Exploring Misconceptions in Biology Learning: A Systematic Literature Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt20251743Keywords:
Biology Misconceptions, Misconception Exploration, Biology InterventionAbstract
Introduction: Misconceptions in biology education hinder students' understanding and application of scientific concepts. This study systematically reviews existing literature to examine the nature of misconceptions in biology, their types, and their impact on learning.
Method: A systematic literature review was conducted using the Scopus database. From an initial pool of 5,823 articles, 30 original studies were selected according to PRISMA inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Results: The review uncovered multiple definitions of "misconception" in biology, all emphasizing incomplete or incorrect conceptual frameworks. Misconceptions ranged across genetics, ecology, and physiology, among other domains. Evidence shows these misconceptions create confusion, impede deep conceptual understanding, and lead to persistent errors when students attempt to apply biological knowledge in novel contexts.
Conclusion: A comprehensive understanding of biology-related misconceptions is essential for designing targeted instructional strategies. By identifying and addressing these misconceptions, educators can foster clearer conceptual frameworks, enhance critical thinking, and promote deeper, more sustainable learning in biology. The findings underscore the importance of integrating corrective feedback and active-learning approaches to reduce conceptual errors and improve overall student outcomes in biology education.
References
1. Ferguson DG, Abele J, Palmer S, Willis J, McDonald C, Messer C, et al. Popular media and the bombardment of evolution misconceptions. Evol Educ Outreach. 2022 Dec;15(1):19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-022-00179-x
2. Fuchs TT, Bonney KM, Arsenault M. Leveraging Student Misconceptions to Improve Teaching of Biochemistry & Cell Biology. Am Biol Teach. 2021 Jan 1;83(1):5–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2021.83.1.5
3. Pickett SB, Nielson C, Marshall H, Tanner KD, Coley JD. Effects of Reading Interventions on Student Understanding of and Misconceptions about Antibiotic Resistance. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2022 Apr 29;23(1):e00220-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00220-21
4. Stern F, Kampourakis K, Huneault C, Silveira P, Müller A. Undergraduate Biology Students’ Teleological and Essentialist Misconceptions. Educ Sci. 2018 Aug 31;8(3):135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030135
5. Maskour L, Alami A, Zaki M, Agorram B. Plant Classification Knowledge and Misconceptions among University Students in Morocco. Educ Sci. 2019 Mar 3;9(1):48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9010048
6. Andari̇Ana A, Zubai̇Dah S, Mahanal S, Suarsini E. Identification of biology students’ misconceptions in human anatomy and physiology course through three-tier diagnostic test. J Educ Gift Young Sci. 2020 Sep 15;8(3):1071–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.752438
7. Buntine MA, Burke Da Silva K, Kable S, Lim K, Pyke S, Read J, et al. Perceptions and Misconceptions about the Undergraduate Laboratory from Chemistry, Physics and Biology Academics. Int J Innov Sci Math Educ [Internet]. 2020 Dec 31 [cited 2025 May 17];28(4). Available from: https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/CAL/article/view/14398 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30722/IJISME.28.04.001
8. Kantahan S, Junpeng P, Punturat S, Tang KN, Gochyyev P, Wilson M. Designing and verifying a tool for diagnosing scientific misconceptions in genetics topic. Int J Eval Res Educ IJERE. 2020 Sep 1;9(3):564. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i3.20544
9. Queloz AC, Klymkowsky MW, Stern E, Hafen E, Köhler K. Diagnostic of students’ misconceptions using the Biological Concepts Instrument (BCI): A method for conducting an educational needs assessment. Hermes-Lima M, editor. PLOS ONE. 2017 May 11;12(5):e0176906. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176906
10. Kumandaş B, Ateskan A, Lane J. Misconceptions in biology: a meta-synthesis study of research, 2000–2014. J Biol Educ. 2019 Aug 8;53(4):350–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1490798
