Trends, gaps and recommendations in the adoption of innovations: a systematic literature review in Science Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22600/1518-8795.ienci/2026v31n1p465Keywords:
Adoption of innovations, Science Education, STEM, Literature ReviewAbstract
The adoption of innovations in education is a pertinent theme amid the swift evolution of technological and methodological advancements aimed at addressing students' diverse needs. In Science Education, these innovations hold the potential to transform educational environments through more interactive and effective approaches. However, their implementation is far from uniform, often shaped by contextual factors, teacher training, and the inherent characteristics of the innovations themselves. We conducted a systematic literature review to examine how the adoption of innovations is addressed in research on Science Education, analyzing 55 articles. The findings emphasize active methodologies and methods and emerging technologies while also revealing structural challenges and limitations in teacher training. This study contributes by identifying trends, recommendations, and the pressing need for a more consistent theoretical alignment, thereby laying a foundation for future investigations and fostering more effective educational practices.References
Álvarez-Marín, A., Velázquez-Iturbide, J. Á., & Castillo-Vergara, M. (2023). The acceptance of augmented reality in engineering education: The role of technology optimism and technology innovativeness. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(6), 3409–3421. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1928710
Alves, M., & Bego, A. M. (2020). A Celeuma em Torno da Temática do Planejamento Didático-Pedagógico: Definição e Caracterização de seus Elementos Constituintes. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 71–96. https://doi.org/10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2020u7196
Andrews, M. E., Graham, M., Prince, M., Borrego, M., Finelli, C. J., & Husman, J. (2020). Student resistance to active learning: Do instructors (mostly) get it wrong? Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 25(2), 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2020.1861771
Apkarian, N., Henderson, C., Stains, M., Raker, J., Johnson, E., & Dancy, M. (2021). What really impacts the use of active learning in undergraduate STEM education? Results from a national survey of chemistry, mathematics, and physics instructors. PLoS ONE, 16(2), e0247544. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247544
Bathgate, M. E., Aragón, O. R., Cavanagh, A. J., Waterhouse, J. K., Frederick, J., & Graham, M. J. (2019). Perceived supports and evidence-based teaching in college STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(11), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0166-3
Borland, R., Loch, B., & McManus, L. (2015). Implementing blended learning at faculty level: Supporting staff, and the ‘ripple effect’. Proceedings of ASCILITE, 389–393. https://doi.org/10.14742/apubs.2015.951
Borrego, M., Cutler, S., Prince, M., Henderson, C., & Froyd, J. E. (2013). Fidelity of Implementation of Research-Based Instructional Strategies (RBIS) in Engineering Science Courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(3), 394–425. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20020
Brito, I. S., Barros, J. P., & Rodrigues, E. (2020). Moving to Project-Based Learning at the Program Level: An Experience Report. 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, 1614–1621. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125297
Candaş, B., & Altun, T. (2023). Investigating Flipped Laboratory Practices of Science Student Teachers. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 20, 173–188. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2023.010
Carroll, L. J., Reeping, D., Finelli, C. J., Prince, M. J., Husman, J., Graham, M., & Borrego, M. J. (2023). Barriers instructors experience in adopting active learning: Instrument development. Journal of Engineering Education, 112(4), 1079–1108. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20557
Chizwina, S., & Mhakure, D. (2018). Exploring how the Attributes of Technology Affect Adoption in Teaching Mathematics in a Higher Education Institution in South Africa. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(3), 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2018.1499459
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2019). Research Synthesis as a Scientific Process. Em H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Org.), Handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (3o ed., p. 3–16). Russel Sage Foundation.
