Page 61 - International Perspectives on Effective Teaching and Learning in Digital Education

Innovative Teaching Methods in Higher Education: The Case of University of Primorska

of modern educators. Studies, including those by Freeman et al. (14) and
Deslauriers et al. (19), highlight the potential of such methods to enhance
the teaching process. Nonetheless, adopting innovative strategies can be dif-
ficult, as it may provoke student resistance, lead to setbacks, or fall short of in-
tended goals. Despite these challenges, exploring new approaches can boost
student engagement, motivation, and performance. Consequently, investing
in the professional development of academic staff is essential. The European
Commission's renewed EU agenda for higher education (17) emphasizes
that many higher education professors still require pedagogical training.

Aims of the Study
The aims of the present study were:

a) To find out how frequently higher education professors use different
teaching strategies and methods and tools, digital tools and genera-
tive AI tools and whether there are differences in the frequency accor-
ding to academic position, scientific field, teaching experience and the
average number of students in one semester through the last two aca-
demic years and
b) To determine if and which are the concerns and obstacles, regarding
using innovative different teaching strategies and methods and tools,
digital tools and generative AI tools, perceived by higher education
professors.
c) To determine which competences would higher education professors
need to better implement innovative teaching methods into their te-
aching

Methodology
Method
Based on the aims of the research it was decided to use the quantitative ap-
proach.

Sample
A total of 74 academic staff members of UP participated in the study.
As it can be observed from Table 1, the majority of respondents (3,4 %)
are assistants/lecturers, followed by associated professors (31.1 %), senior lec-
turer/Assistant Professors (5,8%) and professors (1.8 %). Regarding the sci-
entific field, the majority (3, %) of respondents come from Social Sciences,

61