Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education

Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22" }, "headline": "Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education", "datePublished": "2024-01-08T10:39:12", "dateModified": "2024-12-17T17:16:27", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Josefina Amanda Suyo-Vega" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Víctor Hugo Fernández-Bedoya" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Monica Elisa Meneses-La-Riva" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Pedagogical best practices play a pivotal role in ensuring the academic success of students within the higher education landscape. This study aims to systematically synthesize innovative pedagogical best practices within the university context. Methods We conducted a thorough systematic review using the rigorous PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology. Our review involved comprehensive searches of scientific databases, including Eric, Scopus, and Proquest, covering both Spanish and English publications. We strategically employed Boolean operators like AND and OR to create a robust search equation. Our primary research question guiding this investigation was: “What innovative pedagogical practices have been developed in university settings to improve teaching and learning effectiveness?” This central question led us to delve deeply into the strategies utilized, pedagogical approaches adopted, and the noticeable impact achieved after their implementation. Additionally, we carefully established stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to ensure methodological rigor. Results A total of 25 scholarly articles that met the pre-established criteria were meticulously identified and included in this systematic review. The results were thoughtfully categorized into three distinct teaching strategies: the first emphasizing student-centered approaches, the second showcasing the integration of educational technology, and the third highlighting evaluation and feedback methodologies. Conclusions This systematic exploration of pedagogical best practices underscores their paramount importance in driving continuous improvement in teacher training and fostering innovation within the educational arena. Such practices not only create an engaging and effective learning environment but also set the stage for ongoing advancements in the teaching and learning processes. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v2", "name": "Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical..." } } ] } Home Browse Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Suyo-Vega JA, Fernández-Bedoya VH and Meneses-La-Riva ME. Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.143392.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Systematic Review Revised Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] Josefina Amanda Suyo-Vega 1 , Víctor Hugo Fernández-Bedoya https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2464-6477 1 , Monica Elisa Meneses-La-Riva https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6885-9207 1 Josefina Amanda Suyo-Vega 1 , Víctor Hugo Fernández-Bedoya https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2464-6477 1 , Monica Elisa Meneses-La-Riva https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6885-9207 1 PUBLISHED 17 Dec 2024 Author details Author details 1 Grupo de Investigación “Educación Virtual, Universidad Cesar Vallejo, Lima Norte, Lima, 15314, Peru Josefina Amanda Suyo-Vega Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Víctor Hugo Fernández-Bedoya Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Monica Elisa Meneses-La-Riva Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Teaching and communicating science in a digital age collection. Abstract Background Pedagogical best practices play a pivotal role in ensuring the academic success of students within the higher education landscape. This study aims to systematically synthesize innovative pedagogical best practices within the university context. Methods We conducted a thorough systematic review using the rigorous PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology. Our review involved comprehensive searches of scientific databases, including Eric, Scopus, and Proquest, covering both Spanish and English publications. We strategically employed Boolean operators like AND and OR to create a robust search equation. Our primary research question guiding this investigation was: “What innovative pedagogical practices have been developed in university settings to improve teaching and learning effectiveness?” This central question led us to delve deeply into the strategies utilized, pedagogical approaches adopted, and the noticeable impact achieved after their implementation. Additionally, we carefully established stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to ensure methodological rigor. Results A total of 25 scholarly articles that met the pre-established criteria were meticulously identified and included in this systematic review. The results were thoughtfully categorized into three distinct teaching strategies: the first emphasizing student-centered approaches, the second showcasing the integration of educational technology, and the third highlighting evaluation and feedback methodologies. Conclusions This systematic exploration of pedagogical best practices underscores their paramount importance in driving continuous improvement in teacher training and fostering innovation within the educational arena. Such practices not only create an engaging and effective learning environment but also set the stage for ongoing advancements in the teaching and learning processes. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Pedagogical practices, Innovative pedagogical practices, Teaching strategies, Academic success, Higher education Corresponding Author(s) Josefina Amanda Suyo-Vega ( [email protected] ) Víctor Hugo Fernández-Bedoya ( [email protected] ) Monica Elisa Meneses-La-Riva ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding authors: Josefina Amanda Suyo-Vega, Víctor Hugo Fernández-Bedoya, Monica Elisa Meneses-La-Riva Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This study was carried out and funded by the Universidad César Vallejo, within the framework of the work plan outlined in RVI N°435-2022-VI-UCV. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2024 Suyo-Vega JA et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Suyo-Vega JA, Fernández-Bedoya VH and Meneses-La-Riva ME. Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.143392.2 ) First published: 08 Jan 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.143392.1 ) Latest published: 17 Dec 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.143392.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 The authors have made improvements thanks to the comments of the reviewers, including the clarification of: Focused Analysis Period: The research period was selected from 2015 to 2023 due to the increased relevance and number of studies on innovative pedagogical practices starting in 2015. Language Scope: Articles in English and Spanish were prioritized due to their predominance in selected databases like SciELO, Scopus, and ERIC. Database Selection: Specific databases such as SciELO (promoting access to regional scientific knowledge), Scopus (wide international coverage), and ERIC (specialized in global education literature) were chosen to ensure comprehensive research. Methodological Focus: The research leaned on systematic reviews rather than meta-analyses because many reviewed studies lacked sufficient statistical data for quantitative meta-analysis. Geographical Context: The countries Spain, Thailand, and Chile were selected for their diverse educational contexts and recent contributions to studies on innovative pedagogical practices. Theoretical Framework: The study integrated Ausubel's Meaningful Learning Theory and Mishra & Koehler's TPACK Model to connect pedagogical, technological, and content knowledge strategies in university contexts. State of the Art Expansion: The research went beyond summarizing the state of the art by analyzing key educational theories, offering an updated and context-specific understanding of pedagogical challenges. Exclusion of Systematic Reviews: The focus was shifted to empirical studies (quantitative or qualitative) rather than systematic reviews to ensure alignment with the primary research goal of gathering direct, context-specific evidence. Addressing Data Access Limitations: Despite access to prominent databases like ERIC, SciELO, and Scopus, editorial restrictions on full-text access limited the inclusion of some relevant studies. The authors have made improvements thanks to the comments of the reviewers, including the clarification of: Focused Analysis Period: The research period was selected from 2015 to 2023 due to the increased relevance and number of studies on innovative pedagogical practices starting in 2015. Language Scope: Articles in English and Spanish were prioritized due to their predominance in selected databases like SciELO, Scopus, and ERIC. Database Selection: Specific databases such as SciELO (promoting access to regional scientific knowledge), Scopus (wide international coverage), and ERIC (specialized in global education literature) were chosen to ensure comprehensive research. Methodological Focus: The research leaned on systematic reviews rather than meta-analyses because many reviewed studies lacked sufficient statistical data for quantitative meta-analysis. Geographical Context: The countries Spain, Thailand, and Chile were selected for their diverse educational contexts and recent contributions to studies on innovative pedagogical practices. Theoretical Framework: The study integrated Ausubel's Meaningful Learning Theory and Mishra & Koehler's TPACK Model to connect pedagogical, technological, and content knowledge strategies in university contexts. State of the Art Expansion: The research went beyond summarizing the state of the art by analyzing key educational theories, offering an updated and context-specific understanding of pedagogical challenges. Exclusion of Systematic Reviews: The focus was shifted to empirical studies (quantitative or qualitative) rather than systematic reviews to ensure alignment with the primary research goal of gathering direct, context-specific evidence. Addressing Data Access Limitations: Despite access to prominent databases like ERIC, SciELO, and Scopus, editorial restrictions on full-text access limited the inclusion of some relevant studies. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Maria Alfredo Moreira See the authors' detailed response to the review by Hoang-Yen Phuong See the authors' detailed response to the review by Jay Fie Paler Luzano READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction In the university system, the ability to provide quality education is the highest expression that is achieved through the faculty. In this regard, the good practices developed by university professors become essential elements to ensure the success of the learning outcomes established in each subject. The educational community periodically conducts workshops, seminars, and other courses for the professional development of faculty members, regardless of their specialization ( Chukwuemeka & Samaila, 2020 ; Latorre-Cosculluela et al ., 2023 ). Additionally, within the university environment, faculty members must remain constantly updated on technology-related topics and knowledge ( Alvites, 2019 ). In this context, a literature review has identified effective teaching practices with the aim of benefiting higher education institutions and selecting the best technology-related teaching strategies ( Khoza, 2022 ), leaving a gap in strategies and evaluations. However, when researching English teaching strategies in classrooms, six strategies were identified: memory, cognitive, compensatory, metacognitive, affective, and social. Researchers suggest further qualitative research in this area ( Tieocharoen & Rimkeeratikul, 2019 ). Regarding contextual and pedagogical aspects, emerging pedagogical best practices in higher education address concerns related to assessment and improvement proposals at the end of the undergraduate thesis. However, there is a shortage of information on the methodological development of these best pedagogical practices ( Camilli Trujillo et al ., 2022 ). The updating and implementation of pedagogical approaches in university institutions create a connection between teaching and learning, positively impacting the quality of education and student engagement. A relevant methodological approach is the use of workshops as complements to the curriculum ( Asensio Pastor, 2019 ). This research focuses on the systematization and analysis of effective pedagogical practices in the university context. Its importance lies in its direct impact on the quality of university education. These best practices not only enhance the student learning experience but also strengthen the ability of academic institutions to adapt to student needs. By understanding these practices, it is possible to promote and/or improve certain strategies, thus enhancing the quality of higher education. From this, the guiding question arises: “What innovative pedagogical practices have been developed in university settings to improve teaching and learning effectiveness?” This question involves the description of strategies and the evaluation of the pedagogical process. The research aims to systematize and provide scientific evidence for teaching professionals to use in their work and promote meaningful learning. Regarding the design of activities and materials, current research indicates that the role of pedagogical practices and learning experiences presents challenges for both faculty and students in terms of necessary materials ( Tadesse et al ., 2020 ). Furthermore, faculty members are always willing to introduce changes in teaching methodology ( Mataka et al ., 2022 ). These changes or planned strategies are aimed at achieving academic goals, with the condition of achieving academic success through learning ( Ayu, 2021 ). Pedagogical practices emphasize the reflective aspect, not only for increasing knowledge but also for establishing a relationship between research and practice ( Sotomayor-Soloaga, 2021 ). In Spain, research was conducted on the flipped classroom as a pedagogical strategy in higher education, concluding that it is necessary to combine the flipped classroom with gamification. This strategy improves academic performance and autonomy ( Carpena Arias & Esteve Mon, 2022 ). Similarly, research in Thailand explored the use of various strategies for language learning, revealing statistically significant differences in memory, cognitive, affective, and social strategies among students ( Tieocharoen & Rimkeeratikul, 2019 ). Likewise, a research conducted in Thailand ( Tieocharoen & Rimkeeratikul, 2019 ) focused on analyzing language learning strategies, such as memory, cognitive, affective, and social strategies. Although these strategies belong to the student domain, the case illustrates effective pedagogical strategies. A study conducted in Chile, focusing on teachers considered “the best teachers,” identified prominent characteristics such as promoting student autonomy, encouraging student participation, activating prior knowledge, and resolving doubts, strategically managing errors, creating a challenging thinking environment, asking good questions, making the most of time and space, having clarity in the evaluation system, and maintaining physical and emotional proximity ( Sotomayor-Soloaga, 2021 ). These explored backgrounds represent diverse educational contexts such as Europe, Asia, and America. The selection of Spain, Thailand, and Chile reflects their relevance in recent research exploring various aspects of best pedagogical practices in cultural and educational contexts. Studies from these countries provide an opportunity to analyze the effective strategies that are adopted and evolve based on their characteristics. Reviewing theories about best pedagogical practices reveals new subcategories based on teaching practices, allowing faculty to examine, interpret, and recreate their pedagogical practice, turning it into a source of learning from a perspective of change and innovation ( Merellano-Navarro et al ., 2020 ). The research highlights the need to use effective teaching strategies, suggesting that the debate method, among others, can improve students’ critical thinking ( Ahmod & Zhang, 2021 ; Crolla et al ., 2019 ). Furthermore, the use of various strategies offers the opportunity to significantly transform the teaching process, promoting effective student learning ( Tadesse et al ., 2021 ). Debate becomes a pedagogical tool for both faculty and students when providing quality feedback ( Crolla et al ., 2019 ). Another way to actively participate in and collaborate in the learning process is through intrinsic or extrinsic motivation ( Tulyakul et al ., 2022 ). The literature review reveals dimensions of best pedagogical practices. Evaluation is present throughout the learning process and requires the presence of a methodology to achieve self-directed learning. It also requires faculty preparedness for various situations ( Porcher, 2020 ). Developing good pedagogical practices strengthens students’ critical thinking, enabling them to analyze information not only quantitatively but also qualitatively, complementing research ( Mahdi et al ., 2020 ). Likewise, technology and tools are necessary and are often used in classrooms through digital games ( Cavalcante-Pimentel et al ., 2022 ). Finally, flexibility and adaptability are essential, as research results focus on the combination of the flipped classroom and gamification to improve motivation, academic performance, and autonomy of university students ( Carpena Arias & Esteve Mon, 2022 ). Another relevant aspect for improving pedagogical practice is international study trip experiences ( Ellinghaus et al ., 2019 ). Based on the theoretical foundations of Ausubel’s Meaningful Learning, which emphasizes that learning is most effective when it relates to meaningful prior knowledge, it is necessary to examine Mishra and Koehler’s TPACK model. This model describes the intersection of pedagogical, technological, and content knowledge necessary for effective teaching ( Vásconez Paredes, Darío & Mauricio, 2021 ). Additionally, from this foundational structure, other forms of knowledge intersection emerge, including (a) Pedagogical Knowledge, which involves the fusion of pedagogical skills and experience; (b) Content Knowledge, which comprises a set of skills that teachers possess regarding the meaning of pedagogical content; (c) Technological Knowledge, which implies that faculty members stay updated and develop technological skills; (d) Pedagogical Content Knowledge, which involves not only having knowledge about a specific subject but also how to convey that knowledge; (e) Technological Pedagogical Knowledge, which integrates technology, pedagogical strategies, and pedagogical content; (f ) Technological Content Knowledge, which involves integrating technology into the teaching of specific content; and (g) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, which encompasses pedagogy, technology, and content ( Farhadi & Öztürk, 2023 ; Maipita et al ., 2023 ). The research not only summarizes the state of the art but also expands it by analyzing key theories in the university context, adding value to the current understanding of the topic and providing an updated perspective tailored to pedagogical challenges. Additionally, by identifying the implementation of theories in the classroom, the study provides evidence to enhance existing knowledge about pedagogy and content in university teaching. The research is grounded in Ausubel’s Meaningful Learning theory, which emphasizes the importance of connecting new knowledge with prior meaningful concepts to achieve deep learning. Similarly, Mishra and Koehler’s TPACK model is key to analyzing the intersection of pedagogical, technological, and content knowledge in best teaching practices. These theories frame the analysis, enabling the integration of innovative teaching strategies in specific contexts and contributing to the advancement of the state of the art in higher education. Education, according to Émile Durkheim, is a key social phenomenon in the reproduction and transformation of society. He considers its role fundamental in the socialization of individuals and the transmission of norms, values, and knowledge that ensure social cohesion. Therefore, research on Pedagogical Practices will focus on social sciences, as it influences the formation of individuals within a social context ( Durkheim, 2015 ). Based on the presented theory, there is a need to delve deeper into the best pedagogical practices developed at the university level. Methods The research follows a qualitative approach with a hermeneutic design. This design allows for an in-depth exploration and interpretation of various concepts presented by different authors, aiming to achieve a more comprehensive and enriched understanding. Furthermore, the research is classified as applied research since it works with existing elements but seeks to establish new concepts or methods to address the identified issue, aligning with the principles outlined in the Frascati Manual 2015 ( OECD, 2015 ). Table 1 in the article presents the detailed procedures developed for each subcategory, providing a structured framework for the research methodology and analysis. Table 1. Category and subcategories of good pedagogical practices. Category Subcategory Good pedagogical practice Strategies It is a series of practices that teachers continuously carry out within the classroom, aiming to make the evaluation and learning process much more interactive for the internalization of new knowledge. Additionally, it possesses characteristics such as being innovative, effective, sustainable, and replicable ( Unesco, 2017 ). Pedagogical strategies include frequent and personalized feedback. The strategy involves providing students with individualized feedback on their strengths and areas for improvement, as well as guidance for their academic and personal development. Evaluation Feedback is considered essential in the evaluation processes. In addition to providing grades or scores, it is recommended that teachers offer detailed feedback and guidance for improving performance. This helps students understand their mistakes, identify improvement strategies, and set realistic learning goals. To identify relevant scientific articles, a specific set of keywords was carefully chosen. These keywords served as the initial search parameters, but the search was not limited to these terms alone. Synonyms and related terms were also incorporated to expand the scope of the search. Table 2 provides a comprehensive list of the selected keywords along with their corresponding synonyms. It is important to emphasize that these keywords represent the culmination of multiple search iterations, resulting in the formulation of a search ‘equation.’ This equation is designed to be replicable by fellow researchers in the future, thus contributing to the ongoing advancement of knowledge in the field. Table 2. Synonyms of research keywords. Research Keywords Synonyms Good pedagogical practices Effective teaching strategies university professors Higher education teachers Likewise, a search equation was employed, utilizing Boolean operators OR and AND. The OR operator was used for synonyms, while AND was employed to connect the keywords. The equation was structured as follows: (Good pedagogical practices OR Effective teaching strategies) AND (university professors OR Higher education teachers). It is worth noting that the search was conducted across three databases. The first was the “ Educational Resources Information Center ” (ERIC), specialized in Education. The second database was Scopus , known for its high-quality content for researchers, and finally, the Proquest database, accessed through advanced search functions, for potential future replication purposes. To locate articles, a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The initial criterion stipulated that articles must fall within the temporal range of 2015 to 2023. The decision to select this time frame was informed by the observation that there was no significant increase in scientific article production in the preceding decade (2005-2015). This suggests that research in this area began to gain relevance and increase in quantity starting from 2015 ( Gómez Velasco et al ., 2022 ). Furthermore, articles identified as conference papers and reviews were excluded due to their limited presence. Additionally, postgraduate work publications are infrequent and have limited impact on the international scientific community ( Mamani Benito et al ., 2021 ). It should be noted that duplicate articles across any of the three databases were removed. Finally, the authors conducted a thorough selection process, focusing on articles most pertinent to the research, based on the abstract and conclusion of each article. Table 3 provides a detailed overview of the procedures conducted. Table 3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for selected documents. Database Identification - Initial Search Temporal Range - 10 years (2015-2023) Eligibility - Subject - Education or Social Sciences/Peer-reviewed only/Full Text Availability Inclusion - Higher Education/Publisher Restrictions/Teaching Methods/Articles According to proposed objectives Eric 204 040 71 988 9 915 1 615 15 Scopus 13 12 7 4 4 Proquest 222 334 54 366 19 980 19 457 6 Total 426 387 126 366 29 902 21 076 25 Likewise, the PRISMA diagram was created, as shown in Figure 1 , providing a graphical representation of the preselection process ( Page et al ., 2021 ). Figure 1. PRISMA diagram for the selection of scientific articles on good pedagogical practices. The research was structured in accordance with the PRISMA statement. In the methods section, the following criteria were taken into account: (a) Protocol and registration, (b) Eligibility criteria, (c) Sources of information, (d) Search strategy, (e) Study selection, (f ) Data collection process, and (g) Data items ( Hutton et al ., 2016 ). All of these points aim to adhere to the procedure outlined in the PRISMA statement, as illustrated in Table 4 . A completed PRISMA checklist can be found as Extended data ( Suyo-Vega, Fernández-Bedoya, & Meneses-La-Riva, 2023 ). Table 4. Methods for protocol, eligibility criteria, sources of information, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, and data items. Method Protocol The selected articles are archived in the Mendeley data management folder, following a coding system established for each database: SCOPUS-PRÁCTICASPP, SCIELO-PRÁCTICASPP, and ERIC-PRÁCTICASPP. Eligibility criteria Articles selected encompass the years 2015 to 2023; final-stage articles within the field of social sciences, peer-reviewed, freely accessible, and without publisher restrictions were chosen. Monographs, essays, editorials, and other materials not aligned with the research objectives were excluded. The inclusion of original research that provided more direct and applicable evidence to the context of the study was prioritized, excluding those that summarized or synthesized findings from previous studies. Information sources We selected scientific articles from the ERIC, Scopus, and Proquest databases. The search was conducted from May 1st to July 12th, 2023. Search equation We used the search equation (Good pedagogical practices OR Effective teaching strategies) AND (university professors OR Higher education teachers). In the Scopus database, this search yielded 13 results. After filtering by years, 12 articles were selected. Next, we filtered by the thematic area, keeping only those in the field of Social Sciences, resulting in 11 articles. We then removed 1 conference paper, leaving 10 eligible articles. Finally, we further refined the selection by choosing articles with open access, resulting in 4 articles. These 4 selected articles were downloaded and placed in a coded folder for analysis. Study selection The selected articles were initially analyzed by examining their abstracts, with a focus on identifying their objectives and activities related to good pedagogical practices. Articles that primarily constituted literature reviews or systematic reviews, or those that primarily defined or analyzed the importance of developing good practices, were excluded. Data collection process The collection process was carried out using Boolean operators, and the research team collaborated to identify the instances of good pedagogical practices within each article. Data items Each article was thoroughly reviewed in three aspects. The first aspect involved the analysis of informative data, such as the author’s name or names and the respective year of publication. The second aspect focused on identifying the instances of good pedagogical practices within the articles, including descriptions of the activities undertaken. The third aspect involved evaluating how the good pedagogical practice was presented or visualized. These three selected aspects were identified and documented in a table for better comprehension. The team analyzed the activities described in each research article and synthesized each finding through interpretation. Results After the selection of articles, an in-depth analysis was conducted as detailed in Tables 5 and 6 . Table 5. Included studies. Number Reference Journal Good pedagogical practice Design 1 ( Ruiz de Gauna et al ., 2015 ) Educación Médica Promotion of good practices based on competencies Qualitative 2 ( Zhong, 2018 ) Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice Student-centered learning Qualitative 3 ( Zamora-Polo et al ., 2019 ) Education Sciences Active learning pedagogy and gamification in a flipped classroom Qualitative 4 ( López Serrano, 2019 ) El Futuro del Pasado The use of cinema as a pedagogical approach Mixed 5 ( Medero & Albaladejo, 2020 ) Knowledge Management and E-Learning Creation of a wiki Qualitative 6 ( Jan et al ., 2020 ) Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction Utilization of the LOTE (Languages Other Than English) pedagogy Qualitative 7 ( Isayeva et al ., 2020 ) Advanced Education Strategies for teaching foreign languages through blended learning Mixed 8 ( du Plessis, 2020 ) South African Journal of Education Utilization of future teachers’ workbooks Qualitative 9 ( Foos, 2020 ) Journal of Instructional Pedagogies Micro-influencers for developing their personal brands Qualitative 10 ( Sun & Liu, 2021 ) Higher Education Studies Student-centered strategies Qualitative 11 ( Schwartzman et al ., 2021 ) RIED-Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia Remote Assessment of Learning in the University Qualitative 12 ( Lindstrom et al ., 2021 ) Australian Journal of Teacher Education Use of classroom scenarios for practicing difficult conversations Qualitative 13 ( Miranda et al ., 2021 ) Education Sciences Peer observation Mixed 14 ( Galoyan et al ., 2021 ) Online Learning Journal Online pedagogical practices that enhance transfer Cuantitative 15 ( Şeker & Inan Karagül, 2021 ) Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age Self-directed learning strategies for effective writing through a self-assessment framework Qualitative 16 ( Sun & Liu, 2021 ) Higher Education Studies Effective strategies for implementing online teaching of theoretical mechanics Qualitative 17 ( Allison et al ., 2021 ) Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice Collaborative self-study Qualitative 18 ( Martín Gómez et al ., 2022 ) Revista Complutense de Educacion The teaching journal, promoting a reflective and investigative attitude Qualitative 19 ( Fernández-Franco et al ., 2022 ) Estudios Pedagógicos Development of reflective competence during physical education teacher training practices Qualitative 20 ( Fernández Miranda et al ., 2022 ) Bordón. Revista de Pedagogía Inverted method as a didactic model in virtual learning Cuantitative 21 ( Donato et al ., 2022 ) Foro de Educación Responsibility and pedagogical dialogue model, considering different learning styles as a positive resource Qualitative 22 ( Essa Aloud, 2022 ) Arab World English Journal Corrective online feedback Qualitative 23 ( Perdomo et al ., 2022 ) Learning and Teaching Creative Process 3.0 and the use of digital tools Mixed 24 ( Camús Ferri et al ., 2022 ) Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice Dialogical literary gatherings Qualitative 25 ( Lobos et al ., 2023 ) Sustainability (Switzerland) Lessons learned during remote teaching Qualitative Table 6. Analysis of developed strategies and the emerging impact resulting from the application of pedagogical best practices. Number Reference Strategy Type of strategy Forms of assessment 1 ( Ruiz de Gauna et al ., 2015 ) A paradigm shift involving changes not only in content, methodology, and assessment of teaching-learning processes, but also in those related to educational institutions, curriculum, and the culture of teachers/tutors. 1 Competency-based evaluation in specific situations. 2 ( Zhong, 2018 ) Improving communication between teachers and students using online tools within a large-scale class. 1 Ongoing student assessments and feedback favor the use of online courses. 3 ( Zamora-Polo et al ., 2019 ) The strategy includes just-in-time teaching, an oral methodology, cooperative activities, and a game-based activity to generate positive emotions. It also involves the use of materials for home-based reading, such as videotutorials or podcasts. 2 Evaluation through post-session surveys in a Flipped classroom with gamification incentives. 4 ( López Serrano, 2019 ) A questionnaire was applied for a bibliographic survey containing titles of pedagogical movies, followed by the selection of the subject and student group to view them. In this context, cinema plays a central role. 2 Evaluation through cinema, with the school adapting to the digital and virtual society. 5 ( Medero & Albaladejo, 2020 ) A wiki was created to promote active collaboration and open education among students. The rules stipulated that only students could publish on this platform, although the public had free access. Continuous assessment and feedback were highlighted. 2,3 Evaluation based on the analysis of results obtained by students and teachers on the platform. 6 ( Jan et al ., 2020 ) The LOTE (Languages Other Than English) pedagogy was developed through integrated teaching with technology and teacher narratives. 2 Evaluation under the understanding of language teaching practices (LOTE). 7 ( Isayeva et al ., 2020 ) E-Learning was used to promote self-directed learning, with specific activities before or after in-class learning. This teaching approach was 40% electronic and 60% in-person, measuring literacy levels and linguistic competence. 2 Evaluation through questionnaires. 8 ( du Plessis, 2020 ) The strategy aimed to expose future education professionals to a “student-centered” approach by placing them in productive and successful educational institutions with different social backgrounds. 