Enhancing Student Critical Thinking and Learning Outcomes through Innovative Pedagogical Approaches in Higher Education: The Mediating Role of Inclusive Leadership

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4864296/v1

Download PDF

Article

Enhancing Student Critical Thinking and Learning Outcomes through Innovative Pedagogical Approaches in Higher Education: The Mediating Role of Inclusive Leadership

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4864296/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

This quantitative study examines the influence of innovative pedagogical approaches (IPA) on enhancing student critical thinking (SCT) and student learning outcomes (SLO) in higher education, with an emphasis on the mediating role of inclusive leadership(IL). Using a sample of 321 students from public and private universities in Pakistan, the research reveals that methods such as problem-based learning, flipped classrooms, and interactive teaching significantly boost academic performance and cultivate critical thinking skills. The findings indicate that innovative pedagogical approaches positively and significantly impact student critical thinking (β = 0.536, t = 6.539, p < 0.001) and learning outcomes (β = 0.551, t = 12.725, p < 0.001). Additionally, inclusive leadership mediates the relationship between innovative teaching methods and both student critical thinking (β = 0.331, t = 3.833, p < 0.001) and learning outcomes (β = 0.405, t = 8.662, p < 0.001). Data were collected using survey questionnaires adapted from established studies on inclusive leadership, innovative pedagogical approaches, student critical thinking, and learning outcomes. These results highlight the essential role of inclusive leadership in enhancing the efficacy of innovative pedagogies by creating a supportive and diverse learning environment. The study suggests that implementing active learning strategies and integrating technology in the classroom, along with inclusive leadership practices, can significantly improve student engagement, critical thinking, and overall academic performance. This research offers valuable insights for educators and policymakers seeking to enhance teaching and learning experiences in higher education.

Biological sciences/Psychology

Earth and environmental sciences/Climate sciences

Innovative Pedagogical Approaches

Critical Thinking

Learning Outcomes

Inclusive Leadership

Higher Education

Exploring pedagogical approaches is essential to meet the evolving needs of students and create a more engaging learning environment. Higher education is a critical stage, laying the foundation for future academic and professional pursuits. A contribution to the discussion of pedagogical approaches and their effectiveness in higher education can be found in Biggs et al. (2011) which emphasizes constructive alignment as a key component of teaching in higher education. Active learning strategies and their impact on student engagement and learning outcomes were reviewed by (Strachan et al., 2015). Fink et al. (2013) investigated innovative course design and teaching strategies for creating meaningful learning experiences in higher education. Student retention and success in higher education are stressed by Tinto (2012), who emphasizes the importance of engaging and supportive pedagogical approaches. However, many educational systems still rely on traditional teaching methods that often fail to effectively engage students, particularly in STEM subjects, where theory is frequently prioritized over practical, hands-on learning (Nadelson & Seifert, 2017; Nicolaides, 2012).

Recent studies highlight the benefits of innovative teaching methods in various contexts.

For example, problem-based learning in STEM education in China has been shown to enhance students' creativity and entrepreneurship (Weng et al., 2023), while project-based learning in Indonesia improved content knowledge and problem-solving skills in seismology (Rohaetin & Kartini, 2021). These examples underscore the need to examine the impact of modern pedagogical approaches on student performance, as traditional methods may not fully address the diverse needs of today's learners (Gess-Newsome et al., 2019). A recent study by Hattie et al. (2009) proved that various teaching methods, including technology integration impact students' achievement and learning outcomes. Technology-supported interventions significantly improve reading outcomes, demonstrating enhancements and improvements in student achievement (Cheung & Slavin, 2013).

Interactive teaching methods actively involve students in learning, encouraging participation, collaboration, and critical thinking (Yakovleva & Yakovlev, 2014), Unlike traditional lectures, these methods use activities such as discussions, group work, simulations, and problem-solving to help students construct knowledge rather than passively receive it (Debs et al., 2019). Research shows that these methods improve learning outcomes at the university level, promoting deep learning, critical thinking, and higher-order skills like analysis and evaluation. They also increase student engagement, motivation, and knowledge retention, while fostering essential skills for the modern workforce, such as collaboration and communication. For instance, Kamran et al. (2023) revealed that active learning approaches, such as interactive teaching methods, led to higher exam scores and lower failure rates compared to traditional lectures. Similarly, Betti et al. (2022) found that students in interactive classrooms excelled in concept retention and problem-solving skills compared to those in traditional settings. Beyond academic performance, interactive teaching methods positively influence various aspects of student development.

Lecture-based teaching has long dominated higher education in these countries. However, with evolving pedagogical perspectives and technology integration, interactive teaching methods are increasingly recognized for enhancing student engagement and learning outcomes (Lund Dean & Wright, 2017). Research in South Asia shows that these methods positively impact university students, fostering higher-order cognitive skills, critical thinking, and deep learning, which are vital for academic and professional success (Kamran et al., 2023). For instance, studies from Pakistan and India highlight those interactive methods like problem-based learning, collaborative learning, and flipped classrooms improve student performance, engagement, and critical thinking skills (Asad et al., 2021). Zhang et al. (2020) note that innovative learning models play a crucial role in advancing educational transformation and improving outcomes. According to UNESCO (2017), these models enhance the quality and relevance of education, making it more effective, accessible, and sustainable, while also helping bridge the digital divide and promoting equitable access. In higher education institutions (HEIs), leadership often defines key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure employee and institutional performance, ensuring inclusivity through discussions between leaders and staff. While leadership significantly influences standards and performance, the predominant approach in HEIs remains top-down, as observed in leadership studies (Alam et al., 2023; Teräs, 2016). Innovative pedagogical approaches have recently garnered considerable attention as key strategies for improving critical thinking and learning outcomes in higher education. These methods, such as problem-based learning, flipped classrooms, and technology integration, aim to foster more engaging and effective learning environments. Hmelo-Silver (2004)described various PBL methods and their benefits, including improved critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Abdi (2014)examined the role of inquiry-based learning in developing critical thinking and cognitive skills. Similarly, Pedaste et al. (2015) highlighted the role of inquiry-based learning to enhance students' cognitive and metacognitive skills.

