ELEP Case Study 3: Curriculum development using reparative approaches

Bringing reparative methodology into the curriculum to engage with diverse learners.

ELEP Case Study 3: Curriculum development using reparative approaches (a downloadable Word version)

Background

In 2021, University College London (UCL) published its report following a eugenics inquiry three years before. What was interesting about this report was the inclusion of education-related recommendations, signaling a recognition that reckoning with legacies of harm (in this case the legitimisation and propagation of eugenics) meant going beyond apology and the de-naming of buildings towards intentionally confronting the educational implications of post-inquiry work.

Introduction

The report’s educational recommendations have important implications for learning development activities. In this case study we explore three approaches to curriculum development and the incorporation of reparative pedagogies. This case study aims to highlight:

The importance of small but visible changes in the curriculum to ensuring that the university continues to ‘confront and address’ its legacy.
The willingness of students to engage with UCL’s history of eugenics both in their classes but also as co-researchers.
Opportunities for using collaborative methods, including reflective dialogue, for curriculum development.

Key terms and ideas

Ableism is discrimination or prejudice against individuals with disabilities. It has strong links with eugenics.

Culturally sensitive teaching is an educational approach that acknowledges and respects the diverse cultural backgrounds of students. It involves incorporating students' cultural references in all aspects of learning, creating an inclusive environment where all students feel valued and understood.

Reparative pedagogy refers to educational practices aimed at addressing and rectifying historical and ongoing injustices. It involves creating learning environments that acknowledge past harms and promote healing and justice.

Reparative approaches in education

Reparative pedagogies draw on an expansive and non-instrumental understanding of educators' work. Understood this way, reparative approaches in the classroom become a form of reparation beyond the material and epistemic (Sriprakash, 2022). As Paulson (2023) argues, these approaches can encompass engagement with imagining and creating institutional futures where multiplicity, truth-telling, care, and responsibility are prioritised as educational issues.

Figure 1. Features of reparative pedagogies.

Reparative teaching aims to think about the ways that teaching and learning relationships can be developed to address harm and harm doing in community. Reparative approaches can draw on a broad range of strategies to engage learners in active learning. It can draw from arts-based methods such as photography, drama, and poetry to foster affective engagement with curricular materials.

Working with difficult and/or sensitive issues

There is little consensus about what constitutes a difficult and/or sensitive issue in higher education (HE), not least due to the wide range of intersecting and context-specific factors at play in any classroom or within any one research team and their participants. According to Lowe and Jones (2010) most issues in educational contexts can be ‘sensitive’ if not handled in the right way. Sensitivity can be thought about from two perspectives – those relating to identity (for example disability, gender, or ethnicity) or from experience (for example, harm, gender-based violence, or trauma).

Teaching sensitive topics often requires a meticulous and thoughtful approach to planning teaching activities – examples of such topics include evolution, discrimination, colonialism, and genocide, all of which necessitate sensitivity and a deep understanding of their complex and emotional nature. For example, Reiss (2019:352) explains that evolution is often considered sensitive,

"for a not inconsiderable number of people, it is so because of perceived conflict with religious views and also because it may be existentially disturbing for some".

This sensitivity requires educators to approach the topic with care and respect for students' diverse backgrounds and beliefs.

From this standpoint, by acknowledging the complex and emotional nature of eugenics, particularly its legacy at the university, we were keen to use inclusive and culturally relevant pedagogies that respected diverse perspectives and fostered critical understanding among students.

Examples of reparative pedagogy in curriculum design

We share three examples designed to prompt thinking, discussion, and reflection about the ways we attempted to incorporate reparative pedagogies into existing module content (Table 1).

A team of ELEP fellows, module leads, and the ELEP team collaborated to trial small but important adjustments to three existing modules.

Table 1. Modules adjusted with ELEP.
Discipline	Focus
Example 1: Geography	Linking the teaching of statistical methods to eugenics histories and legacies at the university. Using small scale changes to module materials and classroom activities.
Example 2: Archaeology	Incorporating seminar activities that address harmful legacies including the history of eugenics and the naming of museums.
Example 3: Education	Developing a session that addresses the university’s history and legacy of eugenics in the context of disability studies and to critically consider culturally sensitive approaches to teaching the eugenics legacy.

Example 1: Geography

Developing a research methods module to make links to UCL’s eugenics legacy.

Department: Geography (Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences)
Module lead: Dr Rory Coulter
Postgraduate (FHEQ Level 7)
Module size: 20

We began to explore the relationship between histories of quantitative methods, ethics, and the misuse of numbers leading to misrepresentation of research findings in Geography. The university played an important role in the early development of statistical methods and this legacy is both significant and contentious. In conversations between the module lead and the ELEP team, it was agreed that it was important to raise awareness among students to understand the university’s role in history of statistics and to offer opportunities to critically engage with the ways eugenics legacies appear and are presented using statistics. We agreed that activities included in the session would address the following questions:

What is eugenics?
What was the university’s role in the development of eugenics?
What is the relationship between ethics, eugenics, and the university?