1 Evaluation based on three aspects: (a) participant perspectives, (b) author’s interpretations, and (c) theoretical framework. 9 ( Foos, 2020 ) The strategy involved students acting as micro-influencers to develop and promote their personal brands through social media and blogs. 2 Evaluation through messages on Slack and social networks. 10 ( Sun & Liu, 2021 ) Through the DingTalk platform, four strategies were developed to improve teaching: 1) live teaching, 2) the use of electronic whiteboards, 3) linking theory with practice, and 4) integrating curriculum content into ideological and moral education. 2 Formative evaluation using different methods such as class note review, asking questions, in-class exercises, and administering quizzes. 11 ( Schwartzman et al ., 2021 ) A workshop with teachers identified learning focused on repetition and learning focused on comprehension. Forums were used as a means of communication. 1,2 Teacher evaluation to support or verify the learning processes. 12 ( Lindstrom et al ., 2021 ) Instructors implemented classroom situations to help teacher trainees address difficult conversations with students, promoting critical reflection and discussion on creating culturally responsive classrooms, to change future teachers’ perceptions of effective teaching qualities. 1,3 Evaluation through debate and the proposal of new strategies. 13 ( Miranda et al ., 2021 ) In the study, four higher education teachers from different disciplinary areas observed each other’s teaching practices. The goal was to assess whether constructive feedback focused on pedagogical practices rather than content. The importance of feedback was emphasized. 1,3 Evaluation through the comparison of quantitative and qualitative approaches. 14 ( Galoyan et al ., 2021 ) The research focused on developing the transfer of topics related to online pedagogical practices across various contexts. It involved practice, feedback, fragmentation, and presentations. 2,3 Evaluation through metacognition. 15 ( Şeker & Inan Karagül, 2021 ) The methodology focused on completing a self-assessment framework with effective writing strategies, at three stages: before, during, and after writing. It described various strategies used in each case, such as brainstorming, grammar review tools like Grammarly, WhiteSmoke, LanguageTool, among others, and constant feedback. 2,3 Evaluation through semi-structured interviews. 16 ( Sun & Liu, 2021 ) The methodology consisted of identifying and describing reflective and investigative attitudes of future early childhood education teachers. 3 Reflective self-evaluation as a strategy. 17 ( Allison et al ., 2021 ) Strategies used included active collaboration among students to build and share their knowledge. 1,3 Evaluation through reflection journals, course materials, class notes, and student responses and comments. 18 ( Martín Gómez et al ., 2022 ) The methodology involved analyzing diaries of future teachers, from which emerged categories related to the educational context, teachers, students, and families, with a focus on teacher tasks. 1,3 Not specified. 19 ( Fernández-Franco et al ., 2022 ) The methodology was divided into three phases: pre-active, where each student prepared their lesson in collaboration with a mentor and a cooperating teacher; simultaneously, researchers generated instruments such as observation rubrics and video cameras. The active phase involved all parties using a checklist and filming the process. Finally, the post-active phase involved filming the discussion and analyzing new knowledge about reflective practice. 2,3 Self-assessment, peer assessment, and through discussion groups. 20 ( Fernández Miranda et al ., 2022 ) Implemented through a flipped classroom methodology using the Canva platform, communication occurred via email, internal messaging, chat, forums, and video conferencing, followed by forums and group tutorials. 2,3 Evaluation supported by feedback to achieve autonomous learning. 21 ( Donato et al ., 2022 ) A new form of teaching outside the classroom was achieved through the creation of a radio program. 2,3 Evaluation and self-assessment in three phases: team self-assessment, peer evaluation at the end of the presentation, and teacher evaluation. 22 ( Essa Aloud, 2022 ) The strategy involved observing the classes of five teachers, conducting semi-structured interviews, and analyzing the knowledge and practices of the teachers. The research focused on corrective online feedback in an English oral expression class. 3 Evaluation through “output-prompting” strategies and less “input-providing.” 23 ( Perdomo et al ., 2022 ) Pro.Seso Creativo® 3.0 is a methodology consisting of five phases designed to help students tackle challenges and problems to arrive at creative solutions. 2,3 Internal evaluations within discussion groups and end-of-semester surveys. 24 ( Camús Ferri et al ., 2022 ) Interviews explored experiences with dialogical literary gatherings, highlighting the advantages and difficulties encountered, emphasizing cognitive and communication skills. 3 Not specified. 25 ( Lobos et al ., 2023 ) A questionnaire was administered to gather the best learning experiences, including effective learning resources such as recorded classes, infographics and videos, and the use of relevant movies or TV series. 2,3 Three aspects were evaluated: (a) Types of feedback (individual, group, public, and anonymous); (b) moments of feedback (at the beginning of the class or immediately after execution), and (c) didactic feedback (capability or procedure). Discussion From the analyzed best practices, three key strategies that promote teaching and learning in higher education can be grouped as follows: a) Student-Centered Teaching Strategies: In this approach, educators recognize the importance of actively involving students in their own learning process. Autonomy is valued, and individual student needs and learning styles are respected, fostering critical thinking ( Ahmod & Zhang, 2021 ; Crolla et al ., 2019 ; Mahdi et al ., 2020 ; Tadesse et al ., 2021 ; Tulyakul et al ., 2022 ). b) Online Teaching Strategies and Educational Technology Usage: Faculty integrate educational technology and adapt it to online teaching environments, utilizing digital tools to enhance teaching and learning. This turns learning into a source of pedagogical innovation ( Carpena Arias & Esteve Mon, 2022 ; Cavalcante-Pimentel et al ., 2022 ; Merellano-Navarro et al ., 2020 ). c) Assessment and Feedback Strategies: These strategies enable educators to provide constructive and ongoing feedback to students with the aim of improving learning and academic growth ( Maipita et al ., 2023 ; Vásconez Paredes, Darío & Mauricio, 2021 ). In conclusion, promoting pedagogical best practices based on student-centered strategies and self-directed learning is essential for improving the teaching and learning process in higher education, beyond traditional teaching methods. These practices allow educators to tailor instruction to student needs and learning styles, promoting student autonomy and motivation. Incorporating strategies using technological tools makes teaching effective and enriches the learning experience in virtual environments within the university setting. Additionally, the use of digital tools and innovative methodologies facilitates access to education and provides rapid and effective feedback to students. Research on pedagogical best practices in higher education is essential for the advancement of teaching and learning. It provides valuable information that benefits both current and future educators, equipping them with tools to address challenges and adapt strategies to their context. Moreover, it contributes to the continuous improvement of teacher training and fosters innovation in the educational sphere, creating a more stimulating and effective environment for the teaching and learning process. Certain limitations were identified during the research process. One limitation is related to the timeframe. The research was conducted between 2015 and 2023. However, to gain a more comprehensive and longitudinal view of trends in the literature, it would be beneficial to extend the study period by several additional years. Another limitation is related to the availability of sources. Despite having access to a variety of databases such as ERIC, SciELO, and Scopus, it has been observed that some research of interest is not available in full PDF format, hindering the sharing of certain findings with the scientific community. This research significantly contributes to existing knowledge in the field of pedagogical best practices in the university context. Through document analysis, online teaching and student-centered learning, two fundamental aspects of modern pedagogy, were addressed. The research team proposes alternatives such as the implementation of a continuous professional development program for faculty, designed to be accessible virtually and on an ongoing basis. This initiative aims to ensure that faculty members are in a constant state of development and skill updating, ultimately translating into a high-quality learning experience for students. In this context, it is recommended to expand research to other modalities and educational levels, as well as to explore successful experiences in countries that have effectively adopted these pedagogical practices. Limitations The study focuses on the period starting in 2015, as the UNESCO report (2015) highlights a radical transformation in global education methods, content, and learning spaces, particularly affecting higher education. This time frame was chosen because the decade prior (2005–2015) did not exhibit a significant increase in the scientific production of articles. Research gained greater relevance and volume starting in 2015 ( Gómez Velasco et al., 2022 ). On the selection of databases, SciELO was chosen for its role in democratizing access to scientific knowledge in Latin America, showcasing regional research that was previously considered “lost science” due to limited distribution ( Crespo Fajardo, 2019 ) Scopus was selected for its extensive international coverage and reputation as a leading database for evaluating scientific output. Its high percentage of articles in English (67%) and Spanish (86%) enables access to impactful and relevant studies across various disciplines ( Márquez Jiménez & Alcántara Santuario, 2017 ). ERIC was included for its specialization in global education and its provision of access to relevant literature in the field ( Mosquera Ayala, 2017 ). Other databases were not included in this research. Only articles in English and Spanish were analyzed due to the predominance of these languages in the selected databases—SciELO, Scopus, and ERIC. These platforms prioritize research dissemination in these languages, facilitating access to a broad range of scientific literature ( Márquez Jiménez & Alcántara Santuario, 2017 ). The study aims to systematize innovative pedagogical practices in higher education, aligning more closely with a systematic review rather than a meta-analysis, which quantifies effects based on numerical data. Many reviewed studies lacked consistent data, such as means and standard deviations, necessary for conducting a meta-analysis ( Debby Ng et al., 2022 ). The study did not detail the challenges or barriers to implementing innovative practices due to its limited scope. Further research could close this gap. Data availability Underlying data All data underlying the results are available as part of the article and no additional source data are required. Reporting guidelines Zenodo: PRISMA 2020 checklist for ‘Beyond Traditional Teaching: A Systematic Review of Innovative Pedagogical Practices in Higher Education’ https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8404402 ( Suyo-Vega, Fernández-Bedoya, & Meneses-La-Riva, 2023 ). Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). References Ahmod U, Zhang W: An effective instructional strategies approach in higher education: A pilot investigation. International Journal of Higher Education. 2021; 10 (5): 68. Publisher Full Text Allison VA, Haniford LC, Ramirez LA: Implications for selves and students through introducing new pedagogical strategies into our teacher education practice. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice. 2021; 21 (8): 31–43. Publisher Full Text Alvites G: Estrés docente y factores psicosociales en docentes de Latinoamérica, Norteamérica y Europa. Journal of Indo - European Studies. 2019; 47 (3/4): 141–159. Asensio Pastor MI: Reading and academic scripture in higher education: The workshop as a didactic strategy. Psychology, Society and Education. 2019; 11 (2): 205–219. Publisher Full Text Ayu M: Applying text feature walks strategy in higher education to improve students’ critical reading comprehension. JET (Journal of English Teaching). 2021; 7 (3): 354–365. Publisher Full Text Camilli Trujillo C, Arroyo Resino D, Asensio Muñoz I, et al. : Systematic integrative review of the final project: contextual and pedagogical aspects. Revista Complutense de Educacion. 2022; 33 (3): 543–553. Publisher Full Text Camús Ferri MDM, Martínez MJI, Cabezas IL: Dialogic learning as a strategy for reflection and development of communication in initial teacher training. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice. 2022; 22 (10): 156–167. Publisher Full Text Carpena Arias J, Esteve Mon F: Gamified flipped classroom as a pedagogical strategy in higher education: A systematic review. Edutec. 2022; 80 : 84–98. Publisher Full Text Cavalcante-Pimentel FS, Morais-Marques M, Barbosa V: Learning strategies through digital games in a university context. Comunicar. 2022; 30 (73): 83–93. Publisher Full Text Chukwuemeka EJ, Samaila D: Teachers’ perception and factors limiting the use of high-tech assistive technology in special education schools in North-West Nigeria. Contemporary Educational Technology. 2020; 11 (1): 99–109. Publisher Full Text Crespo Fajardo JL: Acceso abierto vía diamante en revistas científicas latinoamericanas. Tlatemoani. 2019; 30 : 169–187. Reference Source Crolla K, Hodgson P, Ho A: ‘Peer Critique’ in debate: A pedagogical tool for teaching architectural design studio. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 2019; 13 (3): 6–11. Publisher Full Text Debby Ng E, Xin Chua JY, Shorey S: The effectiveness of educational interventions on traditional bullying and cyberbullying among adolescents: A Systematic review and Meta-Analysis. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse. 2022; 23 (1): 132–151. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Donato D, García de Fez S, Bernat Mateu I, et al. : Formación inicial del profesorado. Una experiencia de cogeneración del conocimiento en el Máster Universitario en Profesor/a de Educación Secundaria. Foro de Educación. 2022; 20 (june): 281–296. Publisher Full Text Durkheim É: Educación y sociología. Ediciones Península. 2015; Reference Source du Plessis E : Student teachers’ perceptions, experiences, and challenges regarding learner-centred teaching. South African Journal of Education. 2020; 40 (1): 1–10. Publisher Full Text Ellinghaus K, Spinks J, Moore G, et al. : Learning to teach in the field: five professors tell how running an overseas study tour improved their classroom teaching. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad. 2019; 31 (1): 169–189. Publisher Full Text Essa Aloud R: Saudi Female EFL teachers’ cognition and practices regarding online corrective feedback in speaking class. Arab World English Journal. 2022; 8 : 56–69. Publisher Full Text Farhadi S, Öztürk G: Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) level and needs of pre-service english as a foreign language (EFL) teachers: Evidence from Turkey. Revista Educación. 2023; 47 : 0–15. Publisher Full Text Fernández-Franco JR, Hincapié-Bedoya D, Aparicio-Herguedas JL: The reflexivity developed during the pedagogical practices of initial education of physical education teachers in Medellín, Colombia. Estudios pedagógicos. 2022; 48 (1): 89–108. Publisher Full Text Fernández Miranda M, Dios Castillo CA, Sosa Córdova DM, et al. : Método invertido y modelo didáctico: una perspectiva motivadora del aprendizaje virtual en contextos de pandemia. Bordón. Revista de Pedagogía. 2022; 74 (3): 11–34. Publisher Full Text Foos AE: Teaching Generation Z Social Media Marketing: A Micro-Influencer Project. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies. 2020; 24 : 1–12. Galoyan T, Betts K, Delaney B, et al. : Exploring online pedagogical practices for enhancing transfer of learning in higher education. Online Learning Journal. 2021; 25 (4): 29–48. Publisher Full Text Gómez Velasco NY, Ayala Montoya LF, Gómez Velasco NS: Panoramas de producción y redes de colaboración científica. Indicadores y comparativos. Suramérica y otros países. Revista Historia de La Educación Latinoamericana. 2022; 24 (39): 107–126. Publisher Full Text Hutton B, Catalá-López F, Mohed D: La extensión de la declaración PRISMA para revisiones sistemáticas que incorporan metaanálisis en red: PRISMA-NMA. The PRISMA statement extension for systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analysis: PRISMA-NMA.Medicina Clínica.2016; 147 (6): 262–266. Publisher Full Text Isayeva O, Shumylo M, Khmilyar I, et al. : Blended learning in higher medical education: principles and strategies of teaching foreign languages. Advanced Education. 2020; 7 (14): 11–18. Publisher Full Text Jan A, Samuel MS, Shafiq A: Pedagogical practices of languages other than english teachers: A case study of a Malaysian private university. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction. 