INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue IIIS October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8078
www.rsisinternational.org
Constructive Alignment as a Framework for Enhancing Motivation
and Higher-Order Thinking in Science Classrooms: A Systematic
Synthesis
Nurelly Mohd Rifan
1
, Adibah Abd Latif
2
¹Faculty of Education, Science and Technology, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 81310 Skudai,
Johor, Malaysia
2
Department of Measurement and Evaluation, Faculty of Education, Science and Technology, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0605
Received: 06 October 2025; Accepted: 12 October 2025; Published: 07 November 2025
ABSTRACT
Constructive alignment (CA) offers a coherent approach to linking intended learning outcomes, pedagogy and
assessment in science education, with potential to strengthen students’ higher-order thinking skills (HOTS),
motivation and achievement. This systematic literature review synthesizes research published between 2000
and 2025 in Scopus and Web of Science. Following PRISMA procedures, 42 articles met inclusion criteria and
were analysed thematically to map trends in CA application across science education, with particular attention
to secondary contexts. Three core themes emerged: (1) pedagogical strategies that align inquiry-based, student-
centred and collaborative learning with explicit outcomes; (2) curriculum frameworks that embed HOTS and
scientific literacy to ensure outcome–activity coherence; and (3) authentic assessment practices (formative,
performance-based and context-rich) that reinforce motivation and meaningful learning. Evidence indicates
that CA can reliably bridge curriculum intentions with classroom practices, improving the validity of tasks and
the depth of student learning. However, persistent challenges include limited teacher readiness, misalignment
between curriculum standards and assessment demands, and a shortage of validated instruments to evaluate
alignment quality and its effects. The review recommends sustained professional development in CA design,
development and validation of multi-dimensional measurement tools, and integration of CA principles into
policy and curriculum reforms. Overall, adopting CA as a guiding framework particularly in secondary science
can enhance HOTS, motivation and learning quality within and beyond Malaysia.
Keywords: constructive alignment; science education; higher-order thinking skills; motivation; pedagogy;
curriculum; assessment.
INTRODUCTION
The global shift towards competency-based education, particularly under the influence of the Fourth Industrial
Revolution, has highlighted the importance of pedagogical frameworks that ensure coherence between
intended learning outcomes, teaching strategies, and assessment practices [6], [10],[19].Within this context,
constructive alignment (CA), first introduced by Biggs, has become a pivotal framework in science education.
CA promotes consistency between curriculum goals, instructional methods, and assessment strategies to
support meaningful and student-centered learning [1],[3]. Over the last two decades, CA has been increasingly
adopted in STEM education as a means of fostering higher-order thinking skills (HOTS), scientific literacy,
and student motivation—three essential elements of 21st-century education [5],[14].
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue IIIS October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8079
www.rsisinternational.org
LITERATURE REVIEW
Scholarly interest in CA has grown substantially, especially with the integration of inquiry-based, gamified,
and project-based learning approaches that encourage active participation and deeper understanding [7],[16].
These strategies demonstrate how CA strengthens the alignment between curriculum design and classroom
practice, while also enhancing the validity of assessment tasks and ensuring that learning activities are
outcome-driven. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of CA-based approaches, as
educators sought to realign curriculum delivery with digital tools, simulations, and virtual laboratories
[13],[21]. This adaptation underscored the flexibility of CA in supporting blended and online learning while
maintaining engagement and measurable learning outcomes [3], [21].
Internationally, countries such as Indonesia, the United States, and Germany have contributed significantly to
CA research, with applications spanning both secondary and higher education [9], [15]. Studies have also
expanded across diverse science domains including biology, chemistry, and environmental science
emphasizing collaborative learning, critical thinking, and formative assessment as integral components of
aligned instruction [6], [12]. These developments suggest that CA is not only a theoretical framework but also
a practical tool for improving instructional coherence and equity in science education.