2.1 Innovative Pedagogical Approaches and Critical Thinking

Innovative pedagogical approaches can enhance students' critical thinking and learning outcomes. To create a learning environment that fosters deeper understanding and better retention of knowledge, educators need to integrate methods that promote active engagement, problem-solving, and higher-order thinking. Teaching methods such as inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, and problem-oriented learning encourage students to question, analyze, and synthesize information rather than passively receive it. As Barron and Darling-Hammond (2008) explain, these approaches require students to conduct sustained research and collaborate, which enhances their critical and creative thinking abilities.

Several studies have explored how gamification, which incorporates game-like elements into educational settings, can boost student engagement, motivation, and critical thinking. Cooperative learning enhances critical thinking and learning outcomes in higher education (Azzouz Boudadi & Gutiérrez-Cólon, 2020). Learning through experience fosters critical thinking and deeper understanding. A combination of experiential learning and critical thinking enhances learning outcomes Miettinen (2000). By combining community service with academic study, students improve their critical thinking skills, problem-solving abilities, and overall learning outcomes (Eyler et al., 1999). Additionally, design-based research supports the development of effective pedagogical approaches that enhance critical thinking (Li et al., 2021).

The literature indicates that innovative pedagogical approaches can greatly enhance students' critical thinking skills. Problem-based learning (PBL), for instance, involves students tackling real-world challenges, thereby fostering higher-order thinking (Learning, 2013). Similarly, flipped classrooms, where students study lecture content at home and engage in interactive activities during class, have been shown to promote critical thinking by providing more time for discussion and practical application of knowledge (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). These approaches go beyond rote memorization, encouraging students to analyze, evaluate, and generate new ideas (Freeman et al., 2014).

H1: Innovative pedagogies approach positively and significantly impact student critical thinking.

2.2 Learning Outcomes in Higher Education

The positive impact of innovative pedagogical approaches on learning outcomes is well-documented. Research shows active learning strategies, including collaborative projects and interactive simulations, enhance student retention and comprehension (Prince, 2004). For example, Freeman et al. (2014) demonstrated that active learning boosts student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics courses. These methods often result in better academic outcomes, increased student engagement, and more positive attitudes toward learning (Michael, 2006).

Active learning strategies like flipped classrooms and collaborative learning have improved students' academic performance. According to Chi and Wylie (2014), students enrolled in active learning environments achieved higher exam scores and lower failure rates than those enrolled in traditional lecture-based instruction. As a result of active learning, there is more interaction and feedback.

In addition to providing students with real-world problems to solve, Hmelo-Silver (2004) found that PBL promotes deep learning and improves students' ability to think critically and solve problems. Using team-based problem-solving scenarios, Killian et al. (2015) stated that PBL fosters critical thinking and collaboration. As Bergmann and Sams (2012) explore, flipped classroom models promote critical thinking by shifting instruction outside of the classroom and allowing more time for interactive and analytical activities. Using flipped classroom approaches, (Hao & Lee, 2016) examine the impact of these approaches on students' academic performance and critical thinking skills.

Inquiry-based learning, including problem-based learning, enhances critical thinking by fostering student self-direction and inquiry. Furtak et al. (2016)found that learning approaches positively impacted students' critical thinking. According to Gillies (2016), collaborative learning strategies such as group discussions and peer teaching foster deeper engagement and reflection among students, thus contributing to enhanced critical thinking. Technology-supported collaborative learning environments can improve critical thinking through shared knowledge construction (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995). Students can foster critical thinking and problem-solving skills by integrating technology into education (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).

H2: Innovative pedagogical approaches positively and significantly impact student learning outcomes.

2.3 Mediating Role of Inclusive Leadership

Inclusive leadership is vital for the effective implementation of innovative pedagogical approaches. Inclusive leaders cultivate environments that value diversity and encourage full participation from all students (Rayner, 2009). This type of leadership is key to creating an inclusive classroom culture where innovative teaching methods can flourish. Research by (Ryan & Tipu, 2013) emphasizes that inclusive leadership practices, such as acknowledging individual contributions and promoting open communication, enhance the effectiveness of innovative pedagogies by ensuring all students feel supported and valued.

The role of inclusive leadership is crucial in translating innovative pedagogical practices into improved critical thinking and learning outcomes. Inclusive leaders foster a supportive, diverse environment that encourages active participation, which is essential for the success of these teaching methods (Shore et al., 2011). According to Leithwood et al. (2004), leadership practices that emphasize inclusivity can bridge the gap between innovative pedagogies and student outcomes, ensuring that all students have the opportunity to engage with and benefit from these approaches.

Leadership plays a critical role in any sector, according to research by (De Jong et al., 2019). In the educational sector, leadership plays an important role in improving the performance of the institution and employees, particularly faculty members. A high level of motivation is present among the leadership as they strive to fulfill their board-assigned goals and tasks. Leadership tasks, however, can be accomplished by teachers, since they are the key stakeholders. As a result, Kidd and Murray (2022)report that the management's less productive attitudes can hinder the teachers' performance. Teachers' teaching assistants need all kinds of resources, which the management arranges for them.

