Abstract

In many educational contexts constrained by limited material resources and a predominance of expository teaching practices, the teaching of cytology remains particularly challenging. Within this setting, the present study examines the impact of didactic models on students’ conceptual understanding, addressing persistent difficulties in core topics such as organelle identification, differentiation between animal and plant cells, and the interpretation of structure–function relationships. These challenges point not only to the intrinsic complexity of cellular biology but also to weaknesses in prevailing instructional strategies. The study aimed to evaluate the extent to which didactic models enhance students’ understanding of cytology content within a specific school context. A mixed-methods case study design was adopted, integrating quantitative and qualitative data through a convergent parallel structure. Quantitative data were obtained through diagnostic tests administered before and after the pedagogical intervention, while qualitative evidence was derived from classroom observation, teacher interviews, and student questionnaires. The sample included 20 students, 3 teachers, and 1 school administrator. Findings revealed substantial improvement in students’ performance, with mean test scores increasing from 32.9% to 88.2%, accompanied by a reduction in score dispersion. Qualitative evidence also indicated increased participation, engagement, and explanatory capacity among students. The study concludes that didactic models function as effective cognitive mediators in the teaching of cytology, particularly in resource-constrained educational settings. However, the absence of a control group constitutes an important methodological limitation, restricting stronger causal inferences regarding the exclusive effect of the intervention. Additionally, the reduced sample size and single-case design limit the generalisability of the findings beyond the investigated context.