Despite these advances, several gaps remain. Existing literature has yet to fully examine how CA impacts
specific outcomes such as scientific argumentation, critical reasoning, and self-directed learning across varied
contexts [4],[18]. Moreover, research often lacks validated instruments, comprehensive demographic analyses,
and cross-regional perspectives, particularly in Southeast Asia. Given these limitations, analysis provides a
systematic means of mapping the evolution of CA scholarship, identifying influential publications, leading
authors, and emerging research themes from 2000 to 2025. Accordingly, this study employs bibliometric and
network analysis techniques using tools such as Bibliometrix®, VOSviewer, and OpenRefine to analyze
Scopus-indexed publications.
The objective is to to synthesize empirical evidence on how constructive alignment functions as a pedagogical
framework that enhances student motivation and higher-order thinking in science classrooms.
METHODOLOGY
This analysis was conducted by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-
Analyses (PRISMA). The review focused on publications addressing constructive alignment (CA) in science
education between 2000 and 2025. This analysis was selected as the methodological approach because it
allows for the systematic identification, selection, and evaluation of research outputs, thereby providing a
transparent and replicable overview of the intellectual structure of the field.
Database Selection
The Scopus database was used as the primary data source for this study, as it is widely recognized for its
comprehensive coverage of international, peer-reviewed academic publications [7]. A targeted search strategy
was applied using the following string: (TITLE-ABS-KEY("constructivism" OR "constructivist teaching" OR
"student-centered learning" OR "constructive alignment" OR "curriculum alignment") AND TITLE-ABS-
KEY("higher order thinking" OR "HOTS" OR "thinking skills" OR "critical thinking" OR "cognitive skills"
OR "reasoning skills" OR "students thinking skill") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY("science education" OR "science"
OR "STEM education" OR "school science" OR "secondary education" OR "biology education")) AND
PUBYEAR > 1999 AND PUBYEAR < 2026. This strategy ensured the inclusion of studies that explicitly
linked constructive alignment with higher-order thinking skills, science education, or related domains.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The research selection process was iterative and multi-staged. Initially, 176 documents were retrieved. the
following inclusion and exclusion criteria were established to select studies relevant to answering the research
questions. After applying these criteria, 20 documents remained for final analysis (see Table 1).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue IIIS October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8080
www.rsisinternational.org
Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
Peer-reviewed full-text research papers indexed in Scopus.
Non-empirical papers such as editorials, reviews,
and conference abstracts.
Published between 2000 and 2025.
Publications outside the specified time range.
Focused on constructive alignment, curriculum alignment,
or student-centred learning in science or biology education.
Studies focusing exclusively on primary
education or unrelated educational fields.
Written in English.
Written in other language
Empirical studies
Literature review, meta – analysis paper
Data Cleaning and Quality Assurance
To ensure the reliability and validity of the selected studies, a systematic quality assessment procedure was
employed. Each article was evaluated against ten predefined quality criteria (Table 2), adapted from [22].
These criteria assessed whether the study was relevant to constructive alignment, had clearly defined
objectives and research questions, described instruments and samples appropriately, reported results and
conclusions consistently, acknowledged limitations, and provided implications and directions for future
research.
Table 2 Quality assessment criteria
Questions of quality assessment criteria
1. Is the research topic related to constructive alignment in science/biology education?
2. Are the research objectives clearly defined?
3. Are the research questions or hypotheses specified?
4. Is the instrument or framework clearly described and based on the study design?
5. Is the study sample (e.g., teachers, students, institutions) clearly described?
6. Are the research results adequately addressed in the study?
7. Are the conclusions clearly presented and consistent with the results?
8. Do the authors discuss the limitations of the study?
9. Are practical or theoretical implications for constructive alignment provided (e.g., for
pedagogy, curriculum, or assessment)?