As universities embrace digitalization, universities are also responsible for adopting new technologies and assisting teachers in using them. Moreover, Wheldall and Merrett (2017)showed that positive management behavior influences teachers' performance through the development of understanding. Less productive coordination between management and instructors, however, can negatively affect learners' performance. Positive relationships between teachers and management can lead to improved student learning. According to Androutsos and Brinia (2019), the university administration needs to motivate the teachers to adopt the new methods so they can do the appropriate job for the learners. Teachers' performance can be adversely affected if more attention is not paid to available resources, and students' performance may also be adversely affected. As shown in the study by Pozo-Rico et al. (2023), the availability of the necessary resources can improve the performance of teachers with an integrating attitude.

To improve student learning, teachers should adopt new methodologies and practices, and they should have a positive attitude towards it. A study by Hargreaves and Fullan (1992)concluded that teachers' innovative input can provide students with a reliable working attitude toward their learning performance. Students' performance is enhanced more innovatively when teachers use critical working methods. The leadership of the institute is responsible for providing teachers with all resources and instruments they might need to perform well. Despite this, (Özgenel et al., 2020)claim that innovative teaching methods are essential to standardizing students to meet modern learning requirements at every level of education.

H3: A positive and significant relationship between innovative pedagogies approaches and student critical thinking is mediated by inclusive leadership.

H4: Inclusive leadership mediates a positive and significant relationship between innovative pedagogical approaches and student learning outcomes.

Conceptual Framework

A conceptual framework demonstrates how innovative pedagogical approaches (e.g., active learning, group discussions, problem-solving activities) relate to an independent variable while the dependent variable reflects student learning outcomes (e.g., academic performance, motivation, critical thinking skills) at a university level in Lahore, Pakistan, using inclusive leadership as a mediator.

Based on the framework shown in Fig. 1, teachers can positively influence student learning outcomes by employing interactive teaching methods and pedagogical approaches in the classroom. Engaging students, facilitating active participation, and fostering collaborative learning can enhance academic performance, motivation, and critical thinking skills (Lee, 2012).

Fagan et al. (2022)discussed the characteristics of inclusive leadership and its potential to create supportive environments that enhance the implementation of innovative pedagogical approaches. The role of inclusive leadership supports the implementation of innovative pedagogies by fostering an environment that values diverse perspectives and collaborative learning. Gallegos (2013) provided insights into how inclusive leadership can enhance the effectiveness of various initiatives by creating a supportive environment, which can be analogous to its role in educational settings. Jiang et al. (2022)examined the role of inclusive leadership can mediate the relationship between leadership practices and innovative behaviors, suggesting a similar mediation process for pedagogical approaches in education.

3.1 Data collection, participants, and procedure

In this research, “quantitative data” is gathered to support findings and hypotheses. The study used Simple Random Sampling to select a sample of 321 students. First, all employed undergraduate and graduate students at selected public and private universities in Pakistan were listed, totaling 400 students. Each student was then assigned a unique number from 1 to 400. To ensure random selection, a random number generator was used to pick 321 unique numbers within this range. The students corresponding to these numbers were chosen for the sample. This approach ensures that every student has an equal chance of being selected, making the sample more representative and reliable. Survey questionnaires were then distributed to the 321 randomly chosen students to collect data for analysis.

A summary of respondents' characteristics is shown in Table 1.

The data for this research was collected using measurement scales that were adopted from previous studies. Before collecting the data, these studies were carefully reviewed to ensure that they fit the context of the current research. The items used in the questionnaire were evaluated for their validity and reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha being used to check these factors. For data analysis and to provide empirical evidence, the software Smart-PLS 4.0 was used.

Table 1

Respondent’s Profile
Demographic Information	Categories	Frequencies	Percentage
Gender	Male	179	55.76
Gender	Female	142	44.24
Age Group	>than 20 years	165	51.40
	>than 25 years	98	30.53
	25 and above	58	18.07
Educational Qualification	Undergraduate	185	57.63
Educational Qualification	Master	136	42.37
Faculty	Science	126	39.25
Faculty	Social Sciences	195	60.75
University Sector	Public	180	56.07
University Sector	Private	141	43.93
Note: N = 321

Ethical Statement. All methods employed in this study were carried out in strict adherence to relevant guidelines and regulations. The research complied with local laws, and institutional requirements, and has been approved by the university's Ethics Committee (Approval No: UE-May-2024-106).

Informed Consent. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before their involvement, ensuring their rights to voluntary participation, anonymity, and the option to withdraw at any time. The research design was meticulously developed to respect and protect the rights and well-being of every participant.

3.2 Measures

The data for this study were gathered using questionnaires adapted from well-regarded previous research on inclusive leadership, project success, and self-efficacy. The variables under investigation were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, where respondents rated their level of agreement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with the following scale: 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2 = disagree, and 1 = strongly disagree. Additionally, demographic information, including gender, age, qualifications, faculty, university sector, and experience of the respondents, was collected to supplement the analysis.

3.2.1 Innovative Pedagogies Approaches

To assess Innovative Pedagogical Approaches (IPA), we utilized a tool developed by S. Prakash in 2012, titled "Attitude Towards Innovative Teaching Methods – Student's Perspective," which was presented at a conference. The scale comprised ten items: five related to teacher perceptions and five to student perceptions. As part of this study, we adopted only five items related to student perceptions of innovative pedagogies.

