Dear colleagues,

We are seeking offers to undertake blind peer review of submissions to a forthcoming Special Issue of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education (JLDHE) focusing on the reach, value, and impact of Learning Development.

This special issue brings together contributions exploring how Learning Development (LD) reach, value, and impact can be conceptualised, evaluated, evidenced, and communicated within higher education.

All submissions were selected through a proposal stage and invited to develop into full manuscripts. We are now seeking reviewers who can support authors through constructive, developmental peer review, helping to strengthen contributions to this important conversation for the LD community.

If you would like to review one of the submissions below, please email the designated editorial contact. If you have not reviewed for JLDHE before, please include a brief description (up to 200 words) of your expertise, qualifications, experience and/or interest in the topic area.

Please note that, due to annual leave across the Editorial Board during the summer period, there may be a delay between expressions of interest being received and reviewer allocations being confirmed. We appreciate your patience and will be in touch as soon as possible.

Please also consider joining our reviewer register and listing your areas of expertise via: http://journal.aldinhe.ac.uk/index.php/jldhe/user/register

New reviewers are very welcome! JLDHE is committed to a supportive and developmental peer-review culture. We encourage colleagues at all stages of their academic and professional careers to get involved.

Theme 1: Defining and conceptualising Learning Development impact

No.	Type	Title and abstract	Editorial contact
2084	Opinion piece	Evidencing reach, value, and impact in a National Teaching Fellowship Scheme (NTFS) application: how can ‘professional services’ staff be best positioned?   In this opinion piece, we reflect on the underrepresentation of professional services staff as both applicants and winners of the Advance HE National Teaching Fellowship Scheme (NTFS). While the scheme is highly competitive, third space practitioners such as Learning Development practitioners should be well placed to achieve success given their student-facing roles. However, this is not the case. We explore the barriers encountered by professional services colleagues in being nominated by their institutions and in evidencing the requisite reach, value, and impact to compete for an award. Finally we propose some recommendations that institutions can follow to address systemic inequalities for professional services staff, and actions that staff can take for themselves to increase their visibility and likelihood of being recognised through the NTFS.	Chad McDonald: c.mcdonald@mmu.ac.uk
2123	Opinion piece	Value before reach: reframing Learning Development impact for policy and practice   This opinion piece challenges the tendency within higher education policy and practice to treat Reach as the starting point for evidencing Learning Development (LD) contribution. While Reach is attractive because it is visible, countable and aligned with institutional reporting, it can obscure the pedagogic value of LD work. Instead, LD impact should be conceptualised through a Value-Impact-Reach sequence rather than a Reach-Value-Impact model. Drawing on sociocultural learning theory, critical pedagogy and evaluation theory, Value is the quality of LD interventions in fostering student learning, agency, confidence and academic participation. Impact is understood as the embedding of these changes in learners, practices and institutional cultures. Reach matters, but only after Value has been established. This article concludes with practical recommendations for evidencing and communicating LD contributions without reducing them to scale.	Chad McDonald: c.mcdonald@mmu.ac.uk
2127	Paper	‘It helped instil confidence and self-belief’: what counts as impact beyond satisfaction metrics in Learning Development evaluation   In the current English higher education context, universities are increasingly expected to evidence student outcomes, educational quality and continuous improvement through visible indicators such as student experience, continuation, completion and progression. Learning Development, understood here as educational practice that supports students to navigate and participate in academic practices, may contribute to these outcomes, but its impact is difficult to evidence through activity, satisfaction or short-term self-report alone. This conceptual paper draws on academic literacies, Learning Development scholarship and educational evaluation literature, alongside illustrative secondary analysis of student feedback from assessment-related enhancement activity within a Russell Group institution. It argues that commonly used indicators are useful, but insufficient as evidence of meaningful educational change. Student comments about clarity, usable feedback, confidence and self-belief reveal perceived value and possible short-term outcomes but not sustained impact. The paper proposes a reach–perceived value–impact framework to support proportionate, credible and practice-enhancing Learning Development evaluation.	Laura Barnett: l.barnett@surrey.ac.uk
2126	Case study	From translation to transformation: how distinctive perspectives shape institutional change and reframe reach, value, and impact   Learning Developers contribute significantly to student development, yet their work is not easily defined at institutional level. Drawing on the experiences of [anonymised] University’s [anonymised team], this case study illustrates how Learning Development can move beyond a support function and towards partnership in institutional change, reshaping perceptions of its role and value. The [anonymised team] reaches diverse students across all levels and disciplines, teaching on more than 140 programmes. This breadth provides insights into learning, teaching and assessment, and the student experience that traditional academic roles may not offer. Student and colleague feedback suggests improved understanding of assessment expectations, confidence in academic practices, engagement with learning and a stronger culture of care. We focus on the team’s role in the university’s curriculum enhancement framework showing how everyday contributions to the student experience, alongside institutional engagement have led to strategic influence, reframing and extending the team’s impact, reach and value.	Laura Barnett: l.barnett@surrey.ac.uk
2122	Letter	Scholarship, professional identity, and the evolving field of Learning Development   This letter examines the role scholarship may play in consolidating Learning Development’s (LD) professional identity and contributing to the growth of a collective memory that extends beyond role boundaries, titles and institutional contexts. Drawing on findings from my PhD thesis, this letter highlights how strategic engagement with scholarship can function as a vehicle through which LD is able to showcase its reach, epistemic value and expertise in higher education (HE) practice. The letter also acknowledges the recent growth in LD doctoral research as evidence that this evolving professional field is beginning to establish firmer disciplinary and epistemological foundations.	Laura Barnett: l.barnett@surrey.ac.uk
2143	Opinion piece	On selective metrics sceptics and values as alibis: scrutinising metrics, moral language, and professional judgement in Learning Development   Much HE discourse explores the drawbacks of using externally imposed metrics to evaluate and improve practice, preferring instead values-led professional judgement. However, questions of the accountability and contestability of judgement in Learning Development have received less scrutiny, especially the role of moral language in shielding such judgement from challenge. This article argues for appropriate use of metrics in a field where studies of impact remain few, and for vigilance about how the language of values can affect the rigour of professional judgement. Calculations or spreadsheets can conceal values in the guise of objectivity. But value-laden judgements can themselves operate as covert metrics – sorting like a metric but without a metric’s legibility. Morally loaded language can convert contestable judgements into opaque verdicts that are socially costly to question. In this way, moral vocabulary such as harm, justice or inclusivity can also become a technology of concealment – a principled stand using values as alibis to escape contestation and scrutiny.	Chad McDonald: c.mcdonald@mmu.ac.uk

