A Multidimensional Model of General Studies Pedagogy Adaptation

Thesis Abstract

The study addresses the persistent challenge of aligning General Studies pedagogy with the diverse learning needs of contemporary students in higher education, where fragmented instructional practices undermine cross-disciplinary integration and student engagement. It aims to develop a robust multidimensional model of General Studies pedagogy adaptation that integrates cognitive, affective, and sociocultural dimensions to enhance learner outcomes, motivation, and critical thinking across disciplines. Specific objectives are (1) to identify core pedagogical dimensions—cognitive scaffolding, affective engagement, inclusive assessment, and cross-disciplinary integration; (2) to examine how institutional constraints and faculty professional development influence adaptive pedagogical practice; (3) to develop and validate a conceptual framework linking pedagogical dimensions to student learning outcomes; (4) to test the model’s predictive validity for student achievement, engagement, and retention; and (5) to propose an actionable implementation roadmap for universities seeking scalable General Studies pedagogy adaptation. A mixed-methods design guides the inquiry. The quantitative phase adopts a cross-sectional survey of 520 undergraduate and postgraduate students across five universities, complemented by 40 in-depth interviews with General Studies instructors and department heads to illuminate contextual factors. Instrumentation includes a validated General Studies Pedagogy Adaptation Scale (GSPAS) with subscales for cognitive scaffolding, affective engagement, inclusive assessment, and integrative pedagogy; and a Student Learning Outcomes Questionnaire (SLOQ) capturing critical thinking, problem-solving, motivation, and retention indicators. Reliability analyses (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84–0.92) and factorial validity (confirmatory factor analysis with CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.04) establish instrument rigor. Qualitative data are analyzed using thematic analysis to triangulate survey findings and reveal nuanced mechanisms of adaptation in varied institutional contexts. Data analysis employs structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the multidimensional adaptation model, with multigroup analyses to explore potential moderating effects of university type (public vs. private) and program discipline mix. Regression analyses examine the relative contribution of each pedagogical dimension to SLOQ outcomes, while ANOVA assesses differences across student cohorts and instructional configurations. Thematic cross-case synthesis integrates interview insights with survey results to refine the model and identify best practices for professional development and curricular alignment. Expected findings indicate that a cohesive integration of cognitive scaffolding, affective engagement, inclusive assessment, and cross-disciplinary integration significantly predicts higher levels of critical thinking, problem-solving abilities, intrinsic motivation, and reported retention. The study anticipates that institutional support for professional development and structured opportunities for cross-faculty collaboration will moderate the strength of the model’s effects, amplifying gains in institutions with robust PD programs. The model is expected to demonstrate strong invariance across student subgroups, suggesting broad applicability of the adaptation framework. This research contributes to knowledge by offering a theory-driven, empirically validated multidimensional framework for General Studies pedagogy adaptation that explicitly connects pedagogical practices to measurable learning outcomes and institutional factors. It advances the literature on curricular integration and inclusive pedagogy within generalist disciplines by articulating a parsimonious yet comprehensive model grounded in theories of cognitive apprenticeship (Collins, Brown, & Holum), self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan), and sociocultural learning (Vygotsky). The study also provides a practical implementation roadmap detailing faculty development curricula, assessment redesign templates, and cross-departmental collaboration protocols suitable for scalable deployment in diverse higher education settings. The main conclusion is that adaptive General Studies pedagogy, when organized around a multidimensional framework and supported by targeted professional development and institutional alignment, yields meaningful improvements in student learning outcomes and engagement. Recommendations include (1) embedding cognitive scaffolding and cross-disciplinary projects in General Studies courses, (2) implementing inclusive assessment practices with clear alignment to learning outcomes, (3) institutionalizing faculty collaboration mechanisms across departments, and (4) investing in PD programs that cultivate adaptive teaching competencies and data-informed practice. Suggestions for future research include longitudinal testing of the model’s predictive validity and cross-national replication to ascertain cultural adaptability and scalability.