Dallavis, J. W. (2023). Becoming a STEM-Focused Catholic School: Insights into Adopting a Curricular Specialization. Journal of Catholic Education, 26(2), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.15365/joce.2602052023
Dancy, M., Henderson, C., & Turpen, C. (2016). How faculty learn about and implement research-based instructional strategies: The case of Peer Instruction. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 010110. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010110
Doğru, M. S., Yüzbaşıoğlu, F., & Arpaci, I. (2023). The effect of interactive videos enhanced with pop-up questions on teacher candidates’ learning performance in science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2023.2272820
Donovan, S., & LaMar, M. D. (2023). Using Science Education Gateways to Improve Undergraduate STEM Education: The QUBES Platform as a Case Study. Computing in Science & Engineering, 25(2), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2023.3292313
Foote, K., Knaub, A., Henderson, C., Dancy, M., & Beichner, R. J. (2016). Enabling and challenging factors in institutional reform: The case of SCALE-UP. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 010103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010103
Foote, K., Neumeyer, X., Henderson, C. R., Dancy, M. H., & Beichner, R. J. (2014). SCALE-UP Implementation and Intra-Institutional Dissemination: A Case Study of Two Institutions. 2014 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, 83–86. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2014.pr.017
Froyd, J. E., Borrego, M., Cutler, S., Henderson, C., & Prince, M. J. (2013). Estimates of Use of Research-Based Instructional Strategies in Core Electrical or Computer Engineering Courses. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(4), 393–399. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2013.2244602
Fullan, M. (2009). O Significado da Mudança Educacional (R. C. Costa, Trad.; 4o ed.). Artmed Editora.
Gabby, S., Avargil, S., Herscovitz, O., & Dori, Y. J. (2017). The case of middle and high school chemistry teachers implementing technology: Using the concerns-based adoption model to assess change processes. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 214–232. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00193A
García, A. V. M., Pérez, B. M. G., & Martín-Lucas, J. (2021). Fases de implementación de Blended Learning en las universidades españolas: Estudio basado en análisis de segmentación. Revista Portuguesa de Educação, 34(1), 28–49. https://doi.org/10.21814/rpe.17754
Gilchrist, P. O., Grable, L. L., Young, T., Bowles, T. A., & Brady, K. P. (2017). Middle and high school teachers’ implementation reflections of photonics and optics curriculum in a qualitative study. Em X. Liu & X.-C. Zhang (Org.), 14th Conference on Education and Training in Optics and Photonics (p. 1–10). SPIE. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2270958
Glanville, J. (2019). Searching Bibliographic Databases. Em H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Org.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis (3o ed., p. 73–99). Russel Sage Foundation.
Gómez-Ríos, D., Ramírez-Malule, H., & Marriaga-Cabrales, N. (2023). Mesocurriculum modernization of a chemical engineering program: The case of a high-impact regional university in Colombia. Education for Chemical Engineers, 44, 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2023.06.002
Goodwin, E. C., Cao, J. N., Fletcher, M., Flaiban, J. L., & Shortlidge, E. E. (2018). Catching the Wave: Are Biology Graduate Students on Board with Evidence-Based Teaching? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-12-0281
Henderson, C. (2005). The challenges of instructional change under the best of circumstances: A case study of one college physics instructor. American Journal of Physics, 73(8), 778–786. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1927547
Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2007). Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 3(2), 020102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020102
Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2008). Physics faculty and educational researchers: Divergent expectations as barriers to the diffusion of innovations. American Journal of Physics, 76(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2800352
Henderson, C., Khan, R., & Dancy, M. (2018). Will my student evaluations decrease if I adopt an active learning instructional strategy? American Journal of Physics, 86(12), 934–942. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5065907
Hilpert, J. C. (2016). A Multivariate Examination of Active and Interactive Learning and Student Engagement in Post-Secondary Engineering Energy Science Classrooms: The ”Why” of Instructional Strategy Use. 123rd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, 1–16. https://peer.asee.org/a-multivariate-examination-of-active-and-interactive-learning-and-student-engagement-in-post-secondary-engineering-energy-science-classrooms-the-why-of-instructional-strategy-use.pdf
Idsardi, R., Friedly, I., Mancinelli, J., Usai, N., & Matos, L. F. (2023). Outcomes of Early Adopters Implementing the Flipped Classroom Approach in Undergraduate STEM Courses. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32(5), 655–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10066-9