Keywords

Cytology TeachingInstructional ModelsConceptual Understanding

References

  1. [1] Manjate, M.A., Rombe, M.C., 2010. Biology—Grade 12. Longman Mozambique: Maputo, Mozambique. (in Portuguese)
  2. [2] Bartee, L., Anderson, C., 2016. General Biology I: Survey of Cellular Biology. Available from: https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/mhccbiology101/ (cited 19 October 2025).
  3. [3] Alberts, B., Johnson, A., Lewis, J., et al., 2015. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 6th ed. Garland Science: New York, NY, USA.
  4. [4] Cooper, G.M., 2000. The Cell: A Molecular Approach, 2th ed. Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA, USA. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9839/
  5. [5] Ministry of Education and Human Development (MINEDH), 2020. Biology Activity Book—Grade 8. MINEDH: Maputo, Mozambique. (in Portuguese)
  6. [6] Dalton, L., Young, R., 2024. Fundamentals of Cell Biology. Available from: https://open.oregonstate.education/cellbiology (cited 3 October 2025).
  7. [7] Ministry of Education, 2020. Biology—Grade 9 (Distance Education Programme Module). Ministry of Education: Maputo, Mozambique. (in Portuguese)
  8. [8] LeClair, R.J., 2021. Cell Biology, Genetics, and Biochemistry for Pre-Clinical Students. Virginia Tech Publishing: Blacksburg, VA, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21061/cellbio
  9. [9] França, J.P.R., Sovierzoski, H.H., 2018. Use of Didactic Models as a Teaching Tool in Cytology. Brazilian Journal of Science and Technology Education. 11(2), 651–665. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3895/rbect.v11n2.8474 (in Portuguese)
  10. [10] Lodish, H., Berk, A., Kaiser, C.A., et al., 2021. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 9th ed. W.H. Freeman: New York, NY, USA.
  11. [11] National Research Council, 2012. A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
  12. [12] Chiappetta, E.L., Koballa, T.R., 2010. Science Instruction in the Middle and Secondary Schools, 7th ed. Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA. Available from: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/coe-facpubs/6 (cited 17 November 2025).
  13. [13] Abrahams, I., Reiss, M.J., 2012. Practical work: Its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 49(8), 1035–1055. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21036
  14. [14] American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2011. Vision & Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action. Available from: https://www.aaas.org/resources/vision-change-undergraduate-biology-education-call-action (cited 12 November 2025).
  15. [15] Gonçalves, A.S., Dias, V.B., 2022. Challenges and Potential of Didactic Resources in Teaching Cytology Concepts. Educitec. 8, e198322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31417/educitec.v8.1983 (in Portuguese)
  16. [16] Freeman, S., Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., et al., 2014. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111(23), 8410–8415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
  17. [17] Ausubel, D.P., 1968. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York, NY, USA.
  18. [18] Novak, J.D., 2010. Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations, 2nd ed. Routledge: New York, NY, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203862001
  19. [19] Akpan, V.I., Igwe, U.A., Mpamah, I.B.I., et al., 2020. Social Constructivism: Implications for Teaching and Learning. British Journal of Education. 8(8), 49–56.
  20. [20] Packer, M.J., Goicoechea, J., 2000. Sociocultural and Constructivist Theories of Learning: Ontology, Not Just Epistemology. Educational Psychologist. 35(4), 227–241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3504_02
  21. [21] Nithideechaiwarachok, B., Chano, J., Wu, C.C., 2024. Socio-Cultural and Social Constructivist Theories and Its Application in EFL Classroom for Thai Pre-Service Teachers: A Review for Further Research. International Journal of Language Education. 8(3), 564–572. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v8i3.66499
  22. [22] de Lima, K.R.L., Palavissini, C.F.C., Meza, S.K.L., et al., 2022. Building Knowledge: Using Didactic Models in Cytology during the Pandemic. Research, Society and Development. 11(11), e447111133756. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v11i11.33756
  23. [23] Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA.
  24. [24] Chalenga, D.R.M., Guiraguira, E.M.J., Napapacha, V.d.M.L., et al., 2024. Education in Mozambique: Trends in Science and Mathematics Teacher Training. International Journal of Teacher Education. 9, e024009.
  25. [25] Mayer, R.E., 2002. Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice. 41(4), 226–232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_4
  26. [26] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2019. PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do. OECD Publishing: Paris, France.
  27. [27] Harrison, A.G., Treagust, D.F., 2000. Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education. 84(3), 352–381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<352::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-J
  28. [28] Schwartz, R., Skjold, B., 2012. Teaching About Scientific Models in a Science Content Course. Educación Química. 23(4), 451–457.
  29. [29] Justi, R., Gilbert, J.K., 2002. Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education. 24(4), 369–387.
  30. [30] Roth, T., Scharfenberg, F.-J., Bogner, F.X., 2022. Content and language integrated scientific modelling: A novel approach to model learning. Frontiers in Education. 7, 922414. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.922414
  31. [31] Gilbert, J.K., 2004. Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2(2), 115–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-004-3186-4
  32. [32] Hallström, J., Norström, P., Schönborn, K.J., 2023. Authentic STEM education through modelling: An international Delphi study. International Journal of STEM Education. 10, 62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00453-4
  33. [33] Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., 2008. Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education. 92(5), 941–967. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20259
  34. [34] Wörner, S., Kuhn, J., Scheiter, K., 2022. The best of two worlds: A systematic review on combining real and virtual experiments in science education. Review of Educational Research. 92(6), 911–952. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221079417
  35. [35] Sims, S., Fletcher-Wood, H., Godfrey-Faussett, T., et al., 2026. Modelling evidence-based practice in initial teacher training: Effects on teachers’ skills, knowledge and self-efficacy. Instructional Science. 54, 32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-026-09779-2
  36. [36] da Silva, T.G., Morbeck, L.L.B., 2019. Use of Didactic Models in Cytology Learning. Id on Line Psychology Journal. 13(45), 594–608. Available from: https://idonline.emnuvens.com.br/id/article/view/1732 (in Portuguese)
  37. [37] Silva, R.M.d.L.d.S., Felix, O.M.S., 2025. Approach to the content of cell organelles with and without the use of the teaching resource “models”: Comparative analysis of the learning constructed by High School students. Research, Society and Development. 14(2), e1214248122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v14i2.48122
  38. [38] Hofstein, A., Lunetta, V.N., 2003. The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education. 88(1), 28–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106
  39. [39] National Institute for Educational Development, Ministry of Education and Culture, 2007. Biology Curriculum—Secondary Education (1st Cycle). National Institute for Educational Development, Ministry of Education and Culture: Maputo, Mozambique. (in Portuguese)
  40. [40] Ministry of Education and Culture, Government of Mozambique, 2006. Strategic Plan for Education and Culture 2006–2010/11. Ministry of Education and Culture, Government of Mozambique: Maputo, Mozambique. (in Portuguese)
  41. [41] Flick, U., 2009. An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 3rd ed. Artmed: Porto Alegre, Brazil. (in Portuguese)

How to Cite

Suzana Amábile Rafael Taimo. The Use of Didactic Models in the Teaching of Cytology: A Case Study at Nioce General Secondary School (2023–2024). Innovations in Pedagogy and Technology. 18 July 2026. https://doi.org/10.63385/ipt.v2i3.101101
Citation formats

Copyright & License

Copyright © 2026 Suzana Amábile Rafael Taimo. Published by Nature and Information Engineering Publishing Sdn. Bhd..

This journal publishes articles under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

Authors retain copyright. Accepted manuscripts are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Reuse is permitted under the terms of the license with proper attribution to the original source.

Article Metrics

473Abstract views
424Downloads