11. Vosniadou S. Students’ Misconceptions and Science Education. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education [Internet]. Oxford University Press; 2020 [cited 2024 Jul 22]. Available from: https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-965 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.965
12. Coley JD, Tanner K. Relations between Intuitive Biological Thinking and Biological Misconceptions in Biology Majors and Nonmajors. Sevian H, editor. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2015 Mar 2;14(1):ar8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-06-0094
13. Parthasarathy J. Content analysis of Biology textbooks across selected educational boards of Asia for misconceptions and elements of conceptual change towards learning ‘Cell Structure.’ Cogent Educ [Internet]. 2023 Dec 11 [cited 2025 May 17];10(2). Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2283640 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2283640
14. Yates TB, Marek EA. A Study Identifying Biological Evolution-Related Misconceptions Held by Prebiology High School Students. Creat Educ. 2015;06(08):811–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.68085
15. Qian Y, Lehman J. Students’ Misconceptions and Other Difficulties in Introductory Programming: A Literature Review. ACM Trans Comput Educ. 2018 Mar 31;18(1):1–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3077618
16. Leonard MJ, Kalinowski ST, Andrews TC. Misconceptions Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Wenderoth MP, editor. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2014 Jun;13(2):179–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-12-0244
17. Soeharto S, Csapó B, Sarimanah E, Dewi FI, Sabri T. A Review of Students’ Common Misconceptions in Science and Their Diagnostic Assessment Tools. J Pendidik IPA Indones [Internet]. 2019 Jun 30 [cited 2025 May 17];8(2). Available from: https://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/jpii/article/view/18649 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v8i2.18649
18. Gurel DK, Eryilmaz A, McDermott LC. A Review and Comparison of Diagnostic Instruments to Identify Students’ Misconceptions in Science. EURASIA J Math Sci Technol Educ [Internet]. 2015 Oct 29 [cited 2024 Nov 21];11(5). Available from: https://www.ejmste.com/article/a-review-and-comparison-of-diagnostic-instruments-to-identify-students-misconceptions-in-science-4429 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a
19. Quillin K, Thomas S. Drawing-to-Learn: A Framework for Using Drawings to Promote Model-Based Reasoning in Biology. Ledbetter ML, editor. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2015 Mar 2;14(1):es2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0128
20. Zoppè M. Towards a perceptive understanding of size in cellular biology. Nat Methods. 2017 Jul;14(7):662–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4300
21. Reyes FG, Dávila, Eric Guerra, Naranjo-Toro M, Basantes-Andrade A, Guevara-Betancourt S. Misconceptions in the Learning of Natural Sciences: A Systematic Review. Educ Sci. 2024 May 6;14(5):497. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14050497
22. Halim AS, Finkenstaedt-Quinn SA, Olsen LJ, Gere AR, Shultz GV. Identifying and Remediating Student Misconceptions in Introductory Biology via Writing-to-Learn Assignments and Peer Review. Pelaez N, editor. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2018 Jun;17(2):ar28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-10-0212
23. Machová M, Ehler E. Secondary school students’ misconceptions in genetics: origins and solutions. J Biol Educ. 2023 May 27;57(3):633–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2021.1933136
24. Suwono H, Prasetyo TI, Lestari U, Lukiati B, Fachrunnisa R, Kusairi S, et al. Cell Biology Diagnostic Test (CBD-Test) portrays pre-service teacher misconceptions about biology cell. J Biol Educ. 2021 Jan 1;55(1):82–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2019.1643765
25. Beggrow EP, Sbeglia GC. Do disciplinary contexts impact the learning of evolution? Assessing knowledge and misconceptions in anthropology and biology students. Evol Educ Outreach [Internet]. 2019 Dec [cited 2025 May 17];12(1). Available from: https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0094-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-018-0094-6
26. Retone LE, Prudente MS. Assessing Undergraduates’ Misconceptions On Central Dogma Of Molecular Biology Using A 3-Tier Diagnostic Test. J Sustain Sci Manag. 2023 Oct 31;18:150–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46754/jssm.2023.10.010