Isaacs-Sodeye, O., & Lande, M. (2013). Teaching with unfamiliar pedagogy for engineering design instructors. 2013 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1447–1449. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2013.6685071
Joshi, D. R., Khanal, J., & Dhakal, R. H. (2023). From Resistance to Resilience: Teachers’ Adaptation Process to Mediating Digital Devices in Pre-COVID-19, during COVID-19, and Post-COVID-19 Classrooms in Nepal. Education Sciences, 13(5), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050509
Khatri, R., Henderson, C., Cole, R., Froyd, J. E., Friedrichsen, D., & Stanford, C. (2017). Characteristics of well-propagated teaching innovations in undergraduate STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0056-5
Koretsky, M., & Magana, A. (2019). Using technology to enhance learning and engagement in engineering. Advances in Engineering Education, 7(2), 1–53. https://advances.asee.org/using-technology-to-enhance-learning-and-engagement-in-engineering/
Lee, Y., Evenhouse, D. A., Berger, E. J., Rhoads, J. F., & Deboer, J. (2022). Orchestrating a culture-aligned adoption and adaptation of an instructional innovation: A story of an engineering professor’s pedagogical decisions between innovation and school culture. ASEE 2022 Annual Conference, 1–14. https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10355877
Marbach-Ad, G., & Rietschel, C. (2016). A Case Study Documenting the Process by Which Biology Instructors Transition from Teacher-Centered to Learner-Centered Teaching. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-06-0196
Marquez, R., Barrios, N., Vera, R. E., Mendez, M. E., Tolosa, L., Zambrano, F., & Li, Y. (2023). A perspective on the synergistic potential of artificial intelligence and product-based learning strategies in biobased materials education. Education for Chemical Engineers, 44, 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2023.05.005
Mazzarol, T., & Reboud, S. (2020). Adoption and Diffusion of Innovation. Em T. Mazzarol & S. Reboud, Entrepreneurship and Innovation (p. 165–189). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9412-6_6
McConnell, M., Montplaisir, L., & Offerdahl, E. G. (2020). A model of peer effects on instructor innovation adoption. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(53), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00255-y
Morad, S., Ragonis, N., & Barak, M. (2021). An integrative conceptual model of innovation and innovative thinking based on a synthesis of a literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, 100824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100824
Nadelson, L., Sias, C. M., & Seifert, A. (2016). Challenges for integrating engineering into the K-12 curriculum: Indicators of K-12 teachers’ propensity to adopt innovation. 123rd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, 1–16. https://peer.asee.org/challenges-for-integrating-engineering-into-the-k-12-curriculum-indicators-of-k-12-teachers-propensity-to-adopt-innovation.pdf
Nipyrakis, A., Stavrou, D., & Avraamidou, L. (2023). Designing technology-enhanced science experiments in elementary teacher preparation: The role of learning communities. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2023.2202386
Palacio-Jiménez, D., Valencia-Quiceno, J. D., Valencia-Arias, A., & Benjumea-Arias, M. (2023). Adoption of Digital Tools Among Geoscience Students Based on the TAM Model. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, 18(4), 384–392. https://doi.org/10.1109/RITA.2023.3324027
Percheron, F., Araujo, I. S., & Espinosa, T. (2025). Inovação Didática: Uma proposta de conceitualização a partir da Teoria Antropológica do Didático. Ciência & Educação, 31, e25036. https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-731320250036
Pertuz, S., Reyes, O., Cristobal, E. S., Meier, R., & Castro, M. (2023). MOOC-Based Flipped Classroom for On-Campus Teaching in Undergraduate Engineering Courses. IEEE Transactions on Education, 66(5), 468–478. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2023.3282896
Petter, A. A., Espinosa, T., & Araujo, I. S. (2021). Inovação didática no Ensino de Física: Um estudo sobre a adoção do método Instrução pelos Colegas (Peer Instruction) no contexto de Mestrados Profissionais em Ensino no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Física, 43, e20210070. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9126-rbef-2021-0070
Petter, A. A., Souza, D. G. de, Espinosa, T., & Araujo, I. S. (2025). Inovação em Educação: Uma análise sistemática de revisões de literatura. Revista Brasileira de Educação, 30 (contínuo), e300017. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-24782025300017
Quardokus, K., & Henderson, C. (2018). Department-Level Instructional Change: Comparing Prescribed versus Emergent Strategies. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(4), ar56. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-02-0031
Riley, D., Mallouk, K., Faber, C., & Coso Strong, A. (2023). Adoption of Pedagogical Innovations: Social Networks of Engineering Education Guilds. Education Sciences, 13(11), 1102. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111102
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press.