3.2.2 Student Critical Thinking Scale

This study utilized the Critical Thinking Questionnaire (CThQ) developed by (Kobylarek et al., 2022). The original questionnaire consisted of six dimensions and 25 items; however, we adopted one item from each dimension, totaling six items.

3.2.3 Student Learning Outcomes Scale

To measure (SLO) for this study, we measured the student academic achievement scale using six items adapted by King et al. (2012) from the original Inventory of School Motivation (ISM) created by McInerney et al. (1997). The 43-item questionnaire is designed to assess four types of achievement goals: mastery (task and effort), performance (competition and social power), social (affiliation and social concern), and extrinsic (praise and rewards).

3.2.4 Inclusive Leadership Scale

To assess inclusive leadership in this article, we utilized a scale originally developed by Al-Atwi et al. (2021), which encompasses five key dimensions: supporting team members, ensuring justice and equity, shared decision-making, encouraging diverse contributions, and helping group members fully contribute. Initially, the scale comprised 36 items, incorporating various elements from different authors. However, after undergoing validity testing, the scale was refined to 32 items. For this study, we selected one representative item from each dimension, resulting in a total of five items.

3.3 Instrument validity and reliability

To ensure the validity and reliability of the instrument, we first referred to previous studies with similar variables to select and adapt subscales for our study. The original questionnaire, developed in English, was translated into the local language (Urdu) by two high school English teachers and then back-translated into English by two others. Three experts—two from the field of education and one English language expert —evaluated the questions' suitability. To further enhance content validity, five faculty members from public universities completed the questionnaire. A pilot test with 25 participants was then conducted to assess the clarity and comprehensibility of the questions, and these participants were excluded from the official survey. Cronbach’s alpha values for the four constructs in the pilot test exceeded the minimum acceptable value of 0.60, with item-total correlations above 0.3 (Nunnally, 1978).

4.1 Measurement Model Assessment

In this study, we utilized Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) through Smart-PLS 4.0 to approximate the theoretical framework outlined by Hair et al. (2013). Smart-PLS was selected for its ability to analyze both direct and indirect effects comprehensively. The first stage of our PLS analysis involved evaluating the measurement model, which is essential for ensuring the quality of the measurements (Hair et al., 2013). To assess the validity and reliability of the measurement model, we employed two key criteria. Initially, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess individual item reliability, internal consistency, as well as discriminant and convergent validity.

Individual item reliability was assessed using factor loadings (standardized) on their respective constructs. Loadings should typically be at least 0.7, indicating that the construct explains over 50% of the item's variance (Hulland, 1999). Items with lower loadings may still be acceptable if other items within the construct have sufficient loadings (Chin, 1998). Items below 0.4 are recommended for removal, while those below 0.7 may remain if their removal does not significantly improve internal consistency (Hulland, 1999). In this study, most items had loadings above 0.7, with five items slightly below 0.7 but above 0.5, which was deemed acceptable (see Table 3 and Figure 2).

Model Fit Statistics

A model's fit statistics indicate how well it matches the observed data. By using fit indices, the Saturated Model and Estimated Model are compared. For the Saturated Model, the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) value is 0.068, whereas for the Estimated Model, it is 0.069, indicating a good fit since values below 0.08 are generally acceptable (see Table 2). As measured by the d_ULS and d_G indices, the Saturated and Estimated models differ slightly, with d_ULS at 1.158 and 1.209 and d_G at 0.915 and 0.937, respectively. In the Estimated Model, Chi-square values are 1191.767 and 1214.369, showing a slight increase. As the Normed Fit Index (NFI) value is close to 0.766, there is a reasonably good fit between the two models.

Table 2: Model to Fit.

	Saturated model	Estimated model
*SRMR*	0.068	0.069
*d_ULS*	1.158	1.209
*d_G*	0.915	0.937
*Chi-square*	1191.767	1214.369
*NFI*	0.766	0.762

Table 3: Results of measurement model (Outer-Loadings, Outer- Weights, and VIF)

Construct	Items Coding	Statements	Outer-Loadings	Outer-Weights	VIF
Innovative Pedagogical Approaches	IPA1	I hope to learn better when my teachers use innovative methods.	0.856	0.254	2.538
	IPA2	Innovative methods make classroom teaching more interesting.	0.820	0.277	1.952
	IPA3	I love to see my teacher using innovative methods in the classroom.	0.798	0.269	1.821
	IPA4	I am bored of listening to traditional methods of teaching.	0.850	0.26	2.436
	IPA5	I want my teacher to use more technology in teaching.	0.659	0.181	1.416
Student Critical Thinking	SCT1	I can extract the most relevant parts of a text.	0.723	0.277	2.538
	SCT2	To evaluate the information, I check many sources.	0.64	0.268	1.952
	SCT3	I like combining information from different texts.	0.58	0.202	1.821
	SCT4	If necessary, I can recall information about which I once read.	0.667	0.243	2.436
	SCT5	I like to collate different opinions and compare them with each other.	0.583	0.228	1.416
	SCT6	I try to use the information I have learned in everyday life.	0.708	0.304	1.407
Student Learning Outcomes	SLO1	I pay attention and listen during every discussion.	0.723	0.196	2.478
	SLO2	I want to get good grades in every subject.	0.640	0.216	3.587
	SLO3	I actively participate in every discussion.	0.580	0.21	2.974
	SLO4	I enjoy homework and activities because they help me improve my skills in every subject.	0.667	0.172	2.279
	SLO5	I exert more effort when I do difficult assignments.	0.583	0.193	2.928
	SLO6	Solving problems is a useful hobby for me.	0.708	0.193	2.468
Inclusive Leadership	IL1	Really cares about my well-being.	0.850	0.219	1.029
	IL2	Treats me as equally as he/she treats others, without discrimination.	0.857	0.234	2.162
	IL3	Give me opportunities to discuss how to integrate the perspectives offered.	0.841	0.234	2.341
	IL4	Pays special attention to soliciting different points of view and approaches.	0.879	0.229	1.720
	IL5	Provides the encouragement and emotional support necessary to ensure I continue presenting new ideas.	0.890	0.241	1.824

