The evidence for active learning is strong (Freeman et al., 2014), and most universities already have faculty who teach through projects, discussion and real problems. What decides whether that practice spreads, or quietly disappears when those faculty move on, is a small set of decisions that sit above any single course. They belong to the Vice-Chancellor or President, the Provost and the Deans.
1. Decide what the change is for
“Active learning” is a method, not a goal. Leaders who succeed name the institutional outcome first: graduates who can demonstrate capability, stronger employer relationships, or accreditation evidence collected as teaching happens. A clear purpose tells faculty why the extra effort matters and gives the leadership team a way to judge progress.
2. Protect faculty time
Research on why faculty do not change how they teach points again and again to the same barriers: lack of training, time and incentives (Brownell & Tanner, 2012). Leaders can address all three directly:
- a workload allowance for faculty redesigning a course
- recognition of teaching innovation in appraisal and promotion
- practical support, such as session designs, coaching and a community of practice
3. Change what gets assessed
Students take seriously what is assessed. If examinations still reward recall, project work will be treated as optional. Academic boards can allow project outputs, presentations, peer review and rubric-based assessment of capabilities to count towards grades, mapped to programme learning outcomes.
4. Own the industry relationships
When industry projects depend on one faculty member’s contacts, they end when that person leaves. A central owner for partnerships, standard agreements covering confidentiality and intellectual property, and one point of contact for employers turn goodwill into a lasting pipeline of real problems.
5. Decide in advance what evidence will count
High-impact practices deliver when they are done well (Kuh, 2008). Before a pilot starts, agree what success looks like, who will review the results and when. That turns the next decision, whether to scale, adapt or stop, into a matter of evidence rather than opinion.
The first 90 days
- Name a senior sponsor who removes obstacles, not only approves budgets
- Choose one programme and a focused cohort for a pilot
- Agree the success measures and the review date before teaching begins
- Give the pilot faculty time, support and visible recognition
Why top-down mandates rarely work on their own
Leadership decisions are necessary but not sufficient. In a review of 191 studies on changing undergraduate STEM teaching, Henderson, Beach and Finkelstein (2011) found that simply disseminating “best practice” materials, or issuing policy from the top, rarely changed what happened in classrooms. The strategies that worked were sustained over at least a semester, aligned with faculty beliefs about teaching, and combined individual support with changes to the wider environment. The leadership role is to create those conditions, not to prescribe every classroom technique.
A governance model for learning transformation
Institutions that sustain change usually set up a light but clear structure:
- A senior sponsor (often the Provost or Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education) who owns the outcome and removes obstacles.
- A small steering group with Deans, the quality assurance or IQAC lead, a student representative and the head of careers or industry relations.
- Faculty leads for each pilot programme, given time and recognition for the work.
- A termly review where pilot evidence is presented and decisions to scale, adapt or stop are recorded.
This structure also produces the governance evidence that accreditation frameworks look for, because decisions and their rationale are documented as they happen.
Questions to bring to the next leadership meeting
- Which one institutional outcome would we most like to improve in the next two years?
- Where are faculty already teaching this way, and what would help them most?
- Which programme has the leadership, demand and partner links to host a first pilot?
- What evidence would convince the academic board to scale it?
Frequently asked questions
What is the role of university leadership in teaching transformation?
Leaders set the institutional purpose, protect faculty time, change what assessment rules allow, own industry relationships and decide in advance how success will be judged. Individual faculty can change a course; only leadership can make those changes last across programmes.
How long does learning transformation take at a university?
A focused pilot usually runs for one semester, followed by a review. Extending a proven model across several programmes typically takes two to three academic years, depending on faculty capacity and governance cycles.
How can leaders encourage faculty to adopt active learning?
Give a workload allowance for course redesign, recognise teaching innovation in appraisal and promotion, provide practical support such as coaching and ready-to-run session designs, and create a community of practice so faculty learn from each other.
References
- 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. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111
- Brownell, S. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives, and tensions with professional identity? CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 339-346. doi:10.1187/cbe.12-09-0163
- Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
- Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952-984.