Strategies and Effective Learning in Genetics and Genomics Courses for Undergraduate Students: A Systematic Literature Review

Genetics and genomics courses often contain complex and abstract content that can be challenging for students to comprehend. To address this, educators must employ engaging and effective learning strategies. This paper systematically reviews the literature on trends and strategies for enhancing learning in undergraduate genetics and genomics courses. The review follows a systematic literature review (SLR) methodology using the PRISMA flow for identification, evaluation, and interpretation of studies. The search was limited to articles published between 2008 and 2025, using the keywords " learning in genetics and genomics." From 3562 articles initially identified, 28 were selected for in-depth review. The study found that Problem-Based Learning (PBL) was the most prominent approach, appearing in various forms such as PBL-RQA, PBL-Online Discussion, PBL with Scientific Argumentation, and PBL-STEM. Other strategies included STEM learning, the learning cycle, inquiry learning, case-based learning, and several hybrid models. PBL is particularly prevalent due to its ability to enhance student knowledge, creativity, and problem-solving skills by encouraging exploration of real-world issues, critical reading, and questioning. Furthermore, PBL promotes collaboration, self-directed learning, and the development of communication skills competencies highly relevant in the 21st-century academic and professional landscape. These findings suggest that integrating PBL and other active learning models into genetics education can significantly improve student outcomes and engagement.

Genetics Education, Active Learning Strategies, Undergraduate, Systematic Literature Review

