The Benefits and Challenges of Using the Demonstration Method in STEM Education: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

The education field has been striving to develop STEM teaching and learning methodologies that effectively integrate subject knowledge across disciplines and connect it to daily life. Many teachers believe that practical work can help students better grasp abstract concepts. However, they often hesitate to incorporate practical work due to constraints, such as limited resources and a lack of experimental skills among students. As a result, demonstrations are frequently used as an alternative. This study presents the findings of a systematic literature review conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, analyzing the advantages, disadvantages, and potential enhancements of using the demonstration method in STEM education. After examining 49 relevant studies, this review identified 15 benefits and 14 challenges associated with the demonstration method, encompassing their impact on students, teachers, and operational aspects. Additionally, six key components were discovered that enhance the efficacy of the demonstration method. Based on the findings, recommendations are proposed for policymakers, universities, and schools to improve the implementation and outcomes of demonstration-based teaching and learning in STEM education.

1. Introduction and Literature Review

1.1. The Growth of STEM Education and the Pedagogical Challenges It Presents

STEM, an acronym for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, has become a popular topic in the field of education (Başaran & Erol, 2021; Education Bureau, 2016; Fung et al., 2022; Marshall, 2015; Siu, 2022). With the synergy that results from transdisciplinary integration (Hsu et al., 2024; Perignat & Katz-Buonincontro, 2019), students from STEM-related disciplines are always welcomed by the labor market (Akcan et al., 2023; Aleman, 1992; Craig et al., 2012; Darling-Hammond, 1994; White & Smith, 2021). Recognizing its strategic importance, policymakers have placed STEM education high on their agendas (e.g., Office of the Chief Executive, 2015, 2016; Office of Innovation and Improvement, 2016).

However, conducting STEM teaching is a challenging endeavor for educators (Sujarwanto et al., 2021; Thomas & Watters, 2015). A comparable investigation carried out by the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and National Research Council (NRC) (NAE & NRC, 2014) highlighted several persistent issues in STEM teaching. These include the difficulty of connecting theoretical knowledge to real-world applications, the limited integration across subject disciplines, and the insufficient opportunities for students to engage in practices that foster such connections. In other words, STEM education requires students to not only acquire proficiency in several disciplines but also to effectively apply this knowledge to real-world problems (Dare et al., 2021; Education Bureau, 2016; Fung, 2020; Sanders, 2009).

The current teaching environment falls short of meeting these demands (Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers, 2017; NAE & NRC, 2014; Lo, 2021). For instance, the Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers (2017) conducted a survey with educators regarding their everyday teaching in STEM-related courses; 70% of teachers assert that they lack sufficient instructional resources and suitable pedagogical approaches to effectively teach STEM-related subjects. Similarly, Hamad et al. (2022) found that teachers lacked guidelines or agreed-upon instructions for effectively implementing interdisciplinary STEM approaches.

To tackle these problems, some educators propose the use of practical work (Abrahams & Reiss, 2010; Fung, 2020; X. Liu et al., 2023; Thair & Treagust, 1997). Through the implementation of hands-on experiments, students may actively engage in the learning context. Abstract concepts can be seen, and knowledge can be constructed via observation (Amin & Ikhsan, 2021). During these practical processes, students may also build soft skills, such as laboratory and collaborative skills and logical reasoning (Inderanata & Sukardi, 2023; X. Liu et al., 2023). The design thinking approach and trial-and-error method, which are strategies that can facilitate students’ learning (Fung & Poon, 2020), are available. Therefore, they are included on the list of recommendations for educators (Education Bureau, 2016).