Sachmpazidi, D., Bautista, M., Chajecki, Z., Mendoza, C., & Henderson, C. (2021). Integrating numerical modeling into an introductory physics laboratory. American Journal of Physics, 89(7), 713–720. https://doi.org/10.1119/10.0003899
Sachmpazidi, D., Olmstead, A., Thompson, A. N., Henderson, C., & Beach, A. (2021). Team-based instructional change in undergraduate STEM: Characterizing effective faculty collaboration. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(15), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00273-4
Shi, L., & Stains, M. (2021). Development of the Departmental Climate around Teaching (DCaT) survey: Neither psychological collective climate nor departmental collective climate predicts STEM faculty’s instructional practices. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(44), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00303-1
Silva-Díaz, F., Marfil-Carmona, R., Narváez, R., Silva Fuentes, A., & Carrillo-Rosúa, J. (2023). Introducing Virtual Reality and Emerging Technologies in a Teacher Training STEM Course. Education Sciences, 13(10), 1044. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13101044
Stewart, S., Brown, D., & Dotger, S. (2014). On Adopting Educational Materials: A Cautionary Tale. 483, 291–295. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ASPC..483..291S
Taajamaa, V., Jarvi, A., Laato, S., & Holvitie, J. (2018). Co-creative engineering curriculum design—Case East Africa. 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2018.8658521
Tabarés, R., & Boni, A. (2023). Maker culture and its potential for STEM education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33(1), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09725-y
Tavares, F. G. de O. (2019). O conceito de inovação em educação: Uma revisão necessária. Educação (UFSM), 44, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5902/1984644432311
Terzieva, V., Paunova-Hubenova, E., Dimitrov, S., & Boneva, Y. (2020). ICT in STEM Education in Bulgaria. Em M. E. Auer & T. Tsiatsos (Org.), The Challenges of the Digital Transformation in Education (V. 916, p. 801–812). Springer International Publishing. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11932-4_74
Turpen, C., Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2016). Perceived affordances and constraints regarding instructors’ use of Peer Instruction: Implications for promoting instructional change. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 010116. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010116
Urban, S. (2017). Pen-Enabled, Real-Time Student Engagement for Teaching in STEM Subjects. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(8), 1051–1059. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00127
Vishnubhotla, M., Chowdhury, A., Apkarian, N., Johnson, E., Dancy, M., Henderson, C., Claire Lau, A., Raker, J. R., & Stains, M. (2022). “I use IBL in this course” may say more about an instructor’s beliefs than about their teaching. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 8(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-022-00186-9
Walter, E. M., Beach, A. L., Henderson, C., Williams, C. R., & Ceballos-Madrigal, I. (2021). Understanding Conditions for Teaching Innovation in Postsecondary Education: Development and Validation of the Survey of Climate for Instructional Improvement (SCII). International Journal of Technology in Education, 4(2), 166–199. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.46
Wanyama, S. B., McQuaid, R. W., & Kittler, M. (2022). Where you search determines what you find: The effects of bibliographic databases on systematic reviews. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 25(3), 409–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2021.1892378
Yik, B. J., Raker, J. R., Apkarian, N., Stains, M., Henderson, C., Dancy, M. H., & Johnson, E. (2022). Association of malleable factors with adoption of research-based instructional strategies in introductory chemistry, mathematics, and physics. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1016415. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1016415
Zhu, Y., Wang, M., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Building Learning Communities Among English Learners in STEM Majors—Case Studies of Undergraduates in Chinese Universities. 2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Education, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE48000.2019.9225944
Zich, R., Sammons, A., & Rosenblatt, R. (2020). A revision of a traditional astronomy course through active learning. 2019 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, 687–692. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2019.pr.Zich
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Felippe Percheron, Tobias Espinosa, Ives Solano Araujo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
IENCI is an Open Access journal, which does not have to pay any charges either for the submission or processing of articles. The journal has adopted the definition of the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), which states that the users have the right to read, write down, copy, distribute, print, conduct searches and make direct links with the complete texts of the published articles.
The author responsible for the submission represents all the authors of the work and when the article is sent to the journal, guarantees that he has the permission of his/her co-authors to do so. In the same way, he/she provides an assurance that the article does not infringe authors´ rights and that there are no signs of plagiarism in the work. The journal is not responsible for any opinions that are expressed.
All the articles are published with a Creative Commons License Attribution Non-commercial 4.0 International. The authors hold the copyright of their works and must be contacted directly if there is any commercial interest in the use of their works.
