1. Introduction
One of the primary challenges in the educational field over recent decades has been the implementation of a competency-based model. This approach requires educational institutions—including schools, high schools, and universities—to embrace a constructivist methodology that prioritizes student-centered learning (Barboyon Combey & Gargallo López, 2022; De Miguel Diaz, 2006).
This approach to rethinking the teaching-learning process departs from behaviorist theories that prioritize predetermined outcomes expressed in specific objectives, and instead embraces an integrative perspective closely connected to experiential learning, as studied by authors such as Kolb (2015). From a holistic view of learning, students generate new cognitive, procedural, and attitudinal knowledge through their interaction with the surrounding social and cultural context, which in turn results in effective learning outcomes (Nawaz, 2012; Taylor, 2018). The central idea of constructivism posits that learning is built upon the learner’s own understanding, grounded in prior knowledge and shaped through interactions with the social and cultural environment to which they belong (Brabrand, 2008; Resnick & Glaser, 2016). Therefore, active and participatory engagement of students becomes essential for achieving meaningful knowledge construction and competency-based learning (Gargallo López, 2017; Erciyes, 2020).
Competency development in the modern educational context necessitates a profound methodological transformation that fundamentally redefines classroom activities. This change is reflected in the revision of traditional pedagogical practices and the incorporation of innovative approaches that facilitate more dynamic and relevant education (De Miguel Diaz, 2006; Fortea Bagán, 2019; Tourón & Martín, 2019). Educational innovation includes initiatives aimed at developing projects that promote continuous improvement of educational content, the teaching-learning process, evaluation systems, and the introduction of new pedagogical practices, including effective student tutoring and the integration of advanced digital tools (Feixas & Zellweger, 2020).
Adopting these methodologies necessitates a substantial pedagogical and didactic shift that redefines the teacher’s role, transforming teaching from merely transmitting and memorizing knowledge to making learning meaningful and relevant for students (Novak, 1978; Biggs, 1996; López López et al., 2018). Thus, the focus is on how students perceive and process information, directly influencing their ability to acquire knowledge and skills, covering aspects such as attention, memory, comprehension, and critical thinking, all essential for effective learning (Bransford et al., 2000; Mayer, 2004).
Other aspects to take into account are the cognitive and personal development of students, includes factors such as self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, and social skills, which are crucial for academic and personal success (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Zimmerman, 2008). So that, the need for a student-centered curriculum is recognized, contrasting with the traditional teacher-centered approach, marking one of the most significant changes in the education and training of students (Fernández Fernández & Madinabeitia Ezkurra, 2020; Olmedo Moreno, 2013).
In this environment, there is widespread agreement that teaching is the critical determinant of the success of educational systems (Hirsh-Pasek & Hadani, 2020; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2016; Stigler & Hiebert, 2009). Consequently, the scientific community increasingly focuses on the teaching methods used by educators, as well as student satisfaction and perceptions of those methods (De las Heras Fernández & Espada, 2020; Yang & Zhang, 2013).
This attention has led to growing research on the employed didactic methodologies, enabling education to fulfill its objectives and contribute to research, practice, and policy decision-making in education (Gough et al., 2012; Hirsh-Pasek & Hadani, 2020). And in addition, educators can gain a better understanding of their educational practice concerning research contributions and explore the outcomes of specific teaching methods on the effectiveness of the employed methodology (Ferrara & Flammia, 2018).
In reference to teaching methods, the scientific literature mainly reflects two postulates. On one hand, traditional training, often referred to as the instructional paradigm or teacher-centered approach, encompasses methods such as Lectures, where knowledge transmission is unidirectional, and students remain passive recipients (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Muntaner Guasp et al., 2020). On the other hand, active methodologies, the concept of learning to learn, or the student-centered learning model encourage active student participation in their learning process. These methodologies include approaches such as Project-Based Learning, Cooperative Learning, and Problem-Based Learning (Barboyon Combey & Gargallo López, 2022).
Without forgetting that, the massive growth and access to information technologies have facilitated the integration of technology in classrooms, leading to new teaching methods such as digital learning and game-based learning (Rumahlatu et al., 2021; Zhai et al., 2018). These methods aim to foster more active and participatory learning (Corujo-Vélez et al., 2019). An that, the combination of scientifically validated methodologies is characterized by greater student involvement and participation in the teaching-learning process. Using mixed methodologies leads to greater satisfaction with the training process and improved academic performance (González-Marcos et al., 2021; Prieto et al., 2021).
Therefore, in order to optimize the teaching-learning process and the acquisition of the necessary knowledge and skills in students (Global Campus Nebrija, 2016; Hattie, 2009), it is relevant to analyze research on teaching methods, as well as to observe the association of teaching methods with elements that influence students’ ability to learn and develop effectively (Al-Haddad et al., 2023; Butt et al., 2023; Khan et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2024). In this way, the purpose of this study is to observe, at each educational stage (Elementary, Secondary and Post-Secondary), the association between teaching methods, the perception and learning and the characteristics and individual development of students, in the last 15 years (2009–2023 period).
This study will also provide an updated map of teaching methods that can guide future actions by teachers, researchers and policy makers, as well as decision makers, by prioritizing lines of action to optimize student learning, experience and development.
2. Methodology
To achieve the objective of this study, we utilized a comprehensive sample comprising bibliographic records of journal articles sourced from the ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) database, accessible via eric.ed.gov. The selected records specifically pertain to the study of various teaching methods across different educational stages (Elementary, Secondary and Post-Secondary) and were published within the timeframe of 2009 to 2023. By leveraging the ERIC database, we ensured the inclusion of a diverse range of peer-reviewed articles that are pertinent to our investigation into the evolution and association of teaching methods with two specific areas of knowledge: Learning and Perception (
2.1. Search Strategy and Datasets
In March 2024, a comprehensive search was conducted in the ERIC database via the EBSCO platform. The search equation targeted the Descriptor field and encompassed 44 teaching methods listed in the ERIC thesaurus. This search yielded a total of 89,402 records, which were then imported into a relational database for further analysis. Upon reviewing the document types, 4801 records were excluded as they were not journal articles, and an additional 27,836 records were discarded for being published outside the 2009–2023 timeframe. The next step involved identifying articles associated with specific educational stages (Elementary, Secondary, and Post-Secondary), leading to the exclusion of 13,467 records that did not correspond to these stages. Ultimately, this meticulous process resulted in a refined database containing 43,298 bibliographic records of journal articles published between 2009 and 2023, all relevant to the study of various teaching methods across different educational stages.
