734022

research-article20172017
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244017734022SAGE OpenNaz and Murad

Special Collection - Student Diversity

SAGE Open

Innovative Teaching Has a Positive Impact

October-December 2017: 1­–8
© The Author(s) 2017
DOI: 10.1177/2158244017734022
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017734022

on the Performance of Diverse Students journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo

Farah Naz1 and Hasan Sohaib Murad1

Abstract
Pakistan is one of the progressing countries in the world. Its education system is yet in the stage of development. Students
from towns and far flung areas come to advanced cities for higher education. This has made the university classrooms a mix
of students having a diversity of age, gender, exposure, language, and family backgrounds. To facilitate all these students with
personal differences under the same roof, a teacher has to adapt curriculum and lesson plans while bringing innovations in
his teaching methods. This study aims to find out the use of innovative strategies by the teachers to respond to students’
diversity at higher education level in public and private sector of Pakistan. The research is based on the assumption that
innovative teaching has a positive impact on the performance of students’ diversity. A survey of higher education teachers
was conducted for the research. Statistics were applied for the analysis. The results are found to be significant in favor of
innovative teaching. The analysis shows that the use of innovative teaching is more in private sector and also has different
impact on different disciplines.

Keywords
innovative teaching, students’ diversity, students’ performance

Introduction education institutions are focusing on the need of meeting

Classrooms nowadays are exemplified by student diversity.
The students in universities are diverse in different aspects
such as culture, religion, family background, region, and
schools where they have been studying (this is very impor-
tant in Pakistani scenario). Due to such diversities, students’
learning needs are also becoming increasingly diverse. A
new challenge is to look for the teaching ways that can
address their needs. To respond to such diverse needs of the
students at higher educational levels, different innovative
teaching and differentiated strategies and methods are being
used by the teachers in their classes. Since the last three
decades, innovative teaching methods to deal with the diver-
sity of today’s students are widely being used worldwide
(Barakzai, 2004).
In recent decades, global trends in cultural and economic
development have also brought forth reforms in educational
paradigms. These reforms have been accompanied by
changes in the ways educational practitioners or educators
design the curriculum. Compared with subject-centered
approaches, learner-centered and problem-centered designs
are often described as having greater potential to impart to
the next generation. Over the years, there has been a big
change in the thinking process of educational theorists.
Major policies are more concerned about equality of oppor-
tunity for education and employment opportunities for grad-
uates (Teichler, 2004). Worldwide government and private
diverse needs of students, and they are more focused on
learner-centered teaching. Teaching methods and strategies
are more flexible now. There seems to be close interrelation
between the diversification and flexibility patterns of higher
education. The more diversified and flexible higher educa-
tion systems are, the more they will exercise a universal
access policy to meet diverse needs of the students (Guri-
Rosenblit, 2006).
Erik Erikson (1946-1956) gave the concept of identity
and argued that late adolescence is an important time when
adults show a sense of personal and social identity which is
formed. As each adult at higher educational level shows a
blend of different personality traits, institutions of higher
educational levels can provide opportunities to them to
experiment with the new ideas, new relationships, and new
roles. Peer influences play an important role in this develop-
ment, and students are able to explore options and possibili-
ties. All institutions of higher education do not serve this
developmental function equally well (Terenzini & Pascarella,
1991). In the learning framework of Pakistan, where the
1
University of Management & Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
Corresponding Author:
Farah Naz, Assistant Professor, University of Management & Technology,
C-II, Johar Town, Lahore 54600, Pakistan.
Email: farah454@hotmail.com

