THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF TEACHING METHODS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21806921Keywords:
higher education, teaching method, didactics, constructive alignment, active learning, learning activity, assessment, course design.Abstract
This article systematizes the theoretical foundations of teaching methods in higher education institutions at
the philosophical-epistemological, psychological, didactic, and organizational levels. The study aims to distinguish among
the concepts of method, technique, technology, and mode of instruction; identify evidence-informed criteria for selecting
teaching methods; and propose an integrated theoretical model for university course design. National regulatory documents,
foundational works in didactics, meta-analyses, and international reports published between 2020 and 2025 were examined
through an integrative literature review and comparative content analysis. The findings demonstrate that the effectiveness
of a teaching method is determined not by its novelty but by the alignment among the intended learning outcomes, content,
student activities, learning environment, and evidence of learning. The author proposes a five-component Outcome–
Content–Activity–Environment–Evidence model. Rather than treating lectures, problem-based learning, case studies,
project-based learning, collaborative learning, and digitally supported learning as mutually exclusive, the model enables
their purposeful integration according to the intended learning outcomes. The conclusions can be applied to improve course
design, faculty members’ methodological competence, and quality monitoring in higher education
References
Republic of Uzbekistan. On Education: Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. ZRU-637 of 23 September
[Electronic resource]. – URL: https://lex.uz/docs/-5013007 (accessed: 04.08.2026).
President of the Republic of Uzbekistan. On Approval of the Concept for the Development of the Higher
Education System of the Republic of Uzbekistan until 2030: Decree No. PF-5847 of 8 October 2019
[Electronic resource]. – URL: https://lex.uz/docs/-4545884 (accessed: 04.08.2026).
Biggs J., Tang C. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. – 4th ed. – Maidenhead: Open University
Press, 2011.
Freeman S., Eddy S.L., McDonough M. et al. Active learning increases student performance in science,
engineering, and mathematics // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America. – 2014. – Vol. 111, No. 23. – P. 8410–8415. – DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
Theobald E.J., Hill M.J., Tran E. et al. Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented
students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics // Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. – 2020. – Vol. 117, No. 12. – P. 6476–6483.
– DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1916903117.
Mayer R.E. Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? // American Psychologist.
– 2004. – Vol. 59, No. 1. – P. 14–19. – DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14.
Kirschner P.A., Sweller J., Clark R.E. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis
of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching //
Educational Psychologist. – 2006. – Vol. 41, No. 2. – P. 75–86. – DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
Rapanta C., Botturi L., Goodyear P. et al. Online university teaching during and after the COVID-19 crisis:
Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity // Postdigital Science and Education. – 2020. – Vol. 2,
No. 3. – P. 923–945. – DOI: 10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y.
OECD. OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem. – Paris:
OECD Publishing, 2023. – DOI: 10.1787/c74f03de-en.
UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report Team. Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology
in Education — A Tool on Whose Terms? [Electronic resource]. – Paris: UNESCO, 2023. – URL: https://
www.unesco.org/gem-report/en/technology (accessed: 04.08.2026).
Miao F., Holmes W. Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research. – Paris: UNESCO, 2023. –
DOI: 10.54675/EWZM9535.
Kasneci E., Sessler K., Küchemann S. et al. ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large
language models for education // Learning and Individual Differences. – 2023. – Vol. 103. – Article 102274.
– DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274.
CAST. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, Version 3.0 [Electronic resource]. – Lynnfield, MA: CAST,
– URL: https://udlguidelines.cast.org/ (accessed: 04.08.2026).
Deslauriers L., McCarty L.S., Miller K. et al. Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response
to being actively engaged in the classroom // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America. – 2019. – Vol. 116, No. 39. – P. 19251–19257. – DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1821936116.
Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research // Journal of Engineering Education. – 2004.
– Vol. 93, No. 3. – P. 223–231. – DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x.
Ifenthaler D., Yau J.Y.-K. Utilising learning analytics to support study success in higher education: A
systematic review // Educational Technology Research and Development. – 2020. – Vol. 68, No. 4. – P.
–1990. – DOI: 10.1007/s11423-020-09788-z.
Hodges C., Moore S., Lockee B. et al. The difference between emergency remote teaching and online
learning [Electronic resource] // EDUCAUSE Review. – 2020. – 27 March. – URL: https://er.educause.
edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning (accessed:
08.2026).
Pelletier K., McCormack M., Muscanell N. et al. 2024 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: Teaching and Learning
Edition [Electronic resource]. – Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE, 2024. – URL: https://library.educause.edu/
resources/2024/5/2024-educause-horizon-report-teaching-and-learning-edition (accessed: 04.08.2026).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 ECONOSCITECH INTEGRATION
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