The team worked with the module lead to review the existing content and look for relevant places to include new content related to relationships and correlations between variables. Once we had an agreement on what and where changes could be made, we prepared changes for three of the module’s ten sessions and devised a pre-module introduction for the virtual learning environment.

Our aim was to develop students’ knowledge and understanding of the relationship between the histories of the development of quantitative methods and ethical considerations. We wanted to avoid ‘list’ teaching of facts about eugenicists which could be upsetting or uncomfortable. Instead, we took a more holding approach to deliver difficult and sensitive content about the misuse of statistics and eugenics ideologies. Key ‘fathers’ of statistics, such as Galton and Pearson, who developed many of the early versions of these methods, were also ‘fathers’ of eugenics. We wanted to support students to reflect on their own relationships to this troubling past and to think about the implications for their own futures and careers, bringing in a reparative approach to this teaching.

Example activity 1

One activity introduced was an open-ended discussion activity so that students could explore and challenge ideas in a supportive way. We did this by giving students a set of images related to past, present, and future eugenics with a commentary on the back of the images (Image 1). They were encouraged by the tutor to ask questions, to make connections, and to listen to the perspectives of others. Our reparative focus was not to assume some chronological distance from the events covered in previous sessions, but to intentionally complexify issues of legacy. The card activity was also intended to enable students to bring their own histories and experiences of eugenics ideologies, even if they did not necessarily describe them as such, and to change the dynamic between tutor and students so that students understood their perspectives were valued in the session.

Example 2: Archaeology

Developing seminar work to promote student engagement

Department: Institute of Archaeology (Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences)
Module lead: Professor Alice Stevenson
Level: Undergraduate (FHEQ Level 6)
Module size: 25

This example focused on enhancing student engagement in seminars, specifically those linked to lectures that addressed controversial or contested topics. The emphasis was to support students’ abilities to work collaboratively in teams, both face-to-face and remotely, to model and support critical thinking, to listen to others and provide constructive feedback, and to promote deep learning from retrieving and integrating information based on given tasks. While students may have a lot of experience of doing this, whether this experience would be enough to support engagement with difficult topics, like eugenics, was of interest to us.

In a similar vein to the first example, the project team met with the module lead to listen carefully to the tensions, challenges, and opportunities she faced teaching a module that covered diverse topics each week, usually linked to potentially sensitive topics such as museum ethics, decolonising collections, and working with human remains. We used activities that afforded variety in student grouping so that diverse views and experience could be shared and heard, but also where activities could be interactive but contained (Pace, 2022) within the session, reducing the need for students to do excessive pre-session preparation (not a successful technique with previous cohorts). The ELEP team researched and pitched a range of active learning techniques to the module lead; rather than imposing a model or approach, we wanted our collaborative development work to feel collaborative, creative, and affirming.

Example activity 2

We designed three seminar sessions and were interested to hear the lead’s reflections on the extent to which these activities supported engagement.

Session 1: using Mentimeter (an interactive presentation tool) for label writing of artefacts. The aim was to facilitate students critical thinking and collaboration skills in writing accessible and inclusive labels for objects that could be perceived as contentious or sensitive.
Session 2: using Microsoft Whiteboard (an online collaboration tool) to encourage students to discuss and build collections of resources related to the movement and care of human remains within museums. Here students would be searching for and negotiating the inclusion of good quality sources around a contentious issue.
Session 3: carousel activities (where students move between several related tasks) to support discussion activities on the de-naming of museums connected to eugenicists (Image 2).

These activities enabled the tutor to manage the introduction of potentially contentious or sensitive materials in inclusive ways, giving students agency around their own involvement and contribution to classroom discussion. This approach avoided the need for open discussions or debates where polarised views become problematic and where the loudest voices can often be heard.

Example 3: Education

Culturally sensitive teaching and UCL’s eugenics legacy

Department: UCL Arts and Sciences (Faculty of Arts and Humanities)
Module lead: Dr Nicole Brown (UCL Institute of Education)
Level: Undergraduate (FHEQ Levels 5 & 6)
Module size: 25

The aim was to critically explore the teaching and learning implications of addressing the historical links with the eugenics movement at the university in a culturally sensitive manner. Culturally sensitivity was a focus for this module lead as students are drawn from a diverse range of countries (in 2025, 50% of UCL’s students were international). Drawing on notions such as ‘uncomfortable’ pedagogies and ‘troubling’ student emotions in the classroom (Xu and Stahl, 2023), we investigated how students encounter this curriculum content. We wanted to ask:

What does culturally sensitive teaching of eugenics legacies/histories look like in the classroom?
How does attending culturally sensitive teaching improve students’ experiences of learning difficult knowledge such as eugenics?

