Pedagogical Innovation in Higher Education as a Core Axis of Academic Quality
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55204/pcc.v6i1.e110Keywords:
Pedagogical innovation, higher education, academic quality, active learning.Abstract
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.
Downloads
References
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
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 María del Rosario Bringas Benavides, Gloria Janett Hernández Blancas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors retain the moral and patrimonial rights of their works. Since Prometeo Journal is an open access publication, readers can fully or partially reproduce its content as long as they properly credit the corresponding authors and the journal itself.
Our journal is governed by the international policies SHERPA/RoMEO: Green journal: They allow the self-archiving of both the pre-print (draft of a paper) and the post-print (the version corrected and reviewed by peers) and even the final version ( layout as it will be published in the journal).
See also "Copyright and licences".
