaching practice, such as within communities of practice, are also vital so that staff can build confidence and collective expertise.
The next three contributions all illustrate the ways in which they and their institutions have sought to align these and other system parts to make active learning happen for all.
Nicholson et al. explore their strategy-led integrated approach to embedding active learning in curricula. Set within a clear strategic intent, they employ an institution-wide Innovation Scholar Scheme that seeks to grow and sustain active learning institutional capacity by building communities of practice. The authors recognise the significant challenge for any strategic direction is to balance consistency of approach with scope for innovation and agency within different disciplines, which the Innovation Scholar Scheme approach seeks to address. Their contribution illustrates important system components across different leverage points working in alignment to facilitate consistent and sustained implementation of active learning.
Perkins and Thomson’s case study explores their institutional approach to advancing active learning underpinned by a Global Changemaker Curriculum Framework (GCCF). This framework operates across five global campuses, all of which have the same policies and procedures, which supports the adoption of active learning. They engage staff through a three-pronged approach that combines raising staff awareness and buy-in, structured training to encourage experimentation and reflection, and providing a range of active learning toolkits, methods and resources for staff to choose from. They illustrate how by taking a principle-led sustained strategic approach and aligning this with other important system components that includes structural considerations such policies and regulations, as well as supporting staff buy-in can help secure active learning for all.
The case study contribution by Dale et al. also illustrates how, set within a clear and sustained effort and strategic intent, their university has gone about aligning relevant university system parts to make active learning happen for all. They offer a clearly articulated strategic purpose underpinned by core values and enabled by important system components; these include physical and digital infrastructure, reward and recognition (for teaching) and supporting staff and student preparedness (for active learning). Curriculum design, assessment and feedback and student skills development are also among the components explicitly considered. Dale et al. highlight the importance of staff and student confidence and preparedness, noting some resistance from both staff and students and steps they have taken to encourage and support engagement and shift mindsets. Section 3 and Section 5 provide a deeper dive into shifting mindsets in staff and students respectively.