2.2. Data Preparation
Once the data were extracted from the ERIC database and stored in a relational database, to ensure the quality and relevance of the data used in the analysis, a careful depuration was performed using SQL Server (Microsoft, 2022). Only records meeting an established criteria were selected, based on the following requirements: journal articles published between 2009 and 2023 and that were related to teaching methods in two specific areas of knowledge (Learning and Perception, and Individual Development and Characteristics) and educational stages (Elementary, Secondary, and Post-Secondary). Table 1 details the number of records related to teaching methods categorized by two specific areas of knowledge (Learning and Perception, and Individual Development and Characteristics) and three educational stages (Elementary, Secondary, and Post-Secondary) from 2009 to 2023.
For the correspondence analysis, the statistical software R (R Core Team, 2021) was used, widely recognized for its ability to handle and analyze large data sets. This dimensionality reduction analysis was conducted following the approach taken in previous studies by Rius et al. (2025) in research on giftedness in education and Sixto-Costoya et al. (2023) in marijuana research. The packages FactoMineR (Lê et al., 2008), factoextra (Kassambara & Mundt, 2020), and ggrepel (Slowikowski, 2024) were employed, specific tools for analyzing and presenting temporal associations between teaching methods and educational stages, offering a detailed understanding of the observed trends over time. The FactoMineR package was used for multiple correspondence analysis, an extension of simple correspondence analysis suitable for exploring relationships between multiple categorical variables. This package allowed mapping relationships between teaching methods and publication years, broken down by educational stage and knowledge area. The factoextra package facilitated the extraction and visualization of results obtained from FactoMineR analysis, allowing for a clearer and more detailed interpretation of the data. Additionally, the ggrepel package was used to improve the visualization of generated biplots, ensuring that labels do not overlap and are easily readable.
2.3. Data Analysis Procedure
The correspondence analysis was developed in several stages, outlined in Figure 1. In the first stage, data preparation was carried out. The data were filtered and organized into a structure suitable for correspondence analysis. To ensure data relevance, only pertinent records were selected through SQL queries, thus guaranteeing the precision and relevance of the analyzed information. In the second stage, the analysis was executed using the FactoMineR, factoextra, and ggrepel packages in R, which were essential for conducting the correspondence analysis and identifying patterns and trends in the data. This analysis mapped relationships between teaching methods and publication years, broken down by educational stage and knowledge area, providing a clear view of their evolution over time. Finally, in the third stage, the results were visualized. The correspondence analysis results were visualized through biplots (Nenadic & Greenacre, 2007), which illustrated the associations between descriptors (teaching methods; learning and perception branch; and individual development and characteristics branch) and observations (years). Specific biplots were generated for each combination of educational stage and knowledge area, providing a clear and detailed representation of the observed trends. This approach enabled a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of teaching methods over time within the educational context, making it possible to visually identify variability and predominant associations. Together, these steps constitute the core re-search tasks of the study and form the basis for the interpretation of results presented in Section 4.
2.4. Interpretation of Results
The generated biplots allowed for the identification and analysis of temporal associations between teaching methods and educational stages. Each biplot represents the relationship between various teaching methods and the years in which the articles were published. The proximity of points in the biplot indicates the strength of the association between teaching methods and specific periods. A total of six biplots were obtained, as shown in Figures 2–7 (these figures show the central detail of the biplot, the extended version of the biblots can be found in the Supplementary Materials), illustrating these relationships for each combination of educational stage and knowledge area (Learning and Perception and Individual Development and Characteristics). This analytical approach provided a detailed view of how teaching methods have evolved over time and how they are associated with different knowledge areas at various educational stages. The results provide important data to understand trends in the adoption of educational methodologies and their relevance in specific teaching contexts.
3. Results
3.1. Temporal Description of Teaching Methods in the Learning and Perception Knowledge Area in Elementary, Secondary, and Post-Secondary Educational Stages
In the three educational stages (Elementary, Secondary, and Post-Secondary), within the Learning and Perception knowledge area, notable associations between teaching methods and different periods were identified, ranging from 2009 to 2015, 2016 to 2019, and 2020 to 2023. During the period from 2009 to 2015, the most prominent teaching methods were Service Learning, Multimedia Instruction, Case Method, Lecture Method, Drills (Practice), Creative Teaching, Diagnostic Teaching, and Web-Based Instruction. In the 2016–2019 period, the predominant methods changed to Problem-Based Learning, Montessori, Cooperative Learning, and Scaffolding. Finally, in the 2020–2023 period, the most relevant methods were Blended Learning and Active Learning. Significant differences by educational stages were found. For example, Drills, Creative Teaching, and Lecture Methods are more associated with Elementary and Secondary during the early years (2009–2015), while in Post-Secondary, they are observed in later years. Conversely, methods such as Problem-Based Learning, Blended Learning, and Web-Based Instruction are introduced first in Post-Secondary before Elementary and Secondary.
In this period (2020–2023), the COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on educational practices, accelerating the adoption of Blended Learning and Active Learning. These methods became relevant as schools and universities adapted to hybrid models combining online and face-to-face instruction. The increased reliance on digital tools during this period underscores the need for flexibility and adaptability in teaching, particularly in post-secondary education, where these methods were more commonly implemented.
Additionally, Multimedia Instruction is associated with the years 2009–2012 in the Secondary and Post-Secondary stages, and later in Elementary (2016–2017). The Montessori methodology, on the other hand, is initially associated with Secondary in 2013, then with Elementary in 2019, and subsequently with Post-Secondary in 2021. Teaching methods that maintain consistency over the years of study between educational stages, such as Cooperative Learning in 2019, Scaffolding in 2016–2017, and Active Learning in 2020–2023, were identified. However, some methodologies are not present in all educational stages. For example, Precision Teaching is associated with the period 2020–2023 in Elementary but does not appear in Secondary or Post-Secondary. Diagnostic Teaching is related to the years 2009–2010 in Secondary and Post-Secondary but does not appear in Elementary. Regarding central teaching methods, those most recurrent over the past 15 years, the following patterns were observed: In the Elementary and Secondary stages, Peer Teaching, Cooperative Learning, Experiential Learning, Montessori, and Scaffolding were common methodologies. For Post-Secondary education, the central methods included Multimedia Instruction, Drills, Experiential Learning, Creative Teaching, Problem-Based Learning, and Service Learning. Notably, Team Teaching was the only method consistently central across all educational stages within the Learning and Perception area.