Nevertheless, teachers exhibit hesitancy when conducting practical work in class (Boughaydi et al., 2025; Vilaythong, 2011). A lack of equipment, time, and human resources are only preliminary barriers (Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers, 2017). The primary concerns for teachers are a lack of pedagogical skills, insufficient professional development in relation to STEM, poor organization of classroom activities, and students’ insufficient prior knowledge and experimental skills (Aslam et al., 2023; Jang & Anderson, 2004; Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers, 2017; H. Oliveira & Bonito, 2025; Wei et al., 2019). For example, if students lack a thorough understanding of the assigned practical tasks, the teacher will be occupied with solving their specific procedural questions. As a result, the class does not run as expected, leading to an outcome that is somewhat unsatisfactory (Aslam et al., 2023; Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers, 2017; Jang & Anderson, 2004).

1.2. The Demonstration Method as a Pedagogical Substitute for Practical Work in STEM Education

To achieve the above STEM education objectives under these limited conditions (e.g., lack of time; lack of experimental skills among students), the demonstration method (DM) is often adopted as a substitute for practical work (Moore et al., 2020; Sever et al., 2010). In the realm of education, the DM often pertains to the utilization of tangible or visible tools to elucidate concepts, procedures, or principles within a classroom environment (Ismayil, 2022; Ogunlowo & Ajibade, 2024). Contemporarily, it entails the exhibition of a particular experiment, simulation, or instance to facilitate students’ comprehension of intricate scientific or mathematical concepts (Burton, 2022; C. C. Liu et al., 2022).

The utilization of the DM has an extensive historical background. Its use to elucidate natural phenomena and scientific ideas may be traced back to ancient Greece, when philosophers (e.g., Aristotle) adopted this method (Byrne, 2020). During the Renaissance, important figures such as Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton employed the DM to explain their theories on motion and gravity (Drake, 1978). During the 19th century, the renowned scientist Michael Faraday gained widespread recognition by incorporating the DM in his public lectures, mesmerizing audiences with his experiments. This method has become an essential component of current teaching and learning in STEM-related subjects. For example, physics and chemistry educators commonly employ the DM in their courses or lessons to elucidate principles such as Newton’s laws of motion, chemical processes, and electrical circuits (Coetzee et al., 2022; Curriculum Development Council, 2017). At present, the DM continues to be widely regarded as an effective approach for instruction in STEM classrooms (El Batri et al., 2022).

Traditionally, it is believed that the DM is a useful strategy for fostering students’ learning and academic performance (Hošnjak et al., 2019; Logar & Savec, 2011). By shifting the role of students to observers, teachers can gain control of the classroom while visualizing the ideas and concepts and retaining the benefits of the practical work (Amin & Ikhsan, 2021). Laboratory skills and learning interests could be enhanced as well (Inderanata & Sukardi, 2023).

Additionally, the DM is strongly supported by a solid theoretical background. The Cognitive Load Theory suggests that concretizing abstract ideas can significantly reduce students’ cognitive load (Sweller et al., 2019). Simultaneously, through the DM students can connect acquired knowledge with real-world situations, aligning with constructivism (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007). Moreover, it provides opportunities for students to observe, imitate, and learn, and as Social Learning Theory indicates, this can greatly enhance their learning efficiency (Bandura, 1977).

The instructional components integrated with the DM also contribute significantly to its pedagogical value. For instance, pre-laboratory worksheets or textbook materials are frequently provided to students in advance, enabling them to build foundational knowledge before engaging with the DM. Similarly, post-demonstration tasks, worksheets, or supplementary textbook materials serve to reinforce learning and consolidate understanding. Questioning techniques are employed strategically to guide students’ thinking and encourage deeper cognitive engagement. Activities designed to foster student participation further enhance engagement, while discussions facilitate collaborative knowledge construction. Teacher feedback plays a critical role in addressing misconceptions and providing timely corrections, ensuring that students remain on track in their learning journey. These instructional components collectively enable students to navigate the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), as proposed by Vygotsky (1978). By scaffolding learning through the DM and associated activities, students are supported in achieving higher learning outcomes and developing a deeper understanding of the subject knowledge.

