Vol. 1 No. 9 (2026), Articles
Vol. 1 No. 9 (2026)

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF EDUCATIONAL METHODS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Articles
Published 2026-09-24
Berdiyeva Nilufar
Master’s Student, Oriental University, Specialty 70410801 – Management (Educational Management)
PDF

Keywords

higher education, teaching method, didactics, constructive alignment, active learning, course design.

How to Cite

Berdiyeva Nilufar. (2026). THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF EDUCATIONAL METHODS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS. WORLD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION, 1(9), 156-165. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22944032
ACM ACS APA ABNT Chicago Harvard IEEE MLA Turabian Vancouver AMA

Download Citation

Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

Abstract

This thesis synthesizes the philosophical-epistemological, psychological, didactic, and organizational foundations of teaching methods in higher education. An integrative review distinguishes a method from a technique, technology, tool, and instructional format. The author proposes an Outcome-Content-Activity-Environment-Evidence model. Method effectiveness is attributed to alignment among the intended outcome, student activity, and assessment evidence rather than to novelty alone.

PDF

References

[1] O‘zbekiston Respublikasi. «Ta’lim to‘g‘risida»gi Qonun, O‘RQ-637-son, 23.09.2020. URL: https://lex.uz/docs/-5013007.

[2] O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Prezidentining PF-5847-son Farmoni. «O‘zbekiston Respublikasi oliy ta’lim tizimini 2030-yilgacha rivojlantirish konsepsiyasini tasdiqlash to‘g‘risida», 08.10.2019. URL: https://lex.uz/docs/-4545884 (murojaat sanasi: 30.07.2026).

[3] Biggs, John; Tang, Catherine. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 4th ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2011.

[4] Freeman, Scott; Eddy, Sarah L.; McDonough, Miles; Smith, Michelle K.; Okoroafor, Nnadozie; Jordt, Hannah; Wenderoth, Mary Pat. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014, 111(23), 8410–8415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111.

[5] Theobald, Elli J.; Hill, Mariah J.; Tran, Elisa; Agrawal, Sweta; et al. Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate STEM. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2020, 117(12), 6476–6483. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117.

[6] Mayer, Richard E. Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 2004, 59(1), 14-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14.

[7] Kirschner, Paul A.; Sweller, John; Clark, Richard E. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work. Educational Psychologist, 2006, 41(2), 75-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.

[8] Rapanta, Chrysi; Botturi, Luca; Goodyear, Peter; Guàrdia, Lourdes; Koole, Marguerite. Online university teaching during and after the COVID-19 crisis. Postdigital Science and Education, 2020, 2, 923–945. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y.

[9] OECD. OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en.

[10] UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report Team. Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in Education – A Tool on Whose Terms? Paris: UNESCO, 2023. URL: https://www.unesco.org/gem-report/en/technology.

[11] Miao, Fengchun; Holmes, Wayne. Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research. Paris: UNESCO, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535.

[12] Kasneci, Enkelejda; Sessler, Kathrin; Küchemann, Stefan; Bannert, Maria; Dementieva, Daryna; Fischer, Frank; et al. ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 2023, 103, 102274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274.

[13] CAST. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, Version 3.0. Lynnfield, MA: CAST, 2024. URL: https://udlguidelines.cast.org/.

[14] Deslauriers, Louis; McCarty, Logan S.; Miller, Kelly; Callaghan, Kristina; Kestin, Greg. Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2019, 116(39), 19251–19257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116.

[15] Prince, Michael. Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 2004, 93(3), 223–231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x.

[16] Ifenthaler, Dirk; Yau, Jane Yin-Kim. Utilising learning analytics to support study success in higher education: a systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 2020, 68, 1961–1990. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09788-z.

[17] Hodges, Charles; Moore, Stephanie; Lockee, Barb; Trust, Torrey; Bond, Aaron. The Difference Between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 2020. URL: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning.

[18] Pelletier, Kathe; McCormack, Mark; Muscanell, Nicole; Reeves, Jamie; Robert, Jenay; Arbino, Natalie; et al. 2024 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report, Teaching and Learning Edition. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE, 2024. URL: https://library.educause.edu/resources/2024/5/2024-educause-horizon-report-teaching-and-learning-edition.