The analysis reveals an evolution and variation in the adoption of educational methodologies based on educational stage and time period. Methods such as Case Method and Active Learning have consistently been applied, whereas other specific methods have emerged and varied depending on the educational stage and years, reflecting an adaptation to the needs and characteristics of each educational stage and time period. This shows that while some methodologies remain relevant over time and across different educational stages, others adapt and evolve in response to specific educational contexts and temporal trends.
3.2. Change in the Use and Study of Terms Related to Learning and Perception Across the Three Educational Stages
Similarly to the temporal association with teaching methods, a significant change is also observed in the use and study of terms in the Learning and Perception knowledge area according to the educational stage (Elementary, Secondary, and Post-Secondary) (see Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). Cognitive and behavioral terms show important variations depending on the stage and period. For example, Cognitive Restructuring is found in the center of the Elementary educational stage, does not appear in Secondary, and is located in the lower right in Post-Secondary. Cognitive Mapping is positioned in the central part in Post-Secondary and to the left in Secondary in more recent years but does not appear in Elementary. Cognitive Structures and Cognitive Styles terms are consistently on the right side of the figures in Elementary, Secondary, and Post-Secondary, associated with the early years of the studied period. Cognitive Processes, on the other hand, appears in the central part of the biplots in all three educational stages, showing its constant relevance over time. Regarding behavioral terms, Applied Behavior Analysis and Behavior Modification are found outside the central part in all educational stages, indicating that these terms have not been as central in the studied period, reflecting a lesser focus on these aspects. Terms related to reflection, thinking, and memory also show a temporal change according to the educational stage. In Elementary and Secondary, the term Reflection appears on the right side, associated with the early years of the period. In more recent years, terms such as Thinking Skills and Evaluative Thinking are used in all three educational stages. Additionally, specific terms for each stage in the most recent years are observed: Value Judgment is employed only in Post-Secondary, Abstract Reasoning in Secondary, and Executive Functions in Elementary. Logical Thinking occupies central parts in all three educational stages, indicating its consistent use over time. Short Term Memory is also found in the central right parts in Elementary, Secondary, and Post-Secondary, while Long Term Memory is in the central part in Elementary and shifts to the upper right parts in Secondary and Post-Secondary.
Figure 2 shows how elementary education has progressively moved away from transmissive models toward methods such as Active Learning and Blended Learning. This transition reflects the constructivist perspective, where learning is understood as a process built through participation and interaction, and it emphasizes the importance of fostering critical thinking and problem-solving skills from the earliest stages.
Figure 2Results of the analysis for the elementary education stage and branch of knowledge Learning and Perceptions.
[Figure omitted. See PDF]
These patterns and trends reflect how the focus and terminology in the Learning and Perception area vary over time and between different educational stages, showing both consistencies and significant differences in their application and study. The variability in the use of these terms indicates an adaptation of educational approaches to the specific needs and characteristics of each educational stage and temporal period.
Figure 3 illustrates how secondary education has increasingly adopted Cooperative and Problem-Based Learning. These methods are closely connected to competency-based frameworks, as they encourage collaboration, the exchange of ideas, and the resolution of meaningful problems, essential elements for adolescent development and preparation for real-life contexts.
Figure 3Results of the analysis for the secondary education stage and branch of knowledge Learning and Perceptions.
[Figure omitted. See PDF]
The conjecture derived from this analysis is that while certain terms remain relevant over time and across different educational stages, other specific terms emerge and evolve based on the educational context and temporal trends. These changes reflect adaptations to shifts in educational theories and practices. This highlights the importance of a dynamic and flexible understanding of Learning and Perception concepts to effectively address the continually evolving educational needs.
Figure 4 presents the early adoption of innovative methodologies in higher education, including Web-Based Instruction and Problem-Based Learning. This tendency shows how universities tend to embrace new approaches earlier than other stages, offering students more flexible and autonomous ways of learning while promoting the practical application of knowledge.
Figure 4Results of the analysis for the post-secondary education stage and branch of knowledge Learning and Perceptions.
[Figure omitted. See PDF]
3.3. Temporal Description of Teaching Methods in the Individual Development and Characteristics Knowledge Area in Elementary, Secondary, and Post-Secondary Stages
In all three educational stages (Elementary, Secondary, and Post-Secondary), within the Individual Development and Characteristics knowledge area, notable associations were observed between teaching methods and different temporal periods between 2009 and 2015, 2016 and 2019, and 2020 and 2023 (see Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7). Between 2009 and 2015, the most prominent teaching method was the Case Method, applicable across all educational stages. In the subsequent period, from 2016 to 2019, the predominant methods were Peer Teaching and Scaffolding. Finally, in the period from 2020 to 2023, the most relevant and common method across all educational stages was Active Learning. There are significant differences in the adoption of these methodologies across educational stages. For example, during the years 2009–2015, methods such as Drills, Creative Teaching, and Case Method were more associated with Elementary and Secondary, while in Post-Secondary, only the Case Method remained prominent. During the same period, the Lecture Method was associated only with Elementary and Post-Secondary but not with Secondary. Demonstration was common to both Elementary and Secondary during this period. Methods like Multimedia Instruction and Web-Based Instruction were introduced exclusively in Post-Secondary and Secondary but not in Elementary, while Lecture Methods were observed in Elementary and Post-Secondary. Additionally, Web-Based Instruction was associated with the years 2009–2015 in Secondary and Post-Secondary stages, and later in Elementary (2016–2017). The Montessori method initially associated with Secondary in 2014 and subsequently with Post-Secondary in 2022. Problem-Based Learning methodologies appeared in the years 2016–2019 in Elementary and Secondary and in earlier years in Post-Secondary. Teaching methods that maintained consistency over the years of study between educational stages were identified. The Case Method was consistent during the period 2009–2015, Scaffolding during 2016–2017, and Active Learning during 2020–2023.
Figure 5 shows that Scaffolding and Active Learning have been particularly central in elementary education. Their relevance aligns with Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, which underscores the importance of guided support that gradually promotes independence, as well as the role of play and exploration in promoting children’s cognitive and personal development.
Figure 5Results of the analysis for the elementary education stage and branch of knowledge Individual Development and Characteristics.