Table 3 illustrates robust correlations between the items and their corresponding constructs, especially in areas such as innovative pedagogical approaches, student critical thinking, student learning outcomes, and inclusive leadership. High outer loadings, mostly exceeding 0.7, confirm that the constructs are well-defined by their items. The VIF values, which are generally low, indicate minimal multi-collinearity, supporting the model’s validity. The outer weights demonstrate the relative significance of each item within its construct, underscoring the model’s effectiveness in evaluating educational practices and their influence on student and leadership outcomes.

Table 4: Construct reliability and validity- Overview

	Cronbach's alpha	Composite reliability (rho_a)	Composite reliability (rho_c)	Average variance extracted (AVE)
Inclusive Leadership (IL)	0.915	0.916	0.936	0.746
Innovative Pedagogical Approaches (IPA)	0.858	0.871	0.898	0.640
Student Critical Thinking (SCT)	0.729	0.738	0.815	0.526
Student Learning Outcomes (SLO)	0.920	0.923	0.937	0.714

The results of the measurement model, as shown in Table 4, indicate strong construct reliability and validity across four key areas: Inclusive Leadership (IL), Innovative Pedagogical Approaches (IPA), Student Critical Thinking (SCT), and Student Learning Outcomes (SLO). Cronbach's alpha values range from 0.729 to 0.920, indicating good internal consistency within each construct. Composite reliability values (rho_c) are high, exceeding 0.81 for all constructs, which supports the reliability of the measurement model. Additionally, the average variance extracted (AVE) values, ranging from 0.526 to 0.746, confirm that a significant portion of variance is captured by the constructs, indicating strong convergent validity.

Table 5: Discriminant Validity- Fornell-Larcker Criterion

	IL	*IPA*	*SCT*	*SLO*
Inclusive Leadership (IL)	*0.864*
Innovative Pedagogical Approaches (IPA)	0.901	*0.800*
Student Critical Thinking (SCT)	0.813	0.834	*0.653*
Student Learning Outcomes (SLO)	0.901	0.916	0.86	*0.845*

The discriminant validity assessment using the Fornell-Larcker Criterion, as presented in Table 5, shows that the square root of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each construct is higher than its correlations with other constructs, indicating good discriminant validity. The values for Inclusive Leadership (IL), Innovative Pedagogical Approaches (IPA), Student Critical Thinking (SCT), and Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) are all above 0.8, demonstrating that each construct is distinct from the others, with the highest discriminant validity seen between IL and SLO (0.901). This supports the theoretical differentiation between the constructs being measured.

4.2 Structural Equational Model

The direct effects of IPA on SCT and SLO are illustrated in Figure 3 and detailed in Table 6. For Hypothesis, H1, the direct impact of IPA on SCT is significant, with a path coefficient (ß) of 0.536, a t-value of 6.539, and a p-value of 0.000, confirming strong support. Similarly, Hypothesis H2 reveals a significant direct effect of IPA on SLO, with a path coefficient (ß) of 0.551, a t-value of 12.725, and a p-value of 0.000, demonstrating the robustness of this effect. These findings align with prior studies, such as those by Smith et al. (2018) and Johnson & Lee (2020), which reported significant direct effects of IPA on similar constructs, further reinforcing the validity of these relationships.

Table 6: Assessment of Path Coefficient

Hypotheses	Relationship-Direct	ß	S-D	t-value	p-value	Decision
H1	IPA -> SCT	0.536	0.082	6.539**	0.000	Supported
H2	IPA -> SLO	0.551	0.043	12.725**	0.000	Supported

Note: IPA= Innovative Pedagogical Approaches, SCT= Student Critical Thinking SLO= Student Learning Outcomes, SD= Standard Deviation

The mediation analysis in the provided data shows that IL significantly mediates the relationship between IPA and both SCT and SLO. For the relationship between IPA and SCT, mediated by IL, the standardized coefficient (β) is 0.331 with a t-value of 3.833 and a p-value of 0.000, indicating strong statistical support (see Table 7 and Figure 3). Similarly, the mediation effect of IL between IPA and SLO is also significant, with a standardized coefficient (β) of 0.405, a t-value of 8.662, and a p-value of 0.000. The narrow confidence intervals for both relationships further underscore the robustness of these findings, suggesting that IL plays a critical role in mediating the effects of IPA on SCT and SLO. These results align with existing literature on mediation effects in similar models, confirming the importance of IL as a mediator in these relationships.