10. Are future research directions in constructive alignment suggested?
Source: Zhao, Llorente, Gomez (2021)
Articles were scored using a three-point scale: Yes (1 point), Partially (0.5 points), and No (0 points). Each
study was independently reviewed by three assessors, and the final score was averaged. Following quality
review standards, only articles scoring 7.5 or higher out of 10 were included in the final dataset. The initial
search identified 176 records from Scopus. After removing 45 articles that were unrelated to the field (e.g.,
outside social sciences), 131 records proceeded to screening. Of these, 45 records were excluded due to
irrelevance (40 through automation tools and 5 through manual checks of titles and abstracts). The remaining
86 articles were retrieved for full-text assessment, but 63 were excluded due to language (non-English),
publication status (not yet finalized), or lack of relevance to constructive alignment. A total of 23 articles were
assessed for eligibility, of which 20 met the quality threshold and were included in the final analysis.This
process is illustrated in Figure 1 (PRISMA flow diagram). The final dataset of 20 articles forms the basis of
this bibliometric analysis, providing a robust foundation for mapping research trends and thematic
developments in constructive alignment within science education.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue IIIS October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8081
www.rsisinternational.org
Figure 1. PRISMA flow of data extraction procedure
RESULTS
Research Themes on Constructive Alignment in Science Education
In the 20 selected articles, a clear trend emerges toward increasing depth and diversification of research themes
on constructive alignment (CA) in science education. Based on thematic mapping and keyword co-occurrence
analysis, the articles can be categorised into four primary themes: curriculum alignment, assessment practices,
pedagogical strategies, and learner outcomes (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Different Research Themes on Constructive Alignment in Science Education
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue IIIS October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8082
www.rsisinternational.org
Articles focusing on curriculum alignment represent the largest segment, accounting for 30% of the dataset.
These studies highlight the importance of aligning intended learning outcomes with teaching strategies and
assessment to enhance higher order thnking skills in science education. The second major cluster is
assessment practices, comprising 25% of the studies. These articles examine authentic, performance-based,
and formative assessments that reinforce higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) and provide reliable measures of
student learning. The third theme, pedagogical strategies, accounts for 25% of the reviewed studies. This
cluster includes inquiry-based learning, project-based tasks, and collaborative learning approaches that
operationalise CA principles in classroom practice. Finally, learner outcomes constitute 20% of the studies,
with a strong emphasis on higher-order thinking skills, scientific literacy, and student motivation.
The analysis of 20 selected articles revealed four major research themes on constructive alignment (CA) in
science and Biology education: evaluating CA, relationship studies, comparative studies, and improving CA,
with several studies addressing other specialised issues (Figure 2; Table 3). These themes highlight how CA
has been applied, evaluated, and adapted across diverse educational contexts, reflecting both its theoretical
grounding and practical implementation to increase higher order thinking skills and motivation among
students.
Table 3 Different themes about constructive alignment
Theme
References
Pedagogical Approaches
and Teaching Methods
Costabile et al. (2025); Bockholt et al. (2003);
Ramaraj & Nagammal (2019)
Morris (2025); Khurma & El Zein (2024)
Sajidan et al. (2024); Cousins et al. (2012)
Costabile et al. (2025)
Sajidan et al. (2024)
Critical Thinking and
Higher-Order Skills
Khurma & El Zein (2024); López-Fernández et al.
(2022); McBain et al. (2020); Lundstedt &
Sinander (2020)
López-Fernández et al. (2022); McBain et al.
(2020)
Blatti et al. (2019)
Technology Integration in
STEM Education
Lampropoulos et al. (2023)
Bockholt et al. (2003)
Lampropoulos et al. (2023)
Assessment and
Evaluation
Lipuma et al. (2024)
Rembach & Dison (2016)
Cousins et al. (2012)
Inclusive and Diverse
Learning
Kim & Kim (2024); Palmer & Sarju (2022)
Palmer & Sarju (2022); Rembach & Dison (2016)
Kim & Kim (2024)
Real-World Application
and Experiential Learning
Acut (2024)
Palmer & Sarju (2022); Blatti et al. (2019)
Acut (2024)
Teacher Professional
Development
Ambusaidi et al. (2021)
Ambusaidi et al. (2021)
Sajidan et al. (2024)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue IIIS October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8083
www.rsisinternational.org
Communication and
Presentation Skills
Lipuma et al. (2024)
Blatti et al. (2019)
Curriculum Design and
Structure
Othman et al. (2022); Bockholt et al. (2003)
Costabile et al. (2025); Schmidt et al. (2015)
Ambusaidi et al. (2021)
Subject-Specific
Approaches
López-Fernández et al. (2022); Palmer & Sarju
(2022)
Ambusaidi et al. (2021); Bockholt et al. (2003);
Cousins et al. (2012)
Lampropoulos et al. (2023)
Ramaraj & Nagammal (2019)
The evaluation of CA emerged as one of the most prevalent themes, represented by seven articles. These
studies assessed CA across various pedagogical approaches, including constructivist learning [2], [4],[17],
inquiry-based learning [4], [14], and active learning strategies such as collaboration, simulation, and project
work [6],[19]. Collectively, these evaluations confirmed the effectiveness of CA in enhancing curriculum
coherence, fostering deep learning, and strengthening assessment validity. Importantly, more recent studies
have shifted from conceptual discussion to empirical evaluation, demonstrating a growing interest in
measuring CA’s impact in authentic classroom contexts.