1. W. S. Klug, M. R. Cummings, C. A. Spencer, and M. A. Palladino, Concepts of Genetics (10th Ed.). California: Pearson, 2012. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. S. Safrida et al., PENGANTAR BIOLOGI: Teori Komprehensif. PT. Sonpedia Publishing Indonesia, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. H. Adrianto, Buku Ajar Biologi Sel dan Molekuler. Deepublish, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. J. Gayon, “De Mendel à l’épigénétique : histoire de la génétique,” Comptes Rendus - Biol., vol. 339, no. 7–8, pp. 225–230, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.crvi.2016.05.009. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. J. Zschocke, P. H. Byers, and A. O. M. Wilkie, “Mendelian inheritance revisited: dominance and recessiveness in medical genetics,” Nat. Rev. Genet., vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 442–463, 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41576-023-00574-0. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. S. N. Sato et al., “Navigating the new normal: Adapting online and distance learning in the post-pandemic era,” Educ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 1, p. Article 19, 2024, doi: 10.3390/educsci14010019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Y. R. Langoday, Nurrahma, and S. Rijal, “Policy reflection: Kurikulum merdeka as educational innovation in the era of society 5.0,” Edunesia J. Ilm. Pendidik., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 957–978, 2024, doi: 10.51276/edu.v5i2.915. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. M. E. Auld et al., “Health literacy and health education in schools: Collaboration for action,” NAM Perspect., 2020, doi: 10.31478/202007b. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. L. Darling-Hammond, L. Flook, C. Cook-Harvey, B. Barron, and D. Osher, “Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development,” Appl. Dev. Sci., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 97–140, 2020, doi: 10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. M. Aria and C. Cuccurullo, “Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis,” J. Informetr., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 959–975, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. N. J. van Eck and L. Waltman, “Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping,” Scientometrics, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 523–538, 2010, doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. N. Suprapto, B. K. Prahani, and U. A. Deta, “Research trend on ethnoscience through bibliometric analysis (2011-2020) and the contribution of Indonesia,” 2021. doi: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5599. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. L. M. Greenstein, Assessing 21st century skills: A guide to evaluating mastery and authentic learning. Corwin Press, 2012. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. D. J. Treffinger, G. C. Young, E. C. Selby, and C. Shepardson, “Assessing Creativity: A Guide for Educators,” National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, 2002. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. H. E. Chrispeels et al., “Undergraduates achieve learning gains in plant genetics through peer teaching of secondary students,” CBE—Life Sci. Educ., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 641–652, 2014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. E. D. Pratiwi, M. Masykuri, and M. Ramli, “Active Learning Strategy on Higher Education Biology Learning: A Systematic Review,” Tadris J. Kegur. Dan Ilmu Tarb., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 75–86, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. A. R. Mohammed, R. R. Habeeb, and N. A. H. Al-Muhja, “Genetic Literacy for Students in Faculties of Education in Universities,” J. Varidika, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 10–22, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. “Rais, M. A., Amin, M., & Lukiati, B. (2021). Teaching Genetics Through Differentiated Science Inquiry Based On Research Results Of Gene Variation Analysis To Increase Cognitive Learning Outcomes Undergraduate Biology Student. BIOEDUKASI, 19(1), 9–14.”. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. D. Murni, M. Amin, U. Lestari, S. R. Lestari, and S. E. Indriwati, “Students’ Responses and Expectations about the Opportunity of Virtual Laboratory Using in Genetics Courses.” [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. C. C. Alexander et al., “A case study to engage students in the research design and ethics of high-throughput metagenomics,” J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. e00074-23, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Y. Maryuningsih, T. Hidayat, R. Riandi, and N. Y. Rustaman, “Application of genetic problem base online discussion to improve genetic literacy of prospective teachers,” JPBI (Jurnal Pendidik. Biol. Indones., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 65–76, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. N. R. Forte et al., “Engaging students in a genetics course-based undergraduate research experience utilizing Caenorhabditis elegans in hybrid learning to explore human disease gene variants,” J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. e00078-23, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. M. Murray-Nseula, “Incorporating case studies into an undergraduate genetics course,” J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn., pp. 75–85, 2011. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. T. Choden and S. Kijkuakul, “Blending Problem Based Learning with Scientific Argumentation to Enhance Students’ Understanding of Basic Genetics,” Int. J. Instr., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 445–462, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. S. P. A. Rahim, N. Nordin, and M. A. Samsudin, “Integrated STEM problem-based learning approach: A study on Malaysian undergraduates’ achievement in learning genetics concepts,” Int. J. Educ. Psychol. Couns., vol. 7, no. 48, pp. 27–39, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. “Gurat, M., & Santiago, C. (2023). The Effect of Pomodoro Technique on Student Mendelian Genetics Concept Mastery during Synchronous Remote Learning.”. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. J. L. Hsu, H. S. Atamian, and K. Avendano-Woodruff, “Promoting student interest in plant biology through an inquiry-based module exploring plant circadian rhythm, gene expression, and defense against insects,” J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. e00166-23, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. P. Dogru-Atay and C. Tekkaya, “Promoting students’ learning in genetics with the learning cycle,” J. Exp. Educ., vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 259–280, 2008. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. D. L. Carlson and P. A. Marshall, “Learning the science of research, learning the art of teaching: Planning backwards in a college genetics course,” Biosci. Educ., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2009. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. E. Guevara et al., “Getting it right: Teaching undergraduate biology to undermine racial essentialism,” Biol. Methods Protoc., vol. 8, no. 1, p. bpad032, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. M. A. Smania, A. Annis, D. Pathak, E. Wasilevich, and K. Poindexter, “Faculty education to improve integration of genomics education in nursing curriculum,” J. Prof. Nurs., vol. 43, p. 74, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. E. Angraini, S. Zubaidah, H. Susanto, and N. Omar, “Enhancing creativity in genetics using three teaching strategies-based TPACK model,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 18, no. 12, p. em2196, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. A. Deep, S. Murthy, and J. Bhat, “Geneticus Investigatio: a technology-enhanced learning environment for scaffolding complex learning in genetics,” Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanc. Learn., vol. 15, pp. 1–23, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Y. Li, “Stimulate Students’ Interest by Genetics Exordium Teaching,” Int. Educ. Stud., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 99–102, 2009. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. A. Nisselle et al., “Investigating genomic medicine practice and perceptions amongst Australian non-genetics physicians to inform education and implementation,” NPJ Genomic Med., vol. 8, no. 1, p. 13, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. D. Lombardi and T. F. Shipley, “The curious construct of active learning,” Psychol. Sci. Public Interes., vol. 22, no. 1, p. 8, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. S. Rahim, M. Samsudin, M. E. Ismail, M. Amiruddin, and C. Abdul Talib, “Undergraduates’ Interest Towards Learning Genetics Concepts Through Integrated Stemproblem Based Learning Approach,” J. Univ. Shanghai Sci. Technol., vol. 22, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. D. Llewellyn, Differentiated science inquiry. Corwin Press, 2010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. S. Zubaidah, N. M. Fuad, S. Mahanal, and E. Suarsini, “Improving creative thinking skills of students through differentiated science inquiry integrated with mind map,” J. Turkish Sci. Educ., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 77–91, 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. G. Bangera and S. E. Brownell, “Course-based undergraduate research experiences can make scientific research more inclusive,” CBE—Life Sci. Educ., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 602–606, 2014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Y. Zhu, C. Wang, D. I. Hanauer, and M. J. Graham, “Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) and student interest development: a longitudinal study investigating the roles of challenge, frustration, and meaning making,” Stud. High. Educ., pp. 1–16, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Problem-Based Learning Strategy: Effect on Achievement of Genetics among Biology Students in Colleges of Education Oyo, Oyo State
• Gut Content Analysis of Siganus canaliculatus (Danggit)
• Predicting Human Neurotherapeutic Response through Preclinical Imaging Intelligence
• Can Algicidal Bacteria be the Solution to Successfully Manage Freshwater Algal Blooms?
• Boosting Carbon Capture: Progress in Enhancing RuBisCO’s Carboxylase Activity