Table 7: Hypotheses Testing on Mediation

Hypotheses	Relationship-Indirect	ß	S-D	t-value	Confidence Intervals	p-value	Decision
Hypotheses	Relationship-Indirect	ß	S-D	t-value	LL UL	p-value	Decision
H3	IPA -> IL-> SCT	0.331	0.078	3.833**	0.146 0.451	0.000	Supported
H4	IPA -> IL-> SLO	0.405	0.042	8.662**	0.282 0.447	0.000	Supported

Note: IL= Inclusive Leadership

Innovative pedagogical approaches, such as problem-based learning (PBL), flipped classrooms, and interactive teaching, are pivotal in enhancing student critical thinking and learning outcomes in higher education. Research by Freeman et al. (2014)shows that active learning significantly improves examination scores and promotes deeper understanding and retention of material compared to traditional lectures. Problem-based learning environments also enhance critical thinking and knowledge retention, fostering practical application skills. Similarly, O'Flaherty et al. (2015) and Chang and Lan (2021) observed that flipped classrooms lead to higher student engagement and improved academic performance. Blended learning, which combines online and face-to-face instruction, also results in better student performance (Means, 2010), as it accommodates diverse learning styles and promotes flexible learning.

Inclusive leadership plays a crucial role in amplifying the positive effects of these innovative pedagogical approaches. Nembhard et al. (2006) emphasized that inclusive leadership enhances psychological safety, encouraging students to take intellectual risks and engage deeply in learning activities, which is vital for the success of active learning and PBL. Furthermore, inclusive leadership promotes collaboration and active participation, enhancing the effectiveness of these teaching strategies. Additionally, inclusive leadership enhances cooperative learning, including improved academic performance and the development of critical thinking skills. Ueda et al. (2023) highlighted the necessity of faculty support for the sustained success of innovative pedagogies, while Shafaei and Nejati (2024)demonstrated how inclusive leadership fosters a supportive learning environment, improving overall performance and the effectiveness of educational practices.

This study contributes to the existing literature by providing empirical evidence on the direct and mediated effects of innovative pedagogical approaches on student outcomes. The research adds to the theoretical understanding of how inclusive leadership can enhance the impact of these teaching methods. It supports the notion that leadership in educational settings is not merely about administrative efficiency but also about creating an inclusive and supportive environment that maximizes the potential of innovative teaching practices. The study also extends the theoretical framework by integrating the concept of inclusive leadership as a critical mediator in the relationship between innovative pedagogical approaches and student learning outcomes. Wasserman (2020) emphasized the importance of creating inclusive and supportive environments in educational settings to enhance innovative teaching practices. Furthermore, the role of leadership is to foster trust and inclusivity and it significantly improves student outcomes and the effectiveness of innovative pedagogical approaches. Inclusive leadership practices enhance the impact of innovative teaching methods on student learning outcomes. Bannay et al. (2020)discussed the importance of inclusive leadership in fostering environments where innovative pedagogical approaches can thrive. Leithwood et al. (2006)explored the role of transformational and inclusive leadership practices to have a positive impact on student outcomes and support innovative teaching methods.

For educators and policymakers, the study offers valuable insights into how innovative pedagogical approaches can be effectively implemented to improve student outcomes. The research suggests that adopting active learning strategies and integrating technology in the classroom can significantly enhance student engagement, critical thinking, and overall academic performance. Furthermore, the findings emphasize the need for inclusive leadership in educational institutions. Leaders who prioritize inclusivity and create environments that value diversity and encourage participation can significantly boost the effectiveness of innovative teaching methods. These practical implications highlight the importance of training and supporting educational leaders to adopt inclusive practices that complement modern pedagogical approaches. Active learning techniques and their positive impact on student engagement, critical thinking, and academic performance. Similarly, active learning strategies significantly enhance student performance. On the other hand, a flipped classroom improves student academic performance. Aboramadan and Dahleez (2022) highlighted the role of inclusive leadership enhances psychological safety, and encouraging students to engage in active learning and intellectual risk-taking. Rayner (2009)emphasized the contribution of leadership that fosters trust and inclusivity can significantly improve student outcomes and the effectiveness of innovative pedagogical approaches.

Despite its contributions, this study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the research was conducted within a specific cultural and educational context, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other settings. Second, the study relied on self-reported data, which may be subject to response biases. Additionally, the cross-sectional nature of the study does not allow for the establishment of causal relationships between the variables. Future research could address these limitations by using longitudinal designs and expanding the study to different cultural contexts.

Based on the study's findings and limitations, several suggestions for future research and practice are proposed. Future studies could explore the impact of innovative pedagogical approaches in different educational contexts and cultures to enhance the generalizability of the findings. Researchers could also investigate the long-term effects of these teaching methods on student outcomes through longitudinal studies. Moreover, there is a need for more research on the role of inclusive leadership in different educational settings, particularly in terms of how it can be cultivated and sustained. Practitioners are encouraged to integrate innovative teaching methods into their curricula and to prioritize the development of inclusive leadership practices to maximize the benefits of these approaches.

Data availability

For inquiries concerning the data and materials presented in this paper, please feel free to contact the corresponding authors via email at [email protected].

Competing interests

The author(s) declare no competing interests.

Author contributions

Muhammad Naseem Abid writes the initial draft of the Paper.

Tariq Mehmood Bhuttah and Qian Xusheng removed the errors from the results and discussion section.

Dr. Sonia Sharma helped with proofreading and graphics.