Example activity 3

We planned a standalone session using a culturally sensitive approach to highlight the historical and contemporary implications of eugenics and promote critical thinking. Our aim was to help students understand eugenics' impact on various communities and address ableism, as discussions on education futures often exclude disabled students (Morgan & Tutton, 2024). We encouraged students to consider how eugenics influences future-focused thinking and to support sensitive discussions on marginalisation and stigmatisation, including the institution's role. Additionally, we aimed to foster respect for diverse backgrounds and experiences, ensuring inclusive discussions. We wanted students to reflect on eugenics through their cultural and moral lenses, fostering a deeper understanding of its legacy at the university. Most importantly, we encouraged students to challenge discriminatory ideas, promoting a more just and equitable worldview.

We created a two-hour hybrid session, starting with a presentation on the history of eugenics using images and a timeline to show its global reach in the early twentieth century. To avoid presenting it as a distant history, we developed a timeline activity where students, both in-person and online, discussed eugenics and linked it to events from their own countries. This highlighted the past, present, and future dimensions of eugenics, allowing students to choose their starting points for discussion.

Facilitating a discussion, students shared their contributions, emphasising the continuities and changes in eugenics practices and perceptions. Our team reflected on whether interactive activities like the timelines helped focus on the university’s legacy in the eugenics movement and the need for reparative justice. We felt this approach effectively engaged students and connected historical events at the university with their own cultural backgrounds and experiences.

Key reflections and conclusion

“A ‘future-focused’ university curriculum must relate to the past and address how individuals can challenge injustices, whether small or significant” (Sriprakash, 2023:792).

Key themes in this work relate to students welcoming the opportunity to engage with this difficult history through structured encounters with the content logically integrated into the curriculum.

Students were positive about learning the history of eugenics within UCL. They valued the content and listening to peers, without finding the approaches problematic or jarring.

Our small but structured approach to changing content and teaching practices, rather than introducing a completely new way of working, appeared to pay off, addressing concerns about ‘getting it wrong’.

Introducing discomfort in the classroom needed careful negotiation. Collaborators with experience in teaching contentious topics found their personal values and commitment to reflecting this post-inquiry work overrode any qualms.

Examples shared demonstrate what Gravett and Lyons-Baker (2024) call an ‘affective flip’ in the classroom. This term refers to a significant emotional shift in students, where they move from discomfort or resistance to engagement and deeper understanding. Observing this phenomenon in practice was significant learning for our team.
Our examples show the willingness of students to participate in new activities. Tutors created spaces where boundaries of discomfort could be slightly stretched but never too far.

Dr Karp (2019) writes that working as a team of academics, professional services staff, and students was seen as important as a reparative tool. Our reflection highlighted this as an example of authentic engagement with a problematic legacy. We advocate for staff and students working together to address these histories and legacies using dialogic methods of learning and development. This contrasts with methods that deliver ‘facts’ (e.g., a compulsory module on eugenics for all staff and students). Reparative pedagogies rely on exploring and unpacking complexity in community (Paulson, 2023).

Acknowledgements

This work outlined in this case study was completed in partnership with UCL module leads Dr Rory Coulter, Dr Nicole Brown, and Professor Alice Stevenson. UCL ELEP fellows Yuncong Liu, Xiaoyan Guo, and Havva Görkem Altunbas carried out research and development activities with module leads and students. They presented their work at the BERA Annual Conference in 2024.

Further resources

The content explored in this case study is explored in more detail in the JLDHE article, Can education heal? Staff and students exploring reparative pedagogies in the context of institutional harms in higher education.

A plethora of UCL teaching toolkits are available to support teaching across and beyond UCL.

References

Altunbas, H.G. et al. (2025) “Can education heal? Staff and students exploring reparative pedagogies in the context of institutional harms in higher education”, Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education [Preprint], (35). Available at: https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi35.1337.

Gravett, K. and Lygo-Baker, S. (2024) ‘Affective encounters in higher education’, Studies in Higher Education [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2332427.

Karp, D. R. (2019). The little book of restorative justice for colleges and universities: Repairing harm and rebuilding trust in response to student misconduct. Simon and Schuster.

Morgan, H., & Tutton, R. (2024). Enabling futures? Disability and sociology of futures. Journal of Sociology, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14407833241248193

Pace, J. L. (2022) Learning to Teach Controversial Issues in a Divided Society: Adaptive Appropriation of Pedagogical Tools. Democracy and Education, 30 (1), Article 1. Available at: https://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol30/iss1/1

Paulson, J. (2023) ‘Reparative pedagogies’, in Decolonizing Education for Sustainable Futures. Bristol University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.51952/9781529226119.

Reiss, M.J., (2019) Evolution education: treating evolution as a sensitive rather than a controversial issue. Ethics and Education, 14(3), pp.351-366.

Sriprakash, A. (2023) ‘Reparations: theorising just futures of education’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 44(5), pp. 782–795. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2022.2144141.

UCL. (2021) UCL Strategic Plan 2022-27. Available at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/strategic-plan-2022-27

Xu, W., & Stahl, G.D. (2021) Teaching Chinese with Chinese characteristics: ‘difficult’ knowledge, discomforting pedagogies and student engagement. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 31, 57 - 73.