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open
stern schedule of the course outline did not allow many elo-
quent assignments in the classroom, project based learning
(PBL) is the best way of allowing an out-of-class activity
that may not be related to the syllabus (Sarwar, 2001) but still
considers the students’ learning needs by providing them
choice to learn (Pillay, 2002).
Pakistan, being a developing country has less civic facili-
ties in its cities. Its remote areas are yet deprived of basic
needs including education. Higher education is limited to
some big cities only, due to which people from small cities
and far-off areas are compelled to travel to big cities for
higher education. This situation has made university class-
rooms overcrowded and a blend of masses with different
socioeconomic backgrounds and having different levels of
intellect and mental abilities. These situational and disposi-
tional barriers created by institutional inflexibility
(Billingham, 2009) have made it difficult for students to
adjust in a totally new environment with their diverse needs.
If higher education institutions want to focus on student
learning outcomes and success, then they need to implement
innovative teaching strategies and methods as several
Australian universities have accepted the requirement of pro-
vision of English courses for their international students
(Morris & Hudson, 1995).
Experts of U.S. tertiary education are of the opinion that
the strict implementation of policies can confirm the provi-
sion of the best possible learning environment for the diverse
students (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). It is not pos-
sible to effectively teach these students with all diverse back-
grounds while remaining in a settled specific curricula and
syllabus format. Similarly, a teacher with uniform lesson
plans for each and every student of his class cannot achieve
the target of effective learning process and his students will
suffer badly.
To keep students from these sufferings, a teacher should
have a flexible and creative mind. Students increasingly
demand flexibility from their institutions (McDonald &
Reushle, 2002). Flexibility is a key factor in effectively
catering to the learning needs of diverse student cohorts
(Yorke & Thomas, 2003). In terms of how flexibility, variety,
and choice might be achieved while maintaining appropriate
standards, the use of technology, a variety of teaching strate-
gies, and choice and flexibility in assessment are required.
van den Broek (2012) along with various aspects of learn-
ing suggested that students must acquire the skill to find out
the matches between an assignment in hand and former capa-
bilities and knowledge. Research clearly demonstrates the
importance to students of feeling valued and respected and
the impact this has on the development of a greater sense of
belonging and a positive self-concept (Midobuche, 1999).
A significant part of valuing students and facilitating
their success lies in knowing them. Stromer (1991) argued
that to know how to teach students, we must first understand
them. Teachers should be capable of adapting curricula and
syllabus while remaining within the main theme of subject.
They should be innovative in their teaching methods and
should adopt different strategies to facilitate every single
individual of their classroom according to the capabilities
and differences of students (Guri-Rosenblit, Šebková, &
Teichler, 2007).
Torres (2001) and King (2011) emphasize on the need of
better teacher training, in-service training, and preservice
training worldwide, which has been reflected in conference
of “education for all” background documentation. It is very
important to have trained teachers at higher educational
levels who can use different innovative teaching methods
by using their skills to make students get ready for future
challenges. Pakistan is one of those countries where there is
a mismatch between graduates’ skills acquired in higher
education institutions and the skill sets needed in industry.
Many of the graduates are found to be lacking in communi-
cations skills, analytical and critical thinking, and problem-
solving skills (Tan, 2003; Teo & Wong, 2000). As such,
there is much need for institutions to introduce and use such
innovative teaching techniques which will focus on training
future graduates to be more efficient and a productive part
of the society.
The use of innovative teaching strategies has been a hot
topic from the last decade. Creative and skilled teachers are
being found using different innovative teaching methods at
higher education levels. Many studies consider creativity as
a personal trait and intellectual ability of different individu-
als, associating creativity with genius and intelligence
(Albert & Runco, 1999), or with knowledge (Weisberg,
1999). Therefore, the work of Picasso, as well as Einstein,
Marie Curie, and Newton, can be seen as creative because at
the same time point during their lives, these geniuses came
up with something original, new, and at the same time valu-
able and appropriate (Ala-Mutka, Punie, & Redecker, 2008).
The focus of innovative teaching is based on the trust that
every student has the capacity to learn and be successful in
life. A teacher should perceive each student as possessing
unique personality characteristics that can be more polished
by using creative and innovative teaching methods. Having
an awareness of the process of learning is very helpful for
teachers to identify the problems students are facing in some
of the subjects (Westwood, 2013). Vescio, Ross, and Adams
(2008) suggested that the idea of professional learning com-