Theme 2: Methodologies for evaluating and measuring Learning Development success

No.	Type	Title and abstract	Editorial contact
2128	Paper	Evaluating the impact of self-selecting Learning Development interventions on the attainment and retention of level 6 students: a quantitative study   This research paper adopts quantitative approaches to explore the relationship between level 6 students’ attainment and their usage of Learning Development (LD) self-selecting provision. Bivariate analysis found that engagement with LD support had a statistically significant impact on students’ attainment, in line with existing studies. The most significant impact was for students with a declared disability, demonstrating the value of LD support for students ‘at risk’. Other predictor variables including attendance, prior attainment as measured by UCAS points, and demographic factors, were found to have significant associations with support use as well as with degree outcome. A key contribution of this paper is a multivariate analysis, which showed a statistically significant effect of LD support on degree outcome, even after controlling for these other variables.	Chad McDonald: c.mcdonald@mmu.ac.uk
2124	Case study	Supporting high quality evaluation and scholarly impact in Learning Development   Learning Development (LD) practitioners routinely evaluate educational initiatives, yet much of this evidence remains local with limited systemic influence. This paper argues that strengthening the impact of LD scholarship requires integrating research capacity building with anticipatory dissemination design. Two case studies illustrate this approach. The first discusses a Collaborative Research Talent Pool within an institutional Education Research Network, showing how structured collaborative inquiry, and distributed expertise enhance practitioner research and evaluation capability. The second reinterprets the 4C Impact Model as a framework for anticipating evidence needs across classroom, corridor, campus, and community contexts, promoting dissemination design as integral to knowledge mobilisation. The paper proposes an integrated framework linking evaluation practice, research capability, and dissemination to enhance the reach and usability of practitioner research in higher education.	Chad McDonald: c.mcdonald@mmu.ac.uk
2131	Opinion piece	Exploring the methodological approaches for evaluating, monitoring, and capturing the impact of diverse Learning Development delivery models   Capturing, monitoring, and evaluating the pedagogical impact of LD provision on students’ educational journey in UK higher education is often not considered at institutional level as the evaluation of subject specific teaching tends to take precedence over more nuanced provision. Based on our experiences of capturing, monitoring, and evaluating the pedagogical impact of LD provision across multiple universities in England and Wales, this opinion piece explores the suitability of mixed approaches to different types of LD provision. We emphasise the importance of embedding these three core elements during the planning of any LD provision and to identify impact factors relevant to the specific type of LD provision delivered. Finally, we explore the need for robust and scalable evaluation of LD provision as a way to provide credence to our staff and student partnerships, and to enhance students’ learning processes.	Chad McDonald: c.mcdonald@mmu.ac.uk
2132	Paper	A ripple effect: reflections on the value, impact, and reach of Learning Development from ALDinHE’s Steering Group   This paper shares the voices of seven members of the Association for Learning Development in Higher Education’s (ALDinHE) Steering Group, drawing on their experience-based insights into how the value and impact of Learning Development work can be evidenced effectively. A collaborative auto-ethnographic approach (Chang, 2013) was adopted to reflect on the vignettes. Our implementation of this method first allows each author’s voice to be heard individually, before being synthesised into collectively agreed themes in the concluding remarks. We present the output as an amalgamated set of reflections, drawn from diverse individual experiences, on how Learning Development practitioners recognise and capture examples of valuable and impactful practice in a way that is relatable to a wider audience. The paper is designed to make space for the reader to consider, to reflect and to adapt the ideas and perspectives surfaced and shared, and thereby contributes meaningfully to the evolution of LD.	Laura Barnett: l.barnett@surrey.ac.uk