DISCUSSION
This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of the evolution of Constructive Alignment (CA)
research in science education over the past 25 years. The findings reveal a progression from foundational
theoretical work to sophisticated, technology-integrated applications, illustrating how CA has matured into
both a pedagogical framework and an institutional strategy. The discussion highlights shifts in research themes,
instrument sophistication, and strategies for enhancing CA implementation.
The Onion Framework of Constructive Alignment
Building on prior uses of layered competence models in digital education [20], this review adapts the onion
framework to constructive alignment in STEM education (Figure 4). The framework illustrates how CA has
evolved from a narrow focus on core competences learning outcomes and curriculum objectives toward
extended competences involving pedagogy and assessment practices, and ultimately into special competences
encompassing teacher beliefs, professional development, and institutional policies. This layered representation
highlights the progression of CA research from classroom level enactments to systemic educational
integration, underscoring its potential as both a pedagogical and institutional strategy.
Figure 4. Onion framework of constructive alignment
(Source: Adapted from Saunders et al., 2019)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue IIIS October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8084
www.rsisinternational.org
The framework conceptualizes CA across three interconnected layers. Core competences represent the
foundation of CA, focusing on curriculum objectives and intended learning outcomes (n=20; n=18). Extended
competences capture the pedagogical and assessment practices (n=15; n=14) that operationalize alignment in
classroom instruction. Special competences represent broader systemic and contextual dimensions, including
teacher beliefs, professional development (n=9), and institutional policies with program-level integration
(n=7). This layered structure illustrates the progression of CA research from narrow classroom applications to
holistic educational systems, highlighting its role in fostering coherence across teaching, learning, and
institutional practice.
The review underscores that constructive alignment (CA) has evolved beyond Biggs’ original conception into a
comprehensive pedagogical framework that systematically enhances motivation and higher-order thinking in
science classrooms. The adapted onion model of CA illustrates how core competencies such as learning
outcomes and curriculum objectives are connected with extended competencies, including assessment design
and pedagogical strategies, and further supported by special competencies related to teacher professional
development and institutional coherence. This multilayered reconceptualization positions CA not merely as a
classroom-level instructional design model but as a systemic driver of educational alignment that bridges
curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment across contexts. Moreover, by integrating constructivist learning theory,
socio-scientific inquiry, and technology-enhanced pedagogy, CA demonstrates its versatility in fostering
student engagement, critical reasoning, and motivation in dynamic science learning environments.
Strategies for Improving Constructive Alignment
The review identifies several effective strategies for strengthening CA implementation. Technology-mediated
approaches align digital platforms and immersive tools with learning outcomes and assessment criteria [2], [9].
Collaborative learning frameworks such as the Think-Pair-Project-Share model emphasize structured peer
learning and reflection, reinforcing the alignment of outcomes, pedagogy, and assessment [19]. Authentic
assessment approaches, including field immersion and socio-scientific issues enhance transfer and relevance
by embedding CA principles in real world contexts [1], [16].