munities (PLCs) has been developed as a way of supporting
the model of change. As this era is very truly called an era of
science and technology, following the scientific method, one
would have the first interest to know about, what are innova-
tive teaching strategies? When they are needed to be adopted?
What are their applications? And what are the best innova-
tive teaching strategies to address students’ diversity? There
are many innovative strategies being used in higher educa-
tion classrooms to address the diversifying needs of students
coming from different socioeconomic, religious, and ethnic
backgrounds having different levels of experiences, cogni-
tion, and prior knowledge about subject matter.
Naz and Murad 3
Being the direct source of information, teachers need to
be loaded with updated information related to content and
other resources, that is, use of technology. Literature and
research suggest that technology is endowed with a potential
to innovate education (Blandow & Dyrenfurth, 1994).
However, teachers need to bring changes in their teaching
methods so that they can accommodate the changed interac-
tion patterns. Using technology is a useful innovative tech-
nique to teach students, which can only be done when the
teachers are trained in using the technology. Teachers’ profi-
ciency in using technology is another issue (Shaffer, 2006).
Shaffer argues that if a teacher cannot read, it would be dif-
ficult for him or her to identify whether the text material in
that book is bad or worth reading. When it comes to technol-
ogy, similar behavior is noted. For innovative teaching to
take place, if teachers are not aware of the available resources,
then there will not be any innovative teaching.
Innovative teaching involves using innovative methods and
teaching learning materials for the benefit of students (Mandula,
Meda, & Jain, 2012). According to Anderson and Neri (2012),
innovative teaching can involve virtual labs: learning activities
based on real-life problems; learning environments with equip-
ment, furnishings, materials, and audiovisual resources; and
learning guides for students and the teacher. All of these are
combined with methodologies that promote the use of active
teaching techniques that help teachers develop their students’
learning abilities. The key advices to teachers teaching students
from diverse backgrounds are to know and respect their stu-
dents; offer students flexibility, variety, and choice; make
expectations clear; use accessible language; scaffold students
learning; be available and approachable to guide student learn-
ing; and be a reflective practitioner (www.lowses.edu.au).
There are many strategies, such as personalization, small
learning communities, student advisories, multidisciplinary
curricula, peer tutoring, peer instruction, and team teaching,
which are used by teachers at different higher levels of edu-
cation. They may be personalization, small learning commu-
nities, student advisories, multidisciplinary curricula, peer
tutoring, peer instruction, team teaching, and so on. The
rapid growth of availability and competence of emergent
technologies have provided many ways and methods of mak-
ing the classroom teaching the innovative one (Hussain,
Niwaz, Zaman, Dahar, & Akhtar, 2010).
Objectives of the Study
1. Do teachers know these strategies?
2. Are they using them in their classrooms?
3. Which sector of higher education is more involved in
utilization of innovative teaching?
Research Hypothesis
The aim of the study is to understand the moderating role of
innovative teaching on the performance of a diverse body of
students. Following are research hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: There is no negative relationship between
students’ diversity and their performance.
Hypothesis 2: The innovative teaching is not the modera-
tor between students’ diversity and their performance.
Hypothesis 3: There is no difference in the use of innova-
tive teaching methods in private and public sector.
Hypothesis 4: There is no difference in the use of innova-
tive teaching in various disciplines.
Hypothesis 5: There is no impact of class size on the
effect of innovative teaching.
Assumptions of the Study
The following assumptions were made for the study:
1. The population of the study is normally distributed,
and respondents are expected to respond objectively.
2. Good practices and a wide variety of innovative teach-
ing methods are being used to teach diverse students.
3. Teachers are properly trained and aware of innova-
tive teaching strategies in universities.
4. Teachers are skillful in dealing with a diverse class-
room at a higher education level.
Limitations of the Study
1. The study is limited to the public and private univer-
sities of Lahore only.
2. The study is limited to the teachers and students of
postgraduate level only.
Method
The present study is quantitative in nature. A survey has been
conducted to find out the answers of the hypothesis.
Population of the Study
The target population for the study was the postgraduate
teachers of public and private universities of Lahore, the pro-
vincial capital of Punjab province of Pakistan. Lahore is the
biggest city of Punjab. It has renowned private and public
higher education institutions. Students from different regions
of Punjab come here to get higher education.
Sample Size
Two public and two private universities were selected by
using stratified random sampling. A sample of 200 teachers
was taken (50 teachers from each university).
Research Instrument
A closed-ended questionnaire was developed to conduct the
survey. A pilot study was conducted to find out the validity
and reliability of the questionnaire.
4 SAGE Open