2020; 17 (1): 77–99. Publisher Full Text Khoza NG: A review of literature on the effective pedagogy strategies for online teaching and learning in higher education institutions: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Education. 2022; 5 (1): 43–55. Publisher Full Text Latorre-Cosculluela C, Flores-Santolaria M, Vázquez-Toledo S, et al. : ¿Cómo responde el sistema educativo al alumnado con TEA ?: Un estudio cualitativo de los contextos ordinarios, especiales y preferentes. Revista Complutense de Educacion. 2023; 34 (2): 437–447. Publisher Full Text Lindstrom D, Jones G, Thompson M, et al. : Developing preservice teacher conceptions of effective teachers using classroom scenarios to practice difficult conversations. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 2021; 46 (12): 21–34. Publisher Full Text Lobos K, Cobo-Rendón R, García-Álvarez D, et al. : Lessons Learned from the Educational Experience during COVID-19 from the perspective of Latin american university students. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2023; 15 (3): 1–20. Publisher Full Text López Serrano MJ: El cine como propuesta pedagógica en el alumnado del Grado de Maestro en Educación Primaria. El Futuro Del Pasado. 2019; 10 : 327–341. Publisher Full Text Mahdi OR, Nassar IA, Almuslamani HAI: The role of using case studies method in improving students’ critical thinking skills in higher education. International Journal of Higher Education. 2020; 9 (2): 297–308. Publisher Full Text Maipita I, Dongoran FR, Husrizal Syah D, et al. : TPACK, organizational support, and technostress in explaining teacher. Performance during fully online learning. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research. 2023; 22 : 41–70. Publisher Full Text Mamani Benito O, Caycho-Rodríguez T, Tito-Betancur M, et al. : Publicación científica de los trabajos de grado de maestría de una escuela de posgrado en el Perú. Revista Digital de Investigación En Docencia Universitaria. 2021; 16 (1): e1469. Publisher Full Text Martín Gómez P, García Rodríguez ML, Mena Marcos J: The practicum in the degree of early chilhood education: analysis of teaching journals. Revista Complutense de Educacion. 2022; 33 (1): 131–140. Publisher Full Text Márquez Jiménez A, Alcántara Santuario A: Impacto de los índices internacionales en la producción científica en educación. Tendencias en las revistas de investigación educativa en Iberoamérica. Universidades. 2017; 73 : 7–25. Reference Source Mataka LM, Saderholm JC, Hodge TT: College STEM faculty teaching practices: The influence of a professional development. Electronic Journal For Research In Science & Mathematics Education. 2022; 26 (3): 40–56. Medero GS, Albaladejo GP: The use of a wiki to boost open and collaborative learning in a Spanish university. Knowledge Management and E-Learning. 2020; 12 (1): 1–17. Publisher Full Text Merellano-Navarro E, Muñoz-Oyarce F, Rios Chandia M, et al. : Perspective of teaching in university professors: case study in a chilean university. International Journal of Higher Education. 2020; 10 (2): 140. Publisher Full Text Miranda JP, Batista M, Duarte C, et al. : Interdisciplinary class observation in higher education: Lessons learned from the professional development experience of four teachers. Education Sciences. 2021; 11 (11). Publisher Full Text Mosquera Ayala AM: ERIC una alternativa para la búsqueda de información académica dirigida a investigadores del área de educación. 2017; pp. 1–3. OECD: Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Researchand Experimental Development.The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities.Paris: OECD Publishing; 2015. Publisher Full Text Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. : The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Rev. Esp. Cardiol. 2021; 74 (9): 790–799. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Perdomo B, del Carmen Llontop Castillo M , Mas O: Teaching creative careers in the pandemic: A study of digital tools used by university instructors. Learning and Teaching. 2022; 15 (2): 53–80. Publisher Full Text Porcher K: Teaching while Black: Best practices for engaging white Pre-service teachers in discourse focused on individual & cultural diversity in urban schools. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research. 2020; 15 (1): 116–134. Publisher Full Text Ruiz de Gauna P, González Moro V, Morán-Barrios J: Ten pedagogical keys to promote good practices in competency-based Medical Education, for undergraduate and postgraduate. Educacion Médica. 2015; 16 (1): 34–42. Publisher Full Text Schwartzman G, Roni C, Berk M, et al. : Remote learning assessments in higher education: Teaching decision making when facing a new challenge. RIED-Revista Iberoamericana de Educacion a Distancia. 2021; 24 (2): 67–85. Publisher Full Text Şeker M, Inan Karagül B: Assisting higher education learners online to acquire self-regulated writing strategies during Covid-19. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age. 2021; 7 (1): 64–75. Publisher Full Text Sotomayor-Soloaga PA: Good pedagogical practices in science teaching. Magis. 2021; 14 : 1–23. Publisher Full Text Sun H, Liu T: Student-Centered online teaching practices in theoretical mechanics. Higher Education Studies. 2021; 11 (2): 233. Publisher Full Text Suyo-Vega JA, Fernández-Bedoya VH, Meneses-La-Riva ME: PRISMA 2020 checklist for Beyond Traditional Teaching: A Systematic Review of Innovative Pedagogical Practices in Higher Education. Zenodo. 2023. Publisher Full Text Tadesse T, Asmare A, Ware H: Exploring teachers’ lived experiences of cooperative learning in ethiopian higher education classrooms: A phenomenological-case study. Education Sciences. 2021; 11 (7). Publisher Full Text Tadesse T, Manathunga C, Gillies RM: Teachers’ pedagogical practices and students’ learning experiences in an Ethiopian university setting. Asian Journal of University Education. 2020; 16 (2): 205–225. Publisher Full Text Tieocharoen W, Rimkeeratikul S: Learning strategies and teaching methods in Thai and Vietnamese universities. Arab World English Journal. 2019; 10 (3): 99–112. Publisher Full Text Tulyakul S, Werathummo A, Khun-inkeeree H, et al. : The motivation and teaching strategies in pre-service physical education teachers. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn). 2022; 16 (2): 164–171. Publisher Full Text Unesco: 74 Buenas prácticas docentes. Experiencias con tecnología en aulas peruanas. Unesco; 2017; Vol. 53 (9). UNESCO: Replantear la educación: ¿Hacia un bien común mundial? - Biblioteca Digital de la UNESCO. Organización de Las Naciones Unidas Para La Educación, La Ciencia y La Cultura. 2015; 43 : 93. Vásconez Paredes, Darío C, Mauricio IOE: El modelo de aprendizaje TPACK y su impacto en la innovación educativa desde un análisis bibliométrico The TPACK learning model and its impact on educational innovation from a bibliometric analysis. INNOVA Research Journal. 2021; 6 (3): 79–97. Publisher Full Text Zamora-Polo F, Corrales-Serrano M, Sánchez-Martín J, et al. : Nonscientific university students training in general science using an active-learning merged pedagogy: Gamification in a flipped classroom. Education Sciences. 2019; 9 (4). Publisher Full Text Zhong L: Strategies and practices related to teaching large online classes. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice. 2018; 18 (1). Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 08 Jan 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Grupo de Investigación “Educación Virtual, Universidad Cesar Vallejo, Lima Norte, Lima, 15314, Peru Josefina Amanda Suyo-Vega Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Víctor Hugo Fernández-Bedoya Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Monica Elisa Meneses-La-Riva Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This study was carried out and funded by the Universidad César Vallejo, within the framework of the work plan outlined in RVI N°435-2022-VI-UCV. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 17 Dec 2024, 13:22 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.143392.2 version 1 Published: 08 Jan 2024, 13:22 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.143392.1 Copyright © 2024 Suyo-Vega JA et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Suyo-Vega JA, Fernández-Bedoya VH and Meneses-La-Riva ME. Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.143392.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 17 Dec 2024 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Moreira MA. Reviewer Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175777.r349763 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v2#referee-response-349763 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 20 Jan 2025 Maria Alfredo Moreira , Research Centre on Education, University of Minho, Minho, Portugal Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175777.r349763 As stated in my earlier review to this text, the mais problem lies in its theoretical underpinning. This issue was not addressed in the authors' response and it lingers in the revised version as it states (my underlining): "The research is ... Continue reading READ ALL As stated in my earlier review to this text, the mais problem lies in its theoretical underpinning. This issue was not addressed in the authors' response and it lingers in the revised version as it states (my underlining): "The research is grounded in Ausubel’s Meaningful Learning theory, which emphasizes the importance of connecting new knowledge with prior meaningful concepts to achieve deep learning. Similarly, Mishra and Koehler’s TPACK model is key to analyzing the intersection of pedagogical, technological, and content knowledge in best teaching practices. These theories frame the analysis , enabling the integration of innovative teaching strategies in specific contexts and contributing to the advancement of the state of the art in higher education." I expected this issue to be addressed but it was not. Another issue was related to the focus on Social Sciences. Now it appears grounded in Durkheim's concept of education, but social sciences are not restricted to education. This choice is still not clarified. In addition, limitations are addressed in the Discussion section, even though there is a specific section for it. In this section (Limitations), the paragraph on the data bases justifies the choice made, so it seems to be part of the methodology section. The same goes to the choice of the languages and for the design of the study. These are methodological choices that can be made, not limitations per se. The discussion section synthesises results in groups a) and b), but not c). The results are not given detailed attention, but they are the main asset of the text - what do we know now that we did not know before? The three goups of results are well-known for some decades now - is there anything new?, including the importance of a savvy pedagogical use of technologies. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Language Education; Teacher Education; Pedagogy in Higher Education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Moreira MA. Reviewer Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175777.r349763 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v2#referee-response-349763 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Waluyo B. Reviewer Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175777.r349762 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v2#referee-response-349762 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 09 Jan 2025 Budi Waluyo , Walailak University, Thai Buri, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175777.r349762 Dear Author(s), Thank you for revising the manuscript. I have carefully read your revised version. However, the quality has not improved significantly. Below are my comments: Background of the Abstract : You can condense this to ... Continue reading READ ALL Dear Author(s), Thank you for revising the manuscript. I have carefully read your revised version. However, the quality has not improved significantly. Below are my comments: Background of the Abstract : You can condense this to one sentence. However, you need to revise the first sentence to emphasize the research gap, which will help readers understand why this research was necessary. Method of the Abstract : There is no need to include the research question in this section. Results of the Abstract : You need to mention the analysis method you used and briefly explain how you performed it. Introduction Section : In the first paragraph, you should briefly discuss the development of research on innovative pedagogical practices in higher education. Then, briefly elaborate on what previous studies have explored and what they have not, which will lead to the contribution your study intends to make. In its current form, the first paragraph of your introduction is neither appealing nor convincing. First, it lacks references, which is crucial in this important section. Second, it is too short. Overall Introduction : After reading the entire introduction, I find it incoherent and unconvincing. a) It is unclear what exactly you are trying to introduce in this section. b) You mention "literature review" several times, but it is unclear whether you are referring to your own literature review or other studies. c) The introduction seems disorganized and difficult to understand. You need to reorganize and rewrite this section. You should focus on your topic, which is innovative pedagogical practices in higher education. Why is this topic worth exploring through a literature review? What has been explored in previous studies? What distinctive contributions does your study aim to make? In its current form, the section is too unfocused, and it may be difficult for readers to understand. An extensive revision is needed. Method Section : The method section looks fine overall, but I have one suggestion: please revise the paragraphs. Each paragraph should consist of at least 7-8 sentences, not just 2. You have many very short paragraphs throughout the article. Please adjust this accordingly. Results Section : This section needs significant improvement. It mainly consists of tables, with little explanation. a) Since you have a research question, you should elaborate on the results in relation to it. Even though you include tables, you need to discuss the results in a critical and comprehensive manner. A thorough revision is needed for this section. Discussion Section : This section is too brief and lacks depth. Your discussion basically only consists of points a, b, and c. They are not critical and comprehensive enough. You need to discuss how your findings relate to previous research. You should elaborate on the implications of your findings, and so on. Additionally, you need to create a specific sub-section for the conclusion. Overall, you need to do major revisions to the introduction, result, and discussion sections, among others. Best, Reviewer Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: ELT, Education, and Education Technology. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Waluyo B. Reviewer Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175777.r349762 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v2#referee-response-349762 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Paler Luzano JF. Reviewer Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175777.r349760 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v2#referee-response-349760 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 07 Jan 2025 Jay Fie Paler Luzano , Bukidnon State University, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, Philippines Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175777.r349760 The study already complied ... Continue reading READ ALL The study already complied with the required scientific rigor. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Mathematics Education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Paler Luzano JF. Reviewer Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175777.r349760 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v2#referee-response-349760 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 08 Jan 2024 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Moreira MA. Reviewer Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157048.r301479 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v1#referee-response-301479 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 07 Aug 2024 Maria Alfredo Moreira , Research Centre on Education, University of Minho, Minho, Portugal Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157048.r301479 The text reports a systematic review study focusing on a critical aspect of higher education quality, as is pedagogical practices. It addresses a relevant research question ("What innovative pedagogical practices have been developed in university settings to improve teaching and ... Continue reading READ ALL The text reports a systematic review study focusing on a critical aspect of higher education quality, as is pedagogical practices. It addresses a relevant research question ("What innovative pedagogical practices have been developed in university settings to improve teaching and learning effectiveness?”), a question that "involves the description of strategies and the evaluation of the pedagogical process.". It partially achieves its aim, of "systematiz[ing] and provide scientific evidence for teaching professionals to use in their work and promote meaningful learning." The methodology is sound, well-laid out and with a clear description of the path that was followed in order to achieve its results. However, the Introduction does not address in a systematic and coherent manner the key concepts of the study: Good pedagogical practices AND effective teaching strategies. The studies that sustain this section seem to have been selected rather randomly, as it goes into language teaching details (listing language learning strategies as if they would be a synomym of pedagogical strategies, for example), several countries (like Spain, Chile or Thailand - why these countries?), or learning theories (Ausubel's, MIshra & Koehler - what is their importance for defining the key constructs? How were these key constructs used in interpreting the results?). It is not clear how the state of the art outlined in this section will be expanded or enriched by the study. As the Discussion section does not confront the results with the concepts in the introduction, it is not clear what the advancement in the field was. Even though the methodology is sound, there are minor issues that would improve the text. Only by reading Figure 1 the reader becomes aware that the focus is on social sciences (why this focus?), as it is neither stated in the research question nor in the introduction. And why were systematic reviews excluded? Figure 1 reports exclusion of pdf formats but in the discussion it is stated: "it has been observed that some research of interest is not available in full PDF format". Thus, it is not clear whether the format of the text was a criterion for exclusion or not. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Language Education; Teacher Education; Pedagogy in Higher Education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Moreira MA. Reviewer Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157048.r301479 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v1#referee-response-301479 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 17 Dec 2024 VICTOR HUGO FERNANDEZ BEDOYA , Grupo de Investigación “Educación Virtual, Universidad Cesar Vallejo, Lima Norte, 15314, Peru 17 Dec 2024 Author Response Dear reviewer: Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, ... Continue reading Dear reviewer: Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, we attach the responses to each of the observations. Regarding the Specific Objectives The general objective of the study was to systematize innovative pedagogical best practices in the university context. Additionally, the specific objectives included: Analyzing pedagogical best practices alongside their respective methodological approaches in the university setting. Examining the applied strategies , focusing on the types of strategies (student-centered, online teaching or technology-based, and evaluation or feedback strategies). Evaluating the methods used to assess pedagogical practices , ensuring a comprehensive understanding of their effectiveness. Dear reviewer: Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, we attach the responses to each of the observations. Regarding the Specific Objectives The general objective of the study was to systematize innovative pedagogical best practices in the university context. Additionally, the specific objectives included: Analyzing pedagogical best practices alongside their respective methodological approaches in the university setting. Examining the applied strategies , focusing on the types of strategies (student-centered, online teaching or technology-based, and evaluation or feedback strategies). Evaluating the methods used to assess pedagogical practices , ensuring a comprehensive understanding of their effectiveness. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 17 Dec 2024 VICTOR HUGO FERNANDEZ BEDOYA , Grupo de Investigación “Educación Virtual, Universidad Cesar Vallejo, Lima Norte, 15314, Peru 17 Dec 2024 Author Response Dear reviewer: Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, ... Continue reading Dear reviewer: Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, we attach the responses to each of the observations. Regarding the Specific Objectives The general objective of the study was to systematize innovative pedagogical best practices in the university context. Additionally, the specific objectives included: Analyzing pedagogical best practices alongside their respective methodological approaches in the university setting. Examining the applied strategies , focusing on the types of strategies (student-centered, online teaching or technology-based, and evaluation or feedback strategies). Evaluating the methods used to assess pedagogical practices , ensuring a comprehensive understanding of their effectiveness. Dear reviewer: Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, we attach the responses to each of the observations. Regarding the Specific Objectives The general objective of the study was to systematize innovative pedagogical best practices in the university context. Additionally, the specific objectives included: Analyzing pedagogical best practices alongside their respective methodological approaches in the university setting. Examining the applied strategies , focusing on the types of strategies (student-centered, online teaching or technology-based, and evaluation or feedback strategies). Evaluating the methods used to assess pedagogical practices , ensuring a comprehensive understanding of their effectiveness. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Phuong HY. Reviewer Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157048.r301470 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v1#referee-response-301470 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 24 Jul 2024 Hoang-Yen Phuong , School of Foreign Languages, Can Tho University, Can Tho, Can Tho, Vietnam Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157048.r301470 The review has several limitations that may affect its comprehensiveness and depth. Covering articles only from 2015 to 2023, it might miss earlier developments or long-term trends in pedagogical practices. Although it includes publications in Spanish and English, it ... Continue reading READ ALL The review has several limitations that may affect its comprehensiveness and depth. Covering articles only from 2015 to 2023, it might miss earlier developments or long-term trends in pedagogical practices. Although it includes publications in Spanish and English, it could still overlook important research in other languages, leading to potential language bias. The reliance on three databases, despite their reputability, might not capture all relevant studies, and the lack of a formal quality assessment of the included studies is a notable omission in a systematic review. Furthermore, the review primarily offers qualitative insights without conducting a meta-analysis or robust statistical analysis, which could have strengthened the evidence for the identified practices. It also has a broad focus on all innovative practices in higher education, potentially sacrificing depth in specific areas. The limited discussion of contradictory findings and the absence of detailed exploration of how practices vary across different countries or cultural contexts restrict the review's ability to provide a balanced and comprehensive view. Other weaknesses include the omission of student perspectives and outcomes, which are crucial for understanding the effectiveness of teaching practices. The authors acknowledge limited access to full-text articles, which might have excluded relevant studies, and they do not address potential publication bias, possibly skewing the results toward positive findings. Finally, the review does not extensively discuss the challenges and barriers to implementing innovative practices in various higher education settings, limiting its practical applicability. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: TESOL, testing and assessment, higher education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Phuong HY. Reviewer Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157048.r301470 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v1#referee-response-301470 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 17 Dec 2024 VICTOR HUGO FERNANDEZ BEDOYA , Grupo de Investigación “Educación Virtual, Universidad Cesar Vallejo, Lima Norte, 15314, Peru 17 Dec 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewer: Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer: Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, we attach the responses to each of the observations. Regarding the Timeframe (2015 to 2023) According to the UNESCO report (2015), the global education landscape experienced a radical transformation in methods, content, and learning spaces. This transformation has significantly impacted higher education. Consequently, the need for a shift in pedagogical practices emerged, gaining momentum in 2015 in response to demands for more flexible, student-centered education adapted to the digital age (UNESCO, 2015). Additionally, the decision to focus on this period was based on the observation that the preceding decade (2005–2015) did not see a significant increase in the scientific production of articles. This suggests that research began to gain relevance and increase in volume starting in 2015 (Gómez Velasco et al., 2022). Regarding the Language Articles in English and Spanish were analyzed due to the predominance of these languages in the selected databases, such as SciELO, Scopus, and ERIC. These platforms are recognized for their focus on disseminating research in these languages, facilitating access to a wide range of scientific literature (Márquez Jiménez & Alcántara Santuario, 2017). Regarding the Three Databases SciELO : This database was selected because it democratizes access to scientific knowledge in Latin America, highlighting regional research previously considered "lost science" due to limited distribution (Crespo Fajardo, 2019). Scopus : Chosen for its broad international coverage and reputation as a key resource for evaluating scientific output. Scopus includes a large proportion of articles in English (67%) and Spanish (86%), providing access to impactful and relevant research across various disciplines (Márquez Jiménez & Alcántara Santuario, 2017). ERIC : Selected for its specialization in education worldwide and its provision of access to relevant literature in the field (Mosquera Ayala, 2017). Regarding Meta-Analyses or Solid Statistical Methods The research aimed to systematize innovative pedagogical practices in higher education, which aligns more closely with a systematic review than a meta-analysis. Meta-analyses focus on quantifying effects using numerical data. Additionally, many of the studies reviewed did not provide sufficient or consistent data, such as means and standard deviations, necessary for conducting a meta-analysis (Debby Ng et al., 2022). Regarding the Lack of Comparisons Between Countries The main objective of the research was to systematize best pedagogical practices in higher education, identifying effective strategies in the academic field. This required a detailed analysis of key elements, such as pedagogical approaches, types of strategies, and evaluation methods, without cross-country comparisons being part of the initial design. This methodological decision was based on the goal of identifying general patterns applicable on a global scale rather than focusing on local specificities. Additionally, systematic reviews must clearly define their scope to ensure analytical coherence and avoid excessive dispersion of results (Grant & Booth, 2009). Regarding Challenges and Barriers to Implementing Innovative Practices The decision not to address challenges in detail was due to the limited scope of this research. Dear Reviewer: Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, we attach the responses to each of the observations. Regarding the Timeframe (2015 to 2023) According to the UNESCO report (2015), the global education landscape experienced a radical transformation in methods, content, and learning spaces. This transformation has significantly impacted higher education. Consequently, the need for a shift in pedagogical practices emerged, gaining momentum in 2015 in response to demands for more flexible, student-centered education adapted to the digital age (UNESCO, 2015). Additionally, the decision to focus on this period was based on the observation that the preceding decade (2005–2015) did not see a significant increase in the scientific production of articles. This suggests that research began to gain relevance and increase in volume starting in 2015 (Gómez Velasco et al., 2022). Regarding the Language Articles in English and Spanish were analyzed due to the predominance of these languages in the selected databases, such as SciELO, Scopus, and ERIC. These platforms are recognized for their focus on disseminating research in these languages, facilitating access to a wide range of scientific literature (Márquez Jiménez & Alcántara Santuario, 2017). Regarding the Three Databases SciELO : This database was selected because it democratizes access to scientific knowledge in Latin America, highlighting regional research previously considered "lost science" due to limited distribution (Crespo Fajardo, 2019). Scopus : Chosen for its broad international coverage and reputation as a key resource for evaluating scientific output. Scopus includes a large proportion of articles in English (67%) and Spanish (86%), providing access to impactful and relevant research across various disciplines (Márquez Jiménez & Alcántara Santuario, 2017). ERIC : Selected for its specialization in education worldwide and its provision of access to relevant literature in the field (Mosquera Ayala, 2017). Regarding Meta-Analyses or Solid Statistical Methods The research aimed to systematize innovative pedagogical practices in higher education, which aligns more closely with a systematic review than a meta-analysis. Meta-analyses focus on quantifying effects using numerical data. Additionally, many of the studies reviewed did not provide sufficient or consistent data, such as means and standard deviations, necessary for conducting a meta-analysis (Debby Ng et al., 2022). Regarding the Lack of Comparisons Between Countries The main objective of the research was to systematize best pedagogical practices in higher education, identifying effective strategies in the academic field. This required a detailed analysis of key elements, such as pedagogical approaches, types of strategies, and evaluation methods, without cross-country comparisons being part of the initial design. This methodological decision was based on the goal of identifying general patterns applicable on a global scale rather than focusing on local specificities. Additionally, systematic reviews must clearly define their scope to ensure analytical coherence and avoid excessive dispersion of results (Grant & Booth, 2009). Regarding Challenges and Barriers to Implementing Innovative Practices The decision not to address challenges in detail was due to the limited scope of this research. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 17 Dec 2024 VICTOR HUGO FERNANDEZ BEDOYA , Grupo de Investigación “Educación Virtual, Universidad Cesar Vallejo, Lima Norte, 15314, Peru 17 Dec 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewer: Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer: Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, we attach the responses to each of the observations. Regarding the Timeframe (2015 to 2023) According to the UNESCO report (2015), the global education landscape experienced a radical transformation in methods, content, and learning spaces. This transformation has significantly impacted higher education. Consequently, the need for a shift in pedagogical practices emerged, gaining momentum in 2015 in response to demands for more flexible, student-centered education adapted to the digital age (UNESCO, 2015). Additionally, the decision to focus on this period was based on the observation that the preceding decade (2005–2015) did not see a significant increase in the scientific production of articles. This suggests that research began to gain relevance and increase in volume starting in 2015 (Gómez Velasco et al., 2022). Regarding the Language Articles in English and Spanish were analyzed due to the predominance of these languages in the selected databases, such as SciELO, Scopus, and ERIC. These platforms are recognized for their focus on disseminating research in these languages, facilitating access to a wide range of scientific literature (Márquez Jiménez & Alcántara Santuario, 2017). Regarding the Three Databases SciELO : This database was selected because it democratizes access to scientific knowledge in Latin America, highlighting regional research previously considered "lost science" due to limited distribution (Crespo Fajardo, 2019). Scopus : Chosen for its broad international coverage and reputation as a key resource for evaluating scientific output. Scopus includes a large proportion of articles in English (67%) and Spanish (86%), providing access to impactful and relevant research across various disciplines (Márquez Jiménez & Alcántara Santuario, 2017). ERIC : Selected for its specialization in education worldwide and its provision of access to relevant literature in the field (Mosquera Ayala, 2017). Regarding Meta-Analyses or Solid Statistical Methods The research aimed to systematize innovative pedagogical practices in higher education, which aligns more closely with a systematic review than a meta-analysis. Meta-analyses focus on quantifying effects using numerical data. Additionally, many of the studies reviewed did not provide sufficient or consistent data, such as means and standard deviations, necessary for conducting a meta-analysis (Debby Ng et al., 2022). Regarding the Lack of Comparisons Between Countries