teaching strategies a research paper

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

The relations between teaching strategies, students’ engagement in learning, and teachers’ self-concept.

1. Introduction

2. theoretical background, 2.1. teaching strategies, 2.1.1. feedback, 2.1.2. scaffolding, 2.1.3. active learning, 2.1.4. collaborating, 2.2. teachers’ self-concept, 2.3. students’ engagement in learning, 2.4. the present study.

• How do the four popular teaching strategies predict teachers’ self-concept?
• How do the four popular teaching strategies predict students’ engagement in learning?

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. participants, 3.2. research design and materials, 3.2.1. teaching strategies, 3.2.2. teachers’ self-concept, 3.2.3. students’ engagement in learning, 3.3. data collection procedure, 3.4. data analysis, 4.1. results of efa, cfa, and correlation, 4.2. results of the sem, 5. discussion, 6. limitations and future directions, 7. practical implications and conclusions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• United Nations. The 17 Goals. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 18 March 2021).
• Orlich, D.; Harder, R.J.; Trevisan, M.S.; Brown, A.H.; Miller, D.E. Teaching Strategies: A Guide to Better Instruction , 11th ed.; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hattie, J.A.; Anderman, E. International Guide to Student Achievement , 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, USA, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, M.-H.; Tsai, C.-C. Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instr. Sci. 2008 , 38 , 1–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Visible Learning Plus: 252 + Influences on Student Achievement. Available online: https://visible-learning.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/VLPLUS-252-Influences-Hattie-ranking-DEC-2017.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2021).
• Hattie, J.A. Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning ; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bates, A.S.; Shifflet, R.; Lin, M. Academic achievement: An elementary school perspective. In International Guide to Student Achievement ; Hattie, J.A., Anderman, E., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 7–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wisniewski, B.; Zierer, K.; Hattie, J. The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Educational Feedback Research. Front. Psychol. 2020 , 10 , 3087. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hattie, J.; Timperley, H. The Power of Feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 2007 , 77 , 81–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hattie, J.A.; Clark, S. Visible Learning: Feedback ; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson, A. Student engagement and the role of feedback in learning. J. Pedagog. Dev. 2012 , 21 , 15–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kluger, A.N.; DeNisi, A. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol. Bull. 1996 , 119 , 254–284. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hattie, J.A. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of 800+ Meta-Analyses on Achievement ; Routledge: London, UK, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hattie, J.; Zierer, K. Visible Learning Insights ; Routledge: London, UK, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haruehansawasin, S.; Kiattikomol, P. Scaffolding in problem-based learning for low-achieving learners. J. Educ. Res. 2018 , 111 , 363–370. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, N.J.; Belland, B.R.; Axelrod, D. Scaffolding for Optimal Challenge in K–12 Problem-Based Learning. Interdiscip. J. Probl. Learn. 2018 , 13 , 3. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smit, N.; van de Grift, W.; de Bot, K.; Jansen, E.A. Classroom observation tool for scaffolding reading comprehension. System 2017 , 65 , 117–129. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Kilic, H. Pre-service Mathematics Teachers’ Noticing Skills and Scaffolding Practices. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2016 , 16 , 377–400. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Angeli, C.; Valanides, N. Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020 , 105 , 105954. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abdurrahman, A.; Nurulsari, N.; Maulina, H.; Rahman, B.; Umam, R.; Jermsittiparsert, K. Multi-level scaffolding: A novel approach of physics teacher development program for promoting content knowledge mastery. Int. J. Innov. Creat. Chang. 2019 , 78 , 71–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yusuk, S. Effects of zone of proximal development based scaffolding techniques on reading comprehension of Thai university students. Interdiscip. Res. Rev. 2018 , 134 , 1–6. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baepler, P.; Walker, J.D.; Brooks, D.C.; Saichaie, K.; Petersen, C.I. A Guide to Teaching in the Active Learning Classroom: History, Research, and Practice ; Stylus Publishing: Sterling, VA, USA, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bransford, J.D.; Brown, A.L.; Cocking, R.R. (Eds.) How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School ; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ueckert, C.; Gess-Newsome, J. Active learning strategies. Sci. Teach. 2008 , 75 , 47–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hodges, L.C. Student engagement in active learning classes. In Active Learning in College Science ; Mintzes, J., Walter, E., Eds.; Springer: Basel, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 27–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hyun, J.; Ediger, R.; Lee, D. Students’ satisfaction on their learning process in Active Learning and Traditional Classrooms. Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ. 2017 , 291 , 108–118. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman, S.; Eddy, S.L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M.K.; Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M.P. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014 , 111 , 8410–8415. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Nokes-Malach, T.J.; Richey, J.E.; Gadgil, S. When Is It Better to Learn Together? Insights from Research on Collaborative Learning. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2015 , 27 , 645–656. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Altınay, Z. Evaluating peer learning and assessment in online collaborative learning environments. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2016 , 36 , 312–320. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rohrbeck, C.A.; Ginsburg-Block, M.D.; Fantuzzo, J.W.; Miller, T.R. Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. J. Educ. Psychol. 2003 , 95 , 240–257. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pai, H.-H.; Sears, D.A.; Maeda, Y. Effects of Small-Group Learning on Transfer: A Meta-Analysis. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2015 , 27 , 79–102. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ensergueix, P.J. Reciprocal peer tutoring in a physical education setting: Influence of peer tutoring training and gender on motor performance and self-efficacy outcomes. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 2010 , 25 , 222–242. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deniz Can, D.; Ginsburg-Block, M. Peer tutoring strategies and their impact on child achievement. In The International Handbook of Student Achievement ; Hattie, J.A., Anderman, E.M., Eds.; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2013; pp. 375–404. [ Google Scholar ]
• Storch, N. Collaborative Writing in L2 Classrooms ; Multilingual Matters: Bristol, UK, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, M.; Zhu, W. Good or bad collaborative wiki writing: Exploring links between group interactions and writing products. J. Second Lang. Writ. 2017 , 35 , 38–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Le, H.; Janssen, J.; Wubbels, T. Collaborative learning practices: Teacher and student perceived obstacles to effective student collaboration. Camb. J. Educ. 2016 , 48 , 103–122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Scheeler, M.C.; Macluckie, M.; Albright, K. Effects of Immediate Feedback Delivered by Peer Tutors on the Oral Presentation Skills of Adolescents with Learning Disabilities. Remedial Spéc. Educ. 2010 , 31 , 77–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shavelson, R.J.; Hubner, J.J.; Stanton, G.C. Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Rev. Educ. Res. 1976 , 46 , 407–441. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marsh, H.W.; Martin, A.J.; Yeung, A.S.; Craven, R.C. Competence self-perceptions. In Handbook of Competence and Motivation: Theory and Application , 2nd ed.; Elliot, A.J., Dweck, C.S., Yeager, D.S., Eds.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 85–115. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marsh, H.W.; Pekrun, R.; Parker, P.D.; Murayama, K.; Guo, J.; Dicke, T.; Arens, A.K. The murky distinction between self-concept and self-efficacy: Beware of lurking jingle-jangle fallacies. J. Educ. Psychol. 2019 , 111 , 331–353. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, F. Longitudinal Relations Between School Self-concept and Academic Achievement. Rev. De Psicodidáctica (Engl. Ed.) 2019 , 24 , 95–102. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wolff, F.; Sticca, F.; Niepel, C.; Götz, T.; Van Damme, J.; Möller, J. The reciprocal 2I/E model: An investigation of mutual relations between achievement and self-concept levels and changes in the math and verbal domain across three countries. J. Educ. Psychol. 2020 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Möller, J.; Zitzmann, S.; Helm, F.; Machts, N.; Wolff, F. A Meta-Analysis of Relations Between Achievement and Self-Concept. Rev. Educ. Res. 2020 , 90 , 376–419. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Trigwell, K.; Prosser, M. Exploring University Teaching and Learning: Experience and Context ; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fredricks, J.A. Engagement in School and Out-of-School Contexts: A Multidimensional View of Engagement. Theory Into Pr. 2011 , 50 , 327–335. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lei, H.; Cui, Y.; Zhou, W. Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Soc. Behav. Pers. Int. J. 2018 , 46 , 517–528. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, M.-T.; Eccles, J.S. School context, achievement motivation, and academic engagement: A longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional perspective. Learn. Instr. 2013 , 28 , 12–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Self-Determination. In The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology ; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Assor, A.; Kaplan, H.; Roth, G. Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2002 , 72 , 261–278. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Marsh, H.W. Content specificity of relations between academic achievement and academic self-concept. J. Educ. Psychol. 1992 , 841 , 35–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cabrera-Nguyen, P. Author Guidelines for Reporting Scale Development and Validation Results in the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. J. Soc. Soc. Work. Res. 2010 , 1 , 99–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Brown, J.D. Statistics corner. Questions and answers about language testing statistics: Choosing the right number of components or factors in PCA and EFA. Shiken: JALT Testing. Eval. SIG Newsl. 2009 , 132 , 19–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics ; Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bentler, P.M. Covariance structure models for maximal reliability of unit-weighted composites. In Handbook of Latent Variable and Related Models ; Lee, S., Ed.; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2007; Volume 1, pp. 1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hancock, G.R.; Mueller, R.O. Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In Structural Equation Modeling: Present and Future—A Festschrift in Honor of Karl Jöreskog ; Cudeck, R., du Toit, S., Sörbom, D., Eds.; Scientific Software International: Lincolnwood, IL, USA, 2001; pp. 195–216. [ Google Scholar ]
• McNeish, D. Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychol. Methods 2018 , 233 , 412–433. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Raykov, T. Behavioral scale reliability and measurement invariance evaluation using latent variable modeling. Behav. Ther. 2004 , 35 , 299–331. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kane, M.T. Explicating validity. Assessment in Education: Principles. Policy Pract. 2016 , 232 , 198–211. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kline, R.B. Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modelling , 2nd ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jöreskog, K.G.; Sörbom, D. LISREL 8.72: Structural Equation Modelling with SIMPLIS Command Language ; Scientific Software International: Chicago, IL, USA, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tucker, L.R.; Lewis, C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 1973 , 38 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bentler, P.M. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 1990 , 107 , 238–246. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol. Methods Res. 1992 , 21 , 230–258. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999 , 6 , 1–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, Y.; McDonough, K. Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Lang. Teach. Res. 2011 , 15 , 183–199. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.; Holubec, E. (Eds.) Cooperation in the Classroom ; Interaction Book: Edina, MN, USA, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duran, D.; Blanch, S.; Thurston, A.; Topping, K. Online reciprocal peer tutoring for the improvement of linguistic abilities in Spanish and English. J. Study Educ. Dev. 2010 , 33 , 209–222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Han, F. The Relations between Teaching Strategies, Students’ Engagement in Learning, and Teachers’ Self-Concept. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 5020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095020

Han F. The Relations between Teaching Strategies, Students’ Engagement in Learning, and Teachers’ Self-Concept. Sustainability . 2021; 13(9):5020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095020

Han, Feifei. 2021. "The Relations between Teaching Strategies, Students’ Engagement in Learning, and Teachers’ Self-Concept" Sustainability 13, no. 9: 5020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095020

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.12(3); Fall 2013

Structure Matters: Twenty-One Teaching Strategies to Promote Student Engagement and Cultivate Classroom Equity

A host of simple teaching strategies—referred to as “equitable teaching strategies” and rooted in research on learning—can support biology instructors in striving for classroom equity and in teaching all their students, not just those who are already engaged, already participating, and perhaps already know the biology being taught.

INTRODUCTION

As a biology education community, we focus a great deal of time and energy on issues of “what” students should be learning in the modern age of biology and then probing the extent to which students are learning these things. Additionally, there has been increased focus over time on the “how” of teaching, with attention to questioning the efficacy of traditional lecture methods and exploring new teaching techniques to support students in more effectively learning the “what” of biology. However, the aspect of classroom teaching that seems to be consistently underappreciated is the nature of “whom” we are teaching. Undergraduate students often appear to be treated as interchangeable entities without acknowledgment of the central role of the individual students, their learning histories, and their personal characteristics in the student-centered nature of “how” we aspire to teach. Most innovative approaches to biology teaching that are at the core of national policy documents and resources are rooted in a constructivist framework (e.g., Posner et al. , 1982 ; Handelsman et al. , 2004 ; Labov et al. , 2010 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 2011 ; College Board, 2013 ). In constructivism, teachers can structure classroom environments with the intention of maximizing student learning, but learning is the work of students ( Posner et al. , 1982 ; Bransford et al. , 2000). As such, each student's prior experience and attitude and motivation toward the material being learned, confidence in his or her ability to learn, and relative participation in the learning environment are all thought to be key variables in promoting learning of new ideas, biological or not. Finally, bringing together individual students in classrooms produces group interactions that can either support or impede learning for different individuals.

Designing learning environments that attend to individual students and their interactions with one another may seem an impossible task in a course of 20 students, much less a course of more than 700. However, there are a host of simple teaching strategies rooted in research on teaching and learning that can support biology instructors in paying attention to whom they are trying to help learn. These teaching strategies are sometimes referred to as “equitable teaching strategies,” whereby striving for “classroom equity” is about teaching all the students in your classroom, not just those who are already engaged, already participating, and perhaps already know the biology being taught. Equity, then, is about striving to structure biology classroom environments that maximize fairness, wherein all students have opportunities to verbally participate, all students can see their personal connections to biology, all students have the time to think, all students can pose ideas and construct their knowledge of biology, and all students are explicitly welcomed into the intellectual discussion of biology. Without attention to the structure of classroom interactions, what can often ensue is a wonderfully designed biology lesson that can be accessed by only a small subset of students in a classroom.

So what specific teaching strategies might we instructors, as architects of the learning environment in our classrooms, use to structure the classroom learning environment? Below are 21 simple teaching strategies that biology instructors can use to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity. To provide a framework for how these teaching strategies might be most useful to instructors, I have organized them into five sections, representing overarching goals instructors may have for their classrooms, including:

• Giving students opportunities to think and talk about biology
• Encouraging, demanding, and actively managing the participation of all students
• Building an inclusive and fair classroom community for all students
• Monitoring behavior to cultivate divergent biological thinking
• Teaching all of the students in your biology classroom

For each of these goals, there is a brief consideration of why the goal is important for student learning, which is followed by descriptions of several simple strategies for structuring instructor–student and student–student interactions to strive for this goal. No doubt, there are likely dozens of additional strategies that could be added to this list. In addition, many of the strategies affiliated with one equitable teaching goal are also easily used in the service of one or more of the other goals. The intention of presenting these 21 strategies in this framework is solely to provide all biology instructors access to immediate and tractable teaching strategies for promoting access and equity for all students in their biology classrooms.

These equitable teaching strategies can be read and explored in any order. Readers are encouraged to use Table 1 to self-assess which of these strategies they may already use, which they are most interested in reading more about, and which they may want to try in their own classrooms. Self-assessment responses to Table 1 can guide which of the sections below you may be most interested in reading first.

Self-assessment of equitable teaching strategies a

a Spaces to the left of each strategy can be used to indicate: N = never used; O = use occasionally; R = use regularly; W = would like to try!

GIVING STUDENTS OPPORTUNITIES TO THINK AND TALK ABOUT BIOLOGY

Human learning is a biological phenomenon of the brain. Synapses need time to fire, and relevant circuits in the brain need time to be recruited. Yet the structure of class time with students does not usually attend to giving students time to think and talk about biology. As experts with thousands of hours of thinking about biology, we as biologists no doubt think quite quickly about the topics we are attempting to teach students. And we as instructors can be misled that all students have had ample time to think by those few students in our courses who have more background in the concepts under discussion and raise their hands to share almost immediately. However, those students in our courses who are more biologically naïve may need more time to think and talk about the biological concepts under discussion. Below are four simple teaching strategies grounded in research to structure classroom time for students to think and talk about biology.

1. Wait Time

Perhaps the simplest teaching strategy to increase time for student thinking and to expand the number of students participating verbally in a biology classroom is to lengthen one's “wait time” after posing a question to your class (Rowe, 1969; Tobin, 1987 ). Mary Budd Rowe's groundbreaking papers introducing the concept of wait time have influenced educational practice since their publication more than 40 years ago (Rowe, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1987; Tanner and Allen, 2002). Rowe and colleagues documented in the precollege setting that instructors on average waited only ∼1.5 s after asking a question before taking a student response, answering the question themselves, or posing a follow-up question. With the seemingly modest extension of the “wait time” after a question to ∼3–5 s, Rowe and colleagues showed dramatic effects: substantially more students willing to volunteer answers, fewer students unwilling to share when called on, and increases in the length and complexity of the responses that students gave in response to the question (Rowe, 1974, 1978; Allen and Tanner, 2002 ). Thinking biologically about increasing wait time to promote student engagement and participation, it seems likely that this increase in time allows critical neural processing time for students, and perhaps also allows more introverted students time to rally the courage to volunteer an answer. Practically, extending wait time can be very challenging for instructors. Actively mentally counting the following—“one thousand one … one thousand two … one thousand three … one thousand four … one thousand five”—before acknowledging potential student respondents is one simple way to track the amount of time that has transpired after asking a question.