2133	Opinion piece	Strengthening academic skills provision through data, evaluation and strategic alignment   This opinion piece argues how academic skills provision can gain greater institutional visibility and impact through alignment with Access and Participation Plans (APPs), academic quality processes, and institutional success measures. Drawing on experiences from [redacted] Academic Skills (HAS) at the [redacted university], we discuss the challenges of evidencing impact across varied practices, systems, and levels of curriculum embeddedness. We argue that integrating academic skills work into processes such as Continuing Enhancement Planning (CEP) enables interventions to be more effectively planned, recognised, and evaluated against priorities including continuation, awarding gaps, and student outcomes. While acknowledging limitations in data collection and consistency, we suggest that engagement with institutional evaluation frameworks, including the Office for Students’ impact evaluation approach, can strengthen the strategic positioning and recognition of Learning Development work within higher education institutions.	Steve Briggs: steve.briggs@beds.ac.uk
2129	Paper	Dynamic portfolio development scaffolding educational leadership in higher education   Higher education leaders operate within increasingly complex environments characterised by competing priorities, including student outcomes, financial sustainability, and policy accountability. Despite the growing availability of institutional data, decision-making is often constrained by fragmentation, overabundance of metrics, and reliance on subjective interpretation. This paper introduces a dual-lens analytical methodology, operationalised through the proprietary Chroma platform, designed to support more coherent and evidence-informed portfolio decision-making. The approach integrates impact-oriented indicators (such as student satisfaction, recruitment, and graduate outcomes) with measures of implementation effort (including cost, retention, and resource utilisation). These metrics are systematically normalised, indexed, and internally benchmarked to reflect institutional context, enabling meaningful comparison across programmes and subject areas. The resulting impact–effort matrix provides a dynamic visualisation of relative performance, supporting prioritisation and strategic alignment. Distinctively, the methodology emphasises internal benchmarking and configurability, allowing institutions to align analytical weightings with evolving strategic priorities. A practitioner case study illustrates how the approach can surface structural patterns, inform curriculum redesign, and enhance decision-making transparency. The paper argues that such contextualised, adaptable analytics can strengthen institutional leadership by providing a structured yet flexible framework for navigating complexity and supporting sustainable portfolio development.	Steve Briggs: steve.briggs@beds.ac.uk
2121	Paper	What counts as good causal evidence? Outcome harvesting and the case for purpose-sensitive evidence in Learning Development   Education-focused roles in higher education face growing pressure to evidence their impact. For this, the Office for Students’ Standards of Evidence (SoE) have taken centre stage in determining what ‘good’ evidence looks like. The SoE define causal evidence (Type 3) narrowly, reserving it for designs that use comparison or control groups. We argue that this framing disadvantages Learning Development and allied work: many outcomes are systemic, shaping the policies, cultures, and curricula that affect everyone, and thus admit no comparison group. Yet comparison groups are only one way to warrant a causal claim; such claims can also be supported by tracing how an outcome came about and weighing the rival explanations against it. We illustrate this through an evaluation of an institutional Education Career Track using Outcome Harvesting. The approach produced a credible, contribution-focused account of impact without constructing a comparison group. We thus suggest that methodologies like Outcome Harvesting present a valuable and transferable framework for evaluating the impact of education-focused roles in higher education.	Laura Barnett: l.barnett@surrey.ac.uk