[Figure omitted. See PDF]
In the most recent years analyzed, aside from Active Learning, no additional methodologies were observed in Elementary and Secondary stages. However, in Post-Secondary education, more methodologies began to emerge, such as Direct Instruction, Cooperative Learning, Montessori (initially present in Secondary a few years earlier), and Individualized Instruction. Some methodologies are absent in certain educational stages; for example, Diagnostic Teaching appeared in 2009 in Post-Secondary but was not observed in Elementary or Secondary stages. Regarding central teaching methods for the Individual Development and Characteristics area, those most recurrent in the last 15 years, it was observed that methodologies such as Cooperative Learning, Experiential Learning, and Scaffolding coincided in all three educational stages (Elementary, Secondary, and Post-Secondary). For Elementary, central methods also included Montessori, Individualized Instruction, and Direct Instruction, while for Secondary, they included Blended Learning, Individualized Instruction, Problem-Based Learning, and Peer Teaching. In the Post-Secondary stage, central methods included Team Teaching, Cooperative Learning, Drills, Experiential Learning, Peer Teaching, and Scaffolding.
Figure 6 highlights the growing presence of Peer Teaching and Cooperative Learning in secondary education. These approaches are consistent with social learning theories, which emphasize the value of interaction during adolescence, a stage in which collaboration with peers not only supports academic achievement but also contributes to motivation and identity formation.
Figure 6Results of the analysis for the secondary education stage and branch of knowledge Individual Development and Characteristics.
[Figure omitted. See PDF]
There is evident evolution and variation in the adoption of educational methodologies according to the educational stage and temporal period. Methods such as Case Method and Active Learning have consistently been applied, while other specific methods have emerged and varied based on the educational stage and years. This variation reflects an adaptation to the needs and characteristics of each educational stage and temporal period.
Figure 7 illustrates the diversity of active methodologies that characterize post-secondary education, such as Team Teaching, Experiential Learning, and Cooperative Learning. This trend highlights how higher education promotes environments where autonomy, reflection, and the practical application of knowledge are central, allowing students to connect academic content with real-world challenges and actively shape their own development.
Figure 7Results of the analysis for the post-secondary education stage and branch of knowledge Individual Development and Characteristics.
[Figure omitted. See PDF]
3.4. Change in the Use and Study of Terms Related to Individual Development and Characteristics Across the Three Educational Stages
Similarly to the temporal association with teaching methods, a significant change is also perceived in the use and study of terms related to the Individual Development and Characteristics knowledge area according to the educational stage (Elementary, Secondary, and Post-Secondary). In this knowledge area, cognitive and behavioral terms appear in smaller quantities compared to the Learning and Perception area previously analyzed. However, they also show important variations depending on the stage and period. For example, the term Cognitive Development is found in the lower right part in all educational stages, suggesting its study was more frequent in the early years of the period. Cognitive Ability is situated in the central part in Elementary, in the upper right part in Secondary, and in the lower left part in Post-Secondary during the most recent years. This dispersion indicates a continuous but variable interest in this term over time and educational stages. Regarding behavioral terms, Behavior Change begins to appear in the upper right part, representing the earliest years in the Elementary stage. This term then becomes central in Secondary and Post-Secondary stages, indicating its study in later years. This implies that Behavior Change was not initially central but has gained relevance and focus in subsequent studies. On the other hand, the term Behavior Problems appears consistently in the central part in all educational stages, reflecting its continuous importance in the study of individual development. In contrast, the term Functional Behavioral Assessment appears outside the central focus across all educational stages, indicating a lesser emphasis on its study. Unlike the Learning and Perception area, terms related to reflection, thinking, and memory are absent in the Individual Development and Characteristics area suggesting a more specific focus on cognitive and behavioral development rather than on reflective and thinking processes.
The analysis indicates that within the realm of Individual Development and Characteristics, terms pertaining to cognitive development and behavior problems have persistently held centrality and consistency across all educational stages, albeit with varying emphasis over time. In contrast, specific terms such as Behavior Change have evolved in their relevance, initially occupying a less central position but progressively gaining prominence in subsequent studies. This underscores the dynamic nature of the field, where certain concepts can emerge and ascend in prominence in response to evolving educational needs and shifting research paradigms.
4. Discussion
The discussion follows the sequence of the research tasks described in the methodology, linking the search strategy, data analysis, and interpretation to the key findings across educational stages.
The educational system is undergoing a transformative process driven by current social demands, which include technological, demographic and climatic changes as well as globalization (Labate & Opertti, 2023; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2021; Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos, 2021). These demands align with the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2019). Tackling these challenges requires transformative learning, where the competency-based approach has emerged as the guiding principle globally since the early 21st century (DeSeCo Project, 2005). This approach aims to align educational objectives with the ways society will create value in future work environments (Labate & Opertti, 2023), encompassing the potential for multiple career changes throughout an individual’s life and increased job uncertainty (Global Commission on the Future of Work, 2019).
Consequently, the need for methodological adaptation in the classroom has become increasingly apparent (De Miguel Diaz, 2006; Fortea Bagán, 2019; Tourón & Martín, 2019), with learning recognized as a pivotal component in the development of society (Hafeez et al., 2020). This has necessitated educational innovation (Feixas & Zellweger, 2020) and a rethinking of teaching methodologies, where teaching is no longer merely the transmission and memorization of knowledge but must acquire meaning for the learning student (Biggs, 1996; Senthamarai, 2018; Tavoosy & Jelveh, 2019). Consequently, it requires the use of learning-centered models (Rué, 2007; Tourón & Martín, 2019) with a combination of methodologies (Fortea Bagán, 2019; García Aretio, 2020) that ensure the acquisition of competencies established in the curricula of different educational stages.
In this context, this bibliometric study provides an overview of changes in research on teaching methods during the period 2009–2023. To date, no similar studies are known in the field of educational research on the association of teaching methods. The chronological evolution of terms related to the areas of Learning and Perception and Individual Development and Characteristics allows for general conclusions to be drawn.
In the educational stages of Elementary, Secondary, and Post-Secondary, notable associations were identified between teaching methods and different periods (2009–2015, 2016–2019, and 2020–2023). During 2009–2015, methods such as Service Learning and Lecture Method stood out. From 2016 to 2019, Problem-Based Learning and Cooperative Learning predominated. Finally, from 2020 to 2023, Blended Learning and Active Learning were the most relevant methods.
This pattern reflects an adaptive evolution according to the educational needs of each period and a shift towards active methodologies. Although the Lecture Method remains a common method across all educational stages (Liu et al., 2021; Ye & Chen, 2024), the use of active methodologies has been predominant throughout the studied period. This is consistent with previous studies that show a transition from traditional teaching-centered methodologies to student-centered active learning methodologies (Lee, 2018; Crisol-Moya et al., 2020).
