Page 69 - International Perspectives on Effective Teaching and Learning in Digital Education
P. 69

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

             Limitations
             The ability to make broader conclusions from this study is restricted because
             the participants were exclusively drawn from a single university in Slovenia,
             which, like all universities, has its unique setting and socio-cultural context.
             As a result, the findings cannot be directly applied to higher education pro-
             fessors in other contexts. Additionally, the study’s sample size is limited to 74
             participants, indicating that future research could focus on including a larger
             sample.

                  References
                  Aronson, E. (6). Jigsaw classroom. http://www.jigsaw.org
                  Awidi, T., & Paynter, M. (19). The impact of a flipped classroom approach on
                      student learning experience. Computers and Education, 128, 69–83.
                  Baki, A. (8). Mathematics education from theory to practice. Harf Educational.
                  Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Buntins, K., Kerres, M., & Zawacki-Richter, O. ().
                      Facilitating student engagement in higher education through educa-
                      tional technology: A narrative systematic review in the field of education.
                      Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(), 315–368.
                  Brewer, G., Williams, A., & Sher, W. (7). Utilising learning contracts to stimu-
                      late student ownership of learning. Proceedings of the 2007 AAEE Confer-
                      ence, Melbourne, Australia, December 9–13, 2007. https://aaee.net.au/wp
                      -content/uploads/18/1/AAEE7-Brewer_Williams_Sher-Learning
                      _contracts_to_stimulate_student_learning_ownership.pdf
                  Burgess, A., Van Diggele, C., Roberts, C., & Mellis, C. (). Team-based learn-
                      ing: Design, facilitation and participation. BMC Medical Education, 20(S).
                      https://doi.org/1.1186/s199--87-y
                  Challenge  Multimedia Project. (1999). Why do project-based learning? San
                      Mateo County Office of Education.
                  Chon, H., & Sim, J. (19). From design thinking to design knowing: An educa-
                      tional perspective. Art Design and Communication in Higher Education,
                      18(), 187–.
                  Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (19). Meas-
                      uring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being
                      actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of
                      Sciences, 116(39), 1951–1957.
                  Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (15). Gamification in educa-
                      tion: A systematic mapping study. Educational Technology and Society,
                      18(3), 75–88.
                  Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., & Allen, D. E. (Eds.). (1). The power of problem-based
                      learning. Stylus.




                                                                            69
   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74