Teaching theory: A multilevel framework for systematic and engaged learning and teaching processes and successful outcomes

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55284/ajel.v10i2.1503

Keywords:

Higher education, Learning and teaching engagement, Multilevel framework, Systematic learning and teaching process, Successful learning and instructional outcomes, Teaching theory.

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to present  teaching  theory, its three components- assumptions, concepts, and propositions, and its application in higher education classrooms. A post-test evaluation design was used to assess the effectiveness of teaching  theory. Qualitative data were collected through a classroom survey from undergraduate and graduate level classes including online and seated classes to investigate the application of teaching theory. The results showed that learning and teaching outcomes were improved when learning and teaching were implemented at three different engagement levels (i.e., learner level, peer level and  classroom level). Students and  teachers’ engagement increased when teaching  theory  was operationalized and implemented in classrooms. Additionally, it was essential to consider and implement developmental, sociocultural and need-based contexts to foster learning and teaching at the three engagement levels of teaching  theory. Students and teachers’ proactiveness, sensitivity  and responsiveness were important factors in carrying out a successful learning and teaching process. In sum, teaching  theory substantially improved learning and teaching outcomes in higher education classrooms. Teaching theory facilitates  students and  teachers in all types of classrooms at all educational levels and with all groups of the population for achieving positive educational outcomes.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

How to Cite

Raza , M. H. . (2025). Teaching theory: A multilevel framework for systematic and engaged learning and teaching processes and successful outcomes. American Journal of Education and Learning, 10(2), 70–94. https://doi.org/10.55284/ajel.v10i2.1503