27. Azarian M, Yu H, Shiferaw AT, Stevik TK. Do We Perform Systematic Literature Review Right? A Scientific Mapping and Methodological Assessment. Logistics. 2023 Nov 27;7(4):89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics7040089
28. Xiao Y, Watson M. Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. J Plan Educ Res. 2019 Mar;39(1):93–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971
29. Smela B, Toumi M, Świerk K, Francois C, Biernikiewicz M, Clay E, et al. Rapid literature review: definition and methodology. J Mark Access Health Policy [Internet]. 2023 Dec 31 [cited 2025 May 17];11(1). Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=10.1080/20016689.2023.2241234 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2023.2241234
30. Sauer PC, Seuring S. How to conduct systematic literature reviews in management research: a guide in 6 steps and 14 decisions. Rev Manag Sci. 2023 Jul;17(5):1899–933. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00668-3
31. Sriganesh K, Shanthanna H, Busse J. A brief overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60(9):689. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5049.190628
32. Thelwall M, Sud P. Scopus 1900–2020: Growth in articles, abstracts, countries, fields, and journals. Quant Sci Stud. 2022 Apr 12;3(1):37–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00177
33. Hrynaszkiewicz I, Simons N, Hussain A, Grant R, Goudie S. Developing a Research Data Policy Framework for All Journals andPublishers. Data Sci J. 2020 Feb 21;19(1):5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-005
34. Shaheen N, Shaheen A, Ramadan A, Hefnawy MT, Ramadan A, Ibrahim IA, et al. Appraising systematic reviews: a comprehensive guide to ensuring validity and reliability. Front Res Metr Anal [Internet]. 2023 Dec 21 [cited 2025 May 17];8. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frma.2023.1268045/full DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2023.1268045
35. Chen C, Sonnert G, Sadler PM, Sunbury S. The Impact of High School Life Science Teachers’ Subject Matter Knowledge and Knowledge of Student Misconceptions on Students’ Learning. Smith JJ, editor. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2020 Mar;19(1):ar9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-08-0164
36. Chang B. Reflection in Learning. Online Learn [Internet]. 2019 Mar 1 [cited 2025 Mar 5];23(1). Available from: https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/1447 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1447
37. Sanders M, Makotsa D. The possible influence of curriculum statements and textbooks on misconceptions: The case of evolution. Educ Change [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2024 May 29];20(1). Available from: https://unisapressjournals.co.za/index.php/EAC/article/view/555 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17159/1947-9417/2015/555
38. Wisch JK, Farrell E, Siegel M, Freyermuth S. Misconceptions and persistence: resources for targeting student alternative conceptions in biotechnology. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2018 Nov;46(6):602–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21176
39. Gouvea JS, Simon MR. Challenging Cognitive Construals: A Dynamic Alternative to Stable Misconceptions. Sevian H, editor. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2018 Jun;17(2):ar34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-10-0214
40. Grospietsch F, Mayer J. Misconceptions about neuroscience – prevalence and persistence of neuromyths in education. Neuroforum. 2020 May 26;26(2):63–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/nf-2020-0006
41. Gauthier A, Jantzen S, McGill G, Jenkinson J. Molecular Concepts Adaptive Assessment (MCAA) Characterizes Undergraduate Misconceptions about Molecular Emergence. Coley J, editor. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2019 Mar;18(1):ar4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-12-0267
42. Lagoudakis N, Vlachos F, Christidou V, Vavougios D, Batsila M. The Role of Hemispheric Preference in Student Misconceptions in Biology. Eur J Educ Res. 2023 Apr 15;volume–12–2023(volume–12–issue–2–april–2023):739–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.12.2.739
43. Svoboda J. Processing misconceptions: dynamic systems perspectives on thinking and learning. Front Educ [Internet]. 2023 Aug 17 [cited 2025 May 17];8. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2023.1215361/full DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1215361
44. Lim HL, Poo YP, Sekolah Menengah Jenis Kebangsaan (SMJK) Phor Tay, 731, Jalan Sungai Dua, 11700 Georgetown, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia. A Diagnosis of Students’ Misconceptions of Photosynthesis and Plant Respiration. Asia Pac J Educ Educ. 2021 Aug 25;36(1):155–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21315/apjee2021.36.1.9
45. Jamaludin M, Mokhtar MF. Students Team Achievement Division. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci. 2018 Apr 11;8(2):Pages 570-577. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i2/3966
46. Ristanto RH, Suryanda A, Indraswari LA. The development of ecosystem misconception diagnostic test. Int J Eval Res Educ IJERE. 2023 Dec 1;12(4):2246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v12i4.25200
47. Chen B. Revisiting the Logical Empiricist Criticisms of Vitalism. Transversal Int J Hist Sci [Internet]. 2019 Dec 27 [cited 2024 May 29];(7). Available from: https://periodicos02-des.cecom.ufmg.br/atualizacao/index.php/transversal/article/view/34724 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24117/2526-2270.2019.i7.03
48. Sirakaya M, Cakmak EK. The Effect of Augmented Reality Use on Achievement, Misconception and Course Engagement. Contemp Educ Technol. 2018 Jul 16;9(3):297–314. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.444119
49. Henke A, Höttecke D. Physics Teachers’ Challenges in Using History and Philosophy of Science in Teaching. Sci Educ. 2015 May;24(4):349–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9737-3
50. Moon K, Blackman D. A Guide to Understanding Social Science Research for Natural Scientists. Conserv Biol. 2014 Oct;28(5):1167–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12326
51. Kirbulut ZD, Geban O. Using Three-Tier Diagnostic Test to Assess Students’ Misconceptions of States of Matter. EURASIA J Math Sci Technol Educ [Internet]. 2014 Dec 15 [cited 2024 Sep 30];10(5). Available from: https://www.ejmste.com/article/using-three-tier-diagnostic-test-to-assess-students-misconceptions-of-states-of-matter-4321 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1128a
52. Sinatra GM, Heddy BC, Lombardi D. The Challenges of Defining and Measuring Student Engagement in Science. Educ Psychol. 2015 Jan 2;50(1):1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924
53. Andrews P, Shiber J, Madden M, Nieman GF, Camporota L, Habashi NM. Myths and Misconceptions of Airway Pressure Release Ventilation: Getting Past the Noise and on to the Signal. Front Physiol. 2022 Jul 25;13:928562. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.928562
54. Travers JC. Evaluating Claims to Avoid Pseudoscientific and Unproven Practices in Special Education. Interv Sch Clin. 2017 Mar;52(4):195–203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216659466
55. Lederman JS, Lederman NG, Bartos SA, Bartels SL, Meyer AA, Schwartz RS. Meaningful assessment of learners’ understandings about scientific inquiry-The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire: VASI QUESTIONNAIRE. J Res Sci Teach. 2014 Jan;51(1):65–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21125
56. Osborne J. Teaching Scientific Practices: Meeting the Challenge of Change. J Sci Teach Educ. 2014 Apr 8;25(2):177–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
57. Marshall S, Moore D. Plurilingualism amid the panoply of lingualisms: addressing critiques and misconceptions in education. Int J Multiling. 2018 Jan 2;15(1):19–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2016.1253699
58. Wartono W, Hudha MN, Batlolona JR. How Are The Physics Critical Thinking Skills of The Students Taught by Using Inquiry-Discovery Through Empirical and Theorethical Overview? EURASIA J Math Sci Technol Educ [Internet]. 2017 Nov 20 [cited 2024 Aug 19];14(2). Available from: https://www.ejmste.com/article/how-are-the-physics-critical-thinking-skills-of-the-students-taught-by-using-inquiry-discovery-5295 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80632
59. Brownell SE, Kloser MJ. Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology. Stud High Educ. 2015 Mar 16;40(3):525–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234
60. Suryawati E, Osman K. Contextual Learning: Innovative Approach towards the Development of Students’ Scientific Attitude and Natural Science Performance. EURASIA J Math Sci Technol Educ [Internet]. 2017 Oct 27 [cited 2025 Feb 26];14(1). Available from: https://www.ejmste.com/article/contextual-learning-innovative-approach-towards-the-development-of-students-scientific-attitude-and-5242 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/79329
61. Van Ginkel JR, Linting M, Rippe RCA, Van Der Voort A. Rebutting Existing Misconceptions About Multiple Imputation as a Method for Handling Missing Data. J Pers Assess. 2020 May 3;102(3):297–308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1530680
62. Suprapto N. Physics education students’ understanding of the concept of epistemology, ontology, and axiology. J Phys Conf Ser. 2021 Feb 1;1747(1):012015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1747/1/012015
63. Dellantonio S, Pastore L. Ignorance, misconceptions and critical thinking. Synthese. 2021 Aug;198(8):7473–501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02529-7
64. Steve M, Potvin P, Riopel M, Foisy LB. Differences in Brain Activation Between Novices and Experts in Science During a Task Involving a Common Misconception in Electricity. Mind Brain Educ. 2014 Mar;8(1):44–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12043
65. Chan C, Ha A, Ng JYY. Improving fundamental movement skills in Hong Kong students through an assessment for learning intervention that emphasizes fun, mastery, and support: the A + FMS randomized controlled trial study protocol. SpringerPlus. 2016 Dec;5(1):724. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2517-6
66. Roach T. Student perceptions toward flipped learning: New methods to increase interaction and active learning in economics. Int Rev Econ Educ. 2014 Sep;17:74–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2014.08.003
67. Molotla NM, Thorsteinsdóttir H, Frixione E, Kuri-Harcuch W. Some factors limiting transfer of biotechnology research for health care at Cinvestav: A Mexican scientific center. Technol Soc. 2017 Feb;48:1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.10.004
68. Evagorou M, Erduran S, Mäntylä T. The role of visual representations in scientific practices: from conceptual understanding and knowledge generation to ‘seeing’ how science works. Int J STEM Educ. 2015 Dec;2(1):11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0024-x
69. Holgado AG, Peñalvo FJG. Validation of the learning ecosystem metamodel using transformation rules. Future Gener Comput Syst. 2019 Feb;91:300–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.09.011
70. Duda HJ, Wahyuni FRE, Setyawan AE. Student Misconception Analysis In The Biotechnology Concept Withcertainty Of Response Index. Int J Educ Humanit Soc Sci. 2020;3(1):110–21.
71. Artal FJC. Infectious diseases causing autonomic dysfunction. Clin Auton Res. 2018 Feb;28(1):67–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10286-017-0452-4
72. Limperos AM, Buckner MM, Kaufmann R, Frisby BN. Online teaching and technological affordances: An experimental investigation into the impact of modality and clarity on perceived and actual learning. Comput Educ. 2015 Apr;83:1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.015
73. Uden L, Sulaiman F, Ching GS, Rosales JJ. Integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics project-based learning for physics learning from neuroscience perspectives. Front Psychol. 2023 Jun 19;14:1136246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1136246
74. Kumar A, Pathak RK, Gupta SM, Gaur VS, Pandey D. Systems Biology for Smart Crops and Agricultural Innovation: Filling the Gaps between Genotype and Phenotype for Complex Traits Linked with Robust Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability. OMICS J Integr Biol. 2015 Oct;19(10):581–601. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2015.0106
75. Cooper LL, Shore FS. Students’ Misconceptions in Interpreting Center and Variability of Data Represented via Histograms and Stem-and-Leaf Plots. J Stat Educ. 2017 Aug;16(2):1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2008.11889559
76. Kalyanaraman B. Teaching the basics of cancer metabolism: Developing antitumor strategies by exploiting the differences between normal and cancer cell metabolism. Redox Biol. 2017 Aug;12:833–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redox.2017.04.018
77. Birsoy K, Wang T, Chen WW, Freinkman E, Abu-Remaileh M, Sabatini DM. An Essential Role of the Mitochondrial Electron Transport Chain in Cell Proliferation Is to Enable Aspartate Synthesis. Cell. 2015 Jul;162(3):540–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.07.016
78. Adbo K, Taber KS. Developing an Understanding of Chemistry: A case study of one Swedish student’s rich conceptualisation for making sense of upper secondary school chemistry. Int J Sci Educ. 2014 May 3;36(7):1107–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.844869
79. Abdulrahaman MD, Faruk N, Oloyede AA, Surajudeen-Bakinde NT, Olawoyin LA, Mejabi OV, et al. Multimedia tools in the teaching and learning processes: A systematic review. Heliyon. 2020 Nov;6(11):e05312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05312
80. Lee TY, Smith A, Seppi K, Elmqvist N, Boyd-Graber J, Findlater L. The human touch: How non-expert users perceive, interpret, and fix topic models. Int J Hum-Comput Stud. 2017 Sep;105:28–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.03.007
81. Sayıner AA, Ergönül E. E-learning in clinical microbiology and infectious diseases. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Nov;27(11):1589–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2021.05.010
82. Yates TB, Marek EA. Teachers teaching misconceptions: a study of factors contributing to high school biology students’ acquisition of biological evolution-related misconceptions. Evol Educ Outreach. 2014 Dec;7(1):7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-014-0007-2
83. Potvin P. Response of science learners to contradicting information: a review of research. Stud Sci Educ. 2023 Jan 2;59(1):67–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2021.2004006
84. Gondwe M, Longnecker N. Scientific and Cultural Knowledge in Intercultural Science Education: Student Perceptions of Common Ground. Res Sci Educ. 2015 Feb;45(1):117–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9416-z
85. Sinatra GM, Kienhues D, Hofer BK. Addressing Challenges to Public Understanding of Science: Epistemic Cognition, Motivated Reasoning, and Conceptual Change. Educ Psychol. 2014 Apr 3;49(2):123–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916216
86. Toma RB, Greca IM. The Effect of Integrative STEM Instruction on Elementary Students’ Attitudes toward Science. EURASIA J Math Sci Technol Educ [Internet]. 2018 Jan 21 [cited 2025 May 18];14(4). Available from: https://www.ejmste.com/article/the-effect-of-integrative-stem-instruction-on-elementary-students-attitudes-toward-science-5353 DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/83676
87. Schmidt JA, Kafkas SS, Maier KS, Shumow L, Kackar-Cam HZ. Why are we learning this? Using mixed methods to understand teachers’ relevance statements and how they shape middle school students’ perceptions of science utility. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2019 Apr;57:9–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.08.005
88. Scaglioni S, De Cosmi V, Ciappolino V, Parazzini F, Brambilla P, Agostoni C. Factors Influencing Children’s Eating Behaviours. Nutrients. 2018 May 31;10(6):706. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10060706
89. Bromme R, Goldman SR. The Public’s Bounded Understanding of Science. Educ Psychol. 2014 Apr 3;49(2):59–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.921572
90. Swanson LH, Bianchini JA, Lee JS. Engaging in argument and communicating information: A case study of english language learners and their science teacher in an urban high school: Engaging In Argumentation And Communication. J Res Sci Teach. 2014 Jan;51(1):31–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21124
91. Nandhini K, Balasundaram SR. Extracting easy to understand summary using differential evolution algorithm. Swarm Evol Comput. 2014 Jun;16:19–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2013.12.004
92. Qiu X, Jiang F (Kevin). Stance and engagement in 3MT presentations: How students communicate disciplinary knowledge to a wide audience. J Engl Acad Purp. 2021 May;51:100976. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100976
93. Britt MA, Richter T, Rouet JF. Scientific Literacy: The Role of Goal-Directed Reading and Evaluation in Understanding Scientific Information. Educ Psychol. 2014 Apr 3;49(2):104–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916217
94. Taskin V, Bernholt S. Students’ Understanding of Chemical Formulae: A review of empirical research. Int J Sci Educ. 2014 Jan 2;36(1):157–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.744492
95. Simis MJ, Madden H, Cacciatore MA, Yeo SK. The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Underst Sci. 2016 May;25(4):400–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Rikardus Herak, Susriyati Mahanal, Siti Zubaidah, Vivi Novianti (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
