Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Impact of the Pedagogy of Successive Questioning on Chemistry Learning Cover

Impact of the Pedagogy of Successive Questioning on Chemistry Learning

Open Access
|Dec 2025

References

  1. Mortimore P. Understanding Pedagogy: And Its Impact on Learning. London: Sage; 1999. Available from: http://digital.casalini.it/9781849206693.
  2. Subramaniam B, Middlecamp CH. What is feminist pedagogy? Useful ideas for teaching chemistry. J Chem Educ. 1999;76(4):520. DOI: 10.1021/ed076p520.
  3. Christiansen MA. Inverted teaching: Applying a new pedagogy to a university organic chemistry class. J Chem Educ. 2014;91(11):1845-50. DOI: 10.1021/ed400530z.
  4. Collins S, Steele T, Nelson M. Storytelling as pedagogy: The power of chemistry stories as a tool for classroom engagement. J Chem Educ. 2023;100(7):2664-72. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00008.
  5. Buseri JC. The influence of culture on pupils’ questioning habits in Nigerian secondary schools. Int J Sci Educ. 1987;9:579-84. DOI: 10.1080/0950069870090507.
  6. Good TL, Slavings RL, Harel KH, Emerson H. Student passivity: A study of question asking in K-12 classrooms. Sociol Educ. 1987:181-99. DOI: 10.2307/2112275.
  7. Michel N, Cater III JJ, Varela O. Active versus passive teaching styles: An empirical study of student learning outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2009;20(4):397-418. DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.20025.
  8. Haidet P, Morgan RO, O’malley K, Moran BJ, Richards BF. A controlled trial of active versus passive learning strategies in a large group setting. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2004;9:15-27. DOI: 10.1023/B:AHSE.0000012213.620.
  9. Misra I, Girshick R, Fergus R, Hebert M, Gupta A, Van Der Maaten L, editors. Learning by asking questions. Proc IEEE Conf Computer Vision Pattern Recognition. 2018. DOI: 10.1109/CVPR.2018.00009.
  10. Al-Samarraie H, Shamsuddin A, Alzahrani AI. A flipped classroom model in higher education: a review of the evidence across disciplines. Educat Technol Res Development. 2020;68:1017-51. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-019-09718-8.
  11. Serin H. Flipped classrooms in teaching method courses at universities. Int J Academic Res Business Social Sci. 2019;9(1):573-85. DOI: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v9-i1/5459.
  12. Gilboy MB, Heinerichs S, Pazzaglia G. Enhancing student engagement using the flipped classroom. J Nutrition Educ Behavior. 2015;47(1):109-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneb.2014.08.008.
  13. Goodwin JR. What’s the difference? A comparison of student-centered teaching methods. Educ Sci. 2024;14(7):736. DOI: 10.3390/educsci14070736.
  14. Chi MTH, Wylie R. The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educat Psychologist. 2014;49(4):219-43. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2014.965823.
  15. Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educat. 2004;93(3):223-31. DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x.
  16. Jung I, Choi S, Lim C, Leem J. Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations EducTeaching Int. 2002;39(2):153-62. DOI: 10.1080/14703290252934603.
  17. Dixson MD. Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? J Scholarship Teaching Learning. 2012;10(2):1-13. Available from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ890707.pdf.
  18. Ömer D. Student engagement in blended learning environments with lecture-based and problem-based instructional approaches. J Educat Technol Soc. 2012;15(3):310-22.
  19. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2014;111(23):8410-5. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
  20. Theobald EJ, Hill MJ, Tran E, Agrawal S, Arroyo EN, Behling S, et al. Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2020;117(12):6476-83. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1916903117.
  21. Bingen HM, Aamlid HI, Hovland BM, Nes AAG, Larsen MH, Skedsmo K, et al. Use of active learning classrooms in health professional education: A scoping review. Int J Nursing Stud Advances. 2024;6:100167. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnsa.2023.100167.
  22. Heeren RS, Kinoshita SR, Lu L, Pollet P. Undergraduate introductory organic chemistry: performance trends and impact of active learning studios. J Chem Educ. 2025. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01413.
  23. Bodner GM. Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. J Chem Educ. 1986;63(10):873. DOI: 10.1021/ed063p873.
  24. Sisovic D, Bojovic S. Approaching the concepts of acids and bases by cooperative learning. Chem Educ Res Practice. 2000;1(2):263-75. DOI: 10.1039/A9RP90027F.
  25. Hinde RJ, Kovac J. Student active learning methods in physical chemistry. J Chem Educ. 2001;78(1):93. DOI: 10.1021/ed078p93.