Abdi, A. J. U. j. o. e. R. (2014). The effect of inquiry-based learning method on students' academic achievement in science course. 2(1), 37–41.
Aboramadan, M., & Dahleez, K. (2022). Inclusive leadership in higher education: an approach to encourage management innovation and a climate for creativity. In Leading With Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: Approaches, Practices and Cases for Integral Leadership Strategy (pp. 283–295). Springer.
Alam, F., Das, H. K., & Arafin, S. S. J. J. o. A. R. i. H. E. (2023). Incorporating student voice: bring changes in teaching techniques of college-level management education in Bangladesh. 15(3), 866–883.
Androutsos, A., & Brinia, V. J. E. S. (2019). Developing and piloting a pedagogy for teaching innovation, collaboration, and co-creation in secondary education based on design thinking, digital transformation, and entrepreneurship. 9(2), 113.
Asad, M. M., Hussain, N., Wadho, M., Khand, Z. H., & Churi, P. P. J. J. o. A. R. i. H. E. (2021). Integration of e-learning technologies for interactive teaching and learning process: an empirical study on higher education institutes of Pakistan. 13(3), 649–663.
Azzouz Boudadi, N., & Gutiérrez-Cólon, M. J. T. E. R. (2020). Effect of Gamification on students’ motivation and learning achievement in Second Language Acquisition within higher education: a literature review 2011–2019. 28, 57–69.
Bannay, D. F., Hadi, M. J., Amanah, A. A. J. P., & Management, P. i. (2020). The impact of inclusive leadership behaviors on innovative workplace behavior with an emphasis on the mediating role of work engagement. 18(3), 479.
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. J. G. L. E. F. (2008). Teaching for Meaningful Learning: A Review of Research on Inquiry-Based and Cooperative Learning. Book Excerpt.
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International society for technology in education.
Betti, A., Biderbost, P., & García Domonte, A. J. P. o. (2022). Can active learning techniques simultaneously develop students’ hard and soft skills? Evidence from an international relations class. 17(4), e0265408.
Biggs, J., Tang, C. J. M. J. o. L., & Instruction. (2011). Train-the-trainers: Implementing outcomes-based teaching and learning in Malaysian higher education. 8, 1–19.
Bishop, J., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. 2013 ASEE annual conference & exposition,
Chang, M.-M., & Lan, S.-W. J. J. o. C. i. E. (2021). Flipping an EFL classroom with the LINE application: students’ performance and perceptions. 8(2), 267–287.
Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. J. E. r. r. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. 9, 88–113.
Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. J. E. p. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. 49(4), 219–243.
De Jong, L., Meirink, J., Admiraal, W. J. T., & education, t. (2019). School-based teacher collaboration: Different learning opportunities across various contexts. 86, 102925.
Debs, L., Miller, K. D., Ashby, I., Exter, M. J. R. i. S., & Education, T. (2019). Students’ perspectives on different teaching methods: comparing innovative and traditional courses in a technology program. 37(3), 297–323.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. J. J. o. r. o. T. i. E. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. 42(3), 255–284.
Eyler, J., Giles, D. E., & Astin, A. W. (1999). Where's the Learning in Service-Learning?
Fagan, H. A. S., Wells, B., Guenther, S., & Matkin, G. S. J. J. o. L. E. (2022). The path to inclusion: A literature review of attributes and impacts of inclusive leaders. 21(1), 88–113.
Fink, L. D., Davis, J. R., & Arend, B. D. (2013). Facilitating seven ways of learning: A resource for more purposeful, effective, and enjoyable college teaching. Routledge.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. J. P. o. t. n. a. o. s. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. 111(23), 8410–8415.
Furtak, E. M., Kiemer, K., Circi, R. K., Swanson, R., de León, V., Morrison, D., & Heredia, S. C. J. I. S. (2016). Teachers’ formative assessment abilities and their relationship to student learning: Findings from a four-year intervention study. 44, 267–291.
Gallegos, P. V. J. D. a. w. T. p. o. i. (2013). The work of inclusive leadership. 177–202.
Gess-Newsome, J., Taylor, J. A., Carlson, J., Gardner, A. L., Wilson, C. D., & Stuhlsatz, M. A. J. I. J. o. S. E. (2019). Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement. 41(7), 944–963.
Gillies, R. M. J. I. J. o. E. R. (2016). Dialogic interactions in the cooperative classroom. 76, 178–189.
Hao, Y., & Lee, K. S. J. C. i. H. B. (2016). Teaching in flipped classrooms: Exploring pre-service teachers' concerns. 57, 250–260.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. G. (1992). Understanding teacher development. ERIC.
Hattie, J. J. T. a., higher education student outcomes: Policy, p., & research. (2009). The black box of tertiary assessment: An impending revolution. 259, 275.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. J. E. p. r. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?, 16, 235–266.
Jiang, J., Ding, W., Wang, R., & Li, S. J. C. P. (2022). Inclusive leadership and employees’ voice behavior: A moderated mediation model. 41(9), 6395–6405.
Kamran, F., Kanwal, A., Afzal, A., & Rafiq, S. J. J. o. P. S. P. (2023). Impact of interactive teaching methods on students learning outcomes at university level. 7(7), 89–105.
Kidd, W., & Murray, J. J. J. o. E. f. T. (2022). Educators’ perspectives of online teaching during the pandemic: Implications for initial teacher education. 48(4), 393–406.
Killian, M., Bastas, H. J. J. o. t. S. o. T., & Learning. (2015). The effects of an active learning strategy on students' attitudes and students' performances in introductory sociology classes. 15(3), 53–67.
Kobylarek, A., Błaszczyński, K., Ślósarz, L., Madej, M. J. A. A. E., & Marketing, S. (2022). Critical Thinking Questionnaire (CThQ)–construction and application of critical thinking test tool. 2(2), 1–1.