However, the use and study of active methodologies is predominant throughout the studied period, a trend corroborated by previous studies that highlight this trend in scientific literature, where a transition from traditional teaching-centered methodologies to student-centered active learning is observed. Incorporating these methodologies enhances the acquisition of competencies from a holistic perspective, promoting education for life, citizenship, and work through the dignified and comprehensive development of individuals (Labate & Opertti, 2023; International Commission on the Futures of Education, 2021). Moreover, various studies show that students perceive benefits in their use, improving their learning (Machemer & Crawford, 2007; Patrick et al., 2016) and increasing their self-efficacy (Stump et al., 2014) due to the correlation of knowledge with reality, allowing for the practical application of acquired content.
Compared with previous studies, it is observed that the adoption of methodologies such as Problem-Based Learning and Blended Learning has been consistent with global trends in higher education (Global Campus Nebrija, 2016; Hattie, 2009). The early introduction of innovative methods in post-secondary education, before their implementation in elementary and secondary stages, confirms research findings that higher education environments are more receptive to new methodologies (Yang & Zhang, 2013; Hirsh-Pasek & Hadani, 2020). Additionally, recent studies have shown a similar transition towards student-centered methodologies, highlighting the relevance of our analysis (Ferrara & Flammia, 2018; Prieto et al., 2021).
The results of this study underline the importance of dynamically and specifically adapting educational methodologies according to the educational stage and temporal period. Educational methodologies are not universally applicable; their effectiveness can vary significantly depending on the context in which they are implemented. This is crucial for educators and policymakers to design and implement educational practices that genuinely address the specific needs of students at different stages of their academic development.
For example, methods like Problem-Based Learning and Active Learning have proven to be applicable and effective across a wide range of educational contexts. Problem-Based Learning, with its focus on solving real and relevant problems, promotes critical thinking and the practical application of theoretical knowledge, benefiting both secondary and post-secondary education students (Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Prince, 2013). Similarly, Active Learning, which actively involves students in the learning process through discussions, exercises, and projects, has consistently shown improvements in academic performance and student engagement across various educational stages (Freeman et al., 2014).
In contrast, other methods such as Cognitive Mapping and Behaviour Change require a more contextualized approach. Cognitive Mapping, which focuses on the visualization and organization of concepts, can be particularly useful at higher educational stages where students can handle complex abstractions (Novak & Gowin, 1984). However, its applicability at lower educational stages may be limited due to younger students’ lesser capacity to understand and use these tools effectively.
Behaviour Change, which includes strategies for modifying behaviors through systematic interventions, can be essential in specific contexts where behavioral patterns significantly impact learning, such as in educational environments with high rates of disruptive behaviors (Kazdin, 2009). However, its implementation requires a deep understanding of individual contexts and the adaptation of interventions to meet the specific needs of students and the school environment.
These findings can guide educators and policymakers in implementing educational practices that are both effective and adaptive. Additionally, promoting collaboration among researchers, educators, and policymakers will facilitate the transfer of knowledge and the adoption of best practices based on scientific evidence.
The variability in the effectiveness of educational methodologies across different educational stages and time periods necessitates an adaptive, contextualized approach, enhancing student learning and development while optimizing educational resources and maximizing the impact of pedagogical interventions.
Overall, the use of these methodologies has proven effective in improving student engagement and academic performance (González-Marcos et al., 2021). Our study confirms that these methods have maintained their relevance and effectiveness over the years and across different educational stages. This consistency indicates that active methodologies can offer a flexible and effective solution for various educational contexts.
Although there is an ongoing debate about the most effective teaching methodology, the study demonstrates that various active methodologies have been adopted at all educational stages over the years. It indicates that the most effective approach is likely a combination of different methodologies (Fortea Bagán, 2019; García Aretio, 2020).
From this perspective, a methodological reform characterized by greater student involvement and participation in the teaching-learning process is assumed, using varied and scientifically supported methodologies that offer greater satisfaction with the training process and better academic performance (González-Marcos et al., 2021; Prieto et al., 2021).
In the most recent period studied (2020–2023), there is a clear interest in research on Active Learning and Blended Learning. The Active Learning method remains one of the most established methods, with proven effectiveness in improving student performance and learning (Freeman et al., 2014; Baepler et al., 2016; Lombardi et al., 2021; Theobald et al., 2020; Leijon et al., 2022). The study highlights various methodologies unified by Active Learning, which aligns with the current educational objective of requiring students to demonstrate their achievements, take ownership of their learning, and develop competencies such as critical thinking, skills, innovation, creativity, entrepreneurship, perseverance, empathy, and leadership (Tourón & Martín, 2019).
Furthermore, the advent of technology, likely accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic (Hague, 2024), has facilitated the integration of face-to-face and online learning through Blended Learning. This method has reshaped the roles of teachers and students, as well as the spaces for interaction and collaboration. It addresses the diverse needs and expectations of today’s students and is projected to see increased use in the coming years (Labate & Opertti, 2023). This trend aligns with the widespread use of digital resources among students, such as digital platforms and social networks (Lazar et al., 2020).
Looking forward, the integration of digital technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and virtual reality (VR) is poised to further revolutionize active participatory learning methodologies.
The capacity to personalize learning and to accommodate different learning paces makes emerging technologies valuable resources for addressing the individual needs of students (Bhutoria, 2022). The findings confirm that such technologies promote active learning and allow students to progress at their own rhythm, aspects that are particularly relevant given the diversity of today’s classrooms (Holmes et al., 2019; Mollick & Mollick, 2023). Recent studies further highlight, for example, how the integration of AI in the classroom can be effective in promoting active learning, reinforcing the understanding of complex concepts, and stimulating student interest by creating less intimidating learning environments (Gutiérrez-Castillo et al., 2025; Woolf, 2020).
This study emphasizes the need for continued collaboration among educators, researchers, and policymakers to ensure that educational practices remain adaptable and responsive to the rapidly changing technological landscape where the acquisition of digital competence is key in educational systems and a premise in current legislation. AI and VR present new opportunities for creating personalized, immersive learning experiences, offering significant potential to enhance current teaching practices.
At the same time, it must be emphasized that educational leaders should guarantee equitable access to technological resources, as well as ensure their ethical use, protecting student privacy and fostering responsible digital competence (Lucero Baldevenites, 2024).
5. Conclusions
The findings of this study emphasize the necessity of adapting educational methodologies dynamically and contextually, taking into account both the educational level and the temporal period. This study introduces a novel, comprehensive temporal analysis of teaching methodologies over a 15-year span, uniquely highlighting how educational practices evolve across different educational stages and time periods. Unlike previous research that tends to focus on isolated methodologies or specific educational levels, this study offers an in-depth understanding of how certain methods, such as Problem-Based Learning and Active Learning, have consistently proven to be effective across a broad range of educational contexts.
