A Qualitative Approach Based Comprehensive Analysis on Quality of Education with Pedagogical Innovations in Higher Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22399/ijcesen.679Keywords:
Qualitative approach, Pedagogical innovations, Higher education, Quality of education, Education impact, Pedagogical innovation outcomeAbstract
One of the mainstays of progressing in society is higher levels of education. Because of this, and many other recent academic and technical breakthroughs, radical approaches to higher education are now possible. A number of problems, however, arise within this model concerning the potential for a direct link between innovation and the quality that students perceive in higher education. Therefore, this research aims to analyze theconnection, identifying the essential features of educational innovation that affect quality, and demonstrating various practices along these lines. In order to investigate how students and academicians feel about the active learning strategies already in place, this research takes a qualitative approach. Students and academicians were the target audience for a closed-ended analysis used to gather the data. The unforeseen impact of the global pandemic on higher education has prompted a thorough reevaluation of all aspects of the current system, including how to make better use of technology in the classroom. Although it is known that bringing lessons online can be accomplished swiftly, there are significant discrepancies in early claims regarding quality, acceptance, completion, and learning. Therefore, it is essential to review the current technological pedagogical innovations and practices. This research employs an exploratory approach to analyze contemporary technical, organizational, and educational trends and difficulties in an effort to better comprehend the full scope of the problem. The development of integrated academics, with an emphasis on both research and practice to update pedagogical activities, requires significant investment if the quality of instructions and learning in higher education are to be improved. This research aims to briefly analyze the methodological techniques to check if the novel pedagogical practices are being used in higher education institutions and their impact on quality of education with their adoption.
References
Benson, R., & Brack, C. (2010). Online learning and assessment in higher education. In Chandos Publishing. eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781780631653
Bortsov, Yu.S.; Starygina, A.M. (2015). The strategy of innovative development of higher education in Russian Federation: opportunities and constraints. Available in: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/strategiya-innovatsionnogo-razvitiya-vysshego-obrazovaniya-v-rossii-vozmozhnosti-i-ogranicheniya.
Chen, B., Chang, Y., Ouyang, F., & Zhou, W. (2018). Fostering student engagement in online discussion through social learning analytics. The Internet and Higher Education. 37, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.12.002.
Crook, C.; Schofield, L. (2017).The video lecture. The Internet and Higher Education. 34, 56-64.
Glavas, C., & Schuster, L. (2020). Design principles for electronic work integrated learning (eWIL). The Internet and Higher Education, 47, 100760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100760.
Mavri, A., Ioannou, A., & Loizides, F. (2021). Cross-organisational Communities of Practice: enhancing creativity and epistemic cognition in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education. 49, 100792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100792.
Miller, I. (2000). Distance learning — a personal history. The Internet and Higher Education. 3(1–2), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1096-7516(00)00030-0.
Oosthoek, H. (2013). Higher education and new technologies. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Rambe, P., & Mlambo, S. (2014). Using digital storytelling to externalise personal knowledge of research processes: The case of a Knowledge Audio repository. The Internet and Higher Education. 22, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.04.002.
Rovai, A. P. (2009). The internet and higher education. In Chandos Publishing eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781780631622.
Sadkovoy, V.P. (2014). Mechanisms of state reforming of higher professional education in Ukraine. Actual Problems of the Humanities and Natural Sciences. 7(2), 183-187.
Song, Y., & Kong, S. C. (2016). RETRACTED: Affordances and constraints of BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) for learning and teaching in higher education: Teachers’ perspectives. The Internet and Higher Education. 32, 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.08.004.
SulimA, YE.N. Innovative processes in Ukrainian higher pedagogical education. Domestic and Foreign Pedagogy. 2(48), 82-91, 2018.
Vernyakhovskaya, V.N. (2012) Promising forms of technology transfer in higher education. Science and Innovation. 6(112). 47-50.
Verniakhovskaya, V. (2019). Higher education as a key component of the national innovation system. Science and Innovations. 5(195), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.29235/1818-9857-2019-5-45-49.
Vigentini, L., Liu, D. Y., Arthars, N., & Dollinger, M. (2020). Evaluating the scaling of a LA tool through the lens of the SHEILA framework: A comparison of two cases from tinkerers to institutional adoption. The Internet and Higher Education. 45, 100728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100728.
Wartman, S. A. (2015). The Transformation of Academic Health Centers: Meeting the Challenges of Healthcare's Changing Landscape. Elsevier Inc.
Watted, A., & Barak, M. (2017). Motivating factors of MOOC completers: Comparing between university-affiliated students and general participants. The Internet and Higher Education, 37. 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.12.001.
Xie, K., Di Tosto, G., Lu, L., & Cho, Y. S. (2018). Detecting leadership in peer-moderated online collaborative learning through text mining and social network analysis. The Internet and Higher Education. 38, 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.04.002.
Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: the challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments. 31(2), 863–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180.
Anthony, B., Kamaludin, A., Romli, A., Raffei, A. F. M., Phon, D. N. a. E., Abdullah, A., Ming, G. L., Shukor, N. A., Nordin, M. S., & Baba, S. (2019). Exploring the role of blended learning for teaching and learning effectiveness in institutions of higher learning: An empirical investigation. Education and Information Technologies. 24(6), 3433–3466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09941-z.
Ashour, S. (2020). Quality higher education is the foundation of a knowledge society: where does the UAE stand? Quality in Higher Education. 26(2), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2020.1769263.
Averill, R. M., & Major, J. (2020). What motivates higher education educators to innovate? Exploring competence, autonomy, and relatedness – and connections with wellbeing. Educational Research. 62(2), 146–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2020.1755877.
Carayannis, E. G., & Morawska-Jancelewicz, J. (2022). The Futures of Europe: Society 5.0 and Industry 5.0 as driving forces of future universities. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13(4). 3445–3471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00854-2.
De Mello Silva, M. F., & De Vargas, E. R. (2021). Quality assurance systems: enemies or allies of innovation in higher education institutions? Quality Assurance in Education. 30(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/qae-09-2020-011.
Deshmukh, S. R. (2020). Social realities of higher education in the age of uncertainties. SMART MOVES JOURNAL IJELLH. 8(4), 279-289. https://doi.org/10.24113/ijellh.v8i4.10547.
Evans, C., Howson, C. K., Forsythe, A., & Edwards, C. (2020). What constitutes high quality higher education pedagogical research? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 46(4), 525–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1790500.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 International Journal of Computational and Experimental Science and Engineering
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