Table 1.  Statistical Tests for the Moderated Effects of Innovative Teaching in Dealing With Diversity.

Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients

Model B SE β T P

1 (Constant) 3.040 0.387 7.846 <.001

Diversity −0.374 0.076 0.073 2.977 .030
2 (Constant) 0.914 1.013 .902 .368
Diversity −0.083 0.201 0.374 1.908 .058
Innovating teaching 1.262 0.438 1.799 2.881 .004
Interaction (Diversity × Innovation) −0.194 0.084 −1.616 −2.299 .023

Note. Dependant variable: performance perception.

a. The value of Cronbach’s alpha is .7, which confirms Null Hypothesis 3

the reliability of the instrument.
b. To ensure the validity of the instrument, the question-
naire was administrated by trained investigators.
Procedure
The data were collected, tabulated, and analyzed for the
research purpose.
a. Statistical analysis was conducted by using SPSS
(version 23) and AMOSS (version 23).
b. Hierarchal regression was used to test the moderating
effect of innovative teaching on the performance of a
diverse body of students.
The researchers are thankful to the University of Management
& Technology, Lahore, for the technical assistance and the
permission provided to work on statistical software.
Analysis and Discussion
Null Hypotheses 1 and 2
There is no negative relationship between students’ diversity
and their performance.
The innovative teaching is not the moderator between stu-
dents’ diversity and their performance.
The high negative value of −.374 shows (Table 1) that the
diversity of students has a significant effect on the performance
of students but this value although negative but has been
reduced with the use of innovating teaching methods. Thus, the
both hypotheses are rejected. This tells very clearly that if
teachers use innovative teaching methods, they can work effec-
tively on students’ diversity and will be able to enhance their
performance. This can further be seen in the Figure 1.
It shows the number of questions on innovation, diversity,
and performance. The values clearly are the strongest evi-
dence of the moderated effect of innovative teaching in deal-
ing with the diversity among the students.
There is no difference in the use of innovative teaching meth-
ods in private and public sector (Table 2).
The statistical values depict that the innovation is
more applied in private-sector universities than the pub-
lic-sector universities (Table 2). This reject the hypoth-
esis and statistically accept the use of innovative
strategies more in the private sector than the public. It is
also pointing toward the contribution and efforts of pri-
vate sector for the improvement of education. This sector
seems more conscious not only about imparting good
education but also to meet the diversified needs of
students.
Null Hypothesis 4
There is no difference in the use of innovative teaching in
various disciplines (Table 3).
The statistical values reject the hypothesis and accept
that in different disciplines, different levels of innovative
strategies are being used. It has been found that the use of
innovative strategies is more and highest in the discipline
of humanities through mathematics which has the least
value (Table 3). This may be due to the perception of the
teachers of various disciplines. Teachers of humanities may
find these strategies more effective and easy to use while
the mathematics teachers are not aware of such strategies in
their subject.
Hypothesis 5
There is no impact of class size on the effect of innovative
teaching (Table 4).
The values shown in the table clearly talk about the
impact of class size on the effectiveness of innovation, thus
rejecting the hypothesis and agreeing that the class size
decreases the effect of innovating strategies of teaching.
The more the class size, the less will be the impact of inno-
vative teaching.
Naz and Murad 5

Figure 1.  Effect of innovative teaching on student diversity.

Table 2.  Statistical Tests for the Use of Innovating Teaching in Public- and Private-Sector Universities.

Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
University
operation Model B SE β T Significance
Public sector 1 (Constant) 3.928 0.529 7.426 <.001
Diversity −0.062 0.103 −0.063 −1.600 .050
2 (Constant) 2.963 2.384 1.243 .217
Diversity −0.035 0.471 0.035 1.073 .042
Innovating teaching 0.490 0.856 0.482 0.573 .568
Interaction (Diversity × Innovation) −0.062 0.165 −0.424 −0.376 .708
Private sector 1 (Constant) 2.231 0.495 4.506 <.001
Diversity −0.595 0.098 0.208 1.988 .050
2 (Constant) −0.577 1.872 −0.308 .759
Diversity −0.070 0.363 0.715 1.846 .068
Innovating teaching 2.189 1.270 1.702 1.724 .088
Interaction (Diversity × Innovation) −0.373 0.239 −1.844 −1.557 .123

Note. Dependant variable: performance perception.

Impact of Innovative Teaching at
Higher Level of Education
Traditional teaching strategies clearly do not meet the needs
of students’ diversity in a productive way. In a class where
lecture is still the centerpiece of instruction and assessment is
based on those specific lectures, it provides such an environ-
ment which supports learning only at surface (passive) level
rather than at the deep (active) level (Marton & Säljö, 1976).
According to Must, Jacques, Dallal, Bajema, and Dietz
(1992), the traditional format encourages students to concen-
trate only on superficial indicators rather than on fundamental
6 SAGE Open

Table 3.  Statistical Tests for the Use of Innovative Strategies in Various Disciplines.

Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients

Program Model B SE β T Significance

Science 1 (Constant) 3.055 0.637 4.797 <.001
Diversity −1.081 0.125 0.088 2.653 .016
2 (Constant) 0.728 1.594 0.457 .650
Diversity −0.414 0.317 0.446 1.307 .097
Innovating teaching 1.422 0.721 2.191 1.971 .054
Interaction (Diversity × Innovation) −0.218 0.140 −1.931 −1.557 .125
Humanities 1 (Constant) 2.362 0.830 2.846 .007
Diversity −1.203 0.161 0.200 1.258 .016
2 (Constant) 2.404 2.382 1.009 .320
Diversity −0.072 0.471 0.071 0.152 .080
Innovating teaching 0.392 1.102 0.592 0.356 .724
Interaction (Diversity × Innovation) −0.017 0.213 −0.147 −0.079 .937
Business 1 (Constant) 4.299 0.838 5.128 .000
Diversity −0.985 0.166 −0.167 −1.114 .071
2 (Constant) 0.816 2.666 0.306 .761
Diversity 0.460 0.533 0.417 0.865 .092
Innovating teaching 1.516 1.033 2.116 1.467 .150
Interaction (Diversity × Innovation) −0.277 0.202 −2.228 −1.370 .178
Mathematics 1 (Constant) 2.357 0.870 2.707 .010
Diversity 0.609 0.172 0.194 1.217 .031
2 (Constant) 0.302 2.060 0.147 .884
Diversity 0.455 0.401 0.421 1.133 .065
Innovating teaching 1.425 0.914 1.781 1.560 .128
Interaction (Diversity × Innovation) −0.201 0.170 −1.545 −1.183 .244

Note. Dependant variable: performance perception.

Table 4.  Shows the Statistical Tests for the Impact of Class Size on the Effectiveness of Innovative Teaching.

Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients

Average class size Model B SE β T Significance

Between 30 and 60 students 1 (Constant) 3.762 0.795 4.731 <.001
Diversity −2.074 0.159 −0.077 −0.465 .045
2 (Constant) −1.866 2.915 −0.640 .526
Diversity −1.068 0.594 1.118 1.799 .081
Innovating teaching 2.380 1.191 3.406 1.998 .054
Interaction (Diversity × Innovation) −0.478 0.239 −3.882 −2.001 .053
More than 60 students 1 (Constant) 2.828 0.447 6.323 .000
Diversity −0.317 0.087 0.112 1.341 .082
2 (Constant) 0.844 1.060 0.796 .427
Diversity 0.067 0.208 0.351 1.761 .080
Innovating teaching 1.335 0.469 1.905 2.847 .005
Interaction (Diversity × Innovation) −0.193 0.089 −1.623 −2.164 .032