2. Allow Students Time to Write

Practicing wait time may still not give enough time for some students to gather a thought and or screw up the confidence to share that thought. Many students may need more scaffolding—more instruction and guidance—about how to use the time they have been given to think. One simple way to scaffold wait time is to explicitly require students to write out one idea, two ideas, three ideas that would capture their initial thoughts on how to answer the question posed. This act of writing itself may even lead students to discover points of confusion or key insights. In addition, if collected, this writing can hold students accountable in thinking and recording their ideas. To set the stage for doing these simple quick writes or minute papers throughout the semester, instructors can require on the syllabus that students purchase a packet of index cards (usually no more than a $1 cost) and bring a few cards to each class session for the purpose of these writing opportunities. Instructors need not collect all of these writings, though it may be quite informative to do so, and certainly instructors need not grade any (much less every) card that students produce. If these quick writes are graded, it can be only for participation points or more elaborately to provide conceptual feedback ( Schinske, 2011 ). Giving students time to write is one way that instructors can structure the learning environment to maximize the number of students who have access (in this case enough time) to participate in thinking about biology.

3. Think–Pair–Share

The oft written about think–pair–share strategy is perhaps the simplest way for instructors coming from a traditional lecture approach to give all students in a classroom opportunities to think about and talk about biology ( Lyman, 1981 ; Chi et al ., 1994 ; Allen and Tanner, 2002 ; Smith et al. , 2009 ; Tanner, 2009 ). The mechanics of a think–pair–share generally involve giving all students a minute or so to think (or usually write) about their ideas on a biological question. Then, students are charged to turn and talk with a neighboring student, compare ideas, and identify points of agreement and misalignment. These pair discussions may or may not be followed by a whole-group conversation in which individual students are asked to share the results of their pair discussion aloud with the whole class. Importantly, the instructor's role in facilitating a think–pair–share activity is to be explicit that students need not agree and also to convey that practicing talking about biology is an essential part of learning about biology. Integrating one or more think–pair–share opportunities during a class session has the potential to cultivate classroom equity in multiple ways: providing individual students time to verbalize their thoughts about biological concepts; promoting comparison of ideas among classmates; transforming the nature of the classroom environment to be more participatory; and promoting a collaborative, rather than competitive, culture in undergraduate science classes. Methodologically, a think–pair–share activity need not take more than a few minutes of class time, yet may allow students the neural processing time needed before being ready to take on new information offered by an instructor. It is also during these pair discussions that students may discover new confusions or points of disagreement about concepts with fellow students, which can drive questions to be asked of the instructor.

4. Do Not Try to Do Too Much

Finally, no instructors would likely express the sentiment: “I try to do so much in my class sessions that they go by quickly and students are unclear about what the goals for the class were.” However, evidence from a variety of research studies suggests that this may be the dominant experience for many students in undergraduate science courses ( Tobias, 1990 ; Seymour and Hewitt, 1997). While “not doing too much” is a challenging task for most of us, one particular strategy that can reduce the amount of material considered during class time is to structure more active learning by students outside class time, in particular in the form of homework that goes beyond textbook readings. Examples include case study assignments that charge students to independently explore and find evidence about an upcoming conceptual idea before arriving in class. As experts in our biological fields, it is tempting to continually expand what we deem critical and nonnegotiable in terms of what students need to accomplish during class time. However, there are clear and present trade-offs between continually expanding our aspirations for in-class time and structuring a classroom learning environment that promotes student engagement and provides access to thinking and talking about biology for all students. One strategy for prioritizing how to spend precious class time is to decide on which biological ideas in a course are most difficult to learn, are rooted in common misconceptions, and/or represent fundamental biological principles ( National Research Council, 1999 ; AAAS, 2011 ; Coley and Tanner, 2012 ).

ENCOURAGING, DEMANDING, AND ACTIVELY MANAGING THE PARTICIPATION OF ALL STUDENTS

If learning requires that students construct ideas for themselves, then demanding the active participation of every single student in a class is essential to learning. Currently, though, many undergraduate students in biology classrooms can navigate an entire term without speaking aloud in a course. They sit in the back of our large classrooms, and they attempt to appear to be busily writing when a question is asked in a small class. Being called upon to answer a question or share an idea can be deeply uncomfortable to many students, and we as instructors may not be doing enough to build students’ confidence to share. While few instructors would find this lack of active, verbal participation in science acceptable for emerging scientists such as graduate students or practicing scientists themselves, we somehow allow this for undergraduate students. The participation of a only few students in our classrooms on a regular basis, often from the front rows, distracts us from the fact that usually the vast majority of students are not participating in the conversation of biology. To encourage, and in fact demand, the participation of all students in a biology classroom, you can use the following six strategies with little to no preparation or use of class time.

5. Hand Raising

Actively enforcing the use of hand raising and turn taking in a classroom is likely to provide greater access to more students than an open, unregulated discussion. Novice instructors, sometimes awash in silence and desperate for any student participation, can allow the classroom to become an open forum. Some would say this is much like the culture of science in settings such as lab meetings and seminars. However, the undergraduates in our courses are novices, not only to the concepts we are sharing but also to the culture of science itself. As such, providing structure through something as simple as hand raising can establish a culture that the instructor expects all students to be participating. With hand raising, the instructor can also be explicit about asking for “hands from those of us who haven't had a chance yet to share” and strive to cultivate a classroom conversation that goes beyond a few students in the front row.

6. Multiple Hands, Multiple Voices

After asking a question, some instructors call on just a single student to answer. However, this is problematic in many ways. The same students can often end up sharing repeatedly during a class, as well as from class session to class session. In addition, if the goal is to better understand how students are thinking, having a single student share gives a very narrow and highly skewed picture of what a classroom full of students may be thinking. One simple strategy for broadening participation and increasing the breadth of ideas flowing from students to instructors is to generally ask for multiple hands and multiple voices to respond to any question posed during class time ( Allen and Tanner, 2002 ). Instructors can set the stage for this by asserting, “I’m going to pose a question, and I’d like to see at least three hands of colleagues here who would share their ideas. I won't hear from anyone until I’ve got those three volunteers.” Additionally, this particular use of hand raising allows instructors to selectively call on those students who may generally participate less frequently or who may have never previously shared aloud in class. Importantly, instructors really must always wait for the number of hands that they have called for to share. Hearing from fewer than the number of volunteers called for can entrain students in a classroom to know that they simply have to outwait the instructor. Finally, if the number of requested hands have not been volunteered, the instructor can charge students to talk in pairs to rehearse what they could share if called upon to do so.

7. Random Calling Using Popsicle Sticks/Index Cards

Raising hands allows for the instructor to structure and choose which students are participating verbally in a class, but what if no one is raising a hand or the same students continually raise their hands? Establishing the culture in a classroom that any student can be called on at any time is another option for promoting student engagement and participation. How this is done can be critical. If the spirit of calling on students feels like a penalty, it may do more harm than good. However, if the instructor is explicit that all students in the course have great ideas and perspectives to share, then random calling on students in courses that range in size from 10 to 700 can be a useful strategy for broadening student participation. Practically, there are a variety of ways to call randomly on students. In smaller-sized courses, having a cup with popsicle sticks, each with the name of a student on it, can make the process transparent for students, as the instructor can clearly hold up the cup, draw three names, read the names, and begin the sharing. This can minimize suspicions that the instructor is preferentially calling on certain students. For larger course class sizes, instructors can collect an index card with personal information from each student on the first day. The cards serve two purposes: 1) to enable instructors to get to know students and to assist with learning students’ names, and 2) to provide a card set that can be used each class and cycled through over the semester to randomly call on different students to share ( Tanner, 2011 ).

8. Assign Reporters for Small Groups

Promoting student engagement and classroom equity involves making opportunities for students to speak who might not naturally do so on their own. If the decision about who is to share aloud in a class discussion is left entirely to student negotiation, it is no surprise that likely the most extroverted and gregarious students will repeatedly and naturally jump at all opportunities to share. However, this sets up an inequitable classroom environment in which students who are unlikely to volunteer have no opportunities to practice sharing their scientific ideas aloud. Assigning a “reporter”—an individual who will report back on their small-group discussion—is a simple strategy to provide access to verbal participation for students who would not otherwise volunteer. The assignment of reporters need not be complex. It can be random and publicly verifiable, such as assigning that the reporter will be the person wearing the darkest shirt. In smaller classes, one can use simple tools to assign a reporter, such as colored clips on individual student name tents or colored index cards handed to students as they enter the class. It can also be nonrandom and intended to draw out a particular population. For example, assigning the group reporter to be the person with the longest hair will often, not always, result in a female being the reporter for a group. Or instructors can choose to hand out the colored clips/cards specifically to students who are less likely to share their ideas in class. Early on, it may be useful to assign based on a visible characteristic, so the instructor can verify that those students reporting are indeed those who were assigned to report. After the culture of assigned reporters is established, and everyone is following the rules, assignments can become less verifiable and prompt more personal sharing, such as the reporter is the person whose birthday is closest. Whatever the method, assigning reporters is a simple strategy for promoting classroom fairness and access to sharing ideas for more than just the most extroverted students.

9. Whip (Around)

Actively managing the participation of all students in smaller courses is sometimes well supported by the occasional use of what is termed a “whip around” or more simply just a “whip.” In using a whip, the instructor conveys that hearing an idea from every student in the classroom is an important part of the learning process. Whips can be especially useful toward the beginning of a course term as a mechanism for giving each student practice in exercising his or her voice among the entire group, which for many students is not a familiar experience. The mechanics of the whip are that the instructor poses a question to which each individual student will respond, with each response usually being <30 s in length. On the first day of class, this could be something as simple as asking students what their favorite memory of learning biology has been. As the course progresses, the question that is the focus of the whip can become more conceptual, but always needs to be such that there are a variety of possible responses. Whips can be follow-ups to homework assignments wherein students share a way in which they have identified a personal connection to course material, a confusion they have identified, or an example of how the material under study has recently appeared in the popular press. During a whip, students who may wish to share an idea similar to a colleague who has previously shared are actively encouraged to share that same idea, but in their own words, which may be helpful to the understanding of fellow students or reveal that the ideas are not actually that similar after all. Importantly, the whip is a teaching strategy that is not feasible in large class sizes, as the premise of the strategy is that every student in the class will respond. As such, this strategy is unwieldy in class sizes greater than ∼30, unless there is a subgroup structure at play in the classroom with students already functioning regularly in smaller groups. Possible ways to implement a whip in a large classroom could be to call on all students in a particular row or in a particular subgroup structure particular to the course.

10. Monitor Student Participation

Many instructors are familiar with collecting classroom evidence to monitor students’ thinking, using clicker questions, minute papers, and a variety of other assessment strategies. Less discussed is the importance of monitoring students’ participation in a classroom on a regular basis. It is not unusual to have a subset of students who are enthusiastic in their participation, sometimes to the point that the classroom dialogue becomes dominated by a few students in a room filled with 20, 40, 80, 160, or upward of 300 students. To structure the classroom dialogue in such a way as to encourage, demand, and actively manage the participation of all students, instructors can do a variety of things. During each class session, instructors can keep a running list—in smaller classes mentally and in larger classes on a piece of paper—of those students who have contributed to the discussion that day, such as by answering or asking a question. When the same students attempt to volunteer for the second, third, or subsequent times, instructors can explicitly invite participation from other students, using language such as “I know that there are lots of good ideas on this in here, and I’d like to hear from some members of our community who I haven't heard from yet today.” At this juncture, wait time is key, as it will likely take time for those students who have not yet participated to gather the courage to join the conversation. If there are still no volunteers after the instructor practices wait time, it may be time to insert a pair discussion, using language such as “We cannot go on until we hear ideas from more members of our scientific community. So, take one minute to check in with a neighbor and gather your thoughts about what you would say to a scientific colleague who had asked you the same question that I’m asking in class right now.” At this point it is essential not to resort to the usual student volunteers and not to simply go on with class, because students will learn from that behavior by the instructor that participation of all students will not be demanded.

BUILDING AN INCLUSIVE AND FAIR CLASSROOM COMMUNITY FOR ALL STUDENTS

Many studies have documented that students from a variety of backgrounds in undergraduate science courses experience feelings of exclusion, competitiveness, and alienation ( Tobias, 1990 ; Seymour and Hewitt, 1997 ; Johnson, 2007 ). Research evidence over the past two decades has mounted, supporting the assertion that feelings of exclusion—whether conscious, unconscious, or subconscious—have significant influences on student learning and working memory, as well as the ability to perform in academic situations, even when achievement in those academic arenas has been documented previously (e.g., Steele and Aronson, 1995; Steele, 1999 ). Additionally, our own behaviors as scientists are influenced by unconscious bias in our professional work ( Moss-Racusin et al. , 2012 ). However, there is also research evidence that relatively subtle interventions and efforts in classrooms may be effective at blunting feelings of exclusion and promoting student learning ( Cohen et al ., 2006 ; Miyake et al. , 2010 ; Haak et al. , 2011 ; Walton et al. , 2013 ). The following five strategies may assist biology instructors in working toward an inclusive, fair, and equitable classroom community for all of their students.

11. Learn or Have Access to Students’ Names

For cultivating a welcoming, inclusive, and equitable classroom environment, one of the simplest strategies an instructor can use is to structure ways to get to know and call students by their names. Some instructors may plead an inability to remember names; however, there are many simple ways to scaffold the use of individual student names in a classroom without memorizing all of them. Having students submit index cards with their names and personal information, as described above, is an easy first step to learning names. Additionally, requiring students to purchase and always bring to class a manila file folder with their first names written on both sides in large block letters is another simple way to begin to make students’ names public, both for the instructor and for other students. Instructors who use such folders request that students raise this folder above themselves when asking or answering a question in class, so the instructor can call them by name. More advanced would be for the instructor to personally make the student name tents, preparing perhaps a colorful piece of heavy card stock folded in half, then writing each student's name in large block letters on each side. The simple act of making the name tags—which is feasible in class sizes of up to 100 students—may aid an instructor in beginning the process of learning students’ names. Regardless of who makes them, these name tents can be tools for a variety of classroom purposes: to call on students by name during class discussions, to encourage students to know one another and form study groups, and to verify names and faces when collecting exams on exam days. In smaller classes, name tents can be used more extensively, for example, by collecting them at the end of class and sorting them to identify members of small groups for work in the next class session. In fact, the attempt to get to know students’ names, and the message it sends about the importance of students in the course, may be more important than actually being able to call students by name each time you see them.

12. Integrate Culturally Diverse and Relevant Examples

Part of building an inclusive biology learning community is for students to feel that multiple perspectives and cultures are represented in the biology they are studying. Although it is not possible to represent aspects of all students’ lives or the cultural background of each student in your course, careful attention to integrating culturally diverse and personally relevant connections to biology can demonstrate for students that diverse perspectives are valued in your biology classroom ( Ladson-Billings, 1995 ). Most topics in biology can be connected in some way to the lived experiences of students, such as connecting what can be an abstract process of how genes produce traits to the very real and immediate example of cancer. Similarly, including examples that connect biology concepts that students are learning to different cultural communities—including both well-known stories like that of Henrietta Lacks and her connection to cell biology and smaller stories like that of Cynthia Lucero and her connection to osmosis—demonstrate to students that you as an instructor want to help them see themselves within the discipline of biology ( Chamany, 2006 ; Chamany et al. , 2008 ). Finally, stories from both the history of science and present-day discoveries, when judiciously chosen, can convey that diverse populations of people can make key contributions in science (e.g., Brady, 2007 ). Value for the inclusion of diverse perspectives can also manifest in simply being explicit that much of the history of biology has not included diverse voices and that you as the instructor expect this generation of students to literally change the face of the biological sciences.

13. Work in Stations or Small Groups

To promote an inclusive community within the classroom, instructors can integrate opportunities for students to work in small groups during time spent within the larger class. For some students, participation in a whole-group conversation may be a persistently daunting experience. However, instructors can structure opportunities for such students to practice thinking and talking about biology by regularly engaging students in tasks that require students to work together in small groups. Care must be taken to be explicit with students about the goal of the group work and, whenever possible, to assign roles so that no student in a small group is left out ( Johnson et al. , 1991 , 1993 , 1998 ; Tanner et al ., 2003 ). It can be challenging to design group work that is sufficiently complex so as to require the participation of all group members. Keeping group sizes as small as possible, no more than three or four students, can mitigate potential for unfairness caused by the act of putting students into groups. As one example, groups of students can be charged to bring expertise on a particular topic to class, check that expertise with others studying the same topic in a small group, and then be “jigsawed” into a new small group in which expertise from different topics can be shared ( Clarke, 1994 ). Additionally, explicit statements from the instructor about expectations that group members will include and support one another in their work can be especially helpful. Finally, in smaller class sizes, an instructor can thoughtfully construct student groups so as to minimize isolating students of particular backgrounds (e.g., attempt to have more than one female or more than one student of color in a group) or interaction styles (e.g., attempt to place quieter students together so that they are likely to have more opportunity to talk). How instructors structure small-group interactions has the potential to provide a feeling of inclusion, community, and collaboration for students who may otherwise feel isolated in a biology classroom.

14. Use Varied Active-Learning Strategies

To engage the broadest population of students, instructors may be best served by using a variety of active-learning strategies from class session to class session. For each strategy, some students will be out of their comfort zones, and other students will be in their comfort zones. Students who may be more reflective in their learning may be most comfortable during reflective writing or thinking about a clicker question. Other students may prefer learning by talking with peers after a clicker question or in a whole class conversation. Still others may prefer the opportunity to evaluate animations and videos or represent their understanding of biology in more visual ways through drawing, concept mapping, or diagramming. One might ask which of these different strategies is the most effective way to teach a given topic, yet this question belies the likely importance of variations in the efficacy of different strategies with different students. There may not ever be a “best” way to teach a particular concept, given the diversity of students in any given classroom. The “best” way to teach equitably—providing access to biology for the largest number of students—may be to consistently provide multiple entry points into the conceptual material for students. The role of an instructor in creating an equitable learning environment that is accessible to all students is to make sure that no single population of students is always outside their comfort zone. If an instructor chooses a singular teaching approach—always lecturing or always concept mapping, regardless of the nature of the approach—it seems likely that the lack of variation could result in the alienation and exclusion from learning of a subpopulation of students. Additionally, using varied active-learning strategies may be key for individual learners to see a concept from multiple perspectives, make multiple associations between the concept and other ideas, and practice a variety of approaches to exploring that concept. By using varied active-learning strategies for each biological topic explored, instructors can work toward building an inclusive and equitable learning environment for a wide range of students with different approaches to learning.

15. Be Explicit about Promoting Access and Equity for All Students

Perhaps the most powerful teaching strategy in building an inclusive and equitable learning environment is for instructors to be explicit that the triad of access, fairness, and classroom equity is one of their key goals. There need not be substantial time spent on conveying this stance, but explicit statements by the instructor about the importance of diverse perspectives in science can make issues of fairness and equity explicit rather than an implicit. Instructors can share with students why they use the teaching strategies they do, for example, sharing the reasoning behind having students write to allow thinking and processing time for everyone. When an instructor publicly asserts that he or she wants and expects everyone in the classroom to be successful in learning biology, students can leave behind the commonly assumed idea that instructors are attempting to weed out students. Being explicit about one's goal of cultivating an inclusive, equitable, and fair classroom learning environment reiterates that students and instructors are on the same side, not on somehow opposing sides, of the teaching and learning process.

MONITORING (YOUR OWN AND STUDENTS’) BEHAVIOR TO CULTIVATE DIVERGENT BIOLOGICAL THINKING

Science is fundamentally about negotiating models and ideas about how the natural world functions. As such, one might expect that undergraduate biology classrooms would mirror this negotiation and consideration of a variety of ideas about how the biological world might function. However, undergraduate biology classrooms have the reputation, likely deservedly, of being forums in which “right” answers—those already accepted as scientifically accurate—are the currency of conversation and the substrate for instructor–student dialogue. Yet research on learning suggests that inaccurate ideas, confusions, and alternative ideas about how the world works may, in fact, be one of our most powerful tools in the teaching and learning process (there are many publications on this subject, among them Posner et al. , 1982 ; National Research Council, 1999 ; Taber, 2001 ; Chi and Roscoe, 2002 ; DiSessa, 2002 ; Coley and Tanner, 2012 ). As such, it is important for instructors to cultivate discussion of divergent ideas in classroom conversations about biology—some of which may not be supported by current scientific evidence—as part of the process of moving students toward thinking in more scientifically accurate ways. Given the reputation of science courses as environments in which only those with correct answers are rewarded, biology instructors face the extra and very real challenge of gaining the trust of students to share divergent perspectives. Instructors can begin to establish a classroom community that values divergent ideas and promotes participation by students who may not already have scientifically accurate understanding by using the following four teaching strategies.

16. Ask Open-Ended Questions

One critical tool for instructors aspiring to cultivate divergent biological thinking in their classrooms is the use of open-ended questions, which are those questions that cannot be answered with a simple “yes” or “no” or even easily answered with a single word or phrase. Open-ended questions are by definition those which have multiple possible responses, such that inviting answers from a large group can yield more than an expected set of responses ( Bloom et al. , 1956 ; Allen and Tanner, 2002 ; Crowe et al ., 2008). Open-ended questions can be posed orally to frame a class discussion and followed by a quick write or pair discussion to give students time to consider their responses. Alternatively, instructors can plan these questions in advance, so they can be given as brief homework assignments, allowing students time to consider the questions before coming to class. In general, open-ended questions require some design time and may not be easily improvised by most biology instructors. As research scientists, many of us have been trained to ask closed-ended questions, namely questions that drive an experimental design to either confirm or refute a stated hypothesis. In some ways, training in asking closed-ended, experimental questions may be at odds with developing skills in open-ended questioning. Prior to asking open-ended questions, instructors can attempt to anticipate the likely responses they may get from students. This serves the dual purpose of checking that the question is really all that open-ended, as well as preparing for how one will handle students sharing a wide variety of ideas, which may or may not be scientifically accurate.

17. Do Not Judge Responses

Undergraduate science classrooms in general have the reputation of being places in which only right answers are valued, and participation in class discussions has a competitive tone (Seymour and Hewitt, 2010). However, as instructors, we have the power to encourage all students—not just those who have already constructed biologically accurate ideas—to exercise their voices in our undergraduate biology courses and to make their thinking about biology visible. To create a safe environment that encourages students to share all of their ideas, instructors may be best served in acknowledging student responses as neutrally as possible. This does not require inadvertently supporting a scientifically inaccurate idea. Clearly stating “I’d like to hear from a number of us about our thinking on this, and then we can sort out what we are sure of and what we are confused about,” sets the stage that all the responses may not be correct. Even the most simple “Thanks for sharing your ideas” after each student responds, without any immediate judgment on the correctness of the comments, can set a culture of sharing that has the potential to significantly expand the number of students willing to verbally participate. Any incorrect statements that are shared can be returned to at a later point in the same class or the next class and considered generally, so the individual student who happened to share the idea is not penalized for sharing. If one student shares an inaccurate idea, no doubt many more hold similar ideas. Some instructors may worry that allowing a scientifically inaccurate statement of misconception to be said aloud in a classroom will mislead other students, but there is ample evidence that just because statements are made in a classroom, even by instructors, these are not necessarily heard or learned ( Hake, 1998 ).

18. Use Praise with Caution

For instructors new to actively engaging students during class time, or even for seasoned instructors in the first few weeks of a term, it can be challenging to cultivate student participation in whole-group discussions. In response to those students who do share, instructors can unwittingly work against themselves by heaping praise on participating students. “Fabulous answer!” “Exactly!” “That's perfect!” With very few syllables spent, instructors may inadvertently convey to the rest of the students who are not participating that the response given was so wonderful that it is impossible to build on or exceed. Additionally, in a short period of time, the few students who are willing to participate early in a discussion or the course will become high status in the classroom, those who have reaped the instructors’ praise. Research from sociologist Elizabeth Cohen and her colleagues, described as “complex instruction,” has explored the power instructors have of effectively assigning academic status to students simply by the nature and enthusiasm of their remarks about those students’ responses ( Cohen, 1994 ). So, does this mean instructors should never praise student responses? No. However, it suggests using praise with caution is essential, so other students feel that they still have something to add and can be successful in sharing.

19. Establish Classroom Community Norms

As instructors strive to cultivate a classroom in which divergent and not always scientifically accurate ideas are shared, it is critical that the instructor also establish a set of classroom community norms. In this case, “norms” refers to a set of accepted usual, typical, standard acceptable behaviors in the classroom. Common group norms established by experienced instructors include the following: “Everyone here has something to learn.” “Everyone here is expected to support their colleagues in identifying and clarifying their confusions about biology.” “All ideas shared during class will be treated respectfully.” For many instructors, these classroom norms are simply verbally asserted from the first few days of a class and then regularly reiterated as the term progresses. Importantly, students will observe directly whether the instructor enforces the stated group norms and will behave accordingly. As such, it is important to decide what norms you are comfortable enforcing as the instructor in charge of your classroom. It only takes one student experiencing ridicule from a fellow student based on what they shared (someone shouts out, “That is totally not how it works!”) to immediately bring to a halt other students sharing their ideas in class. When such incidents occur, and they will, a simple reminder of the group norms and public reassurance and support for the student made to feel uncomfortable can go a long way. Simply using language like, “Could you please keep sharing your ideas? I have no doubt that if you are thinking along these lines, lots of smart people would think that way, too.” Establishing early and regularly enforcing a supportive classroom culture—just as you would in an effective and productive research lab meeting, study section, or any other gathering of scientists—is essential to maintaining an equitable, inclusive, and welcome classroom community.

TEACHING ALL THE STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM

As asserted above, perhaps the most underappreciated variables in teaching and learning are the students themselves and all their individual variations. Although it may be tempting to generalize what students will be like from semester to semester, from course to course, and from institution to institution, there is little evidence to support these generalizations. To promote student engagement and strive for classroom equity, it is essential to constantly and iteratively attend to who exactly is in your classroom trying to learn biology. Below are two specific strategies to help keep the focus of your teaching on the actual students who are currently enrolled in the course you are teaching.

20. Teach Them from the Moment They Arrive

As biology instructors, we assume that the only thing being learned in our classrooms is biology. However, student learning does not begin and end with the biology being explored and discussed. Increasingly, research from a host of fields—educational psychology, sociology, and science education—suggests that learning is not discrete and delimited by concepts under study, but rather continuous and pervasive. Learning is happening about everything going on in the classroom. As such, instructors are best served by considering what students are learning, not just about the subject matter, but also about culture of the classroom from the moment they enter the room. Consider students’ opportunities to learn about classroom culture in just two of many ways: students’ impression on the first day of class and students’ impressions as they enter the classroom for each class session. What an instructor chooses to do on the first day of a course likely sends a strong message to students about the goals of the course, the role of the instructor, and the role of the students. If one wants to convey to students that the course is about learning biology, then reading the syllabus and spending the first class session discussing how grades are assigned is incongruous. Without intent, this instructor is implicitly teaching students that the course is primarily about assigning grades. If the course is about learning biology, then instructors can implicitly and explicitly teach this by engaging students in exciting, intellectually challenging, and rewarding experiences about biology on the first day of a course. Similarly, if an instructor has as a goal that verbal participation by students is key to success in the course, then all students should be engaged in and experience talking about biology from the very first day of class. More subtly, students will also likely learn about their role in the course and their relationship with the instructor based on seemingly inconsequential day-to-day interactions. If an instructor stands at the front of the room or works on his or her computer while waiting for class to start, students may inadvertently “learn” that the instructor is not interested in students or is inaccessible or too busy to be approached, even though this may not be the conscious intention of the instructor. Similarly, students will likely notice whether the instructor regularly speaks to the same subset of students prior to class each day. In all these cases, instructors can make conscious efforts to convey their interest in and commitment to the learning of all students in the course all the time—before class, during class, after class, via email. If we want to teach them about biology, we likely need to be teaching them about the culture of our classrooms and their role in it at the same time.

21. Collect Assessment Evidence from Every Student, Every Class

To accomplish the goal of teaching those actual students who are sitting in front of you, it is essential to maximize the flow of information from individual students to the instructor. Frequent collection of assessment evidence—about students’ biological ideas, about their reflections on their learning, about their struggles in the course—is essential for instructors to know the learners they are trying to teach. Beginning immediately, instructors can start with an online “More about You” survey as homework on the first day of a course and can continue to collect information about students throughout the semester ( Tanner, 2011 ). For many instructors, this is most easily accomplished through student online submission of writing assignments. Other options include the use of daily minute papers or index cards, clickers, and a variety of other assessment tools ( Angelo and Cross, 1993 ; Huba and Freed, 2000 ). While the nature of the assessment evidence may vary from class session to class session, the evidence collected from each and every student in a course can aid instructors in continuously re-evaluating student ideas and iteratively changing the arc of the course to best support the learning of that course's student population. The goal is to assure a constant stream of information from student to instructor, and for each and every student, not just those confident enough to speak up publicly during class. Regular consideration of classroom evidence is foundational for bringing our scientific skills to bear on our teaching.

As instructors, we have the power in our classrooms to choose to attend explicitly to issues of access, inclusiveness, fairness, and equity. The strategies presented above are merely starting points from which instructors can step up their attempts to cultivate equitable classroom environments that promote student engagement and participation in learning biology. No doubt this list of equitable teaching strategies could be much longer, and readers are encouraged to record additions that they discover or invent themselves that address the goal of promoting equity and access for all the students in our biology classrooms.

• Allen D, Tanner K. Questions about questions. Cell Biol Educ. 2002; 1 :63–7. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action, Final Report. Washington, DC: 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Angelo TA, Cross KP. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bloom BS, Englehart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR. A Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay; 1956. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brady C. Elizabeth Blackburn and the Story of Telomeres: Deciphering the Ends of DNA. Boston: MIT Press; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bransford JD, Brown AL, Cocking AR, editors. National Research Council. How people learn: brain, mind, experinece and school. http://serc.carleton.edu/resources/405.html . Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chamany K. Science and social justice: making the case for case studies. J Coll Sci Teach. 2006; 36 :54–59. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chamany K, Allen D, Tanner KD. Making biology learning relevant to students: integrating people, history, and context into college biology teaching. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2008; 7 :267–278. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chi MTH, de Leeuw N, Chiu MH, LaVancher C. Eliciting self explanations improves understanding. Cogn Sci. 1994; 18 :439–477. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chi MTH, Roscoe RD. The process and challenges of conceptual change. In: Limon M, Mason L, editors. Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issues in Theory and Practice. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic; 2002. pp. 3–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarke J. Pieces of the puzzle: the jigsaw method. In: Sharan S, editor. Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press; 1994. pp. 34–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen E. Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen GL, Garcia J, Apfel N, Master A. Reducing the racial achievement gap: a social-psychological intervention. Science. 2006; 313 :1307–1310. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coley JD, Tanner KD. Common origins of diverse misconceptions: cognitive principles and the development of biology thinking. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2012; 11 :209–215. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP. Biology in Bloom: implementing Bloom's taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2008; 7 :368–381. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• College Board . 2013. AP Biology Curriculum Framework. http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/10b_2727_AP_Biology_CF_WEB_110128.pdf (accessed 22 May 2013 ) [ Google Scholar ]
• DiSessa AA. Why conceptual ecology is a good idea. In: Limon M, Mason L, editors. Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issues in Theory and Practice. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic; 2002. pp. 29–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haak DC, HilleRisLambers J, Pitre E, Freeman S. Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science. 2011; 332 :1213–1216. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hake RR. Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys. 1998; 66 :64–74. [ Google Scholar ]
• Handelsman J, et al. Scientific teaching. Science. 2004; 304 :521–522. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huba ME, Freed JE. Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson A. Unintended consequences: how science professors discourage women of color. Sci Educ. 2007; 91 :805–821. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson D, Johnson R, Johnson Holubec E. Edina, MN: Interaction Book; 1993. Circles of Learning: Cooperation in the Classroom, 4th ed. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith KA. Cooperative learning returns to college: what evidence is there that it works? Change. 1998; 30 :26–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith KA. Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Labov JB, Reid AH, Yamamoto KR. Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: a new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE Life Sci Educ. 2010; 9 :10–16. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ladson-Billings G. But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Pract. 1995; 34 :159–165. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyman F. The responsive classroom discussion: the inclusion of all students. In: Anderson AS, editor. Mainstreaming Digest. College Park: University of Maryland; 1981. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miyake A, Kost-Smith LE, Finkelstein ND, Pollock SJ, Cohen GL, Ito TA. Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: a classroom study of values affirmation. Science. 2010; 330 :1234–1237. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoli VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012; 109 :16474–16479. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Posner GJ, Strike KA, Hewson PW, Gertzog WA. Accommodation of a scientific conception: towards a theory of conceptual change. Sci Educ. 1982; 66 :211–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowe MB. Science, silence, and sanctions. Sci Children. 1969; 6 :11–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowe MB. Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence in language, logic and fate control. Part 1: Wait time. J Res Sci Teaching. 1974; 11 :8l–94. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowe MB. Wait, wait, wait…. School Sci Math. 1978; 78 :207–216. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowe MB. Wait time: slowing down may be a way of speeding up. Am Educator 11. 1987; 47 :38–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schinske JN. Taming the testing/grading cycle in lecture classes centered around open-ended assessment. J Coll Sci Teach. 2011; 40 :46–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Seymour E, Hewitt NM. Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith MK, Wood WB, Adams WK, Wieman C, Knight JK, Guild N, Su TT. Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science. 2009; 323 :122–124. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steele CM. Thin ice: stereotype threat and black college students. Atlantic Monthly. 1999; August :44–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steele CM, Aronson J. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995; 69 :797–811. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taber KS. Shifting sands: a case study of conceptual development as competition between alternative conceptions. Int J Sci Educ. 2001; 23 :731–753. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tanner KD. Talking to learn: why biology students should be talking in classrooms and how to make it happen. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2009; 8 :89–94. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tanner KD. Moving theory into practice: a reflection on teaching a large introductory biology course for majors. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2011; 10 :113–122. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tanner KD, Allen DE. Approaches in cell biology teaching. Cell Biol Educ. 2002; 1 :3–5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tanner KD, Chatman LC, Allen DE. Cooperative learning in the science classroom: beyond students working in groups. Cell Biol Educ. 2003; 2 :1–5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tobias S. They’re not dumb. They’re different. A new tier of talent for science. Change. 1990; 22 :11–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tobin K. The role of wait time in higher cognitive level learning. Rev Educ Res. 1987; 57 :69–95. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walton G, Cohen G, Steele C. Empirically Validated Strategies to Reduce Stereotype Threat. 2013. www.stanford.edu/~gwalton/home/Welcome_files/StrategiesToReduceStereotypeThreat.pdf (accessed 15 June 2013)

Search NYU Steinhardt

The effect of the teacher's teaching style on students' motivation.

SUBMITTED BY:  MARIA THERESA BARBEROS,  ARNOLD GOZALO,  EUBERTA PADAYOGDOG  SUBMITTED TO:  LEE TZONGJIN, Ed.D.  CHAPTER I  THE EFFECT OF TEACHERS' TEACHING STYLE ON STUDENTS' MOTIVATION

Introduction

The teachers, being the focal figure in education, must be competent and knowledgeable in order to impart the knowledge they could give to their students. Good teaching is a very personal manner. Effective teaching is concerned with the student as a person and with his general development. The teacher must recognize individual differences among his/her students and adjust instructions that best suit to the learners. It is always a fact that as educators, we play varied and vital roles in the classroom. Teachers are considered the light in the classroom. We are entrusted with so many responsibilities that range from the very simple to most complex and very challenging jobs. Everyday we encounter them as part of the work or mission that we are in. It is very necessary that we need to understand the need to be motivated in doing our work well, so as to have motivated learners in the classroom. When students are motivated, then learning will easily take place. However, motivating students to learn requires a very challenging role on the part of the teacher. It requires a variety of teaching styles or techniques just to capture students' interests. Above all, the teacher must himself come into possession of adequate knowledge of the objectives and standards of the curriculum, skills in teaching, interests, appreciation and ideals. He needs to exert effort to lead children or students into a life that is large, full, stimulating and satisfying. Some students seem naturally enthusiastic about learning, but many need or expect their instructors or teachers to inspire, challenge or stimulate them. "Effective learning in the classroom depends on the teacher's ability to maintain the interest that brought students to the course in the first place (Erickson, 1978). Not all students are motivated by the same values, needs, desires and wants. Some students are motivated by the approval of others or by overcoming challenges.

Teachers must recognize the diversity and complexity in the classroom, be it the ethnicity, gender, culture, language abilities and interests. Getting students to work and learn in class is largely influenced in all these areas. Classroom diversity exists not only among students and their peers but may be also exacerbated by language and cultural differences between teachers and students.

Since 2003, many foreign professional teachers, particularly from the Philippines, came to New York City to teach with little knowledge of American school settings. Filipino teachers have distinct styles and expressions of teaching. They expect that: education is interactive and spontaneous; teachers and students work together in the teaching-learning process; students learn through participation and interaction; homework is only part of the process; teaching is an active process; students are not passive learners; factual information is readily available; problem solving, creativity and critical thinking are more important; teachers should facilitate and model problem solving; students learn by being actively engaged in the process; and teachers need to be questioned and challenged. However, many Filipino teachers encountered many difficulties in teaching in NYC public schools. Some of these problems may be attributed to: students' behavior such as attention deficiency, hyperactivity disorder, and disrespect among others; and language barriers such as accent and poor understanding of languages other than English (e.g. Spanish).

As has been said, what happens in the classroom depends on the teacher's ability to maintain students' interests. Thus, teachers play a vital role in effecting classroom changes.

As stressed in the Educator's Diary published in 1995, "teaching takes place only when learning does." Considering one's teaching style and how it affects students' motivation greatly concerns the researchers. Although we might think of other factors, however, emphasis has been geared towards the effect of teacher's teaching style and student motivation.

Hypothesis:

If teacher's teaching style would fit in a class and is used consistently, then students are motivated to learn.

Purpose of the Study

The main thrust of the study was to find out the effect of the teacher's teaching style on students' motivation.

Action Research Questions

This paper attempted to answer specific questions such as: 1. What is the effect of teacher's teaching style using English As A Second Language Strategies on student's motivation? 2. How does teacher's teaching style affect students' motivation? 3. What could be some categories that make one's teaching style effective in motivating students?

Research Design/Methods of Collecting Data

The descriptive-survey method was used in this study, and descriptive means that surveys are made in order to discover some aspects of teacher's teaching style and the word survey denotes an investigation of a field to ascertain the typical condition is obtaining. The researchers used questionnaires, observations, interviews, students' class work and other student outputs for this study. The questionnaires were administered before and after ESL strategies were applied. Observation refers to what he/she sees taking place in the classroom based on student's daily participation. Student interviews were done informally before, during, and after classes. Several categories affecting motivation were being presented in the questionnaire.

Research Environment and Respondents

The research was conducted at IS 164 and IS 143 where three teachers conducting this research were the subjects and the students of these teachers selected randomly specifically in the eighth and sixth grade. The student respondents were the researchers' own students, where 6 to 7 students from each teacher were selected. Twenty students were used as samples.

To measure students' motivation, researchers used questionnaires which covered important categories, namely: attitudes, student's participation, homework, and grades. Open-ended questions were also given for students' opinion, ideas and feelings towards the teacher and the subject. The teacher's teaching style covers the various scaffolding strategies. The data that were collected from this research helped the teachers to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses so as to improve instruction. The results of this study could benefit both teachers and students.

Research Procedure

Data gathering.

The researchers personally distributed the questionnaires. Each item in each category ranges from a scale of 5-1 where 5 rated as Strongly Agree while 1 as Strongly Disagree. The questionnaires were collected and data obtained were tabulated in tables and interpreted using the simple percentage. While the open ended questions, answers that were given by the students with the most frequency were noted.

Review of Related Literature

Helping students understand better in the classroom is one of the primary concerns of every teacher. Teachers need to motivate students how to learn. According to Phil Schlecty (1994), students who understand the lesson tend to be more engaged and show different characteristics such as they are attracted to do work, persist in the work despite challenges and obstacles, and take visible delight in accomplishing their work. In developing students' understanding to learn important concepts, teacher may use a variety of teaching strategies that would work best for her/his students. According to Raymond Wlodkowski and Margery Ginsberg (1995), research has shown no teaching strategy that will consistently engage all learners. The key is helping students relate lesson content to their own backgrounds which would include students' prior knowledge in understanding new concepts. Due recognition should be given to the fact that interest, according to Saucier (1989:167) directly or indirectly contributes to all learning. Yet, it appears that many teachers apparently still need to accept this fundamental principle. Teachers should mind the chief component of interest in the classroom. It is a means of forming lasting effort in attaining the skills needed for life. Furthermore teachers need to vary teaching styles and techniques so as not to cause boredom to the students in the classroom. Seeking greater insight into how children learn from the way teachers discuss and handle the lesson in the classroom and teach students the life skills they need, could be one of the greatest achievements in the teaching process.

Furthermore, researchers have begun to identify some aspects of the teaching situation that help enhance students' motivation. Research made by Lucas (1990), Weinert and Kluwe (1987) show that several styles could be employed by the teachers to encourage students to become self motivated independent learners. As identified, teachers must give frequent positive feedback that supports students' beliefs that they can do well; ensure opportunities for students' success by assigning tasks that are either too easy nor too difficult; help students find personal meaning and value in the material; and help students feel that they are valued members of a learning community. According to Brock (1976), Cashin (1979) and Lucas (1990), it is necessary for teachers to work from students' strengths and interests by finding out why students are in your class and what are their expectations. Therefore it is important to take into consideration students' needs and interests so as to focus instruction that is applicable to different groups of students with different levels.

CHAPTER II  PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents and analyzes data that answer the subsidiary problems of the study. Table I showed that out of the 20 student respondents, 50% were males and 50% females. Of the male students respondents, only 2 males belong to the high group while 8 males from the low group. For the females, each of the group had 5 respondents. It also showed that there were 7 respondents from the high group and 13 came from the low group.

Table 1:Respondents by Gender

Table 2 showed that out of the 20 students respondents, 80% of students were of Hispanic origin; 10% of respondents were White (not of Hispanic origin); and 10% were Black (not of Hispanic origin); while 0% were of American Indian, Asian or Pacific Islander ethnicity. The results also showed that among the Hispanic, 40% came from the low and 40% came from the high group. There were only 10% White respondents from both groups. There were 10% respondents who were Black from both groups.

Table 2: Respondents by Ethnicity

Table 3 showed that 15% of the respondents had grades between 96-100 in Science, 0% between 91-95, while 15% scored between 86-90, the same as the range between 81-85. However, on the low group 25% of the respondents had grades between 71-75, 5% each had a range between 66-70 and 61-65; while 15% of the respondents did not have Science last year.

Table 3: Grades in Science

Table 4 revealed that for students' motivation-attitude, more than half of the respondents agreed that they are always excited to attend classes this school year. 75% of the students believed that Science is fun and interesting. Similarly, 80% of the respondents agreed that Science is important for them and 60% said that they love Science.

For student motivation-participation, it showed that more than half of the respondents affirm that they are always prepared in their Science classes. 75% of the students participated in Science activities; 50% did their Science assignments consistently.

For student motivation-homework, it could be noted that 60% of the students completed their homework on time and 50% found homework useful and important. 85% of the students said that they got enough support to do homework at home and 90% said that the teachers checked their homework.

For student motivation-grades, 65% got good grades in Science. 65% of the respondents said that they study their lessons before a test or a quiz. More than half of the respondents disagreed that the terms or words used in the test were difficult to understand. Less than half of the respondents agreed tests measure their understanding of Science concepts and knowledge, while 80% thought that grading is fair. On the other hand, the data under teaching style as noted on table 4 showed that 65% of the students strongly agreed that they have a good relationship with their Science teacher and no one disagreed. 75% noted that their Science teachers used materials that were easy to understand. 60% said that their teachers presented the lessons in many ways. More than half of the students said that they understood the way their Science teachers explained the lesson while 25% were not sure of their answer. 75% said that they got feedback from their Science teacher.

Table 4: Data on the Five Categories

Using AI to Implement Effective Teaching Strategies in Classrooms: Five Strategies, Including Prompts

The Wharton School Research Paper

26 Pages Posted: 24 Mar 2023

Ethan R. Mollick

University of Pennsylvania - Wharton School

Lilach Mollick

Date Written: March 17, 2023

This paper provides guidance for using AI to quickly and easily implement evidence-based teaching strategies that instructors can integrate into their teaching. We discuss five teaching strategies that have proven value but are hard to implement in practice due to time and effort constraints. We show how AI can help instructors create material that supports these strategies and improve student learning. The strategies include providing multiple examples and explanations; uncovering and addressing student misconceptions; frequent low-stakes testing; assessing student learning; and distributed practice. The paper provides guidelines for how AI can support each strategy, and discusses both the promises and perils of this approach, arguing that AI may act as a “force multiplier” for instructors if implemented cautiously and thoughtfully in service of evidence-based teaching practices.

Keywords: AI, GPT4, ChatGPT, Learning

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Ethan R. Mollick (Contact Author)

University of pennsylvania - wharton school ( email ).

The Wharton School Philadelphia, PA 19104-6370 United States

3641 Locust Walk Philadelphia, PA 19104-6365 United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, pedagogy ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Research Paper Series

Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic

Artificial Intelligence eJournal

Educational technology, media & library science ejournal, teacher education ejournal, environment for innovation ejournal, cognitive psychology ejournal, psychology research methods ejournal, libraries & information technology ejournal, educational & school psychology ejournal.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

effective teaching strategies: A research paper

Related Papers

NAZREEN RAHMAN

Azizah Rajab

Zbornik Odseka za pedagogiju

Sonja Petrovska

Mark Vincent

Harmawati Umma

Feyza Doyran

Adesoye Sunday

Tanzeela Urooj

Dr. Nakul Baniya

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Innovative strategies to strengthen teaching-researching skills in chemistry and biology education: a systematic literature review.

• Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación Humanas y Tecnologías, Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo (UNACH), Riobamba, Ecuador

The dynamic field of scientific education, particularly in chemistry and biology, demands the implementation of innovative teaching strategies, driving the need for continuous research to enhance skills in both educators and students. This systematic literature review (SLR) delves into the evolving landscape of chemistry and biology education research, shedding light on key trends, strategies, and skills. Employing the PRISMA methodology, we scrutinized 81 papers to assess the employment of resources, technologies, and methods conducive to effective learning and research. Searches were conducted in the Scopus and Google Scholar databases, with inclusion criteria spanning English and Spanish studies from the last five years. The analysis reveals a notable shift in recent years, emphasizing the diversification of instructional approaches, integration of sustainable practices, and a heightened focus on fostering essential research skills for both educators and students. The study underscores the significant adaptation to digital tools and virtual environments, potentially influenced by the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Remarkable findings include the growing importance of cognitive, social, and emotional competence in student development. This work provides valuable insights for educators, researchers, and policymakers cross-talking the dynamic intersection of teaching and research in chemistry and biology education.

Systematic review registration: Identifier 001-RS-FCIC-PQB-UNACH-2023.

1 Introduction

Education serves as the foundation for national development. In an ever-evolving world marked by daily scientific breakthroughs, the methodologies employed in teaching the sciences must evolve alongside, demanding constant innovation and adaptability. A key aspect of educational goals involves the implementation of teaching strategies to reinforce skills such as curiosity, observation, interpretation, and the cultivation of an open-minded approach ( Johnson, 1962 ). These skills are key not only for the academic journey but also for inculcating an attitude that propels students towards greater success in accomplishing their own goals and progressing in their career path.

Chemistry and biology are both challenging sciences that require sophisticated pedagogical methods and models for a complete understanding since they involve sub-microscopic, macroscopic levels, and even symbolic mechanisms ( Johnstone, 1991 ; Senisum et al., 2022 ). At the macroscopic level, chemical phenomena are directly observed through their visible properties, such as changes in state, color, density, temperature, and flammability, which facilitates students’ learning through direct perception. At the submicroscopic level, models explain these properties based on the arrangement and behavior of ions, atoms, and molecules on a nanometric scale. The symbolic level employs equations and chemical formulas to mathematically represent the phenomena observed and explained at the other two levels. It is crucial for students to deeply understand chemistry by integrating the macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic levels into their learning ( Bedin et al., 2023 ).

The role of teachers becomes essential to properly transmit or inhibit learning ( Blonder et al., 2023 ). Adopting new strategies and technologies strongly supported education continuing during the COVID-19 pandemic ( Ballaz et al., 2023 ) which has already given good results, and such technologies have been implemented in the current education landscape ( González-Villavicencio and Estrella-Flores, 2023 ).

A notable example of the integration of new technologies and strategies is blended learning, an educational approach that supplements traditional in-person instruction with online teaching ( Bautista-Arpi et al., 2023 ; Setiawan et al., 2023 ). This integration demands the implementation of various strategies, including the incorporation of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) into teaching and learning processes ( Ratheeswari, 2018 ). Concurrently, continuous advancements in pedagogical strategies have raised a dynamic equilibrium among Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge (TPACK framework) ( Koehler and Mishra, 2009 ). Another innovative method involves the utilization of Customized Pedagogical Kits (CPKs), allowing the tailoring of pedagogical activities to meet the unique needs of students, thereby enhancing comprehension of complex concepts ( Easa and Blonder, 2022 ). This multifaceted integration of frameworks and tools reflects an ongoing commitment to enriching the educational landscape through thoughtful and adaptive methodologies.

The distinctiveness of scientific pedagogy, particularly in chemistry and biology, lies in its emphasis on teaching students not only what to learn but also how to learn effectively. The objective is to instill in students the ability to unravel ideas, disseminate information, and articulate topics related to the everyday world, all rooted in scientific evidence. Crucially, involving students in early research is paramount to fostering the discovery of knowledge and cultivating scientific skills, commonly referred to as science process skills ( Funk, 1985 ). Chemistry and biology necessitate experiences beyond the confines of the traditional classroom and textbooks. Engaging in experimental practices, often guided by “cookbook” instructions, becomes instrumental. These hands-on experiences in the laboratory not only provide a platform for exploring intriguing practices but also serve as a catalyst for discoveries or simply, the joy of learning. Therefore, laboratory practices, or practical work, can serve as a bridge, enabling teachers to connect their instructional methods with their research duties ( Bradforth et al., 2015 ).

A limited number of systematic literature reviews (SLRs) addressing the interplay between teaching and research processes in chemistry and biology education have been conducted thus far. For example, Chiu (2021) explored 45 papers on digital technologies in chemical education and identified augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) as prominent technologies over the past decade. Additionally, eye-tracking experiments and learning analytics were recognized as supporting educational research ( Chiu, 2021 ). Bellou et al. (2018) conducted an SLR of 43 papers, providing a comprehensive overview of digital learning technologies in chemistry. Their analysis emphasized constructivism and highlighted visualizations and simulations as the primary technologies for representing the abstract scientific world ( Bellou et al., 2018 ). Agustian et al. (2022) focused on laboratory competence, reviewing 136 papers and highlighting disciplinary learning, higher-order thinking, epistemic learning, transversal competence, and the affective sphere. Oliveira and Bonito (2023) concentrated on practical work in science education, reviewing 53 studies and emphasizing the importance of material handling, competence in scientific processes, enhanced understanding of the nature of science, and the mobilization of scientific knowledge together with minds-on method ( Oliveira and Bonito, 2023 ).

Socio-scientific issues in chemistry education were explored by Çalık and Wiyarsi (2021) , who analyzed 65 papers, emphasizing opportunities to make chemistry learning and chemical literacy sustainable ( Çalık and Wiyarsi, 2021 ). In biology, Setiawan et al. (2023) stood out by reviewing 23 papers related to blended learning implementation, highlighting challenges, diverse strategies employed, and perceptions. Gumanová and Šukolová (2022) conducted an SLR analyzing the competence of university teachers based on 35 studies as a means of assessing teaching quality.

Despite many SLRs exploring multiple databases, the overall number of articles is often limited, and many fail to provide a robust quality assessment process, posing a risk of bias. This paper introduces, for the first time, a comprehensive compilation of strategies applicable across various learning environments within the experimental sciences of chemistry and biology. Our analysis of 81 studies obeys the rigorous systematic structure outlined in the PRISMA statement ( Page et al., 2021 ). This approach enables the presentation of quantitative insights into the key characteristics of the state-of-the-art in the last five years. Additionally, it unveils the principal strategies, tools, and skills crucial for fostering a culture of learning and teaching grounded in research.

Conducting a literature review on strategies to strengthen teaching-research skills in chemistry and biology education is crucial for identifying trends and gaps in research, understanding the population categories and specific areas most benefited, and recognizing the innovative methodologies and tools utilized. This will enhance the professional development of educators, improve educational quality, and ensure that policy and curricular decisions are based on robust evidence, aligning with the needs of society and the labor market. Furthermore, these disciplines are not only essential for understanding the natural world and scientific innovation, but they also serve as cornerstones in shaping future scientists and informed citizens. Integrating research into teaching not only enhances students’ theoretical and practical understanding but also fosters the development of critical skills such as analytical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity. This not only prepares students better for careers in the sciences but also promotes a culture of research and discovery from an early age, crucial for addressing global challenges and advancing scientific and technological knowledge in the future.

The present SLR aims to analyze a compendium of articles on the current strategies for educational research in chemistry and biology to improve learning environments and strengthen the research abilities of chemistry and biology pedagogues. Through the present SLR, we answer the following five (5) research questions (RQ):

RQ1: What are the bibliographic characteristics (country, year of publication, publishing journal, and main keywords) of research in chemistry and biology education?

RQ2: What are the main population categories and specific areas of chemistry and biology in the research?

RQ3: What research design strategies are employed in research in chemistry and biology education?

RQ4: What tools are used to promote innovation in teaching and research in chemistry and biology?

RQ5: What are the key skills to strengthen the teaching-research process in chemistry and biology?

The PRISMA methodology was employed to conduct the research, ensuring transparency and reproducibility in the literature review. This approach establishes clear steps to identify, select, evaluate, and synthesize relevant studies, reducing bias and ensuring the quality of the review process ( Page et al., 2021 ). By following the PRISMA methodology, the identification of pertinent sources of information is promoted, enhancing the robustness of the research by relying on solid evidence. Furthermore, it facilitates the reproducibility of results, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in the field and their effective utilization by other researchers and professionals in the future.

2.1 Sources of information and eligibility and exclusion criteria

For this research, scientific databases Scopus and Google Scholar were utilized, chosen for their recognition within the academic community due to the breadth and depth of their content, encompassing a wide variety of disciplines and publications from prominent global publishers. The data for this group were gathered on November 11, 2023. The same databases were subsequently employed for the extraction of candidate studies following the application of the search string on the same date. These databases aggregate information from prominent publishers globally, including but not limited to the American Chemical Society, IOP Publishing Ltd., MDPI, American Institute of Physics Inc., Oxford University Press, American Society for Cell Biology, Routledge, John Wiley and Sons Inc., Society for Research and Knowledge Management, International Council of Associations for Science Education (ICASE), Walter de Gruyter GmbH, among others.

Once the relevant sources of information were identified, criteria for both inclusion and exclusion were established through specific search parameters. These criteria were designed with the aim of selecting studies that were relevant, recent, and directly related to the topic under study. The development of clear and specific criteria helps to maintain uniformity in the sample, enabling a more precise and consistent evaluation of the results obtained.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the depuration of the articles are as follows:

Inclusion criteria:

• Research and empirical studies of research in chemistry and biology education

• Articles published between the years 2019 to 2023

• Articles written in English and Spanish language

• Journal articles, conference papers, thesis/dissertation

• Published articles

Exclusion criteria

• Studies with scopes that do not relate to education

• Retracted articles and errata

• Do not present a complete typical article structure

• Review articles, working papers, pre-prints, books, and book chapters

• Non-English and non-Spanish articles

To initiate the search for studies in the selected database, a specific process was undertaken. Firstly, a control group consisting of 20 studies was established to establish a foundation of information, keywords, and approaches closely linked to the research topic. From this initial selection, the most recurrent keywords were identified, which were then used in the search for relevant studies addressing the research questions. This preliminary step allowed for the construction of a well-founded search string. Subsequently, the identified keywords were grouped by thematic blocks, as presented below.

• Focus : “research tool” OR “research skill” OR “research strategy” OR “research instruments” OR “science process” OR “research”

• Area : “chemistry” OR “biology”

• Population : “professor” OR “teacher” OR “university” OR “education” OR “learning”

After finalizing this process, search strings were formulated for both the Scopus and Google Scholar databases, integrating the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The ultimate search strings employed were as follows:

(TITLE (“research tool” OR “research skill” OR “research strategy” OR “research instruments” OR “science process” OR research) AND TITLE (chemistry OR biology) AND TITLE (professor OR teacher OR university OR education OR learning)) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBSTAGE, “final”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “cp”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2019) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2020) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2021) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2022) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2023)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”) OR LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “Spanish”))

Total: 109 paper

2.3 Google scholar

allintitle: “research tool” OR “research skill” OR “research strategy” OR instruments OR “science process” + chemistry OR biology + university OR professor OR teacher OR university OR education OR learning.

Set up: Specific interval: 2019–2023

Search only pages in Spanish and English

Total: 50 paper

2.4 Search strategy and selection process

Once the search was completed, a total of 159 studies were retrieved. For the initial selection phase, the title, abstract, and keywords of each study were examined. In this review process, all four authors participated, each assuming specific roles as reviewer, arbitrator, and final decision-maker. In case of discrepancies between the reviewer and the arbitrator, additional discussions were held to reach a consensus. This also contributed to the appropriate selection of studies and the reduction of bias risk. The entire process was conducted manually, without using any automation tools.

2.5 Data collection process

The collection of studies involved obtaining the primary studies (81) in a PDF for-mat with complete text. Research papers specifying details such as the sample size, research strategies, tools used, and the results obtained in an educational context were preferred. Subsequently, we applied the content analysis method to each study. This analysis was carried out by the four authors of this article. The entire set of articles was distributed equally among the four researchers to collect. The complete table for data collection is available in the Supplementary material (SM1_PQB_Results) under the Data Processing tab.

2.6 Data items

The items under study in this research fall into four primary categories: general bibliometrics, educational context, strategies utilized in the teaching-research process within chemistry and biology education, and skills strengthened. General bibliometrics involves details such as the year of publication, source, publisher, country, and authors. The educational context was determined by the specified study group in each research, comprising students or teachers, and incorporating aspects related to the educational level, subject, and specific topic under analysis. The strategies were categorized into methods, techniques, pedagogical tools, and digital tools. Finally, the skills reported in each research were compiled and categorized. The processing of this information was supported by the Pandas package from Python v3.12. Some network visualizations were generated using VOSviewer software.

2.7 Study risk of bias assessment and effect measures

As mentioned earlier, for both the initial study selection phase and the primary study selection, a comprehensive review and analysis of the studies were conducted by the four authors of the study, who assumed specific roles as reviewers, arbitrators, and final decision-makers. In cases where discrepancies arose between the reviewer and the arbitrator, additional discussions were held to reach a consensus. This approach ensures the reduction of bias risk and ensures that the selected studies meet the inclusion criteria for the research. The implementation of clear and systematic procedures in its execution helped minimize the likelihood of biases introduced by the authors. Quality assessment was based on the representativity of each item, considering the total studies included in the review and the number of studies included in each research question, mean, median, and confidence ranges were computed for each RQ.

2.8 Synthesis methods

A comprehensive analysis of the 81 included studies was undertaken through a full-text examination. Each item was systematically tabulated within a matrix in Microsoft Excel that encompassed key details, including the title, author, country, utilized strategies (methods, techniques, tools, and skills), discipline, and educational level.

2.9 Reporting bias assessment

Bias reporting relied on evaluating the representativity percentage, which was computed based on the research papers’ content capability to address the proposed RQs. For each specific RQ, assessment factors were calculated using a scale categorizing the quality of studies as high, medium, or low. The corresponding tables are presented in the Results section.

2.10 Certainty assessment

Certainty assessment relied on the careful selection of statistically representative groups of information extracted during the study processing. In other words, the trending parameters, capable of addressing the RQs, are highlighted in the main body of the present SLR. However, for a comprehensive overview of the processing and selection, a detailed table is provided in the Supplementary material , in the Excel workbook named SM1_PQB_Results.

3.1 Study selection

Our cohort of candidate studies initially comprised 159 research articles obtained employing the search string as previously described. As shown in Figure 1 , two duplicates were identified among the databases Scopus and Google Scholar and one document was unavailable. Following the screening process based on exclusion and inclusion criteria, 75 studies were excluded. After thorough individual analysis, 81 studies identified by type of research and design successfully addressed the research questions and fell within the scope of the study. Consequently, all 81 studies were retrieved as full-text documents and were considered as primary studies for comprehensive review.

Figure 1 . PRISMA flow diagram of the literature selection process.

3.2 Study characteristics

3.2.1 bibliographic characteristics of research in chemistry and biology education (rq1).

This review aims to comprehensively analyze the landscape of research in chemical and biological education over the last five years, as proposed in RQ1. Table 1 and Figure 2 provide a country-wise categorization, offering a geographical overview of the diversity within this field. Notably, the majority of articles originate from Asia (41.98%), followed by North America (34.57%), Europe (13.58%), Africa (6.17%), and South America (3.70%). Noteworthy is Indonesia’s prominence as the leading contributor with 28 articles, surpassing the USA (23), Canada (5), Nigeria (4), and both Brazil and Germany (3 each). The significance lies in the observation that the top 10 contributing countries encompass a combination of developed and developing nations, as presented in Figure 2 .

Table 1 . Classification of the studies by countries.

Figure 2 . Number of studies by countries.

Figure 3 illustrates the trend in the number of publications reported in the current study over the past five years. It reveals a growth pattern, starting with 12 published studies in 2019, reaching a peak of 26 in 2021, and subsequently declining to 6 studies in the fall of 2023.

Figure 3 . Number of studies published from the year 2019 to 2023.

The journals that contribute to the majority of the articles presented in this SLR are presented in Figure 4 . The analysis reveals a significant contribution of articles from the Journal of Chemical Education ( n  = 11 studies), followed by the Journal of Physics: Conference Series (8), with Education Sciences (5) in the third position. Figure 5 further outlines the primary publishers in the field over the last five years. Foremost among them is the American Chemical Society (ACS) ( n  = 11), succeeded by IOP Publishing Ltd. (7) from the United Kingdom, and in third place is MDPI (5) from Switzerland.

Figure 4 . Top ten preferred journals for publishing in the field.

Figure 5 . Top ten publishers of the reviewed articles.

We conducted an analysis of keywords extracted from the studies within our SLR. In total, 406 keywords were identified from both author-provided keywords and indexed terms. The analysis focused on keywords appearing at least twice in the studies, resulting in the identification of 86 keywords meeting this frequency threshold. Figure 6 presents a network visualization illustrating the interconnections among these keywords, organized into four clusters normalized by association strength. The most frequent keywords are student/students (22), human/humans (16), biology (13), education (7), and university (6).

Figure 6 . Network analysis of keywords.

3.3 Results of syntheses

3.3.1 population categories and specific areas of chemistry and biology present in research (rq2).

After scrutinizing each of the 81 articles included in the SLR, our analysis, as shown in Figure 7 , reveals that 60.49% of the educational research articles in chemistry and biology are centered on student-focused research. This is further broken down into research on undergraduate students (27), high school students (14), and senior high school students (8). Additionally, the remaining 39.51% examine the dynamics of teachers. Among these, a substantial number focus on pedagogical aspects related to prospective or future teachers (18), while 11 of them delve into teachers’ aspects in general, and 3 are studies specifically centered on high school teachers.

Figure 7 . Educational level of the sample population described in the reviewed articles. Blue palette represents students’ analyses and purple one, teachers.

Concerning the specific topics explored in the studies covered in this SLR, as shown in Table 2 , it is noteworthy that 51.85% relate to the field of chemistry ( n  = 45), while 48.15% are centered on biology ( n  = 36). These results underscore a relatively even distribution of studies between the domains of biology and chemistry, indicating a diverse and comprehensive coverage of various research areas within each discipline. In the field of biology, alongside the prominent focus on basic biology (11.48%), which is essential for understanding fundamental life principles, there is significant interest in botanical studies (8.20%) and cellular biology (6.56%). These areas are critical both for preserving plant biodiversity and advancing our understanding of essential cellular processes.

Table 2 . Specific disciplines in the educational context of chemical and biology.

Conversely, in the field of chemistry, in addition to the predominance of studies in general chemistry (21.31%), spanning from theoretical chemistry to practical applications across various industries, there is notable attention to studies in environmental chemistry (11.48%) and analytical chemistry (8.20%). These areas are crucial for addressing environmental challenges and enhancing chemical analysis techniques, respectively, reflecting a comprehensive approach in the application of chemistry to solve contemporary issues.

Notably, we introduced a classification system to delineate specific aspects related to education in chemistry and biology. This revealed that the majority of studies primarily concentrate on promoting scientific research within their contextual domain (21.31%). Furthermore, there is discernible interest in themes such as citizen engagement, diversity, and inclusion within these sciences (9.84%). Lastly, the incorporation of technologies in education emerges as an additional area of focus, albeit to a lesser extent (3.28%).

3.3.2 Research design strategies are used in chemistry and biology education research (RQ3)

In addressing RQ3, we delved into the strategies employed by researchers in their study designs. To systematically categorize the extracted research methods and techniques within the educational context, we based on Cook and Cook’s (2016) classification framework. Our analysis unveiled that a predominant portion of the studies was evenly distributed between descriptive and qualitative methodologies (58.82% each). Subsequently, we observed studies categorized as experimental accounting for 27.45%, while relational studies constituted 3.92% as presented in Table 3 .

Table 3 . Strategies in educational research design based on Cook and Cook classification ( Cook and Cook, 2016 ).

Notably, a trend emerged wherein researchers embraced theoretical and methodological frameworks, such as guided-inquiry learning ( n  = 7), undergraduate research experience (URE) (5), research-based studies (5), course-based research (CURE) (3), project-based studies (4), research-oriented collaborative inquiry (REORCILEA) (3), design-based research (3), and participatory action research (PAR) (2). Additionally, within the methodological framework, a significant proportion adopted quasi-experimental studies (6), alongside the utilization of the purposive sampling technique (3).

3.3.3 Tools to promote innovation in teaching and researching in chemistry and biology (RQ4)

Table 4 illustrates an array of tools that have the potential to foster an efficient educational environment and promote research among both teachers and students. Our classification system, derived from an analysis of 81 studies in our SLR, identifies nine distinct categories based on tools described in the reviewed literature. The majority of articles concentrate on tools beneficial to conducting research. A significant portion (85.71%) delves into comprehensive descriptions of data collection tools, emphasizing the prevalent use of questionnaires, surveys, and testing, particularly pre-test and post-test methodologies applied during the evaluation of pedagogical techniques.

Table 4 . Tools to promote innovation in teaching and researching in chemistry and biology.

Furthermore, data processing (7.14%) is facilitated by digital tools such as Python with associated packages like Matplotlib, Seaborn, and Pandas, as well as Amberscript for interviews, and software tools like MAXQDA and Provalis. A notable percentage (20%) focuses on data analysis tools to advance scientific exploration, with preferences for SPSS, R, Python, and G*Power software. Additionally, there are studies about tools related to study design and development (2.86%), predominantly grounded in pre-existing research.

Moreover, Table 4 presents tools to strengthen chemical and biological education. Notably, formative evaluation tools are central, constituting 38.57% of the highlighted tools. These tools include the preparation of curricula to uphold quality education, well-structured lesson plans, and strategic testing methodologies.

The past five years have witnessed the prominence of virtual learning environments (18.57%), with platforms like EDMODO, Zoom, MS Teams, e-magazines, and YouTube playing pivotal roles. Given the significance of practical work in both chemistry and biology, a considerable focus (17.14%) has been placed on the implementation of simulations and virtual laboratories in classrooms. Notable examples include A-Frame, VLab VCL, ChemCollective computational simulations, and augmented reality applications.

Moreover, interactive and visualization platforms (10%) contribute to the learning experience through tools such as interactive boards, Lucidchart, spider chart diagrams, and apps like iNaturalist. Lastly, communication and collaboration platforms (11.43%) emerge as crucial tools in promoting learning, teaching, and research. Among these, social networks such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp are widely utilized. Additionally, collaborative programs like the Bridge to the Chemistry Doctorate program (United States), the Chemistry Opportunities (CHOPs) program (USA), and the SignUpGenius platform have been well-described in the studies.

3.3.4 Key skills to strengthen the teaching-research process in chemistry and biology (RQ5)

Table 5 , presents the key skills to strengthen the teaching-research process in chemistry and biology. Our examination of the articles in the SLR has led to the identification of six primary classifications. Notably, research skills (59.26%) emerge as the most prominently emphasized competence to be cultivated. These encompass the underpinnings of the scientific method, including data collection, management, and visualization, interpreting data, experimental design, hypothesis formulation, ethics, and science process skills (SPS).

Table 5 . Skills identified for strengthening teaching-researching process in chemistry and biology.

Furthermore, cognitive and thinking skills (41.98%) stand out as imperative for successful learning, including critical thinking, analytical skills, creativity, reasoning, and problem-solving skills. Communication skills (39.51%), such as argumentation, reporting, reading, and oral and written communication, are highlighted as essential for fostering research within the educational environment.

Equally important are social and emotional skills (34.57%), emphasizing skills like leadership, relationship-building, and teamwork in the classroom environment. Authors underscore the significance of cultivating positive attitudes, motivation, inclusivity, and acceptance of differences, including gender identity, as crucial elements in the contemporary educational landscape.

Additionally, in chemical and biological education, planning and managing skills (18.52%) emerge as key competence. The authors also underscore the importance of teaching and pedagogy skills (6.17%), emphasizing the significance of instructional competence in the educational landscape. Finally, technological skills (4.94%) are highlighted for their importance, particularly in employing information and communication technologies (ICTs). The authors also stress the encouragement of implementing technological knowledge and multimedia tools for effectiveness in teaching and research.

3.4 Risk of bias in studies

The risk of biases in the studies included in this SLR underwent a rigorous peer review process among the authors. The outcomes of the representativity of the studies are presented in Table 6 to assess the quality of the full-text articles. As shown, only 50.94% of the total candidate studies were selected for in-depth analysis, with 49.06% excluded during the depuration process based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. These decrease in the number of studies implies that the search strategy accurately aligns with our RQs, as well as supporting the employment of a stringent methodology in identifying and selecting studies. This supports confidence in the representativeness and comprehensiveness of the final sample.

Table 6 . Quality assessment of the overall articles after peer-reviewing.

Furthermore, the quality assessment also encompassed the content of the primary studies based on their relevance to addressing the RQs, as outlined in Table 7 . In this context, RQ1 achieved a representativity average of 20%, RQ2 of 8.52%, RQ3 of 37.25%, and RQ4 of 23.49%. Consequently, only the representative items in each classification were reported in the body of this research. Additionally, documents with retraction letters and errata were excluded from this study.

Table 7 . Quality assessment of the content of the articles.

3.5 Reporting biases and certainty of evidence

A risk assessment analysis was conducted for each item of every RQ, and the data is summarized in Table 8 , including the percentage of studies addressing each RQ regarding the total of studies (81) and the number of PSs per RQ. It is noteworthy that the results are considered significant only if they fall within the medium to high-quality range, as outlined in Table 7 . An exception is made for items from RQ1, specifically the countries, which were comprehensively included in Table 1 and Figure 2 .

Table 8 . Risk assessment of the items addressing each RQ.

4 Discussion

Research in science education, particularly in chemistry and biology, has become crucial in our ever-changing world. This research enables educators to develop, assess, and enhance teaching practices for effective learning. Investing in education is a paramount effort to drive the progress of nations. Therefore, identifying and comprehending current trends in teaching-research practices is essential for refining our methodologies and implementing positive changes in the classroom environment. Our review provided an overview of the current landscape of research in chemistry and biology education based on 81 research articles collected following the systematic methods proposed in the PRISMA statement. Through our bibliometric analysis, a noteworthy pattern emerged, challenging the conventional assumption that developed countries lead in educational research ( Zhang et al., 2016 ). Our findings revealed a significant investment in educational research by several third-world countries even after restricting the search string to English and Spanish studies. While established nations such as the USA, Germany, and Spain still feature prominently in the top 10 contributors, Indonesia took the lead as the major publisher in the field over the last five years. This marks a notable shift, with other developing countries like Nigeria, Brazil, Israel, and Ukraine also making substantial contributions to research efforts in the field in accordance with the sustainable development goals ( Kopnina, 2020 ; United Nations, 2023 ).

In our exploration of preferred journals and publishers, we aimed to contribute to the comprehensive evaluation of the scholarly landscape in the field. The inclusion of well-known journals adds depth to the synthesis of research findings. Notably, the prevalence of papers from these journals underscores their significance within the academic ground related to our study. Moreover, our preference for publishers such as the American Chemical Society (ACS), IOP Publishing Ltd., and MDPI reflects a commitment to relying on sources known for their editorial rigor and scholarly contributions. This finding aligns with our goal of ensuring the robustness and meaningfulness of the literature reviewed, reinforcing the credibility and relevance of our synthesized research findings.

A notable trend observed over the last five years indicates a surge in the number of publications from 2019 to 2021, followed by a decline to the present year, 2023. This pattern can be attributed to the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic ( Aviv-Reuven and Rosenfeld, 2021 ), which prompted a significant shift in the traditional classroom environment toward online teaching. This shift had a profound impact on the landscape of chemistry and biology education ( Babosová et al., 2022 ; Broad et al., 2023 ), leading to increased research and innovations to adapt to the new educational paradigm. While the pandemic initially prompted a surge in research and advancements, the ongoing discoveries continue to exert a lasting impact on education, shaping the daily classroom experience. This underscores the importance of sustained research efforts in the field, as education needs to continually evolve and strengthen across various dimensions. This SLR comprehensively explored and addressed these aspects. While established techniques may prove effective, there is a continuous need for innovation in our classrooms to ensure dynamic and effective educational practices while continuing to publish and advance research.

Regarding the educational axes, our analysis covered a broad spectrum of articles, presenting a diverse array of studies that delved into pedagogical aspects including emerging collaborative research areas ( Rodríguez-Cabrera, 2020 ). These studies ranged from investigations involving prospective teachers to those involving high school teachers and educators in general. Similarly, our examination of student-focused studies spanned from high school students through to university students. Indeed, a notable trend that has gained prominence in recent years is the integration of sustainable development principles ( United Nations, 2023 ) into science teaching. Numerous studies have explored various facets of this interdisciplinary approach, with a particular focus on environmental and green chemistry that have received increasing attention, especially in recent years ( Sjöström et al., 2015 ; Zuin et al., 2021 ). Additionally, the fields of ethnobiology and ethnochemistry have garnered attention, reflecting an increased interest in incorporating indigenous knowledge and practices into science education which is known to improve education for sustainability in science ( Zidny et al., 2020 ). The emphasis on nature-related approaches underscores a growing awareness of the importance of aligning science education with ecological considerations and fostering a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness between scientific knowledge and environmental sustainability. This evolving focus on sustainable development within science teaching reflects a broader recognition of the role that education plays in shaping environmentally conscious and socially responsible individuals. Furthermore, we observed a growing interest in educational support, particularly in parallel with content teaching. This support was primarily facilitated through the integration of ICTs. Moreover, there was a discernible emphasis on promoting science process skills ( Asy’ari et al., 2019 ; Irwanto et al., 2019 ; Susanti et al., 2019 ; Herda et al., 2020 ; Juniar et al., 2020 ; Permatasari et al., 2020 ; Ivana et al., 2021 ; Ngozi, 2021 ; Widianti et al., 2021 ; Beichumila et al., 2022 ; Senisum et al., 2022 ; Irwanto, 2023 ), underlining a holistic approach to science education.

One of our primary objectives was to uncover the strategies applied in the current educational landscape of chemistry and biology that foster innovation and have the potential to promote changes in the field. Our findings reveal a prevalent focus among researchers on descriptive and qualitative research approaches. Various frameworks are employed, including Participatory Action Research (PAR) ( Zowada et al., 2020 ; Linkwitz and Eilks, 2022 ), Undergraduate Research Experience (URE) ( Welch, 2020 ; Aryanti et al., 2021 ; Guo et al., 2021 ; Hamers et al., 2022 ; Kulesza et al., 2022 ), Course-Based Research (CURE) ( Hills et al., 2020 ; Rubush and Stone, 2020 ; States et al., 2023 ), research-based ( Irwanto et al., 2019 ; Hamers et al., 2022 ; Parsons and Sarju, 2023 ), design-based ( Kaanklao and Suwathanpornkul, 2020 ; Scott et al., 2021 ; Pernaa et al., 2022 ), and project-based ( Zowada et al., 2020 ; Aryanti et al., 2021 ; Amer et al., 2022 ; Kulesza et al., 2022 ) methodologies. Additionally, guided-inquiry ( Juniar et al., 2020 , 2021 ; Widianti et al., 2021 ; Maknun et al., 2022 ; Polik and Schmidt, 2022 ; Senisum et al., 2022 ) learning and REORCILEA (Research-Oriented Collaborative Inquiry Learning Model) ( Rohaeti and Prodjosantoso, 2020 ; Huda and Rohaeti, 2021 ; Irwanto, 2023 ) are actively utilized. Which has given promising results in similar contexts ( Moran, 2007 ; Majgaard et al., 2011 ). Notably, quasi-experimental methods ( Gopalan et al., 2020 ) and purposive sampling techniques are preferred in educational research. This diverse array of research strategies highlights the multifaceted nature of chemistry and biology education, demonstrating a commitment to innovation and a nuanced exploration of educational practices.

The tools employed in the teaching-research processes of chemistry and biology are of utmost importance, complementing the strategies applied in the field. While many studies contribute valuable strategies for researchers and students, with a focus on data collection, processing, and analysis, there is a slightly lesser emphasis on the design and development of research initiatives. Commonly used software such as Python, R, and SPSS remains prevalent in the data management educational scenario. Within the pedagogical aspect, the foundational role of formative evaluation tools in chemical and biological education is evident. Elements like curricula, structured lesson plans, and strategic testing methodologies are integral components supporting effective teaching and learning. Furthermore, virtual learning environments have emerged as indispensable tools ( Caprara and Caprara, 2022 ), with platforms like EDMODO, Zoom, MS Teams, e-magazines, and YouTube playing key roles in enriching the educational experience. Notably, there is a growing emphasis on experimental learning in both chemistry and biology, and numerous papers introduce ground-breaking tools like virtual laboratories ( Narulita et al., 2019 ; Nechypurenko et al., 2020 ; Chan et al., 2021 ; Garcia et al., 2022 ). These tools, such as A-Frame, VLab VCL, and ChemCollective computational simulations, have the potential to address challenges in developing countries that lack adequate science teaching instrumentation ( Aslam et al., 2023 ).

The rise of virtual reality and simulations is commonly believed to contribute to knowledge acquisition, yet it is currently debated that causes less learning ( Makransky et al., 2019 ). However, interactive platforms indeed enhanced the understanding of complex concepts. In the digital realm, communication platforms, particularly social networks, continue to connect people and democratize knowledge. It is crucial to note that while digital tools and technologies do not directly cause learning, they provide affordances for specific tasks that, in turn, contribute to the learning process ( Dalgarno and Lee, 2010 ). The integration of both strategies and tools is essential for fostering effective teaching-research practices in the dynamic landscape of chemistry and biology education.

One of the most significant contributions of the present SLR lies in identifying key competence or skills outlined in the literature that are considered essential to encourage in both educators and students. A consensus among many studies underscores the critical importance of promoting research skills encompassing the entire scientific method application process, from formulating hypotheses and making predictions to data collection, processing, and drawing conclusions. Notably, ethical considerations are also underscored as integral to this skill set. There is also a lesser but still noteworthy emphasis on planning and managing skills, which extend beyond the classroom setting and have broader implications. Cognitive and thinking skills, often referred to as high-order thinking skills (HOTs) ( Ramdiah and Royani, 2019 ), assume a central role in the educational discourse. Cultivating creativity, problem-solving abilities, critical thinking, and reasoning is deemed imperative to cultivate by students in the classroom. Effective communication is an imperative skill both within the classroom environment and beyond. This encompasses promoting argumentation skills, oral communication, reading comprehension, and written communication. Moreover, social and emotional skills have gained increased relevance ( Ingram et al., 2021 ), extending further than the conventional focus on productivity-related aspects like leadership, relationship-building, and teamwork. Contemporary emphasis is also placed on motivational skills, inclusivity, gender identity, and the acceptance of differences, recognizing these as key elements in personal development with substantial impacts in the educational environment.

We emphasize the active role of teachers and learners in knowledge construction, constructivism theories resonate with the diverse strategies, tools, and competence identified in the literature. The educational landscape, as illuminated through this systematic exploration, highlights the importance of fostering an interactive and engaging environment where learners are not just recipients but contributors to the knowledge-building process. Throughout chemistry and biology education, constructing innovative strategies in teaching and researching serves as a guiding principle for promoting meaningful learning experiences and cultivating a generation of learners equipped with the skills necessary for success in an ever-changing world.

5 Limitations and future research

Despite the thoroughness and rigor employed in this study, several limitations should be acknowledged. Firstly, the inclusion criteria may have introduced some degree of selection bias, as only studies published in English and Spanish were considered. This could potentially exclude relevant research published in other languages. Additionally, the focus on articles from peer-reviewed journals might have overlooked valuable insights from other databases or depending on our search string. Furthermore, the inherent heterogeneity in study designs, methodologies, and contexts across the included articles may limit the generalizability of the findings. Lastly, the rapidly evolving nature of educational technology and pedagogical practices implies that newer studies might provide insights not captured in this review. Despite these limitations, this study provides a valuable synthesis of the current state of research in chemistry and biology education, offering insights and directions for future investigations.

The findings of this SLR carry significant implications for both future educational practice and research endeavors. For educational practitioners, the consistent emphasis on visual learning preferences in chemistry education suggests a practical path for enhancing pedagogical approaches. Implementing visual aids, such as diagrams and animations, can potentially improve comprehension and knowledge retention. However, the recognition of a minority preference for tactile learning underscores the importance of adopting multimodal strategies that cater to diverse learning styles. Educators are encouraged to embrace inclusive pedagogies that incorporate both visual and hands-on elements, promoting a comprehensive and adaptable learning environment.

Furthermore, regarding future research, the identified discrepancy in learning preferences highlights the need for more nuanced investigations into the dynamics of tactile learning in chemistry education. Exploring the effectiveness of hands-on experiences and tactile approaches could provide valuable insights for designing inclusive instructional strategies. Additionally, the synthesis underscores the significance of context-specific considerations in educational technology integration. Future research should delve deeper into the contextual factors influencing the impact of technology on student engagement, acknowledging the diversity of educational settings and their unique challenges.

6 Conclusion

The past five years have witnessed a transformative shift in research on chemical and biological education, challenging the conventional dominance of developed nations. Surprisingly, third-world countries, particularly Indonesia, have emerged as major contributors, highlighting a global trend in educational research efforts. This period experienced a surge in publications from 2019 to 2021. The scope of the educational context considered in our review is broad, covering diverse studies involving prospective and high school teachers, along with students in chemistry and biology education. The even distribution of studies in both subjects, coupled with a focus on foundational courses, reflects a holistic approach to fostering scientific careers and cultivating positive relationships with science. Employed strategies in chemistry and biology education reveal a rich array of approaches, predominantly focusing on descriptive and qualitative research. Various frameworks, including PAR, URE, CURE, and project-based methodologies, are actively employed, emphasizing innovation and adapting to the evolving educational landscape. In terms of tools contributing to the efficacy of the teaching-researching process, a significant shift toward virtual learning environments is evident, accelerated by the pandemic. Platforms like EDMODO, Zoom, MS Teams, e-magazines, and YouTube play pivotal roles, enhancing the pedagogical aspect. Noteworthy is the integration of widely used software such as Python, R, and SPSS, underscoring the importance of data management in educational scenarios.

This work reveals that research in chemistry and biology education has undergone a notable shift in recent years, highlighting the diversity of essential strategies, tools, and competence. There is a growing interest in the integration of sustainable approaches and an emphasis on developing research skills for both students and educators. The trend towards the application of digital tools and virtual environments is also noteworthy, showcasing significant adaptation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the promotion of cognitive, social, and emotional competence emerges as a key aspect in education. The SLR thus serves as a valuable resource in delineating the multifaceted skills essential for fostering holistic development in both educators and students.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

MA: Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. BVV: Data curation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. BEV: Data curation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. PF: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This project received partial financial support from the Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo (UNACH).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2024.1363132/full#supplementary-material

Abduldayan, F. J., Abifarin, F. P., Oyedum, G. U., and Alhassan, J. A. (2021). Research data management practices of chemistry researchers in federal universities of technology in Nigeria. Digit. Libr. Perspect. 37, 328–348. doi: 10.1108/DLP-06-2020-0051

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Abumchukwu, A. A., Eke, J. A., and Achugbu, C. N. J. (2021). Effects of ethnochemistry instructional strategy on secondary school students’ achievement in chemistry in Onitsha education zone. Afric. J. Sci. Technol. Math. Educ. 6, 121–128. Available at: www.researchgate.net/profile/Joy-Eke-3/publication/350740265

Google Scholar

Aguillon, S. M., Siegmund, G. F., Petipas, R. H., Drake, A. G., Cotner, S., and Ballen, C. J. (2020). Gender differences in student participation in an active-learning classroom. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 19:ar12. doi: 10.1187/cbe.19-03-0048

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Agustian, H. Y., Finne, L. T., Jørgensen, J. T., Pedersen, M. I., Christiansen, F. V., Gammelgaard, B., et al. (2022). Learning outcomes of university chemistry teaching in laboratories: a systematic review of empirical literature. Rev. Educ. 10, 1–41. doi: 10.1002/rev3.3360

Amer, M. À., Luque-Corredera, C., and Bartolomé, E. (2022). Study and research path for learning general chemistry: analyzing the quality of drinking water. J. Chem. Educ. 99, 1255–1265. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00971

Anita, A., Tenriawaru, A. B., and Putra, D. A. (2021). Profile of argumentation skills using Toulmin’s argumentation pattern (TAP) in senior high school students in biology learning: preliminary research. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1842:012065. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1842/1/012065

Aripin, I., Hidayat, T., Rustaman, N. Y., and Riandi, R. (2021). Prospective biology teachers’ research skills. J. Phys. 1806:012170. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1806/1/012170

Aryanti, Y., Afandi, W., Wahyuni, E. S., and Putra, D. A. (2021). Torrance creative thinking profile of senior high school students in biology learning: preliminary research. J. Phys. 1842:012080. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1842/1/012080

Aslam, S., Alghamdi, A. A., Abid, N., and Kumar, T. (2023). Challenges in implementing STEM education: insights from novice STEM teachers in developing countries. Sustain. For. 15:14455. doi: 10.3390/su151914455

Asy’ari, M., Fitriani, H., Zubaidah, S., and Mahanal, S. (2019). The science process skills of prospective biology teachers in plant cell material based on gender. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 14, 168–178. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v14i19.11208

Aviv-Reuven, S., and Rosenfeld, A. (2021). Publication patterns’ changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal and short-term scientometric analysis. Scientometrics 126, 6761–6784. doi: 10.1007/s11192-021-04059-x

Babosová, R., Bartková, A., Langraf, V., Vondráková, M., and Sandanusová, A. (2022). The impact and evaluation of the COVID-19 pandemic on the teaching of biology from the perspective of Slovak school teachers. Educ. Sci. (Basel) 12:292. doi: 10.3390/educsci12050292

Ballaz, S., Pulgar-Sánchez, M., Chamorro, K., and Fernández-Moreira, E. (2023). Scientific pertinence of developing machine learning technologies for the triage of COVID-19 patients: a bibliometric analysis via Scopus. Inform. Med. Unlocked 41:101312. doi: 10.1016/j.imu.2023.101312

Baptista, G., and Araujo, G. M. (2019). Intercultural competence and skills in the biology teachers training from the research procedure of ethnobiology. Sci. Educ. Int. 30, 310–318. doi: 10.33828/sei.v30.i4.8

Barr, C. A., Brodeur, D. R., Kumar, U., and Heilman, D. W. (2022). Integrating authentic research, peer learning, and high-impact project work into the general chemistry laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 99, 3899–3905. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00346

Bautista-Arpi, D. Y., Daquilema-Monge, J. R., Molina-Obregón, L. A., and Escudero-Moyano, G. E. (2023). Aprender a aprender en entornos virtuales: cómo adaptar estrategias metacognitivas al aprendizaje en línea. Esprint Investigación 3, 17–28. doi: 10.61347/ei.v3i1.62

Bedin, E., Marques, M. S., and das Graças Cleophas, M. (2023). Research on the content, technological, and pedagogical knowledge (TPACK) of chemistry teachers during remote teaching in the pandemic in the light of students’ perceptions. J. Inform. Technol. Educ. 22, 001–024. doi: 10.28945/5063

Beichumila, F., Kafanabo, E., and Bahati, B. (2022). Exploring the use of chemistry-based computer simulations and animations instructional activities to support students’ learning of science process skills. Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res. 21, 21–42. doi: 10.26803/ijlter.21.8.2

Bellou, I., Papachristos, N. M., and Mikropoulos, T. A. (2018). “Digital learning technologies in chemistry education: a review” in Digital technologies: sustainable innovations for improving teaching and learning (Springer, Cham: Springer International Publishing), 57–80.

Blonder, R., Rap, S., and Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2023). Frontiers of research in chemistry education for the benefit of chemistry teachers. Chem. Teach. Int. 5, 107–111. doi: 10.1515/cti-2023-0041

Bradforth, S. E., Miller, E. R., Dichtel, W. R., Leibovich, A. K., Feig, A. L., Martin, J. D., et al. (2015). University learning: improve undergraduate science education. Nature 523, 282–284. doi: 10.1038/523282a

Broad, H., Carey, N., Williams, D. P., and Blackburn, R. A. R. (2023). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on chemistry student and staff perceptions of their learning/teaching experience. J. Chem. Educ. 100, 664–671. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00856

Burley, S. K., Berman, H. M., Bhikadiya, C., Bi, C., Chen, L., Di Costanzo, L., et al. (2019). RCSB protein data Bank: biological macromolecular structures enabling research and education in fundamental biology, biomedicine, biotechnology and energy. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D464–D474. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky1004

Burley, S. K., Bhikadiya, C., Bi, C., Bittrich, S., Chen, L., Crichlow, G. V., et al. (2021). RCSB protein data Bank: powerful new tools for exploring 3D structures of biological macromolecules for basic and applied research and education in fundamental biology, biomedicine, biotechnology, bioengineering and energy sciences. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, D437–D451. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa1038

Çalık, M., and Wiyarsi, A. (2021). A systematic review of the research papers on chemistry-focused socio-scientific issues. J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 20, 360–372. doi: 10.33225/jbse/21.20.360

Caprara, L., and Caprara, C. (2022). Effects of virtual learning environments: a scoping review of literature. Educ. Inf. Technol. (Dordr) 27, 3683–3722. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10768-w

Chan, P., Van Gerven, T., Dubois, J.-L., and Bernaerts, K. (2021). Virtual chemical laboratories: a systematic literature review of research, technologies and instructional design. Comput. Educ. Open 2:100053. doi: 10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100053

Chen-Musgrove, M. M., Nied, S., Cooley, A., Schinske, J. N., and Corwin, L. A. (2022). Engaging with CC bio INSITES: experiences of barriers, supports, and belonging in community college faculty participating in biology education research. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 21:ar16. doi: 10.1187/CBE.21-09-0246

Chiu, W. K. (2021). Pedagogy of emerging technologies in chemical education during the era of digitalization and artificial intelligence: a systematic review. Educ. Sci. (Basel) 11:709. doi: 10.3390/educsci11110709

Cook, B. G., and Cook, L. (2016). Research designs and special education research: different designs address different questions. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 31, 190–198. doi: 10.1111/ldrp.12110

Dalgarno, B., and Lee, M. J. W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 41, 10–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x

Deng, J. M., Streja, N., and Flynn, A. B. (2021). Response process validity evidence in chemistry education research. J. Chem. Educ. 98, 3656–3666. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00749

Donegan, N. T., Zachariah, J. M., and Olimpo, J. T. (2022). Integrating museum education into an introductory biology CURE leads to positive perceptions of scientific research and museum exhibitions among students, faculty, and staff. J. Biol. Educ. 58, 684–701. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2022.2103168

Easa, E., and Blonder, R. (2022). Development and validation of customized pedagogical kits for high-school chemistry teaching and learning: the redox reaction example. Chem. Teach. Int. 4, 71–95. doi: 10.1515/cti-2021-0022

Elbassiouny, A., Molnár, P., and Andrade, M. C. B. (2020). The whole is greater than the sum of the parts: a research poster project provides an integrative framework for learning across foundation courses in biology. Bioscene 46, 27–35. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344753361

Ewim, D., and Opateye, J. (2021). Assessment for learning and feedback in chemistry: a case for employing information and communication technology tools. Int. J. Res. STEM Educ. 3, 18–27. doi: 10.31098/ijrse.v3i2.660

Fauzi, A., Husamah, H., Miharja, F. J., Fatmawati, D., Permana, T. I., and Hudha, A. M. (2020). Exploring COVID-19 literacy level among biology teacher candidates. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 16:em1864. doi: 10.29333/EJMSTE/8270

Funk, H. J. (1985). Learning science process skills . Second Edn. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Garcia, K. J. Q., Guibar, M. B., Llamera, N. M., Sacay, J. R., and Walag, A. M. P. (2022). Virtual chemistry Laboratory for Methods of separating mixtures: a design, development, and evaluation of a Mobile application. J. Innov. Teach. Learn. 2, 18–23. doi: 10.12691/jitl-2-1-3

González-Villavicencio, J. L., and Estrella-Flores, J. P. (2023). Educación del Siglo XXI, competencias, metodologías y estrategias. Esprint Investigación 2, 5–15. doi: 10.61347/ei.v2i1.50

Gopalan, M., Rosinger, K., and Ahn, J. B. (2020). Use of quasi-experimental research designs in education research: growth, promise, and challenges. Rev. Res. Educ. 44, 218–243. doi: 10.3102/0091732X20903302

Graulich, N., Rost, M., Schultz, M., and Gallardo-Williams, M. (2022). To read is the challenge─insights from 100 days, 100 papers Reading challenge in chemistry education research. J. Chem. Educ. 99, 3364–3369. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00610

Guarracino, D. A. (2020). Creative adjustments to an undergraduate chemical biology course from research-based in-person to all-remote education during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Chem. Educ. 97, 2742–2748. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00719

Gumanová, N., and Šukolová, D. (2022). Competences of university teachers: systematic literature review. J. Educ. Soc. Res. 12, 15–27. doi: 10.36941/jesr-2022-0031

Guo, F., Young, J., Deese, N., Pickens-Flynn, T., Sellers, D., Perkins, D., et al. (2021). Promoting the diversity, equity, and inclusion in organic chemistry education through undergraduate research experiences at wssu. Educ. Sci. (Basel) 11:394. doi: 10.3390/educsci11080394

Hadisaputra, S., Gunawan, G., and Yustiqvar, M. (2019). Effects of Green chemistry based interactive multimedia on the students’ learning outcomes and scientific literacy. J. Adv. Res. Dyn. Control Syst. 11, 664–674.

Hamers, R. J., Bates, D. M., Aguayo Barragan, K. J., Gressel, D. G., Schweitzer, B. S., Villalona, J., et al. (2022). Improving climate and outcomes for underrepresented chemistry graduate students at a major research university: a case study. J. Chem. Educ. 99, 452–460. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00528

Hariati, M., Zaini, M., and Kaspul, K. (2020). The effectiveness of high school biology students worksheets based on critical thinking skills on the Protista concept. BIO-INOVED 2:1. doi: 10.20527/bino.v2i1.7855

Herda, A., Johari, A., Maison, M., Rusdi, M., and Asyhar, R. (2020). Science process skill ability level of senior high school students in learning chemistry in Jambi. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 9, 1829–1833.

Hills, M., Harcombe, K., and Bernstein, N. (2020). Using anticipated learning outcomes for backward design of a molecular cell biology course-based undergraduate research experience. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 48, 311–319. doi: 10.1002/bmb.21350

Huda, H. B., and Rohaeti, E. (2021). Students’ attitude profile towards chemistry based on research-oriented collaborative inquiry learning model (REORCILEA). J. Phys. 1806:012193. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1806/1/012193

Ingram, E., Reddick, K., Honaker, J. M., and Pearson, G. A. (2021). Making space for social and emotional learning in science education. Front. Educ. (Lausanne) 6:712720. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.712720

Irwanto, I. (2023). Improving preservice chemistry teachers’ critical thinking and science process skills using researchoriented collaborative inquiry learning. J. Technol. Sci. Educ. 13, 23–35. doi: 10.3926/jotse.1796

Irwanto, I., Rohaeti, E., and Prodjosantoso, A. K. (2019). Analyzing the relationships between pre-service chemistry teachers’ science process skills and critical thinking skills. J. Turkish Sci. Educ. 16, 299–313. doi: 10.12973/tused.10283a

Ivana, A., Sriyati, S., and Priyandoko, D. (2021). Dadiah local potential-based biology learning resources to improve students’ science process skills. J. Phys. 1806:012164. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1806/1/012164

Johnson, P. G. (1962). The goals of science education. Theory Pract. 1, 239–244. doi: 10.1080/00405846209541817

Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 7, 75–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x

Juniar, A., Silalahi, A., and Suyanti, R. D. (2020). The effect of guided inquiry model on improving student’s learning outcomes and science process skills in qualitative analytical chemistry practicum. Univ. J. Educ. Res. 8, 5457–5462. doi: 10.13189/ujer.2020.081149

Juniar, A., Silalahi, A., and Suyanti, R. D. (2021). The effect of teacher candidates’ science process skill on analytical chemistry through guided inquiry learning model. J. Phys. 1842:012066. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1842/1/012066

Kaanklao, N., and Suwathanpornkul, I. (2020). Development of the learning management process to enhance the chemistry learning achievement and conceptual comprehension on organic chemistry using the posner’s approach with design-based research. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. 41, 282–288. doi: 10.1016/j.kjss.2018.07.016

Koehler, M. J., and Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education. Contemp. Issues Technol. Teach. Educ. 9, 60–70. Available at: http://www.tpck.org/

Kopnina, H. (2020). Education for the future? Critical evaluation of education for sustainable development goals. J. Environ. Educ. 51, 280–291. doi: 10.1080/00958964.2019.1710444

Kottmeyer, A. M., Van Meter, P., and Cameron, C. (2020). Diagram comprehension ability of college students in an introductory biology course. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 44, 169–180. doi: 10.1152/advan.00146.2018

Kulesza, A. E., Imtiaz, S., and Bernot, K. M. (2022). Building connections to biology and community through service-learning and research experiences. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 23:e00082. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.00082-22

Lee, D., Wright, M., Faber, C., Kennedy, C., and Dittrich-Reed, D. (2021). Participation in biology education research influences students’ epistemic development. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 20:ar58. doi: 10.1187/CBE.20-11-0255

Linkwitz, M., and Eilks, I. (2022). An action research Teacher’s journey while integrating Green chemistry into the high school chemistry curriculum. Sustainability (Switzerland) 14:621. doi: 10.3390/su141710621

López-Martínez, J. D., and Martínez, M. Á. D. (2023). Teaching and researching. High school physics and chemistry professors at JAE research centers. CIAN-Revista de Historia de las Universidades 26, 144–175. doi: 10.20318/cian.2023.7823

Lukitasari, M., Purnamasari, I., Utami, S., and Sukri, A. (2019). Blended-problem-based learning: how its impact on students’ critical thinking skills? JPBI 5, 425–434. doi: 10.22219/jpbi.v5i3.10048

Mack, M. R., Hensen, C., and Barbera, J. (2019). Metrics and methods used to compare student performance data in chemistry education research articles. J. Chem. Educ. 96, 401–413. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00713

Majgaard, G., Misfeldt, M., and Nielsen, J. (2011). How design-based research and action research contribute to the development of a new design for learning. Designs Learn. 4:8. doi: 10.16993/dfl.38

Maknun, D., Prasetyo, Z. K., and Djukri, D. (2022). Guided inquiry laboratory to improve research skills of prospective biology teachers. Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ. 11, 2122–2128. doi: 10.11591/ijere.v11i4.22104

Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., and Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learn. Instr. 60, 225–236. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007

Mataniari, R., Willison, J., Hasibuan, M. H. E., Sulistiyo, U., and Dewi, F. (2020). Portraying students’ critical thinking skills through research skill development (RSD) framework: a case of a biology course in an Indonesian university. J. Turkish Sci. Educ. 17, 302–314. doi: 10.36681/tused.2020.28

Moran, M. J. (2007). Collaborative action research and project work: promising practices for developing collaborative inquiry among early childhood preservice teachers. Teach. Teach. Educ. 23, 418–431. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.12.008

Narulita, E., Hariyadi, S., Utomo, A. P., and Fauziah, L. F. (2019). Research-based biotechnology book with virtual laboratory for elevating TPACK of biology pre-service teacher. Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res. 18, 297–310. doi: 10.26803/ijlter.18.11.18

Nechypurenko, P., Evangelist, O., Selivanova, T., and Modlo, Y. O. (2020). Virtual chemical laboratories as a tools of supporting the learning research activity of students in chemistry while studying the topic “solutions” : ICTERI workshops, 984–995.

Nechypurenko, P. P., Semerikov, S. O., and Pokhliestova, O. Y. (2023). Cloud technologies of augmented reality as a means of supporting educational and research activities in chemistry for 11th grade students. Educ. Technol. Quarter. 2023, 69–91. doi: 10.55056/etq.44

Ngozi, P. O. (2021). Enhancing science process skills Acquisition in Chemistry among secondary school students through context-based learning. Sci. Educ. Int. 32, 323–330. doi: 10.33828/sei.v32.i4.7

Oliveira, H., and Bonito, J. (2023). Practical work in science education: a systematic literature review. Front. Educ. (Lausanne) 8:1151641. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1151641

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372, 178–189. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71

Parsons, A. F., and Sarju, J. P. (2023). Research-led learning in action: development of an online chemistry course for final-year undergraduates. J. Chem. Educ. 100, 1877–1884. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c01207

Permatasari, S. E., Mahanal, S., Zubaidah, S., and Setiawan, D. (2020). Science process skills and cognitive achievement: an examination of two different models of learning biology. AIP Conf. Proc. 2215:030011. doi: 10.1063/5.0000534

Pernaa, J., Kämppi, V., and Aksela, M. (2022). Supporting the relevance of chemistry education through sustainable ionic liquids context: a research-based design approach. Sustainability (Switzerland) 14:6220. doi: 10.3390/su14106220

Polik, W. F., and Schmidt, J. R. (2022). WebMO: web-based computational chemistry calculations in education and research. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci. 12:1554. doi: 10.1002/wcms.1554

Putri, D. G., Zulfarina, Z., Zulfarina, Z., Syafii, W., and Syafii, W. (2021). Development of augmented reality for biology E-magazine. J. Educ. Sci. 5:511. doi: 10.31258/jes.5.3.p.511-519

Ramdiah, S., and Royani, M. (2019). Understanding, planning, and implementation of HOTS by senior high school biology teachers in Banjarmasin-Indonesia. Available at: www.e-iji.net .

