Keywords
quality management in higher education
constructive alignment
engaged learning
learning outcomes
higher education
active learning
How to Cite
Abstract
The article addresses the role of innovative teaching methods within the system of quality management in higher education. The aim of the study is to analyse to what extent active learning methods can serve as effective instruments for improving the quality and effectiveness of the teaching process, as well as to identify the conditions that determine their successful implementation at the micro (individual course), meso (study programme) and macro (institutional quality assurance system) levels. The analysis is based on a review of national and international literature and an interpretation of the issue in light of the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). The key theoretical framework is the concept of constructive alignment, which emphasises the need for coherence between learning outcomes, teaching methods and assessment. The article demonstrates that innovative teaching methods can enhance the effectiveness of achieving learning outcomes and support the process of continuous quality improvement in higher education, provided that they are systematically embedded in institutional structures. At the same time, the study identifies potential risks related to the formalisation of innovation, student overload, excessive technologisation of teaching, and superficial implementation of methods without a genuine alignment with learning outcomes. The article concludes that innovative teaching methods do not constitute value in themselves; rather, they can function as instruments of quality management only when integrated into coherent processes of instructional design, evaluation and continuous improvement of the teaching process.
References
Bates T., Teaching in a Digital Age. Guidelines for Designing Teaching and Learning, Vancouver 2019.
Barr R.B., Tagg J., From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education, „Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning” 1995, nr 27(6).
Biggs J., Tang C., Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Maidenhead 2011.
Chernikova O., Heitzmann N., Stadler M., Holzberger D., Seidel T., Fischer F., Simulation‑Based Learning in Higher Education: A Meta‑Analysis, „Review of Educational Research” 2020, nr 90(4).
Chudak T., Model glottodydaktyczny odwróconej klasy (flipped classroom) w nauczaniu języków obcych, „E‑Mentor” 2022, nr 3 (95).
Freeman S., Eddy S.L., McDonough M., Smith M.K., Okoroafor N., Jordt H., Wenderoth M.P., Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics, „Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences” 2014, nr 111(23).
Machowska‑Okrój S., Tutoring jako metoda rozwoju studenta w kontekście obowiązującego paradygmatu oraz jako element doskonalenia jakości kształcenia, „Teoria i Praktyka Dydaktyki Akademickiej” 2023, t. 2, nr 1.
Mokras‑Grabowska J., Miejskie przestrzenie nieoczywiste – ich atrakcyjność turystyczna i miejsce w dydaktyce akademickiej na przykładzie realizacji metody project‑based learning (PBL) na kierunku turystyka i rekreacja w Uniwersytecie Łódzkim, „Konwersatorium Wiedzy o Mieście” 2023, nr 8(36).
Multan E., Metoda problemowa (PBL) w procesie dydaktycznym uczelni wyższej, „Management and Administration Journal” 2019, nr 40(113).
Mroczko, F, Zarządzanie jakością, Wałbrzych 2012.
Niemierko B., Między prawdą a skutecznością – perspektywy oceniania szkolnego, Warszawa 2018.
Prince M., Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research, „Journal of Engineering Education” 2004, nr 93(3).
Sułkowski Ł., Kultura organizacyjna. Zarys problematyki, Warszawa 2012.
Szkiel A., Effectiveness of Internal Quality Assurance Systems in Higher Education Institutions, „Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej. Organizacja i Zarządzanie” 2024.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.