This study’s contribution extends beyond identifying effective methodologies; it also offers practical guidance for educators and policymakers. Institutions should prioritize teacher training programs that equip educators to effectively integrate active methodologies with digital tools, ensuring that they are prepared to navigate the challenges posed by hybrid learning environments and the needs of a society characterised by constant and rapid change. This will help maintain student engagement while fostering critical thinking skills. Furthermore, fostering collaboration between researchers, educators, and policymakers will ensure the effective transfer of knowledge and the adoption of best practices rooted in scientific evidence.
The variability in the effectiveness of methodologies across different educational stages and time periods underscores the need for an adaptive, contextual approach to education. Flexibility is key, not only for enhancing student learning and development but also for optimizing educational resources and maximizing the impact of pedagogical strategies.
However, one limitation of this study lies in its focus on traditional active learning methods, without delving into the long-term effects of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and virtual reality (VR). While these tools hold transformative potential for educational practices, challenges like insufficient resources and inadequate training could impede their classroom integration.
Future research should explore how neuroscience-based tools and AI can be incorporated into active learning environments, which could open up new possibilities for personalized, adaptive learning, further enriching our understanding of student learning processes.
This study, through its longitudinal analysis of the evolution of educational methodologies, highlights both the enduring elements and the changes within the educational landscape. The ability to continually adapt is important not only for meeting current educational needs but also for setting the stage for future research and innovation. Such adaptability opens up new opportunities to enhance learning outcomes and improve institutional effectiveness, ensuring that education remains responsive and forward-thinking in an ever-evolving context.
It is unquestionable that the results provided by studies of this kind are consistent with the role of science in improving human well-being. Therefore, the continuous and forward-looking generation of scientific knowledge becomes a key factor in advancing the quality of teaching and learning processes. In light of this, it is urgent to promote actions that encourage the use of active methodologies in the classroom, together with continuous teacher training that enables effective and adaptive responses to students’ needs (Bhutoria, 2022). This requires a sustained effort by educational leaders to ensure cutting-edge training opportunities, as well as the promotion of educational research that guarantees the rigor and scientific basis that every educational action deserves.
In this regard, it is irrefutable that science and educational innovation must provide evidence to guide the promotion of initiatives aimed at improving education. Policymakers should encourage comprehensive educational actions that involve all stakeholders, prioritizing strategies that address inequalities in all their complexity, with the goal of ensuring full inclusion and a genuine response to student needs. For example, given the growing role of emerging technologies, it is essential to foster training in this field, as it can support active learning, strengthen the understanding of complex concepts, and stimulate student engagement (Gutiérrez-Castillo et al., 2025; Woolf, 2020), while simultaneously safeguarding ethical considerations to ensure their responsible and healthy use (Lucero Baldevenites, 2024).
Conceptualization, R.A.-M., R.D., D.M.-F.; methodology, R.A.-M., R.D., D.M.-F.; software, R.A.-M., R.D., D.M.-F.; formal analysis, R.A.-M., R.D., D.M.-F.; investigation, R.A.-M., R.D., D.M.-F.; resources, R.A.-M., R.D., D.M.-F.; data curation, R.A.-M., R.D., D.M.-F.; writing—original draft preparation, R.A.-M., R.D., D.M.-F.; writing—review and editing, R.A.-M., R.D., D.M.-F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/
ERIC for providing online access to scientific information (
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Detailed scheme of the Correspondence Analysis Procedure.
Number of Records on Teaching Methods Across Educational Stages and Branches of Knowledge.
| Branch of Knowledge | Elementary | Secondary | Post-Secondary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Learning and Perception | 7580 | 7127 | 30,926 |
| Individual Development and Characteristics | 7627 | 7133 | 31,020 |
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
Al-Haddad, S. S.; Afari, E.; Khine, M. S.; Eksail, F. A. A. Self-regulation, self-confidence, and academic achievement on assessment conceptions: An investigation study of pre-service teachers. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education; 2023; 15,
Baepler, P.; Walker, J. D.; Brooks, D. C.; Saichaie, K.; Petersen, C. I. A guide to teaching in the active learning classroom: History, research, and practice; Stylus: Routledge: 2016.
Barboyon Combey, L.; Gargallo López, B. Métodos centrados en el estudiante. Sus efectos en las estrategias y los enfoques de aprendizaje de los universitarios [Student-centred methods. Their effects on university students’ learning strategies and approaches]. Teoría de la Educación. Revista Interuniversitaria; 2022; 34,
Barr, R. B.; Tagg, J. From teaching to learning. A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change; 1995; 27,
Bhutoria, A. Personalized education and Artificial Intelligence in the United States, China, and India: A systematic review using a Human-In-The-Loop model. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence; 2022; 3, 100068. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100068]
Biggs, J. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education; 1996; 32,
Brabrand, C. Constructive alignment for teaching model-based design for concurrency. Transactions on petri nets and other models of concurrency I; Springer: 2008; pp. 1-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89287-8_1]
Bransford, J.; Brophy, S.; Williams, S. When computer technologies meet the learning sciences: Issues and opportunities. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology; 2000; 21,
Butt, S.; Mahmood, A.; Saleem, S.; Murtaza, S. A.; Hassan, S.; Molnár, E. The contribution of learner characteristics and perceived learning to students’ satisfaction and academic performance during COVID-19. Sustainability; 2023; 15,
Corujo-Vélez, C.; Gallego, M. R. R.; Hervás-Gómez, C. Necesidades formativas en competencia digital y valores en la educación de maestros y pedagogos en formación inicial [Training needs in digital competence and values in the education of teachers and educators in initial training]. Innovación e investigación sobre el aprendizaje ubicuo y móvil en la educación superior; Octaedro: 2019; pp. 113-137.
Crisol-Moya, E.; Romero-López, M. A.; Caurcel-Cara, M. J. Active methodologies in higher education: Perception and opinion as evaluated by professors and their students in the teaching-learning process. Frontiers in Psychology; 2020; 11, 1703. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01703]
De las Heras Fernández, R.; Espada, M. Estrategias y Estilos de Enseñanza en la Clase Magistral de estudios oficiales de Danza Española y Flamenco [Teaching strategies and styles in the master class of official Spanish dance and Flamenco studies]. Retos: Nuevas Tendencias en Educación Física, Deporte y Recreación; 2020; 38, pp. 671-678. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47197/retos.v38i38.77959]
De Miguel Diaz, F. M.