Note. Dependant variable: performance perception.

underlying principles, thus neglecting deep (active) learning. McKeachie, 1999). Innovative teaching strategies such as
Active learning refers to experiences in which students have active learning refer to a variety of collaborative classroom
a deep understanding of the subject matter as they interact activities ranging from long-term simulations to 5-min com-
with the instructors as well as with each other (Gamson, 1991; parative problem-solving exercises (Bonwell & Eison, 1991;
Naz and Murad 7
Bonwell & Sutherland, 1996). Learning development is the
process of meeting these needs. When teachers are more
focused on subject matter and provide a structured learning
support to the students, then more students with diverse needs
show their interest and enhance their knowledge. Structured
learning support is designed to provide assistance to help stu-
dents’ learning development. For some, this means develop-
ing their IT skills, and for others, their language skills,
employability skills, and so on (Cottrell, 2001). Many other
innovative teaching strategies have been discussed by the
researcher above, which serve as a solution for teachers to
cater to the diverse needs of the students.
Conclusion
Runco and Albert (1990) say that the thinking of the chil-
dren at all levels of ability is significantly influenced by the
type of opportunities they are given. Offering learners the
right chances to develop their cognitive and creative poten-
tial should be a priority in the design of curricula. A cur-
riculum is the way in which domains of knowledge are
made available to students (Craft, 2005), and it establishes
a vision of the kind of the society which policy makers
want and envisage for the future (Williamson & Payton,
2009). To foster innovative teaching, curricula need to
undergo a skillful and thorough development, where teacher
can adopt different innovative teaching strategies according
to the diverse needs of the students. More students are now
in Pakistan higher education than ever before, and they are
also more diverse than at any time in the past. Students vary
in their financial status, social class, family circumstances,
and age; their previous educational experience, reasons for
attending higher education, and aspirations and ambition;
their religion, ethnicity, and nationality; and their abilities,
disabilities, and special needs. The innovative strategies
need to be implemented and should be modified according
to the students’ needs.
Authors’ Note
Ms. Sonia Fareed is the author but the contributor
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Ala-Mutka, K., Punie, Y., & Redecker, C. (2008). Digital compe-
tence for lifelong learning (Technical Note: JRC, 48708, pp.
271-282). Sevilla, Spain: Institute for Prospective Technological
Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission.
Albert, R. S., & Runco, M. A. (1999). A history of research on cre-
ativity. In Handbook of creativity (Vol. 2, pp. 16-31).
Anderson, R. T., & Neri, L. (2012). Reliability-centered main-
tenance: management and engineering methods: Springer
Science & Business Media.
Barakzai, Q. (2004). Transition from traditional to innovative
teaching in and beyond pharmacology at Ziauddin Medical
University. Acta Pharmacologica Sinica, 25, 1220-1232.
Billingham, S. (2009, June 22-24). Diversity, inclusion, and the
transforming student experience. Paper presented at the 18th
European Access Network Annual International Conference,
York, UK.
Blandow, D., & Dyrenfurth, M. J. (1994). Technology education in
school and industry: Emerging didactics for human resource
development. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag in cooperation
with NATO Scientific Affairs Division.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating
excitement in the classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Reports. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Higher Education, The George Washington University.
Bonwell, C. C., & Sutherland, T. E. (1996). The active learning con-
tinuum: Choosing activities to engage students in the classroom.
New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 1996(67), 3-16.
Cottrell, S. (2001). Teaching study skills and supporting learning.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas.
Psychology Press.
Gamson, W. A. (1991, March). Commitment and agency in social
movements. In Sociological forum (Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 27-50).
The Netherlands: Springer.
Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and
higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes.
Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330-367.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2006). Eight paradoxes in the implementation
