Pedagogical Innovation in Higher Education as a Core Axis of Academic Quality
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55204/pcc.v6i1.e110Palabras clave:
Pedagogical innovation, higher education, academic quality, active learning.Resumen
Pedagogical innovation has become a strategic priority in contemporary higher education systems seeking to enhance academic quality and respond to social, technological, and professional transformations. This study presents a systematic bibliographic review analyzing the relationship between pedagogical innovation and academic quality in university contexts. Using a structured search strategy across international academic databases, peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2024 were examined and synthesized. The findings reveal four key dimensions linking innovation and quality: curriculum alignment, active learning methodologies, digital pedagogical integration, and institutional quality assurance frameworks. Evidence indicates that student-centered approaches, such as problem-based learning and flipped classrooms, significantly improve academic performance and engagement. Furthermore, digital transformation contributes positively to quality when grounded in pedagogical models that ensure instructional coherence. The study concludes that sustainable academic quality depends on the systemic and evidence-based integration of innovative practices supported by institutional leadership and continuous faculty development.
Descargas
Referencias
Baig, M. I., & Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2023). Flipped classroom in higher education: A systematic literature review and research challenges. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00430-5
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Car, L. T., Kyaw, B. M., Atun, R., et al. (2019). Digital problem-based learning in health professions: Systematic review and meta-analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(2), e12945. https://doi.org/10.2196/12945
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). (2015). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). https://ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/ESG/00/2/ESG_2015_616002.pdf
Felten, P. (2013). Principles of good practice in SoTL. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 121–125. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/teachlearninqu.1.1.121
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. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
Gibbs, G. (2010). Dimensions of quality. The Higher Education Academy. https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.creode.advancehe-document-manager/documents/hea/private/dimensions_of_quality_1568036697.pdf
Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293930180102
Jang, H. Y., Kim, H. J., & Kim, J. (2020). A meta-analysis of the cognitive, affective, and interpersonal outcomes of flipped classrooms in higher education. Education Sciences, 10(4), 115. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/10/4/115
Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 33(3), 10–17.
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. AAC&U.
Matei, L., & Iwinska, J. (Eds.). (2019). Quality assurance in higher education: A practical handbook. (Open access handbook; available via PDF).
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies (revised). U.S. Department of Education. https://www.ed.gov/media/document/evaluation-of-evidence-based-practices-online-learning-meta-analysis-and-review-of-online-learning-studies-revised-september-2010-107159.pdf
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
Soriano-Sánchez, J., & Jiménez-Vázquez, D. (2023). Innovative educational practices in higher education: A systematic review. Revista Innova Educación, 5(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.35622/j.rie.2023.05.002.en
Strelan, P., Osborn, A., & Palmer, E. (2020). The flipped classroom: A meta-analysis of effects on student performance across disciplines and education levels. Educational Research Review, 30, 100314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100314
UNESCO. (n.d.). Quality assurance in higher education (UNESCO resources and publications portal). https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000222126
UNESCO. (2022). Higher education global data report: Working document (includes a “Quality of higher education” dimension). https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000389859
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 María del Rosario Bringas Benavides, Gloria Janett Hernández Blancas
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Los autores conservan los derechos morales y patrimoniales de sus obras. Puesto que Prometeo Conocimiento Científico es una publicación de acceso abierto, los lectores pueden reproducir total o parcialmente su contenido siempre y cuando proporcionen adecuadamente el crédito a los autores correspondientes y a la revista misma.
Nuestra revista se rige por las politicas internacionales SHERPA/RoMEO: Revista verde: Permiten el autoarchivo tanto del pre-print (borrador de un trabajo) como del post-print (la versión corregida y revisada por pares) y hasta de la versión final (maquetada tal como saldrá publicada en la revista).
Véase también "Derechos de autor y licencias".