DeSeCo Project. The definition and selection of key competencies. Executive summary; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: 2005; Available online: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/definition-selection-key-competencies-summary.pdf (accessed on 27 February 2024).
Eccles, J. S.; Roeser, R. W. Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence; 2011; 21,
Erciyes, E. Reflections of a social constructivist on teaching methods. European Journal of Educational Sciences; 2020; 7,
Feixas, M.; Zellweger, F. Teaching awards with impact: Beyond the recognition of excellence. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria; 2020; 18,
Fernández Fernández, I.; Madinabeitia Ezkurra, A. La transformación docente de la universidad a 20 años de Bolonia: Balance y claves para un futuro por definir [The transformation of university teaching 20 years after Bologna: Assessment and keys to a future yet to be defined]. Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado; 2020; 24,
Ferrara, L.; Flammia, A. Active Didactic methodologies in the high school as effective education strategies to animate students’ participation. Journal of Humanities and Social Science; 2018; 23,
Fortea Bagán, M. Á. Metodologías didácticas para la enseñanza/aprendizaje de competencias [Teaching methodologies for teaching/learning skills]; Unitat de Suport Educatiu de la Universitat Jaume I: 2019; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.6035/MDU1]
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; 111,
García Aretio, L. ¿De la lección magistral presencial a la lección digital? [From face-to-face lectures to digital lessons?]; 2020; Available online: https://aretio.hypotheses.org/3700 (accessed on 27 February 2024).
Gargallo López, B.
Global Campus Nebrija. Metodología de enseñanza y para el aprendizaje [Teaching and learning methodology]; 2016; Available online: https://www.nebrija.com/nebrija-global-campus/pdf/metodologia-GCN.pdf (accessed on 27 February 2024).
Global Commission on the Future of Work. Work for a brighter future; International Labour Organization: 2019; Available online: https://www.ilo.org/media/410956/download (accessed on 27 February 2024).
González-Marcos, A.; Navaridas-Nalda, F.; Jiménez-Trens, M. A.; Alba-Elías, F.; Ordieres-Meré, J. Academic effects of a mixed teaching methodology versus a teacher-centered methodology and approaches to learning. Revista de Educación; 2021; 392, pp. 115-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2021-392-481]
Gough, D.; Thomas, J.; Oliver, S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews; 2012; 28,
Gutiérrez-Castillo, J. J.; Romero Tena, R.; León-Garrido, A. Beneficios de la Inteligencia Artificial en el aprendizaje de los estudiantes universitarios: Una revisión sistemática [Benefits of Artificial Intelligence in university student learning: A systematic review]. Edutec, Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa; 2025; (91), pp. 185-206. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2025.91.3607]
Hafeez, M.; Kazmi, Q. A.; Tahira, F.; Hussain, M. Z.; Ahmad, S.; Yasmeen, A.; Iqbal, J.; Saqi, M. I. Impact of school enrolment size on student’s achievements. Indonesian Journal of Basic Education; 2020; 3,
Hague, C. Fostering higher-order thinking skills online in higher education: A scoping review; OECD Education Working Paper No 306 OECD Publishing: 2024; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/84f7756a-en]
Hattie, J. A. C. Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement; Routledge: 2009; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332]
Hirsh-Pasek, K.; Hadani, H. S. A new path to education reform: Playful learning promotes 21st century skills in school and beyond; 2020; Available online: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Big-Ideas_Hirsh-Pasek_PlayfulLearning.pdf (accessed on 27 February 2024).
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?. Educational Psychology Review; 2004; 16, pp. 235-266. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3]
Holmes, W.; Bialik, M.; Fadel, C. Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning; Center for Curriculum Redesign: 2019.
International Commission on the Futures of Education. Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: 2021; Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707 (accessed on 27 February 2024).
Kassambara, A.; Mundt, F. factoextra: Extract and visualize the results of multivariate data analyses (Version 1.0.7) [R package]; CRAN: 2020; Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=factoextra (accessed on 27 February 2024).
Kazdin, A. E. Modificación de la conducta y sus aplicaciones prácticas [Behaviour modification and its practical applications]; Manual Moderno: 2009.
Khan, S. A.; Arif, M. H.; Yousuf, M. I. A Study of relationship between learning preferences and academic achievement. Bulletin of Education and Research; 2019; 41,
Kolb, D. A. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development; Pearson Education: 2015.
Labate, H.; Opertti, R. Policies to promote hybrid education. Regional forum on education policy; 7th ed. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: 2023; Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386999_eng (accessed on 27 February 2024).
Lazar, I. M.; Panisoara, G.; Panisoara, I. O. Digital technology adoption scale in the blended learning context in higher education: Development, validation and testing of a specific tool. PLoS ONE; 2020; 15,
Lee, L. Frey, B. B. Active learning. The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation; SAGE Publications: 2018; Available online: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-educational-research-measurement-and-evaluation/book245469#contents (accessed on 27 February 2024).
Leijon, M.; Nordmo, I.; Tieva, Å.; Troelsen, R. Formal learning spaces in higher education—A systematic review. Teaching in Higher Education; 2022; 29,
Lê, S.; Josse, J.; Husson, F. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software; 2008; 25,
Lin, Y. L.; Wang, W. T.; Hsieh, M. J. The effects of students’ self-efficacy, self-regulated learning strategy, perceived and actual learning effectiveness: A digital game-based learning system. Education and Information Technologies; 2024; 29,
Liu, Z.; Yang, Z.; Xiao, C.; Zhang, K.; Osmani, M. An investigation into art therapy aided health and well-being research: A 75-year bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health; 2021; 19,
Lombardi, D.; Shipley, T. F. Astronomy TeamBiology TeamChemistry TeamEngineering TeamGeography TeamGeoscience TeamPhysics Team. The curious construct of active learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest; 2021; 22,
López López, M. D. C.; León Guerrero, M. J.; Pérez García, M. P. El enfoque por competencias en el contexto universitario español. La visión del profesorado [The competency-based approach in the Spanish university context. The perspective of teaching staff]. Revista de Investigación Educativa; 2018; 36,
Lucero Baldevenites, E. V. Transformando la educación: IA y realidades aumentada y virtual en la formación docente [Transforming Education: AI and Augmented/Virtual Realities in Teacher Training]. European Public & Social Innovation Review; 2024; 9, pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.31637/epsir-2024-854]
Machemer, P. L.; Crawford, P. Student perceptions of active learning in a large cross-disciplinary classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education; 2007; 8,
Mayer, R. E. Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?. American Psychologist; 2004; 59,
Microsoft. SQL server 2022; Microsoft: 2022; Available online: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server/sql-server-downloads (accessed on 27 February 2024).