process of e-learning in higher education. Distances et Savoirs,
4, 155-179.
Guri-Rosenblit, S., Šebková, H., & Teichler, U. (2007).
Massification and diversity of higher education systems:
Interplay of complex dimensions. Higher Education Policy,
20, 373-389.
Hussain, M. A., Niwaz, A., Zaman, A., Dahar, M. A., & Akhtar,
M. (2010). Technology based learning environment and stu-
dent achievement in English as a foreign language in Pakistan.
Journal of World Academy of Science, Engineering, and
Technology, 61, 129-133.
King, K. (2011). Skills and education for all from Jomtien (1990)
to the GMR of 2012: A policy history. International Journal of
Training Research, 9, 16-34.
Mandula, K., Meda, S. R., & Jain, D. K. (2012). Research and
implementation of a mobile video streaming application for
ubiquitous learning. In 2012 IEEE international conference on
technology enhanced education (ICTEE) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learn-
ing: I—Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 46, 4-11.
McDonald, J., & Reushle, S. (2002). Charting the role of the online
teacher in higher education: Winds of change. Paper presented
at the Proceedings ASCILITE 2002: 19th Annual Conference
of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in
Tertiary Education.
8 SAGE Open
McKeachie, W. J. (1999). Peer learning, collaborative learning,
cooperative learning. In Teaching tips: Strategies, research,
and theory for college and university teachers (pp. 158-166).
Midobuche, E. (1999). Respect in the classroom: Reflections of a
Mexican-American educator. Educational Leadership, 56(7),
80-82.
Morris, S., & Hudson, W. (1995). International education and
innovative approaches to university teaching. Australian
Universities’ Review, 38(2), 70-74.
Must, A., Jacques, P. F., Dallal, G. E., Bajema, C. J., & Dietz, W.
H. (1992). Long-term morbidity and mortality of overweight
adolescents: A follow-up of the Harvard Growth Study of 1922
to 1935. New England Journal of Medicine, 327, 1350-1355.
Pillay, H. (2002). Understanding learner-centredness: Does it con-
sider the diverse needs of individuals? Studies in Continuing
Education, 24, 93-102.
Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (Eds.). (1990). Theories of creativity
(Vol. 990). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sarwar, Z. (2001). Innovations in large classes in Pakistan. TESOL
Quarterly, 35, 497-500.
Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Stromer, R. (1991). Stimulus equivalence: Implications for teach-
ing. In Human behavior in today’s world (pp. 109-122).
Tan, O. S. (2003). Problem-based learning innovation: Using problems
to power learning in the 21st century. Thomson Learning Asia.
Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalisation of
higher education. Higher Education, 48, 5-26.
Teo, R., & Wong, A. (2000, December). Does problem based learning
create a better student: A reflection. In 2nd Asia Pacific conference
on problem–based learning: Education across disciplines (pp. 4-7).
Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1991). Twenty years of
research on college students: Lessons for future research.
Research in Higher Education, 32, 83-92.
Torres, R. M. (2001). From Dakar to Cochabamba (April 2000-
April 2001) education for all follow-up in Latin America and
the Caribbean.
van den Broek, G. S. E. (2012). Innovative research-based
approaches to learning and teaching.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research
on the impact of professional learning communities on teach-
ing practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24, 80-91.
Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to
theories. In Handbook of creativity (pp. 226-250).
Westwood, P. (2013). Inclusive and adaptive teaching: Meeting the
challenge of diversity in the classroom. Routledge.
Williamson, B., & Payton, S. (2009). Curriculum and teaching
innovation: Transforming classroom practice and personali-
sation: A futurelab handbook. Bristol, UK: Futurelab.
Yorke, M., & Thomas, L. (2003). Improving the retention of stu-
dents from lower socio-economic groups. Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, 25, 63-74.
Author Biographies
Farah Naz working as an assitant professor in University of
Management & Technology, Lahore, Pakistan. She has 30 years
experience in the field of teaching and education adminstration/
management. She has also practiced Quality assurance in
education on key posts. She is author of many international
publications.
Hasan Sohaib Murad is known as a scholar of organiztion and
management. He has played a key role in organizing a joint plat-
form of all business schools in Pakistan as founding chairman of
AMDIP. He has also been member of the executive board of Asia
Academy of management, Hog Kong which is an off shoot of
Management Academy of management, USA.