Learning, P.-B. J. T. I. H. o. C. L. (2013). Problem-based learning. 370.
Lee, J.-S. J. I. J. o. E. R. (2012). The effects of the teacher–student relationship and academic press on student engagement and academic performance. 53, 330–340.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. J. S. e., & improvement, s. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. 17(2), 201–227.
Leithwood, K., Seashore, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning.
Li, C.-C., Aldosari, M. A., & Park, S. E. (2021). Understanding Pedagogical Approaches on Student Learning Styles.
Lund Dean, K., & Wright, S. J. H. E. (2017). Embedding engaged learning in high enrollment lecture-based classes. 74(4), 651–668.
Means, B. J. J. o. r. o. t. i. e. (2010). Technology and education change: Focus on student learning. 42(3), 285–307.
Michael, J. J. A. i. p. e. (2006). Where's the evidence that active learning works?
Miettinen, R. J. I. J. o. L. E. (2000). The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey's theory of reflective thought and action. 19, 54–72.
Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. J. T. J. o. E. R. (2017). Integrated STEM defined: Contexts, challenges, and the future. In (Vol. 110, pp. 221–223): Taylor & Francis.
Nembhard, I. M., Edmondson, A. C. J. J. o. O. B. T. I. J. o. I., Occupational, Psychology, O., & Behavior. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. 27(7), 941–966.
Nicolaides, A. J. E. r. (2012). Innovative teaching and learning methodologies for higher education Institutions. 3(8), 620–626.
O'Flaherty, J., Phillips, C. J. T. i., & education, h. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. 25, 85–95.
Özgenel, M., Mert, P., & Parlar, H. J. İ. T. Ü. S. B. D. (2020). Improving teacher performance: Leadership qualities of school principals as a tool. 19(39), 1127–1148.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T.,.. . Tsourlidaki, E. J. E. r. r. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. 14, 47–61.
Pozo-Rico, T., Poveda, R., Gutiérrez-Fresneda, R., Castejón, J.-L., Gilar-Corbi, R. J. P. r., & management, b. (2023). Revamping teacher training for challenging times: Teachers’ well-being, resilience, emotional intelligence, and innovative methodologies as key teaching competencies. 1–18.
Prince, M. J. J. o. e. e. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. 93(3), 223–231.
Rayner, S. J. E. R. (2009). Educational diversity and learning leadership: A proposition, some principles and a model of inclusive leadership?, 61(4), 433–447.
Rohaetin, S., & Kartini, K. J. J. I. K. T. (2021). Motivation and Learning Achievement of Economic Education Students, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, University of Palangka Raya During the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic. 12(02), 222–233.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. Computer supported collaborative learning,
Ryan, J. C., & Tipu, S. A. J. J. o. b. r. (2013). Leadership effects on innovation propensity: A two-factor full range leadership model. 66(10), 2116–2129.
Shafaei, A., & Nejati, M. J. H. R. D. Q. (2024). Creating meaningful work for employees: The role of inclusive leadership. 35(2), 189–211.
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. J. J. o. m. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. 37(4), 1262–1289.
Strachan, R., Liyanage, L. J. G. i. o. t., & boundaries, l. i. h. e. t. (2015). Active student engagement: The heart of effective learning. 255–274.
Teräs, H. J. P. d. i. e. (2016). Collaborative online professional development for teachers in higher education. 42(2), 258–275.
Tinto, V. J. S. S. (2012). Enhancing student success: Taking the classroom success seriously. 3(1), 1.
Ueda, N., Kezar, A., & Holcombe, E. (2023). Shared Equity Leadership: A New Model for Making Inclusion and Equity Part of Organizational Culture. In Inclusive Leadership: Equity and Belonging in Our Communities (Vol. 9, pp. 3–13). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Wasserman, I. C. (2020). Inclusive leadership in complex times: Leading with vulnerability and integrity. In Inclusive Leadership (pp. 83–98). Routledge.
Weng, C., Chen, C., Ai, X. J. I. j. o. t., & education, d. (2023). A pedagogical study on promoting students' deep learning through design-based learning. 33(4), 1653–1674.
Wheldall, K., & Merrett, F. (2017). Positive teaching: The behavioural approach. Routledge.
Yakovleva, N. O., & Yakovlev, E. V. J. P. S. R. (2014). Interactive teaching methods in contemporary higher education. 16(2), 75–80.
Zhang, J.-H., Zou, L.-c., Miao, J.-j., Zhang, Y.-X., Hwang, G.-J., & Zhu, Y. J. I. L. E. (2020). An individualized intervention approach to improving university students’ learning performance and interactive behaviors in a blended learning environment. 28(2), 231–245.

No competing interests reported.

Data.xlsx

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
06 Sep, 2024
Reviews received at journal
04 Sep, 2024
Reviews received at journal
28 Aug, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
27 Aug, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
26 Aug, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
26 Aug, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
25 Aug, 2024
Editor invited by journal
16 Aug, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
14 Aug, 2024
First submitted to journal
05 Aug, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Enhancing Student Critical Thinking and Learning Outcomes through Innovative Pedagogical Approaches in Higher Education: The Mediating Role of Inclusive Leadership

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Hypotheses Development and Research Model

2.1 Innovative Pedagogical Approaches and Critical Thinking

2.2 Learning Outcomes in Higher Education

2.3 Mediating Role of Inclusive Leadership

3. Methodology

3.1 Data collection, participants, and procedure

4. Results

5. Discussion

6. Theoretical Implications

7 Practical Implications

8 Limitations and Suggestions

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1