The onion framework underscores that CA should not be limited to classroom-level practices but extended to
institutional and systemic integration. Theoretically, it positions CA as both a pedagogical design principle and
a systemic alignment logic for curriculum policy. In practice, it highlights the importance of continuous faculty
development, coherent program level design, and context-sensitive adaptation. For policy, the framework
signals that systemic coherence in CA including curriculum standards, assessment consistency, and
institutional support is critical to achieving lasting impact on science education outcomes. This holistic view
provides a roadmap for future research and practice, emphasizing the need for longitudinal, cross-cultural, and
technology-integrated studies to advance CA’s impact.
The implications of these findings are significant. First, CA has proven effective in enhancing higher-order
thinking, motivation, and authentic skill development across science education, but its success depends on
institutional support, teacher readiness, and context-specific adaptation. Faculty development, resource
allocation, and systemic integration remain crucial levers for sustainable implementation [2], [20]. Finally,
future research should prioritize longitudinal studies, cross-cultural validation, and the development of
standardized CA instruments. Such directions will ensure that CA continues to evolve as a robust framework
for 21st-century education, capable of bridging theory and practice while preparing learners for increasingly
complex and technology-rich environments.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review has provided a comprehensive analysis of 25 years of research on Constructive
Alignment (CA) in science education, tracing its trajectory from early conceptual validation to technology
enhanced, system-wide applications. The findings reveal how CA has evolved into a mature pedagogical
framework that not only integrates outcomes, pedagogy, and assessment but also extends into teacher beliefs,
institutional policies, and program-level coherence. By synthesizing evidence from 20 key studies, this review
underscores the significance of CA in promoting higher-order thinking skills, motivation, and authentic
learning experiences.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue IIIS October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8085
www.rsisinternational.org
While this review provides a broad overview, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study was
restricted to 20 selected articles, which may not capture all global perspectives on CA, particularly from
underrepresented regions. Second, although the review emphasizes science education, much of the evidence is
still concentrated in higher education, with relatively fewer studies in secondary school contexts where CA
implementation faces unique challenges. Third, many of the instruments reviewed remain researcher-
developed and context-specific, which limits their transferability across settings and weakens cross-study
comparisons. Finally, the review does not fully explore the intersection of CA with non-STEM disciplines,
which could offer valuable insights into its broader applicability.
Future research should address these gaps by pursuing three key directions. First, there is a need for
longitudinal and cross-cultural studies that examine the sustained impact of CA across diverse contexts,
including secondary and vocational education. Such studies could clarify how systemic alignment influences
long-term learning outcomes and career readiness. Second, researchers should prioritize the development and
validation of standardized CA instruments that capture multi-dimensional outcomes, enabling comparability
across studies and contexts. Third, more work is required on strategies to enhance CA implementation,
particularly in technology-rich and resource-constrained environments. This includes investigating the
integration of CA with emerging technologies (e.g., AI, AR/VR, gamification), professional development
frameworks for teachers, and policy-level initiatives that promote systemic coherence. By advancing research
in these areas, scholars and practitioners can ensure that CA continues to evolve as a robust, scalable
framework for transforming science education and preparing learners for the demands of the 21st century.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Malaysia and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. The
authors would like to thank the reviewers for all the useful and helpful comments to improve the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Acut, D. P. (2024). From classroom learning to real-world skills: An autoethnographic account of
school field trips and STEM work immersion program management. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary
Science Education Research, 6(1), Article 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-024-00111-x
2. Abusaidi, I., Badiali, B., & Alkharousi, K. (2021). Examining how biology teachers’ pedagogical
beliefs shape the implementation of the Omani reform-oriented curriculum. Athens Journal of
Education, 8(1), 73–114. https://doi.org/10.30958/aje.8-1-5
3. Blatti, J. L., Garcia, J., Cave, D., Monge, F., Cuccinello, A., Portillo, J., Juarez, B., Chan, E., &
Schwebel, F. (2019). Systems thinking in science education and outreach toward a sustainable future.
Journal of Chemical Education, 96(12), 2852–2862. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00318
4. Bockholt, S. M., West, J. P., & Bollenbacher, W. E. (2003). Cancer cell biology: A student-centered
instructional module exploring the use of multimedia to enrich interactive, constructivist learning of
science. Cell Biology Education, 2(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.02-08-0033
5. Costabile, M., Birbeck, D., & Aitchison, C. (2025). Using simulations to meld didactic and
constructivist teaching methods in complex second year STEM courses. International Journal of
Science Education, 47(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2024.2314010
6. Cousins, N. J., Barker, M., Dennis, C., Dalrymple, S., & McPherson, L. R. (2012). Tutorials for
enhancing skills development in first year students taking biological sciences. Bioscience Education,
20, 68–83. https://doi.org/10.11120/beej.2012.20000068
7. Khurma, O. A., & El Zein, F. (2024). Inquiry skills teaching and its relationship with UAE secondary
school students’ critical thinking: Systematic review of science teachers’ perspectives. Eurasia Journal
of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(2), Article em2397.
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14155
8. Kim, S. L., & Kim, D. (2024). Empowering diverse learners: Integrating writing-to-learn strategies in a
middle school science classroom in the U.S. Education Sciences, 14(9), Article 1031.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091031
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue IIIS October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8086
www.rsisinternational.org
9. Lampropoulos, G., Keramopoulos, E., Diamantaras, K., & Evangelidis, G. (2023). Integrating
augmented reality, gamification, and serious games in computer science education. Education Sciences,
13(6), Article 618. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13060618
10. Lipuma, J., León, C., & Rosendo, J. E. M. (2024). Constructively aligned instructional design for oral
presentations [Diseño instruccional alineado constructivamente para presentaciones orales]. Revista De
Gestao Social E Ambiental, 18(8), Article 5692. https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v18n8-012
11. López-Fernández, M. D. M., González-García, F., & Franco-Mariscal, A. J. (2022). How can socio-
scientific issues help develop critical thinking in chemistry education? A reflection on the problem of
plastics. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(10), 3435–3442.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00223
12. Lundstedt, L., & Sinander, E. (2020). Enhancing critical thinking in private international law. Law
Teacher, 54(3), 400–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2019.1708035.
13. McBain, B., Yardy, A., Martin, F., Phelan, L., van Altena, I., McKeowen, J., Pemberton, C., Tose, H.,
Fratus, L., & Bowyer, M. (2020). Teaching science students how to think. International Journal of
Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 28(2), 28–35.
https://doi.org/10.30722/IJISME.28.02.003.
14. Morris, D. L. (2025). Rethinking science education practices: Shifting from investigation-centric to
comprehensive inquiry-based instruction. Education Sciences, 15(1), Article 73.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010073
15. 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.
https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.11.4.2127
16. Palmer, A. L., & Sarju, J. P. (2022). Inclusive outreach activity targeting negative alternate conceptions
of chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(5), 1827–1837.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00400
17. Ramaraj, A., & Nagammal, J. (2019). Validating a direction adopted in a basic design studio based on
the principles of constructivism. A Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 16(2), 105–123.
https://doi.org/10.5505/itujfa.2019.43760
18. Rembach, L., & Dison, L. (2016). Transforming taxonomies into rubrics: Using SOLO in social
science and inclusive education. Perspectives in Education, 34(1), 68–83.
https://doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v34i1.6
19. Sajidan, Atmojo, I. R. W., Ardiansyah, R., Saputri, D. Y., Roslan, R. M., & Halim, L. (2024). The
effectiveness of the Think-Pair-Project-Share (TP2S) model in facilitating self-directedness of
prospective science teachers. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 13(2), 325–338.
https://doi.org/10.15294/egpb7z87
20. Saunders, M. N. K, Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students (8
th
ed.).
Pearson.
21. Schmidt, H. G., Wagener, S. L., Smeets, G. A. C. M., Keemink, L. M., & Van Der Molen, H. T. (2015).
On the use and misuse of lectures in higher education. Health Professions Education, 1(1), 12–18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2015.11.010
22. Zhao, Y., Llorente, A. M. P., & Gómez, M. C. S. (2021). Digital competence in higher education
research: A systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 168, Article 104212.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104212