Mollick, E.; Mollick, L. Siete modelos de implementación de IA en entornos educativos: Evaluación pedagógica y funcional [Seven models for implementing AI in educational settings: Pedagogical and functional evaluation]. Educational Review Journal; 2023; 45,
Muntaner Guasp, J.; Pinya Medina, C.; Mut Amengual, B. El impacto de las metodologías activas en los resultados académicos [The impact of active methodologies on academic results]. Profesorado: Revista de Curriculum y Formación del Profesorado; 2020; 24,
Nawaz, A. Social-constructivism: Futuristic sphere for eLearning in HEIs. Global Journal of Management and Business Research; 2012; 12,
Nenadic, O.; Greenacre, M. Correspondence analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: The ca package. Journal of Statistical Software; 2007; 20,
Novak, J. D. A theory of education as a basis for environmental education. Environmental education: Principles, methods, and applications; Springer: 1978; pp. 129-138.
Novak, J. D.; Gowin, D. B. Learning how to learn; Cambridge University Press: 1984.
Olmedo Moreno, E. M. Enfoques de aprendizaje de los estudiantes y metodología docente: Evolución hacia el nuevo sistema de formación e interacción propuesta en el EEES [Student learning approaches and teaching methodology: Evolution towards the new training and interaction system proposed in the EHEA]. Revista de Investigación Educativa; 2013; 31,
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Education at a glance 2016: OECD indicators; OECD Publishing: 2016; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2016-en]
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Education at a glance 2021: OECD Indicators; OECD Publishing: 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/b35a14e5-en]
Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos. Educación superior, productividad y competitividad en Iberoamérica [Higher education, productivity and competitiveness in Ibero-America]; Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos: 2021.
Patrick, L. E.; Howell, L. A.; Wischusen, W. Perceptions of active learning between faculty and undergraduates: Differing views among departments. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research; 2016; 17,
Prieto, A.; Barbarroja, J.; Álvarez, S.; Corell, A. Eficacia del modelo de aula invertida (flipped classroom) en la enseñanza universitaria: Una síntesis de las mejores evidencias [Effectiveness of the flipped classroom model in university teaching: A synthesis of the best evidence]. Revista de Educación; 2021; 391, pp. 149-177. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2021-391-476]
Prince, M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education; 2013; 93,
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Versión 4.0.5) [Software]; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: 2021; Available online: https://www.R-project.org (accessed on 27 February 2024).
Resnick, L. B.; Glaser, R. Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser; Routledge: 2016.
Rius, C.; Aguilar-Moya, R.; Martínez, C.; Cantos-Roldán, B.; Vidal-Infer, A. Trends and topics evolution in research on giftedness in education: A bibliometric analysis. Psychology in the Schools; 2025; 62, pp. 3403-3413. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.23549]
Rué, J. Enseñar en la Universidad. El EEES como reto para la Educación Superior [Teaching at university. The EHEA as a challenge for higher education]; Narcea: 2007.
Rumahlatu, D.; Sangur, K.; Berhitu, M. M.; Kainama, S. Y.; Kakisina, V. V.; Latupeirissa, C. Resource based learning design thinking (RBLDT): A model to improve students’ creative thinking skills, concept gaining, and digital literacy. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences; 2021; 16,
Senthamarai, S. Interactive teaching strategies. Journal of Applied and Advanced Research; 2018; 3,
Sixto-Costoya, A.; García-Zorita, C.; Valderrama-Zurián, J. C.; Sanz-Casado, E.; Serrano-López, A. E. Evolution of marijuana research at the biopsychosocial level: A general view. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction; 2023; 23, pp. 603-617. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11469-023-01129-4]
Slowikowski, K. ggrepel: Automatically position non-overlapping text labels with ‘ggplot2’ (Version 0.9.5) [R package]; CRAN: 2024; Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggrepel (accessed on 27 February 2024).
Stigler, J. W.; Hiebert, J. The Teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. Updated with a new preface and afterword; The Free Press: 2009.
Stump, G. S.; Husman, J.; Corby, M. Engineering students’ intelligence beliefs and learning. Journal of Engineering Education; 2014; 103,
Tavoosy, Y.; Jelveh, R. Language teaching strategies and techniques used to support students learning in a language other than their mother tongue. International Journal of Learning and Teaching; 2019; 11,
Taylor, S. P. Critical realism vs social constructionism & social constructivism: Application to a social housing research study. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research; 2018; 37,
Theobald, E. J.; Hill, M. J.; Tran, E.; Agrawal, S.; Arroyo, E. N.; Behling, S.; Chambwe, N.; Cintrón, D. L.; Cooper, J. D.; Dunster, G.; Grummer, J. A.; Hennessey, K.; Hsiao, J.; Iranon, N.; Jones, L.; Jordt, H.; Keller, M.; Lacey, M. E.; Littlefield, C. E. … Freeman, S. Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; 2020; 117,
Tourón, J.; Martín, D. Aprender y enseñar en la universidad hoy. Guía práctica para profesores [Learning and teaching at university today. A practical guide for lecturers]; Universidad Internacional de La Rioja: 2019.
United Nations. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development; 2019; Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/publications/transforming-our-world-2030-agenda-sustainable-development-17981 (accessed on 27 February 2024).
Woolf, B. P. Building intelligent interactive tutors: Student-centered strategies for revolutionizing e-learning; Morgan Kaufmann: 2020.
Yang, J.; Zhang, J. Using WebQuest as scaffolding in the wiki for collaborative learning. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning; 2013; 23,
Ye, L.; Chen, Y. The research on teaching methods. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media; 2024; 50,
Zhai, H.; Liu, Q.; Feng, X. A comparative study of classroom response systems in China and abroad. 2018 International Conference on Distance Education and Learning; Beijing, China, May 26–28; 2018; pp. 69-73. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3231848.3231863]
Zimmerman, B. J. Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal; 2008; 45,
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Melero-Fuentes, David 2 1 Interdisciplinary Group on Active Learning and Assessment (IGALA), Faculty of Training and Education Sciences, Catholic University of Valencia, 46100 Burjassot, Spain; [email protected] (R.A.-M.); [email protected] (R.D.)
2 Addictions, Adolescence and Development (AAD), Faculty of Psychology, Catholic University of Valencia, 46100 Burjassot, Spain