  26. Savec VF, Devetak I. Evaluating the effectiveness of students’ active learning in chemistry. Procedia-Social Behav Sci. 2013;106:1113-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.125.
  27. Andrews DA, Sekyere EO, Bugarcic A. Collaborative active learning activities promote deep learning in a chemistry-biochemistry course. Medical Sci Educator. 2020;30:801-10. DOI: 10.1007/s40670-020-00952-x.
  28. Banerjee AC. Misconceptions of students and teachers in chemical equilibrium. Int J Sci Educ. 1991;13(4):487-94. DOI: 10.1080/0950069910130411.
  29. Cros D, Chastrette M, Fayol M. Conceptions of second year university students of some fundamental notions in chemistry. Int J Sci Educ. 1988;10(3):331-6. DOI: 10.1080/0950069880100308.
  30. Nakhleh MB. Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. J Chem Educ. 1992;69(3):191. DOI: 10.1021/ed069p191.
  31. Bransford JD, Arbitman-Smith R, Stein BS, Vye NJ. Improving thinking and learning skills: An analysis of three approaches. Thinking and learning skills: Routledge; 2014. pp. 133-206. ISBN: 9781315060149 .
  32. Graesser AC, Person NK. Question asking during tutoring. Am Educat Res J. 1994;31(1):104-37. DOI: 10.3102/00028312031001104.
  33. Tofade T, Elsner J, Haines ST. Best practice strategies for effective use of questions as a teaching tool. Am J Pharmaceutical Educ. 2013;77(7):155. DOI: 10.5688/ajpe777155.
  34. Robinson L. To what extent do Socratic seminar activities encourage engagement in Classical Civilisation lessons? J Classics Teaching. 2023;24(47):65-71. DOI: 10.1017/S2058631022000459.
  35. Bohr NI. On the constitution of atoms and molecules. London, Edinburgh, Dublin Philosophical Magazine J Sci. 1913;26(151):1-25. DOI: 10.1080/14786441308634955.
  36. Williams JM. The spdf Electron Orbital Model Parsed. viXra. 2013. Available from: https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Quantum%20Theory%20/%20Particle%20Physics/Download/5031.
  37. Schrödinger E. The present status of quantum mechanics. Die Naturwissenschaften. 1935;23(48):1-26. Available from: https://informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/schrodinger/Present_Status.pdf.
  38. Goodyear MD, Krleza-Jeric K, Lemmens T. The declaration of Helsinki. British Medical J Publishing Group; 2007. pp. 624-5. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39339.610000.BE.
  39. Walker SE. Active learning strategies to promote critical thinking. J Athletic Training. 2003;38(3):263. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC233182/pdf/attr_38_03_0263.pdf.
  40. McConnell DA, Chapman L, Czajka CD, Jones JP, Ryker KD, Wiggen J. Instructional utility and learning efficacy of common active learning strategies. J Geosci Educ. 2017;65(4):604-25. DOI: 10.5408/17-249.1.
  41. Pereira-Santos D, Prudêncio RBC, de Carvalho AC. Empirical investigation of active learning strategies. Neurocomputing. 2019;326:15-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.neucom.2017.05.105.
  42. Zuber WJ. The flipped classroom, a review of the literature. Industrial Commercial Training. 2016;48(2):97-103. DOI: 10.1108/ICT-05-2015-0039.
  43. DeLozier SJ, Rhodes MG. Flipped classrooms: A review of key ideas and recommendations for practice. Educat Psychology Rev. 2017;29(1):141-51. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-015-9356-9.
  44. Buehl D. Classroom Strategies for Interactive Learning. Routledge; 2023. DOI: 10.4324/9781032680842.
  45. Senthamarai S. Interactive teaching strategies. J Appl Adv Res. 2018;3(1):S36-8. DOI: 10.21839/jaar.2018.v3iS1.166.
  46. Davis D, Chen G, Hauff C, Houben G-J. Activating learning at scale: A review of innovations in online learning strategies. Computers Educ. 2018;125:327-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.019.
  47. Akçayır G, Akçayır M. The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers Educ. 2018;126:334-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021.
  48. Somaa F. The flipped classroom approach: A review of cognitive styles and academic performances. Cureus. 2024;16(7):e63729. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.63729.
  49. Hussain MI, Preetha R, Naik MS, Panaskar HC, Das AM. Assessing the effectiveness of flipped classroom strategy on student performance. Europ Chem Bull. 2023;12:2883-96. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-024-06105-7.
  50. Wanner T, Palmer E. Personalising learning: Exploring student and teacher perceptions about flexible learning and assessment in a flipped university course. Computers Educ. 2015;88:354-69. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.008.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/cdem-2025-0009 | Journal eISSN: 2084-4506 | Journal ISSN: 1640-9019
Language: English
Page range: 111 - 124
Published on: Dec 31, 2025
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Related subjects:

© 2025 Mohamad Nour Zeineddine, Joanna Hammoud, Lamis Karaki, Samer Sakr, published by Society of Ecological Chemistry and Engineering
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.