The main objective of the research was to systematize best pedagogical practices in higher education, identifying effective strategies in the academic field. This required a detailed analysis of key elements, such as pedagogical approaches, types of strategies, and evaluation methods, without cross-country comparisons being part of the initial design. This methodological decision was based on the goal of identifying general patterns applicable on a global scale rather than focusing on local specificities. Additionally, systematic reviews must clearly define their scope to ensure analytical coherence and avoid excessive dispersion of results (Grant & Booth, 2009). Regarding Challenges and Barriers to Implementing Innovative Practices The decision not to address challenges in detail was due to the limited scope of this research. Dear Reviewer: Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, we attach the responses to each of the observations. Regarding the Timeframe (2015 to 2023) According to the UNESCO report (2015), the global education landscape experienced a radical transformation in methods, content, and learning spaces. This transformation has significantly impacted higher education. Consequently, the need for a shift in pedagogical practices emerged, gaining momentum in 2015 in response to demands for more flexible, student-centered education adapted to the digital age (UNESCO, 2015). Additionally, the decision to focus on this period was based on the observation that the preceding decade (2005–2015) did not see a significant increase in the scientific production of articles. This suggests that research began to gain relevance and increase in volume starting in 2015 (Gómez Velasco et al., 2022). Regarding the Language Articles in English and Spanish were analyzed due to the predominance of these languages in the selected databases, such as SciELO, Scopus, and ERIC. These platforms are recognized for their focus on disseminating research in these languages, facilitating access to a wide range of scientific literature (Márquez Jiménez & Alcántara Santuario, 2017). Regarding the Three Databases SciELO : This database was selected because it democratizes access to scientific knowledge in Latin America, highlighting regional research previously considered "lost science" due to limited distribution (Crespo Fajardo, 2019). Scopus : Chosen for its broad international coverage and reputation as a key resource for evaluating scientific output. Scopus includes a large proportion of articles in English (67%) and Spanish (86%), providing access to impactful and relevant research across various disciplines (Márquez Jiménez & Alcántara Santuario, 2017). ERIC : Selected for its specialization in education worldwide and its provision of access to relevant literature in the field (Mosquera Ayala, 2017). Regarding Meta-Analyses or Solid Statistical Methods The research aimed to systematize innovative pedagogical practices in higher education, which aligns more closely with a systematic review than a meta-analysis. Meta-analyses focus on quantifying effects using numerical data. Additionally, many of the studies reviewed did not provide sufficient or consistent data, such as means and standard deviations, necessary for conducting a meta-analysis (Debby Ng et al., 2022). Regarding the Lack of Comparisons Between Countries The main objective of the research was to systematize best pedagogical practices in higher education, identifying effective strategies in the academic field. This required a detailed analysis of key elements, such as pedagogical approaches, types of strategies, and evaluation methods, without cross-country comparisons being part of the initial design. This methodological decision was based on the goal of identifying general patterns applicable on a global scale rather than focusing on local specificities. Additionally, systematic reviews must clearly define their scope to ensure analytical coherence and avoid excessive dispersion of results (Grant & Booth, 2009). Regarding Challenges and Barriers to Implementing Innovative Practices The decision not to address challenges in detail was due to the limited scope of this research. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Paler Luzano JF. Reviewer Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157048.r291882 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v1#referee-response-291882 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 02 Jul 2024 Jay Fie Paler Luzano , Bukidnon State University, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, Philippines Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157048.r291882 The rationale for and objectives of the systematic review are partly stated. The study aims to synthesize innovative pedagogical best practices within the university context to improve teaching and learning effectiveness. However, there may be room for further clarification or ... Continue reading READ ALL The rationale for and objectives of the systematic review are partly stated. The study aims to synthesize innovative pedagogical best practices within the university context to improve teaching and learning effectiveness. However, there may be room for further clarification or expansion on the specific objectives. Sufficient details of the methods and analysis are partly provided to allow replication by others. The study followed the PRISMA methodology, including criteria such as protocol, eligibility criteria, sources of information, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, and data items . This structured approach enhances the replicability of the study. The review did not specifically mention statistical analysis, as it focused more on synthesizing innovative pedagogical practices rather than statistical data analysis . Therefore, the appropriateness of statistical analysis and its interpretation is not applicable in this context. The conclusions drawn in the review are supported by the results presented, which include an in-depth analysis of selected articles and the impact of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education. The study aimed to delve deeply into the strategies utilized, pedagogical approaches adopted, and the noticeable impact achieved after their implementation, which supports the conclusions drawn. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Mathematics Education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Paler Luzano JF. Reviewer Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157048.r291882 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v1#referee-response-291882 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 10 Dec 2024 VICTOR HUGO FERNANDEZ BEDOYA , Grupo de Investigación “Educación Virtual, Universidad Cesar Vallejo, Lima Norte, 15314, Peru 10 Dec 2024 Author Response Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, we attach the ... Continue reading Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, we attach the responses to each of the observations. Regarding the Selected Countries The choice of countries was not random; the selection was intentional because they represent diverse educational contexts across Europe, Asia, and America. The choice of Spain, Thailand, and Chile was based on their relevance in recent research exploring various aspects of effective pedagogical practices across different cultural and educational settings. The studies from these countries allow for an analysis of effective strategies that have been adopted and evolved according to their unique characteristics. For example, research conducted in Thailand (Tieocharoen & Rimkeeratikul, 2019) focuses on analyzing language learning strategies, such as memory, cognitive, affective, and social strategies. Although these strategies pertain to the student’s domain, the study illustrates effective pedagogical strategies. Regarding Learning Theories and Their Importance This research is grounded in Ausubel’s Meaningful Learning Theory , which emphasizes the importance of connecting new knowledge with meaningful prior concepts to achieve deep learning. Furthermore, Mishra and Koehler’s TPACK Model is essential for analyzing the intersection of pedagogical, technological, and content knowledge within effective teaching practices. These theories frame the analysis by allowing the integration of innovative teaching strategies within specific contexts, thereby contributing to advancements in higher education research. Regarding the Expanded State of the Art The research does not merely summarize the state of the art but also expands it by analyzing key theories within the university context. This approach provides added value by offering an updated and nuanced understanding of the topic to address contemporary pedagogical challenges. Furthermore, by identifying the application of these theories in classroom settings, this study contributes evidence to enrich existing knowledge about pedagogy and content in higher education teaching. Regarding Theories and Discussion Strategies such as debate and gamification reflect Ausubel’s principle of connecting new learning to prior significant knowledge, facilitating the assimilation and application of knowledge. Similarly, the inclusion of technology and pedagogical tools aligns with the TPACK Model , which emphasizes the integration of pedagogical, technological, and content knowledge to enhance teaching practices. Regarding Why This Research is Categorized Within Social Sciences According to Émile Durkheim, education is a key social phenomenon in the reproduction and transformation of society. It plays a fundamental role in the socialization of individuals and in the transmission of norms, values, and knowledge that ensure social cohesion. Therefore, research on pedagogical practices falls within the realm of social sciences because it influences the formation of individuals within a social context (Durkheim, 2015). Regarding the Exclusion of Systematic Reviews The systematic reviews were excluded from the results section because this research focused on empirical studies—both quantitative quasi-experimental designs and qualitative case studies—that directly addressed innovative pedagogical practices. Although systematic reviews are valuable, they do not align with the study's aim of obtaining primary and context-specific data on the practical application of these strategies. Therefore, the research prioritized original studies that provided direct evidence and practical insights into pedagogical practices. Additionally, during the article review phase, documents in PDF format were identified, but in some cases, only titles and abstracts were available rather than full texts. Despite access to well-recognized databases such as ERIC, SciELO, and Scopus, restrictions in editorial access limited the inclusion of some relevant research. These constraints are highlighted under the Limitations section. Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, we attach the responses to each of the observations. Regarding the Selected Countries The choice of countries was not random; the selection was intentional because they represent diverse educational contexts across Europe, Asia, and America. The choice of Spain, Thailand, and Chile was based on their relevance in recent research exploring various aspects of effective pedagogical practices across different cultural and educational settings. The studies from these countries allow for an analysis of effective strategies that have been adopted and evolved according to their unique characteristics. For example, research conducted in Thailand (Tieocharoen & Rimkeeratikul, 2019) focuses on analyzing language learning strategies, such as memory, cognitive, affective, and social strategies. Although these strategies pertain to the student’s domain, the study illustrates effective pedagogical strategies. Regarding Learning Theories and Their Importance This research is grounded in Ausubel’s Meaningful Learning Theory , which emphasizes the importance of connecting new knowledge with meaningful prior concepts to achieve deep learning. Furthermore, Mishra and Koehler’s TPACK Model is essential for analyzing the intersection of pedagogical, technological, and content knowledge within effective teaching practices. These theories frame the analysis by allowing the integration of innovative teaching strategies within specific contexts, thereby contributing to advancements in higher education research. Regarding the Expanded State of the Art The research does not merely summarize the state of the art but also expands it by analyzing key theories within the university context. This approach provides added value by offering an updated and nuanced understanding of the topic to address contemporary pedagogical challenges. Furthermore, by identifying the application of these theories in classroom settings, this study contributes evidence to enrich existing knowledge about pedagogy and content in higher education teaching. Regarding Theories and Discussion Strategies such as debate and gamification reflect Ausubel’s principle of connecting new learning to prior significant knowledge, facilitating the assimilation and application of knowledge. Similarly, the inclusion of technology and pedagogical tools aligns with the TPACK Model , which emphasizes the integration of pedagogical, technological, and content knowledge to enhance teaching practices. Regarding Why This Research is Categorized Within Social Sciences According to Émile Durkheim, education is a key social phenomenon in the reproduction and transformation of society. It plays a fundamental role in the socialization of individuals and in the transmission of norms, values, and knowledge that ensure social cohesion. Therefore, research on pedagogical practices falls within the realm of social sciences because it influences the formation of individuals within a social context (Durkheim, 2015). Regarding the Exclusion of Systematic Reviews The systematic reviews were excluded from the results section because this research focused on empirical studies—both quantitative quasi-experimental designs and qualitative case studies—that directly addressed innovative pedagogical practices. Although systematic reviews are valuable, they do not align with the study's aim of obtaining primary and context-specific data on the practical application of these strategies. Therefore, the research prioritized original studies that provided direct evidence and practical insights into pedagogical practices. Additionally, during the article review phase, documents in PDF format were identified, but in some cases, only titles and abstracts were available rather than full texts. Despite access to well-recognized databases such as ERIC, SciELO, and Scopus, restrictions in editorial access limited the inclusion of some relevant research. These constraints are highlighted under the Limitations section. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 10 Dec 2024 VICTOR HUGO FERNANDEZ BEDOYA , Grupo de Investigación “Educación Virtual, Universidad Cesar Vallejo, Lima Norte, 15314, Peru 10 Dec 2024 Author Response Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, we attach the ... Continue reading Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, we attach the responses to each of the observations. Regarding the Selected Countries The choice of countries was not random; the selection was intentional because they represent diverse educational contexts across Europe, Asia, and America. The choice of Spain, Thailand, and Chile was based on their relevance in recent research exploring various aspects of effective pedagogical practices across different cultural and educational settings. The studies from these countries allow for an analysis of effective strategies that have been adopted and evolved according to their unique characteristics. For example, research conducted in Thailand (Tieocharoen & Rimkeeratikul, 2019) focuses on analyzing language learning strategies, such as memory, cognitive, affective, and social strategies. Although these strategies pertain to the student’s domain, the study illustrates effective pedagogical strategies. Regarding Learning Theories and Their Importance This research is grounded in Ausubel’s Meaningful Learning Theory , which emphasizes the importance of connecting new knowledge with meaningful prior concepts to achieve deep learning. Furthermore, Mishra and Koehler’s TPACK Model is essential for analyzing the intersection of pedagogical, technological, and content knowledge within effective teaching practices. These theories frame the analysis by allowing the integration of innovative teaching strategies within specific contexts, thereby contributing to advancements in higher education research. Regarding the Expanded State of the Art The research does not merely summarize the state of the art but also expands it by analyzing key theories within the university context. This approach provides added value by offering an updated and nuanced understanding of the topic to address contemporary pedagogical challenges. Furthermore, by identifying the application of these theories in classroom settings, this study contributes evidence to enrich existing knowledge about pedagogy and content in higher education teaching. Regarding Theories and Discussion Strategies such as debate and gamification reflect Ausubel’s principle of connecting new learning to prior significant knowledge, facilitating the assimilation and application of knowledge. Similarly, the inclusion of technology and pedagogical tools aligns with the TPACK Model , which emphasizes the integration of pedagogical, technological, and content knowledge to enhance teaching practices. Regarding Why This Research is Categorized Within Social Sciences According to Émile Durkheim, education is a key social phenomenon in the reproduction and transformation of society. It plays a fundamental role in the socialization of individuals and in the transmission of norms, values, and knowledge that ensure social cohesion. Therefore, research on pedagogical practices falls within the realm of social sciences because it influences the formation of individuals within a social context (Durkheim, 2015). Regarding the Exclusion of Systematic Reviews The systematic reviews were excluded from the results section because this research focused on empirical studies—both quantitative quasi-experimental designs and qualitative case studies—that directly addressed innovative pedagogical practices. Although systematic reviews are valuable, they do not align with the study's aim of obtaining primary and context-specific data on the practical application of these strategies. Therefore, the research prioritized original studies that provided direct evidence and practical insights into pedagogical practices. Additionally, during the article review phase, documents in PDF format were identified, but in some cases, only titles and abstracts were available rather than full texts. Despite access to well-recognized databases such as ERIC, SciELO, and Scopus, restrictions in editorial access limited the inclusion of some relevant research. These constraints are highlighted under the Limitations section. Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, we attach the responses to each of the observations. Regarding the Selected Countries The choice of countries was not random; the selection was intentional because they represent diverse educational contexts across Europe, Asia, and America. The choice of Spain, Thailand, and Chile was based on their relevance in recent research exploring various aspects of effective pedagogical practices across different cultural and educational settings. The studies from these countries allow for an analysis of effective strategies that have been adopted and evolved according to their unique characteristics. For example, research conducted in Thailand (Tieocharoen & Rimkeeratikul, 2019) focuses on analyzing language learning strategies, such as memory, cognitive, affective, and social strategies. Although these strategies pertain to the student’s domain, the study illustrates effective pedagogical strategies. Regarding Learning Theories and Their Importance This research is grounded in Ausubel’s Meaningful Learning Theory , which emphasizes the importance of connecting new knowledge with meaningful prior concepts to achieve deep learning. Furthermore, Mishra and Koehler’s TPACK Model is essential for analyzing the intersection of pedagogical, technological, and content knowledge within effective teaching practices. These theories frame the analysis by allowing the integration of innovative teaching strategies within specific contexts, thereby contributing to advancements in higher education research. Regarding the Expanded State of the Art The research does not merely summarize the state of the art but also expands it by analyzing key theories within the university context. This approach provides added value by offering an updated and nuanced understanding of the topic to address contemporary pedagogical challenges. Furthermore, by identifying the application of these theories in classroom settings, this study contributes evidence to enrich existing knowledge about pedagogy and content in higher education teaching. Regarding Theories and Discussion Strategies such as debate and gamification reflect Ausubel’s principle of connecting new learning to prior significant knowledge, facilitating the assimilation and application of knowledge. Similarly, the inclusion of technology and pedagogical tools aligns with the TPACK Model , which emphasizes the integration of pedagogical, technological, and content knowledge to enhance teaching practices. Regarding Why This Research is Categorized Within Social Sciences According to Émile Durkheim, education is a key social phenomenon in the reproduction and transformation of society. It plays a fundamental role in the socialization of individuals and in the transmission of norms, values, and knowledge that ensure social cohesion. Therefore, research on pedagogical practices falls within the realm of social sciences because it influences the formation of individuals within a social context (Durkheim, 2015). Regarding the Exclusion of Systematic Reviews The systematic reviews were excluded from the results section because this research focused on empirical studies—both quantitative quasi-experimental designs and qualitative case studies—that directly addressed innovative pedagogical practices. Although systematic reviews are valuable, they do not align with the study's aim of obtaining primary and context-specific data on the practical application of these strategies. Therefore, the research prioritized original studies that provided direct evidence and practical insights into pedagogical practices. Additionally, during the article review phase, documents in PDF format were identified, but in some cases, only titles and abstracts were available rather than full texts. Despite access to well-recognized databases such as ERIC, SciELO, and Scopus, restrictions in editorial access limited the inclusion of some relevant research. These constraints are highlighted under the Limitations section. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Waluyo B. Reviewer Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157048.r268905 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v1#referee-response-268905 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 10 May 2024 Budi Waluyo , Walailak University, Thai Buri, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157048.r268905 Dear Authors, First, I have seen frequently utilized vocabulary in generative AI applications. If you utilize any of these applications, it is essential to acknowledge and elucidate the extent to which they were employed in the composition. ... Continue reading READ ALL Dear Authors, First, I have seen frequently utilized vocabulary in generative AI applications. If you utilize any of these applications, it is essential to acknowledge and elucidate the extent to which they were employed in the composition. Second, the initial paragraph of the introduction holds paramount significance as it serves to inform the readers about the evolution of the research domain, the scope of prior investigations, and the unique addition of your study. Nevertheless, your initial paragraph lacks any of these vital elements. You should modify it in accordance with the necessary changes. Furthermore, your introduction lacks criticality and persuasiveness. To enhance the clarity of the current literature and highlight the contribution of your study, it is necessary to critically synthesize the findings of relevant studies. Third, it is imperative to formulate research questions in order to provide a clear focus for your research and facilitate the comprehension of your reported findings by readers. Fourth, it is necessary to include a literature review section in order to establish robust foundational frameworks. This style of study appears to be lacking in strength. Fifth, it is necessary for you to provide more detailed information about the results in paragraphs, not just showing tables. Sixth, your analysis lacks sufficient depth and fails to adequately engage with the current related literature. According to these six factors, it is necessary for you to make significant revisions to this manuscript. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: ELT, Education, and Education Technology. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Waluyo B. Reviewer Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157048.r268905 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v1#referee-response-268905 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 08 Jan 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 Version 2 (revision) 17 Dec 24 read read read Version 1 08 Jan 24 read read read read Budi Waluyo , Walailak University, Thai Buri, Thailand Jay Fie Paler Luzano , Bukidnon State University, Malaybalay City, Philippines Hoang-Yen Phuong , Can Tho University, Can Tho, Vietnam Maria Alfredo Moreira , University of Minho, Minho, Portugal Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Moreira M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 20 Jan 2025 | for Version 2 Maria Alfredo Moreira , Research Centre on Education, University of Minho, Minho, Portugal 0 Views copyright © 2025 Moreira M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions As stated in my earlier review to this text, the mais problem lies in its theoretical underpinning. This issue was not addressed in the authors' response and it lingers in the revised version as it states (my underlining): "The research is grounded in Ausubel’s Meaningful Learning theory, which emphasizes the importance of connecting new knowledge with prior meaningful concepts to achieve deep learning. Similarly, Mishra and Koehler’s TPACK model is key to analyzing the intersection of pedagogical, technological, and content knowledge in best teaching practices. These theories frame the analysis , enabling the integration of innovative teaching strategies in specific contexts and contributing to the advancement of the state of the art in higher education." I expected this issue to be addressed but it was not. Another issue was related to the focus on Social Sciences. Now it appears grounded in Durkheim's concept of education, but social sciences are not restricted to education. This choice is still not clarified. In addition, limitations are addressed in the Discussion section, even though there is a specific section for it. In this section (Limitations), the paragraph on the data bases justifies the choice made, so it seems to be part of the methodology section. The same goes to the choice of the languages and for the design of the study. These are methodological choices that can be made, not limitations per se. The discussion section synthesises results in groups a) and b), but not c). The results are not given detailed attention, but they are the main asset of the text - what do we know now that we did not know before? The three goups of results are well-known for some decades now - is there anything new?, including the importance of a savvy pedagogical use of technologies. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Language Education; Teacher Education; Pedagogy in Higher Education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Moreira MA. Peer Review Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175777.r349763) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v2#referee-response-349763 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Waluyo B. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 09 Jan 2025 | for Version 2 Budi Waluyo , Walailak University, Thai Buri, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand 0 Views copyright © 2025 Waluyo B. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Dear Author(s), Thank you for revising the manuscript. I have carefully read your revised version. However, the quality has not improved significantly. Below are my comments: Background of the Abstract : You can condense this to one sentence. However, you need to revise the first sentence to emphasize the research gap, which will help readers understand why this research was necessary. Method of the Abstract : There is no need to include the research question in this section. Results of the Abstract : You need to mention the analysis method you used and briefly explain how you performed it. Introduction Section : In the first paragraph, you should briefly discuss the development of research on innovative pedagogical practices in higher education. Then, briefly elaborate on what previous studies have explored and what they have not, which will lead to the contribution your study intends to make. In its current form, the first paragraph of your introduction is neither appealing nor convincing. First, it lacks references, which is crucial in this important section. Second, it is too short. Overall Introduction : After reading the entire introduction, I find it incoherent and unconvincing. a) It is unclear what exactly you are trying to introduce in this section. b) You mention "literature review" several times, but it is unclear whether you are referring to your own literature review or other studies. c) The introduction seems disorganized and difficult to understand. You need to reorganize and rewrite this section. You should focus on your topic, which is innovative pedagogical practices in higher education. Why is this topic worth exploring through a literature review? What has been explored in previous studies? What distinctive contributions does your study aim to make? In its current form, the section is too unfocused, and it may be difficult for readers to understand. An extensive revision is needed. Method Section : The method section looks fine overall, but I have one suggestion: please revise the paragraphs. Each paragraph should consist of at least 7-8 sentences, not just 2. You have many very short paragraphs throughout the article. Please adjust this accordingly. Results Section : This section needs significant improvement. It mainly consists of tables, with little explanation. a) Since you have a research question, you should elaborate on the results in relation to it. Even though you include tables, you need to discuss the results in a critical and comprehensive manner. A thorough revision is needed for this section. Discussion Section : This section is too brief and lacks depth. Your discussion basically only consists of points a, b, and c. They are not critical and comprehensive enough. You need to discuss how your findings relate to previous research. You should elaborate on the implications of your findings, and so on. Additionally, you need to create a specific sub-section for the conclusion. Overall, you need to do major revisions to the introduction, result, and discussion sections, among others. Best, Reviewer Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise ELT, Education, and Education Technology. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Waluyo B. Peer Review Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175777.r349762) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v2#referee-response-349762 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Paler Luzano J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 07 Jan 2025 | for Version 2 Jay Fie Paler Luzano , Bukidnon State University, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, Philippines 0 Views copyright © 2025 Paler Luzano J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The study already complied with the required scientific rigor. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Mathematics Education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Paler Luzano JF. Peer Review Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175777.r349760) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v2#referee-response-349760 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Moreira M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 07 Aug 2024 | for Version 1 Maria Alfredo Moreira , Research Centre on Education, University of Minho, Minho, Portugal 0 Views copyright © 2024 Moreira M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The text reports a systematic review study focusing on a critical aspect of higher education quality, as is pedagogical practices. It addresses a relevant research question ("What innovative pedagogical practices have been developed in university settings to improve teaching and learning effectiveness?”), a question that "involves the description of strategies and the evaluation of the pedagogical process.". It partially achieves its aim, of "systematiz[ing] and provide scientific evidence for teaching professionals to use in their work and promote meaningful learning." The methodology is sound, well-laid out and with a clear description of the path that was followed in order to achieve its results. However, the Introduction does not address in a systematic and coherent manner the key concepts of the study: Good pedagogical practices AND effective teaching strategies. The studies that sustain this section seem to have been selected rather randomly, as it goes into language teaching details (listing language learning strategies as if they would be a synomym of pedagogical strategies, for example), several countries (like Spain, Chile or Thailand - why these countries?), or learning theories (Ausubel's, MIshra & Koehler - what is their importance for defining the key constructs? How were these key constructs used in interpreting the results?). It is not clear how the state of the art outlined in this section will be expanded or enriched by the study. As the Discussion section does not confront the results with the concepts in the introduction, it is not clear what the advancement in the field was. Even though the methodology is sound, there are minor issues that would improve the text. Only by reading Figure 1 the reader becomes aware that the focus is on social sciences (why this focus?), as it is neither stated in the research question nor in the introduction. And why were systematic reviews excluded? Figure 1 reports exclusion of pdf formats but in the discussion it is stated: "it has been observed that some research of interest is not available in full PDF format". Thus, it is not clear whether the format of the text was a criterion for exclusion or not. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Language Education; Teacher Education; Pedagogy in Higher Education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 17 Dec 2024 VICTOR HUGO FERNANDEZ BEDOYA, Grupo de Investigación “Educación Virtual, Universidad Cesar Vallejo, Lima Norte, 15314, Peru Dear reviewer: Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, we attach the responses to each of the observations. Regarding the Specific Objectives The general objective of the study was to systematize innovative pedagogical best practices in the university context. Additionally, the specific objectives included: Analyzing pedagogical best practices alongside their respective methodological approaches in the university setting. Examining the applied strategies , focusing on the types of strategies (student-centered, online teaching or technology-based, and evaluation or feedback strategies). Evaluating the methods used to assess pedagogical practices , ensuring a comprehensive understanding of their effectiveness. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Moreira MA. Peer Review Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157048.r301479) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v1#referee-response-301479 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Phuong H. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 24 Jul 2024 | for Version 1 Hoang-Yen Phuong , School of Foreign Languages, Can Tho University, Can Tho, Can Tho, Vietnam 0 Views copyright © 2024 Phuong H. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The review has several limitations that may affect its comprehensiveness and depth. Covering articles only from 2015 to 2023, it might miss earlier developments or long-term trends in pedagogical practices. Although it includes publications in Spanish and English, it could still overlook important research in other languages, leading to potential language bias. The reliance on three databases, despite their reputability, might not capture all relevant studies, and the lack of a formal quality assessment of the included studies is a notable omission in a systematic review. Furthermore, the review primarily offers qualitative insights without conducting a meta-analysis or robust statistical analysis, which could have strengthened the evidence for the identified practices. It also has a broad focus on all innovative practices in higher education, potentially sacrificing depth in specific areas. The limited discussion of contradictory findings and the absence of detailed exploration of how practices vary across different countries or cultural contexts restrict the review's ability to provide a balanced and comprehensive view. Other weaknesses include the omission of student perspectives and outcomes, which are crucial for understanding the effectiveness of teaching practices. The authors acknowledge limited access to full-text articles, which might have excluded relevant studies, and they do not address potential publication bias, possibly skewing the results toward positive findings. Finally, the review does not extensively discuss the challenges and barriers to implementing innovative practices in various higher education settings, limiting its practical applicability. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise TESOL, testing and assessment, higher education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 17 Dec 2024 VICTOR HUGO FERNANDEZ BEDOYA, Grupo de Investigación “Educación Virtual, Universidad Cesar Vallejo, Lima Norte, 15314, Peru Dear Reviewer: Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, we attach the responses to each of the observations. Regarding the Timeframe (2015 to 2023) According to the UNESCO report (2015), the global education landscape experienced a radical transformation in methods, content, and learning spaces. This transformation has significantly impacted higher education. Consequently, the need for a shift in pedagogical practices emerged, gaining momentum in 2015 in response to demands for more flexible, student-centered education adapted to the digital age (UNESCO, 2015). Additionally, the decision to focus on this period was based on the observation that the preceding decade (2005–2015) did not see a significant increase in the scientific production of articles. This suggests that research began to gain relevance and increase in volume starting in 2015 (Gómez Velasco et al., 2022). Regarding the Language Articles in English and Spanish were analyzed due to the predominance of these languages in the selected databases, such as SciELO, Scopus, and ERIC. These platforms are recognized for their focus on disseminating research in these languages, facilitating access to a wide range of scientific literature (Márquez Jiménez & Alcántara Santuario, 2017). Regarding the Three Databases SciELO : This database was selected because it democratizes access to scientific knowledge in Latin America, highlighting regional research previously considered "lost science" due to limited distribution (Crespo Fajardo, 2019). Scopus : Chosen for its broad international coverage and reputation as a key resource for evaluating scientific output. Scopus includes a large proportion of articles in English (67%) and Spanish (86%), providing access to impactful and relevant research across various disciplines (Márquez Jiménez & Alcántara Santuario, 2017). ERIC : Selected for its specialization in education worldwide and its provision of access to relevant literature in the field (Mosquera Ayala, 2017). Regarding Meta-Analyses or Solid Statistical Methods The research aimed to systematize innovative pedagogical practices in higher education, which aligns more closely with a systematic review than a meta-analysis. Meta-analyses focus on quantifying effects using numerical data. Additionally, many of the studies reviewed did not provide sufficient or consistent data, such as means and standard deviations, necessary for conducting a meta-analysis (Debby Ng et al., 2022). Regarding the Lack of Comparisons Between Countries The main objective of the research was to systematize best pedagogical practices in higher education, identifying effective strategies in the academic field. This required a detailed analysis of key elements, such as pedagogical approaches, types of strategies, and evaluation methods, without cross-country comparisons being part of the initial design. This methodological decision was based on the goal of identifying general patterns applicable on a global scale rather than focusing on local specificities. Additionally, systematic reviews must clearly define their scope to ensure analytical coherence and avoid excessive dispersion of results (Grant & Booth, 2009). Regarding Challenges and Barriers to Implementing Innovative Practices The decision not to address challenges in detail was due to the limited scope of this research. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Phuong HY. Peer Review Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157048.r301470) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v1#referee-response-301470 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Paler Luzano J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 02 Jul 2024 | for Version 1 Jay Fie Paler Luzano , Bukidnon State University, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, Philippines 0 Views copyright © 2024 Paler Luzano J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The rationale for and objectives of the systematic review are partly stated. The study aims to synthesize innovative pedagogical best practices within the university context to improve teaching and learning effectiveness. However, there may be room for further clarification or expansion on the specific objectives. Sufficient details of the methods and analysis are partly provided to allow replication by others. The study followed the PRISMA methodology, including criteria such as protocol, eligibility criteria, sources of information, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, and data items . This structured approach enhances the replicability of the study. The review did not specifically mention statistical analysis, as it focused more on synthesizing innovative pedagogical practices rather than statistical data analysis . Therefore, the appropriateness of statistical analysis and its interpretation is not applicable in this context. The conclusions drawn in the review are supported by the results presented, which include an in-depth analysis of selected articles and the impact of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education. The study aimed to delve deeply into the strategies utilized, pedagogical approaches adopted, and the noticeable impact achieved after their implementation, which supports the conclusions drawn. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Mathematics Education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 10 Dec 2024 VICTOR HUGO FERNANDEZ BEDOYA, Grupo de Investigación “Educación Virtual, Universidad Cesar Vallejo, Lima Norte, 15314, Peru Thank you for your comments, we have managed to make improvements in the new version of the manuscript, which will be online in the following days. Meanwhile, we attach the responses to each of the observations. Regarding the Selected Countries The choice of countries was not random; the selection was intentional because they represent diverse educational contexts across Europe, Asia, and America. The choice of Spain, Thailand, and Chile was based on their relevance in recent research exploring various aspects of effective pedagogical practices across different cultural and educational settings. The studies from these countries allow for an analysis of effective strategies that have been adopted and evolved according to their unique characteristics. For example, research conducted in Thailand (Tieocharoen & Rimkeeratikul, 2019) focuses on analyzing language learning strategies, such as memory, cognitive, affective, and social strategies. Although these strategies pertain to the student’s domain, the study illustrates effective pedagogical strategies. Regarding Learning Theories and Their Importance This research is grounded in Ausubel’s Meaningful Learning Theory , which emphasizes the importance of connecting new knowledge with meaningful prior concepts to achieve deep learning. Furthermore, Mishra and Koehler’s TPACK Model is essential for analyzing the intersection of pedagogical, technological, and content knowledge within effective teaching practices. These theories frame the analysis by allowing the integration of innovative teaching strategies within specific contexts, thereby contributing to advancements in higher education research. Regarding the Expanded State of the Art The research does not merely summarize the state of the art but also expands it by analyzing key theories within the university context. This approach provides added value by offering an updated and nuanced understanding of the topic to address contemporary pedagogical challenges. Furthermore, by identifying the application of these theories in classroom settings, this study contributes evidence to enrich existing knowledge about pedagogy and content in higher education teaching. Regarding Theories and Discussion Strategies such as debate and gamification reflect Ausubel’s principle of connecting new learning to prior significant knowledge, facilitating the assimilation and application of knowledge. Similarly, the inclusion of technology and pedagogical tools aligns with the TPACK Model , which emphasizes the integration of pedagogical, technological, and content knowledge to enhance teaching practices. Regarding Why This Research is Categorized Within Social Sciences According to Émile Durkheim, education is a key social phenomenon in the reproduction and transformation of society. It plays a fundamental role in the socialization of individuals and in the transmission of norms, values, and knowledge that ensure social cohesion. Therefore, research on pedagogical practices falls within the realm of social sciences because it influences the formation of individuals within a social context (Durkheim, 2015). Regarding the Exclusion of Systematic Reviews The systematic reviews were excluded from the results section because this research focused on empirical studies—both quantitative quasi-experimental designs and qualitative case studies—that directly addressed innovative pedagogical practices. Although systematic reviews are valuable, they do not align with the study's aim of obtaining primary and context-specific data on the practical application of these strategies. Therefore, the research prioritized original studies that provided direct evidence and practical insights into pedagogical practices. Additionally, during the article review phase, documents in PDF format were identified, but in some cases, only titles and abstracts were available rather than full texts. Despite access to well-recognized databases such as ERIC, SciELO, and Scopus, restrictions in editorial access limited the inclusion of some relevant research. These constraints are highlighted under the Limitations section. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Paler Luzano JF. Peer Review Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157048.r291882) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v1#referee-response-291882 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Waluyo B. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 10 May 2024 | for Version 1 Budi Waluyo , Walailak University, Thai Buri, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand 0 Views copyright © 2024 Waluyo B. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Dear Authors, First, I have seen frequently utilized vocabulary in generative AI applications. If you utilize any of these applications, it is essential to acknowledge and elucidate the extent to which they were employed in the composition. Second, the initial paragraph of the introduction holds paramount significance as it serves to inform the readers about the evolution of the research domain, the scope of prior investigations, and the unique addition of your study. Nevertheless, your initial paragraph lacks any of these vital elements. You should modify it in accordance with the necessary changes. Furthermore, your introduction lacks criticality and persuasiveness. To enhance the clarity of the current literature and highlight the contribution of your study, it is necessary to critically synthesize the findings of relevant studies. Third, it is imperative to formulate research questions in order to provide a clear focus for your research and facilitate the comprehension of your reported findings by readers. Fourth, it is necessary to include a literature review section in order to establish robust foundational frameworks. This style of study appears to be lacking in strength. Fifth, it is necessary for you to provide more detailed information about the results in paragraphs, not just showing tables. Sixth, your analysis lacks sufficient depth and fails to adequately engage with the current related literature. According to these six factors, it is necessary for you to make significant revisions to this manuscript. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise ELT, Education, and Education Technology. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Waluyo B. Peer Review Report For: Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative pedagogical practices in higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :22 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157048.r268905) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v1#referee-response-268905 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Suyo-Vega JA et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22", templates : { twitter : "Beyond traditional teaching: a systematic review of innovative.... Suyo-Vega JA et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/13-22/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/143392/175777") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "175777"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "239872": 0, "291876": 0, "291877": 0, "291879": 0, "291875": 0, "291884": 0, "291885": 0, "354863": 0, "291886": 0, "291880": 0, "240687": 0, "291881": 0, "291882": 35, "354869": 0, "240691": 0, "354868": 0, "240690": 0, "240689": 0, "240688": 0, "354865": 0, "240695": 0, "354864": 0, "240694": 0, "354867": 0, "240693": 0, "354866": 0, "240692": 0, "353343": 0, "240697": 0, "240696": 0, "353349": 0, "353348": 0, "353351": 0, "353350": 0, "349761": 0, "353345": 0, "349760": 10, "353344": 0, "349763": 22, "353347": 0, "353346": 0, "349762": 20, "353352": 0, "350311": 0, "350317": 0, "268908": 0, "350316": 0, "268909": 0, "350319": 0, "268910": 0, "350318": 0, "268911": 0, "350313": 0, "350312": 0, "268905": 25, "350315": 0, "268906": 0, "350314": 0, "268907": 0, "275318": 0, "275319": 0, "268912": 0, "350320": 0, "268913": 0, "268914": 0, "275324": 0, "275325": 0, "275326": 0, "275327": 0, "275320": 0, "275321": 0, "275322": 0, "275323": 0, "357021": 0, "357020": 0, "357023": 0, "301470": 23, "357022": 0, "301471": 0, "357017": 0, "357016": 0, "357019": 0, "357018": 0, "301476": 0, "301477": 0, "301478": 0, "301479": 19, "357025": 0, "301472": 0, "357024": 0, "301473": 0, "301474": 0, "301475": 0, "262636": 0, "262637": 0, "262638": 0, "262639": 0, "262634": 0, "262635": 0, "262640": 0, "262641": 0, "262642": 0, "262643": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "c4e36643-d03c-4a7b-8edb-21d9729f586e"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });