Digital Tools for Constructive Alignment in Science Education: A Systematic Synthesis of Technology Enhanced Motivation and Assessment

This systematic synthesis examines recent literature on the integration of digital tools in strengthening constructive alignment (CA) within science education. Covering studies published between 2010 and 2025, the review explores how technology-enhanced learning environments promote student motivation and assessment alignment in STEM and science contexts. Guided by the PRISMA framework, 22 Scopus-indexed studies were analyzed thematically. The synthesis indicates that digital platform such as augmented reality (AR), gamification, digital portfolios, and interactive simulations enhance both pedagogical and assessment dimensions of CA. These technologies foster engagement, self-directed learning, and authentic assessment through online rubrics, feedback systems, and performance analytics. Overall, digital tools function as dual facilitators: pedagogical enhancers that promote inquiry and collaboration, and assessment instruments that evaluate higher-order thinking and motivation. This paper contributes a synthesized perspective to inform future research and practice in digital constructive alignment, emphasizing implications for teacher development and sustainable digital transformation in science education.

Constructive alignment, science education, digital tools, motivation

1. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. McGraw-Hill Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Blatti, J. L., et al. (2019). Integrating molecular modeling in biology classrooms: Enhancing conceptual understanding through visualization. Journal of Science Education, 23(4), 215–227. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Costabile, M., et al. (2025). Digital ecosystems and gamification for higher education learning engagement. Computers & Education, 192, 104628. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Kim, J., & Kim, M. (2024). Enhancing inquiry learning through collaborative digital platforms in secondary science. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 33(2), 143–156. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Lampropoulos, G., et al. (2023). Augmented reality for constructive alignment in STEM higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 28(5), 4567–4583. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. McBain, R., et al. (2020). Performance tracking and digital assessment: Bridging formative feedback in online STEM learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 39–52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Othman, O., Iksan, Z. H., & Yasin, R. M. (2022). Creative teaching STEM module: High school students’ perception. European Journal of Educational Research, 11(4), 2127–2137. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Palmer, S., & Sarju, J. (2022). Simulated learning environments and constructive alignment in engineering education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), 66. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Sajidan, A., Atmojo, I. R. W., Ardiansyah, R., Saputri, D. Y., & Halim, L. (2024). The effectiveness of the Think-Pair-Project-Share model in facilitating self-directedness. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 13(2), 325–338. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• LeafQuest: A Mobile-Based Augmented Reality for Plant Placement, Discovery, and Growth
• Participatory Ergonomic Intervention Approach on Musculoskeletal Disorder (MSD) in Construction Sectors: A Systematic Review
• Integrating GIS into Traffic Incident Management: A Web-Based System
• RideSmart: A Personalized Motorcycle Product Recommendation System Using TF-IDF and Descriptive Analytics for Javidson Motorshop
• Educational Technology Course Design in Pre-Service Teachers Education: A Bibliometric Review of the Research Landscape