| Sumario: | Background: Improving undergraduate education management has emerged as a top priority in the rapidly evolving landscape of higher education. This research aims to investigate the impact of active learning techniques, technology integration, extracurricular involvement, assessment techniques and inclusive learning environments on academic performance, learning outcomes and student satisfaction. Method: This study adopted a mixed‐methods research approach, combining quantitative and qualitative techniques to investigate how pedagogical strategies, inclusive learning and technology interact in undergraduate education management. Structured questionnaires were used to gather data from 354 students, and semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 97 faculty members. SPSS was used to analyse the quantitative data, and NVivo was used to analyse the qualitative data. Results: Quantitative data revealed that there are significant positive relationships between undergraduate education management and pedagogical strategies (β = 0.31, p < 0.001), technology integration (β = 0.35, p < 0.001), student engagement (SE) (β = 0.39, p < 0.001), assessment methods (AM) (β = 0.27, p < 0.001) and inclusive education (IE) (β = 0.32, p < 0.001). Those findings are supported by qualitative data where faculty emphasised the effectiveness of active learning, formative assessment and digitally supported instruction in increasing engagement and learning consistency among diverse student groups. Novelty: This study offers a comprehensive model for improving undergraduate education management by combining pedagogical, technological and inclusive educational practices. It highlights the complementary effects of these components. Lay Summary: What is currently known about this topic? ○Active learning and technology use are linked to improved student learning.○Student engagement is a key determinant of academic success.○Inclusive learning environments support diverse student populations.○Assessment practices influence both performance and satisfaction.What does this paper add? ○Identifies three distinct learner profiles using latent class analysis.○Demonstrates the combined effects of pedagogy, technology and inclusion.○Quantifies predictors of undergraduate education management outcomes.○Integrates qualitative faculty insights with robust statistical modelling.Implications for practice and/or policy ○Universities should prioritise faculty training in active pedagogy.○Technology investments must align with instructional objectives.○Assessment policies should emphasise formative and innovative methods.○Institutional leaders can use learner profiles to guide targeted support.
|
|---|