Rap, S., Feldman-Maggor, Y., Aviran, E., Shvarts-Serebro, I., Easa, E., Yonai, E., et al. (2020). An applied research-based approach to support chemistry teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Chem. Educ. 97, 3278–3284. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00687

Ratheeswari, K. (2018). Information communication Technology in Education. J. Appl. Adv. Res. 2018, 45–47. doi: 10.21839/jaar.2018.v3S1.169

Rodríguez-Cabrera, H. M. (2020). Emerging and inter/trans-disciplinary research areas related to chemistry. Bionatura 5, 1021–1022. doi: 10.21931/RB/2020.05.01.1

Rohaeti, E., and Prodjosantoso, A. K. (2020). Research-oriented collaborative inquiry learning model: improving students’ scientific attitudes in general chemistry. J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 19, 108–120. doi: 10.33225/jbse/20.19.108

Ross, J., Guerra, E., and Gonzalez-Ramos, S. (2020). Linking a hierarchy of attitude effect to student engagement and chemistry achievement. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 21, 357–370. doi: 10.1039/c9rp00171a

Rubush, D. M., and Stone, K. L. (2020). A learning community involving collaborative course-based research experiences for foundational chemistry laboratories. Educ. Sci. (Basel) 10:117. doi: 10.3390/educsci10040117

Salybekova, N., Issayev, G., Abdrassulova, Z., Bostanova, A., Dairabaev, R., and Erdenov, M. (2021). Pupils’ research skills development through project-based learning in biology. Cypriot J. Educ. Sci. 16, 1106–1121. doi: 10.18844/CJES.V16I3.5829

Savarimuthu, I., and Susairaj, M. J. A. M. (2022). Incorporating research literature and chemistry textbooks in 5E instructional model to reveal ambiguous oxidation state formalism of CuS for pre-service science teachers. Chem. Teach. Int. 4, 103–115. doi: 10.1515/cti-2022-0001

Scott, E. E., Wenderoth, M. P., and Doherty, J. H. (2021). Design-based research: a methodology to extend and enrich biology education research. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 19, 1–12. doi: 10.1187/cbe.19-11-0245

Segura-Totten, M., Dewsbury, B., Lo, S. M., Bailey, E. G., Beaster-Jones, L., Bills, R. J., et al. (2021). Chronicling the journey of the Society for the Advancement in biology education research (SABER) in its effort to become antiracist: from acknowledgement to action. Front. Educ. (Lausanne) 6:401. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.780401

Senisum, M., Susilo, H., and Suwono, H. (2022). GIReSiMCo: a learning model to scaffold students’ science process skills and biology cognitive learning outcomes. Educ. Sci. 12:228. doi: 10.3390/educsci12040228

Sentanin, F. C., Da Rocha, A. C., Parra, K. N., Lanza, M. R. V., and Kasseboehmer, A. C. (2021). Interactive lecture in redox chemistry: analysis of the impact of the dissemination of university scientific research among high school students. J. Chem. Educ. 98, 2279–2289. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00064

Setiawan, H., and Surtikanti, H. K.Riandi (2023). Blended learning research trends in biology education: a systematic review of literature from 2016 to 2022. In proceedings of the 3rd international conference on biology, science and education (IcoBioSE 2021), 341–353.

Sjöström, J., Rauch, F., and Eilks, I. (2015). “Chemistry education for sustainability” in Relevant chemistry education (Rodaballo: Brill), 163–184.

States, N., Stone, E., and Cole, R. (2023). Creating meaningful learning opportunities through incorporating local research into chemistry classroom activities. Educ. Sci. (Basel) 13:192. doi: 10.3390/educsci13020192

Stelz-Sullivan, E. J., Racca, J. M., McCoy, J. C., Charif, D. L., Islam, L., Zhou, X. D., et al. (2022). Enhancing STEM education by integrating research and teaching in photochemistry: an undergraduate chemistry Laboratory in Spectroscopy and Photochemistry. Educ. Sci. (Basel) 12. doi: 10.3390/educsci12100729

Sugiati, E., and Harahap, F. (2021). The effectiveness of research based in vitro textbook application in contextual learning on scientific attitudes mastery of biology students. J. Phys. 1819:012040. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1819/1/012040

Susanti, R., and Anwar, Y. (2019). Implementation of learning based on scientific approach to improve science process skills of biology education students in general biology course. J. Phys. 1166:012004. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1166/1/012004

Susilo, H., and Sudrajat, A. K. (2021). The influence of the lecturer research group on the quality of research proposals undergraduate biology education students. AIP Conf. Proc. 2330:030057. doi: 10.1063/5.0043159

United Nations (2023). Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal4 (Accessed October 3, 2023).

Van Dulmen, T. H. H., Visser, T. C., Pepin, B., and McKenney, S. (2022). Teacher and student engagement when using learning materials based on the context of cutting-edge chemistry research. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 41, 1617–1638. doi: 10.1080/02635143.2022.2070147

Vance-Chalcraft, H. D., Gates, T. A., Hogan, K. A., Evans, M., Bunnell, A., and Hurlbert, A. H. (2021). Using citizen science to incorporate research into introductory biology courses at multiple universities. Citiz Sci. 6:424. doi: 10.5334/CSTP.424

Vanderzwaag, J., Du, H., and Abraham, L. (2021). Motivating and supporting undergraduate research through Green chemistry: experiences at a small Liberal arts university. J. Chem. Educ. 98, 824–832. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01084

Villalta-Cerdas, A., Villalta-Cerdas, A., and Thompson, D. E. (2021). Integration of research-based strategies and instructional design: creating significant learning experiences in a chemistry bridge course . Published at the conference: 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access.

Weir, L. K., Barker, M. K., McDonnell, L. M., Schimpf, N. G., Rodela, T. M., and Schulte, P. M. (2019). Small changes, big gains: a curriculum-wide study of teaching practices and student learning in undergraduate biology. PLoS One 14:e0220900. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220900

Welch, L. A. (2020). Catalyzing learning with green chemistry undergraduate research. Phys. Sci. Rev. 5:3. doi: 10.1515/psr-2020-0003

Widianti, F., Ibrohim, I., and Tenzer, A. (2021). Improvement of science process skills and students cognitive learning outcomes through implementation of guided inquiry learning model on biology subject. AIP Conf. Proc. 2330:030048. doi: 10.1063/5.0043410

Zeljic, K. (2021). Research integrity awareness among biology students–experience from the University of Belgrade. Account. Res. 28, 331–348. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1843445

Zhang, Q., Kang, N., and Barnes, R. (2016). A systematic literature review of funding for higher education institutions in developed countries. Front. Educ. China 11, 519–542. doi: 10.1007/BF03397139

Zidny, R., Sjöström, J., and Eilks, I. (2020). A multi-perspective reflection on how indigenous knowledge and related ideas can improve science education for sustainability. Sci. Educ. (Dordr) 29, 145–185. doi: 10.1007/s11191-019-00100-x

Zowada, C., Frerichs, N., Zuin, V. G., and Eilks, I. (2020). Developing a lesson plan on conventional and green pesticides in chemistry education-a project of participatory action research. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 21, 141–153. doi: 10.1039/c9rp00128j

Zuin, V. G., Eilks, I., Elschami, M., and Kümmerer, K. (2021). Education in green chemistry and in sustainable chemistry: perspectives towards sustainability. Green Chem. 23, 1594–1608. doi: 10.1039/D0GC03313H

Zulaikha, B., Parlan, P., and Yahmin, Y. (2021). Analysis of prospective chemistry teachers’ science process skills and critical thinking skills in terms of self-regulated learning. AIP Conf. Proc. 2330:020033. doi: 10.1063/5.0043145

Keywords: chemistry and biology education, researching, strategies, pedagogical innovations, skills

Citation: Alberto MCL, Viviana BVC, Vladimir BEC and Fernanda PAP (2024) Innovative strategies to strengthen teaching-researching skills in chemistry and biology education: a systematic literature review. Front. Educ . 9:1363132. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1363132

Received: 29 December 2023; Accepted: 28 June 2024; Published: 10 July 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Alberto, Viviana, Vladimir and Fernanda. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Basantes Vaca Carmen Viviana, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Classroom Q&A

With larry ferlazzo.

In this EdWeek blog, an experiment in knowledge-gathering, Ferlazzo will address readers’ questions on classroom management, ELL instruction, lesson planning, and other issues facing teachers. Send your questions to [email protected]. Read more from this blog.

Teacher Strategies for Making Learning More Relevant to Students

• Share article

Today’s post is the fourth in an ongoing series exploring relevance in the classroom.

‘Authentic Projects’

Michael Hernandez is an award-winning educator, author, and speaker whose work focuses on digital and civic literacy, social justice, and student-centered learning experiences. His book about using storytelling as a framework for learning by igniting student curiosity was published by ISTE in fall 2023:

The pandemic shone a light on the flaws of traditional learning methods, both in terms of their effectiveness and the willingness of both students and teachers to play the game of direct instruction/memorization/regurgitation, which often only benefits privileged students. We struggled to give ourselves and our students a good reason why school (in person or remote) was important. Suddenly, everyone had new clarity on what was most important to them, their lives, and the good of the planet—and school often wasn’t.

Now with AI presenting an existential threat to our curriculum and how we assess students, it’s time to redefine what we mean by “learning” and the role teachers play in providing meaningful learning experiences that help our students become digitally and civically literate and productive citizens. Creating assignments that have purpose and are relevant to students’ lives are often the key to igniting passion and engagement.

1. Leverage student curiosity as the engine for learning

Science, math, literature, and the arts all start with observation and wonder—noticing something about our world, asking questions about it, and seeking the answers. Begin lessons with student questions about their community to reframe our curriculum as learning quests, which create a sense of ownership and helps students personalize learning.

Start units with these activities to engage curiosity:

• Quest Questions: Have students write a set of questions they have about a topic.
• Empathy Interviews: Students interview experts or stakeholders related to a topic to get background information, hear diverse perspectives, find their blind spots, and inspire further research on the topic.

2. Authentic Projects

If student work just ends up in the trash, it sends a powerful message about what we value in our curriculum and the effort we ask our students to put into their learning. For me, authenticity often means creating something useful as the purpose and outcome of the learning experience. This might include:

· Designing an infographic about data collected in a community-based science experiment.

• Curating and editing a digital literary magazine for ELA students.
• Offering financial-literacy tutoring for the community by math students.

The end product of these learning quests is a tangible, useful product, which provides an uncheatable assessment of student knowledge. Everyone involved wins.

3. Publish publicly

The best way to learn something is to teach it. When we ask students to present or perform for an audience beyond our classrooms, the experience increases student motivation, elevates quality, and provides purpose for their effort.

In the examples above, posting infographics on a website or social media accounts helps people around the world see and use the student scientists’ findings and maybe even drive people to take action or change policy. Publishing the literary magazine as a digital book is an easy and low-cost way to distribute student work globally, while simultaneously providing context for student work when it’s placed side by side with work created by other students. A financial-literacy tutoring project helps connect students to their community as well as math curriculum and builds bridges between generations and demographic groups that wouldn’t have happened if projects stayed in the classroom.

In each of these cases, the students can palpably sense the public’s need for accuracy. Their work can make a difference in peoples’ lives, so they need to get it right.

Climate Change

Xochitl Bentley is a high school English teacher and NBCT in Los Angeles. She is a co-director of the CSUN Writing Project and a contributing writer at Moving Writers:

Students increasingly encounter the word “sustainability” but rarely with any situating context. Taking the time to unpack this concept benefits students and teachers alike. In the U.N. Brundtland Commission report, “Our Common Future ,” sustainability is defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This definition highlights the need for cultivating intergenerational awareness as we prepare students to mitigate the harmful human impacts associated with climate change.

Often, teachers are hesitant to bring up climate change, feeling they lack the disciplinary knowledge to competently address it. In these moments, I remember a piece of advice often shared in teacher-preparation programs: “Remember your why.” Thinking as a future ancestor means remembering to think beyond ourselves with a sense of solution-oriented urgency and modeling this commitment for our students.

One way to help students become climate stewards is to model how reading paired climate texts enhances our ability to both problem-spot and problem-solve. While reading the novel Dry , for example, my students and I pore over local newspaper headlines concerning water scarcity. As we zoom in on passages, I still guide students to consider foundational questions, such as, “What does the text say?” “What does the author mean?” “Why does this matter?” But I then layer on questions such as, “What are the stakes?” Who gets a say?” “How do we repair and restore?” This means that we’re considering who will feel the most immediate impact of prolonged drought conditions.

It means we’re getting specific about who makes decisions concerning how water is allocated and shared. It means we’re identifying water-efficiency models that can be replicated in a wide-scale manner. Layering questions in this guided manner helps us think about how the environmental problem appearing in a fictional story is emerging in recognizable real-world contexts.

An important aspect of helping students become responsible climate stewards is articulating the difference between the root causes of our climate crisis and the symptoms that show up as signs of these root causes. One way educators can help students engage in root causes analysis is by modeling the “five whys” strategy. By repeatedly asking the question “Why,” learners can peel away the layers of symptoms that can lead to the root cause of a problem. When pondering the question, “Why do many people feel disconnected from nature?,” my students generated these responses:

• Because people are too busy working or don’t have access to the outdoors.
• Because many communities lack parks/open green spaces.
• Because redlining practices (residential segregation) caused many communities to be “park poor.”
• Because most people don’t strive to live in balance with nature or value this practice/mindset for all.
• Most people see themselves as existing hierarchically above other living beings, instead of existing at one point of a web (within interrelated ecosystems).

Not only did this strategy give students practice in generative responding and building on ideas, but the intersection between environmental and social issues became more perceptible. Once students feel comfortable making these connections, teachers can help them navigate the policy landscape and mull which policymakers are in the best position to effect change. In this instance, my students initiated a postcard campaign about the need for urban-forestry funding (CA Assembly Bill 1530).

By intentionally shifting the focus from passively learning about climate change to actively advocating with future generations in mind, teachers can create learning conditions for helping students become climate stewards in any classroom.

‘Connections’

Dennisha Murff, Ph.D., is an award-winning administrator, author, adjunct professor, consultant, and relentless advocate for equitable education. Throughout her career, she has worked to incorporate equity, inclusion, anti-racism, and cultural responsiveness in her work:

As an educator, I have always strived to look for ways to create meaningful learning opportunities for students. I know that as educators go through the planning process, they desire to develop lessons students can connect with. Many times, I have heard staff members share how they taught a lesson, but students did not seem to retain the information.

During vertical articulation meetings, staff members would ask the previous grade-level team to share if a particular skill was taught. It literally felt like they were starting from scratch! As the school leader, I began to ask staff members to share how they were making relevant connections to students’ lives. In the quest to cover the curriculum, we discovered there were missed opportunities to develop relevance and true connectivity to the skills and strategies being taught.

We all know students need opportunities for differentiated and personalized learning, but there are particular techniques that need to be enhanced to ensure relevance of activities. If we intend to create relevance in daily lessons, we must commit to several concepts during the planning process.

1. Develop clear connections to students’ lives

Building positive relationships with students is a vital first step in this process. In order to develop relevance, educators must get to know their students. They need to understand who their students are in a culturally and linguistically responsive manner.

Students need to be able to share their lived experiences in the classroom. This must be a physically and psychologically safe learning environment where students feel free to share. As you get to know your students, ask yourself if you are able to identify students’ strengths, challenges, hobbies, and interests. Find out what is important to them. Once teachers have a clear understanding of who their students are, they are better equipped to develop lessons that have meaning and relevance.

2. Provide opportunities for hands-on, inquiry-based learning activities

Educators must create learning experiences that give students the opportunity to dive into projects that are hands-on. This approach helps to tap into the various learning styles of students through multisensory engagement. Students are able to develop collaboration, critical thinking, and communication skills. These hands-on options also allow students the chance to engage in learning tasks that have real-world application.

When students have the chance to connect with community partners and industry experts, they can learn more about how the world works. These types of learning tasks also allow students to solve issues impacting their lives (and the lives of others) in a meaningful way. It is important to note that the neural connections made during this process help increase opportunities for long-term-memory storage of skills and strategies.

3. Implement student agency in learning spaces

Student agency is a vital part of this process. Students want voice and choice in their learning tasks. They desire to make valuable contributions to the spaces around them. As students are provided with opportunities to ask questions, communicate what they’ve noticed, and express new ideas in a safe environment, the level of engagement and relevance increases. The opportunity to embed student agency into lessons requires a shift in the power dynamics in the classroom. The classroom becomes a learning space for all, including the teacher. Students will find themselves in a powerful decisionmaking process that enhances their ability to make contributions to the community and, ultimately, the world they live in.

As adult learners, we want to engage in activities that stretch our thinking. We expect to see the meaning and relevance of these experiences. Our student learners desire the same thing! Learning tasks that allow for deep connection are the experiences we remember the most.

Thanks to Michael, Xochitl, and Dennisha for contributing their thoughts!

Today’s guests answered this question:

What are ways to make lessons more relevant to students’ lives?

In Part One , Meagan W. Taylor, Tonia Gibson, and Alexis Wiggins shared their ideas.

In Part Two , Georgina Rivera, Kelly Gallagher, and Mike Kaechele answered the same question.

In Part Three , Whitney Emke, Valerie King, Samantha Holquist, and Tameka Porter discussed their recommendations.

Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at [email protected] . When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it’s selected or if you’d prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.

You can also contact me on X formerly known as Twitter at @Larryferlazzo .

Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email . And if you missed any of the highlights from the first 12 years of this blog, you can see a categorized list here .

The opinions expressed in Classroom Q&A With Larry Ferlazzo are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In