Theme 3: Strategic integration and institutional demonstration of Learning Development impact

No.	Type	Title and abstract	Editorial contact
2112	Case study	Learning Development as strategic infrastructure: digitising mandatory assessment and feedback training to advance equity, quality, and institutional impact   This case study demonstrates how Learning Development (LD) can underpin institutional initiatives, illustrated through the digitisation of mandatory Effective Assessment and Feedback (EAF) staff training. Originally a four-hour face-to-face workshop, EAF was redesigned as a fully asynchronous, interactive, accessible programme to meet escalating demand. The LD-led redesign used storyboard-driven design and embedded knowledge checks to ensure meaningful engagement, integrating assessment literacy, design principles and feedback practice aligned with sector guidance. Asynchronous delivery addressed barriers of time and place while improving sustainability. Evidence indicates immediate impact: 610 staff completed the training in the first three months, compared to approximately a year under the workshop model. EAF’s implementation coincides with sustained NSS assessment and feedback gains, rising from 71% in 2021 to 89% in 2025, seven points above sector average. While causal attribution is not claimed, well-designed asynchronous training can serve as meaningful strategic infrastructure and can be transferable for LD practitioners.	Steve Briggs: steve.briggs@beds.ac.uk
2136	Paper	Integrating Learning Development into Access and Participation Plans: a document analysis of evidence, gaps, and strategic opportunities   Despite growing evidence of Learning Development’s (LD) contribution to student outcomes, LD remains largely invisible within Access and Participation Plans (APPs), the mechanism through which English universities evidence strategies for reducing inequalities of opportunity. This study presents an AI-assisted qualitative document analysis of 268 APPs on the Office for Students register, applying a hybrid deductive–inductive thematic approach. LD-related provision is nominally present in 97.4% of plans but explicitly named in only 14.1%, typically framed as generic study skills rather than specialist provision, and rarely connected to a Theory of Change (ToC) (9.7%). Six inductive themes are identified, including the dominance of deficit framing and LD’s disconnection from institutional evidence frameworks. Six recommendations are proposed: naming LD as a distinct service; embedding LD within a ToC; adopting academic literacies framing; disaggregating LD from pastoral support; linking LD to named equity groups; and involving LD professionals in APP design and governance.	Laura Barnett: l.barnett@surrey.ac.uk
2089	Case study	Making Learning Development visible through programmatic support for Communities of Practice   This paper presents a case study which illustrates how Learning Development (LD) practice can be made visible through institutional mechanisms that recognise Communities of Practice (CoPs). In higher education, LD is often distributed across academic, professional, leadership and specialist roles, meaning that LD learning and innovation is typically enacted through peer-to-peer exchanges and collaborations. The dispersed and collaborative nature of LD work frequently exacerbates its institutional invisibility. In this case study, we draw on our research to show how peer-led educator CoPs in higher education can make LD practice visible through shared language development, cross-boundary networks for learning and sharing and collective outputs. We discuss how our findings are informing the development of [authors’ institution]’s Educator Capability Framework and Program. We reflect on a case study on how mechanisms for recognition and support for CoPs can enhance the institutional visibility of LD practice.	Steve Briggs: steve.briggs@beds.ac.uk
2087	Opinion piece	Making the case for Learning Development with stakeholder interests in mind   The Learning Development function features prominently in higher education, yet there is little consensus on its impact, which can lead to inconsistencies in engagement, usage, and allocation of resources. This opinion piece outlines core concerns of key stakeholder groups – students, academic staff, and administrators – and explores approaches to gathering evidence, engaging in conversation, and crafting messages that address each group’s interests and promote buy-in.	Steve Briggs: steve.briggs@beds.ac.uk

N.B. It is essential to be respectful of the writers of submissions to our journal, especially when they are at the draft stages. Please do not comment publicly on the list or elsewhere on any aspect of the paper titles or abstracts above.

We look forward to hearing from you.

With warm wishes on behalf of the Editorial Board,
Chad

Dr Chad McDonald

Managing Editor, Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education