Dr. Kirti Khanzode is an Associate Dean and academic leader with more than 20 years of experience in post-secondary education across three countries. Her work spans program leadership, curriculum design, faculty development, and the launch of new academic initiatives. At the newly established University of Niagara Falls Canada, she leads the Honours Bachelor of Business Administration program, where her focus is on innovation in teaching, learner-centred pedagogy, and building academic programs aligned with contemporary business needs. Her background includes extensive work in management education, academic administration, and developing learning models that respond to evolving student expectations and industry realities.
Founding an academic program at a newly launched university offers a rare leadership opportunity to rethink pedagogy by starting from the fundamentals. While regulatory requirements shape program design, the absence of entrenched expectations and reputational pressures in more mature institutions allows leaders to question long-standing assumptions about how learning is structured and delivered. By fundamentals, I mean returning to essential questions: what do we want students to be able to do, how they engage with learning, and how limited classroom time can support deeper understanding rather than content coverage.
These were precisely the questions that guided my thinking when I was appointed founding Associate Dean and tasked with launching the Honours Bachelor of Business Administration (HBBA) program at the newly opened University of Niagara Falls Canada. Rather than defaulting to lecture-centric approaches or inherited conventions, I chose to design a pedagogical model that aligned with how today’s learners engage, apply knowledge, and develop business judgment. Once that decision was made, the next challenge was to structure weekly classroom time intentionally to support those learning outcomes while also responding to the rapidly evolving business landscape.
Post-pandemic, remote and hybrid work have become prominent features of the business environment, requiring graduates to operate effectively across physical and virtual settings. This shift shapes not only the skills students need, but also how they learn. As I reflected on these demands, three realities of today’s learners became impossible to ignore:
First, the accessibility of information has fundamentally altered students’ relationship with content. Resources once requiring library access or faculty mediation are now available instantly. This prompted a reimagining of classroom time, blending guided instruction with active learning and selective elements of the flipped classroom, where pre-class engagement with content frees class time for discussion and application, while recognizing that a fully flipped model may be too ambitious for undergraduates.
Second, generative AI has reshaped learning. Students can research, draft, and analyze work almost instantly, intensifying questions about how learning occurs during instructional time. Faculty can no longer rely on explanation alone; teaching methods must actively engage students in sense-making, critical thinking, and application, cultivating understanding that cannot be automated.
Third, the broader digital ecosystem competes for students’ attention. Notifications, social media, and short-form content such as TikTok and Reels have shortened focus spans, influencing how classroom time should be structured to sustain engagement and manage cognitive load.
Taken together, these realities, the ubiquity of information, AI, and digital stimulation demonstrate that today’s learners engage with knowledge differently than previous generations. Responding requires not only curricular updates but deliberate rethinking of how learning time is designed to capture attention, sustain engagement, and support meaningful application.
To address these intertwined learner realities and business demands, we developed what we informally call the 1+2+1 pedagogical model, a structured approach to using four weekly instructional hours per course more intentionally. Each segment of the model is designed to align with the learner realities identified above.
The first hour is devoted to self-paced engagement with course materials on the learning management system, allowing students to work independently with foundational content prior to class. Unlike the traditional practice of assigning textbook chapters as pre-readings, these materials are intentionally curated by faculty as subject-matter experts and developed in collaboration with instructional designers to align with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles. The focus is on accessibility, engagement, and interactivity, ensuring the content is appropriate for self-directed learning and prepares students meaningfully for in-class engagement. Embedded knowledge checks enable students to assess their understanding of key concepts, while also allowing faculty to monitor engagement and completion through the learning management system. This approach was designed to reduce the cognitive burden of lengthy textbook readings and replace it with targeted, accessible preparation that directly supports deeper discussion, application, and sense-making during the subsequent two hours of classroom instruction.
The next two hours of in-class time are intentionally structured to build on students’ prior preparation rather than repeat it. Faculty use this time for targeted instruction that addresses misconceptions, deepens understanding of complex ideas, and connects theory to practice, followed by structured activities such as case-based discussion, problem-solving tasks, and guided analysis. Drawing on a modified flipped classroom approach, the emphasis shifts from content delivery to sense-making, with classroom time reserved for interpretation, application, and higher-order reasoning rather than simple transmission of information.
The final hour is dedicated to applied tutorials that function as a distinct learning phase rather than an extension of the lecture. Working in small teams, students apply concepts to realistic business scenarios, make decisions under constraints, and reflect on outcomes with structured feedback from instructors. This segment prioritizes practice, transfer of learning, and reflection, reinforcing conceptual understanding while simulating the collaborative and judgment-driven environments students are likely to encounter in professional business contexts.
Importantly, the 1+2+1 approach is not a collection of teaching techniques or a rebranding of familiar active-learning practices. It is a program-level pedagogical system in which each instructional hour is intentionally sequenced and structurally differentiated to serve a distinct learning purpose. The model shifts pedagogy from being instructor-dependent to institutionally designed, ensuring coherence across courses while allowing disciplinary flexibility. Learning is intentionally scaffolded rather than fragmented, with instructional time allocated to support how students engage with concepts, exercise judgment, and demonstrate understanding. The result is a coherent progression from independent preparation to collaborative sense-making and applied practice, one that minimizes passive content consumption and reinforces learning through deliberate use of time.
For institutions willing to rethink not just what they teach but how learning is designed and supported, pedagogical innovation offers a powerful lever for preparing graduates for an increasingly complex and uncertain business world.
Turning pedagogical innovation into tangible impact requires more than individual vision; it demands early engagement with stakeholders, openness to challenge, and alignment around a shared purpose. Rethinking pedagogy required collective ownership rather than top-down direction.
Early conversations with key stakeholders, particularly the Center for Teaching Excellence, ensured faculty received support aligned with the university’s vision and standards. Instructional designers translated pedagogical intent into practical course design, particularly for the self-paced learning components. Faculty involvement from the ideation stage fostered buy-in and constructive challenge, strengthening the approach through diverse perspectives and disciplinary insights. Innovation was framed not as a fixed blueprint but as dialogue, iteration, and shared problem-solving.
Institutional culture proved critical: readiness for change depended less on resources than on creating space for experimentation, aligning support units with academic priorities, and anchoring change in a clear educational purpose. The 1+2+1 model continues to be refined through ongoing feedback with faculty, students, and the Center for Teaching Excellence, assessing alignment with learning outcomes and adapting to emerging needs.
This experience reinforced a core lesson: meaningful change depends less on perfect solutions and more on clarity of vision, willingness to listen, and the ability to set aside preconceived notions in service of shared goals. Early engagement, openness to challenge, and iterative refinement can produce innovations that are practical, enduring, and scalable.