However, findings in existing studies are inconsistent. For instance, a study conducted by Devetak et al. (2010) found that the DM is less effective for teaching chemistry (specifically structures of different substances) to grade ten students in Slovenia. Similarly, Sari et al. (2024) found that the DM was less effective than the experimental method for teaching science subjects to fourth-grade students in Indonesia. Regarding university or college students, Viswasom and Jobby (2017) and Rose (2018) suggested that the DM may have a negative effect on students’ academic performance in comparison to traditional direct teaching techniques and practical work. For example, it may negatively impact university pharmacy students’ academic performance if delivered inappropriately, such as when students have difficulty seeing and understanding live demonstrations (Rose, 2018). Whether the DM is an effective STEM teaching approach remains inconclusive. More importantly, what can be learnt from these existing studies? What are the key elements that could contribute to making the DM an effective for STEM education?

In order to enhance the efficacy of STEM education, it is imperative to study the DM, given its extensive utilization in teaching and learning in this field. It is worth mentioning that teaching methods are important for promoting learning outcomes (Adejimi et al., 2022; Munna & Kalam, 2021). Thus, as educators, we focus on examining the internal workings of the DM, emphasizing its effectiveness and making necessary improvements or deletions to enhance its overall impact. Despite its popularity and importance, it seems that systematic literature reviews on the DM are very limited1. Therefore, this systematic literature review aims to reveal such mechanisms to establish useful guidelines to effectively utilize the DM in STEM education.

2. Research Questions (RQs)

To achieve the above objectives, this study’s research questions are as follows:

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of using the DM in STEM education?
• What are the components that are usually associated with the effective use of the DM?
  • In these studies, what are the common components that make the DM superior to other techniques?
  • How can these common components lead to effective DMs?

3. Methodology

3.1. Searching and Screening Procedure

To address these questions in a methodical manner, this systematic literature review adheres to the guidelines of the PRISMA statement (Page et al., 2021) and the eight steps proposed by Schweizer and Nair (2017), which include (1) defining research questions; (2) protocol development; (3) literature search; (4) data abstraction; (5) quality assessment; (6) data synthesis; (7) interpretation; and (8) dissemination of results.

The search procedure began with a combination of keywords related to the DM approach, utilizing the Scopus database due to the widespread usage of the term “demonstration”. To facilitate efficient access to pertinent publications, the system scans the titles, abstracts, and keywords of articles and books. In order to broaden the scope of the search, no restrictions were imposed on the year of publication. A search for the terms (“demonstration method”) OR (“teacher demonstration”) OR (“teaching demonstration”) yielded a total of 853 results on 2 December 2024. Non-English items and publications that were not articles were also excluded, resulting in a remaining total of 482 articles.

To guarantee the literature’s quality, abstracts were meticulously examined, and material that was not available in full-text format on the internet was excluded. Articles that do not focus on the DM may nevertheless appear in the search results of the Scopus database if they include at least one of the key terms in their abstract. Articles that did not address the DM were selected while eliminating duplicate results, resulting in a total of 180 remaining articles. We also eliminated non-empirical or non-STEM-related studies.

To ensure a transparent and reproducible screening process, the following operational definitions were applied:

• Demonstration Method (DM): The study must explicitly examine the DM as an instructional approach, where a teacher or instructor demonstrates a procedure, experiment, or phenomenon to facilitate student learning. Studies that merely used the word “demonstration” in a different context (e.g., to demonstrate a piece of equipment without a pedagogical focus) were excluded. For instance, an article titled “Two Teaching Demonstrations Using Flexible Mirrors” was excluded as it pertained to an apparatus description rather than a pedagogical procedure.
• STEM-Related: The study’s primary focus must be on teaching and learning within at least one of the core STEM disciplines: Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics. This was determined by the subject context described by the authors (e.g., physics, chemistry, biology, computer science, engineering design, or mathematics).
• Empirical Research: The study must report on primary data collection and analysis. This includes, but is not limited to, experimental designs, quasi-experiments, surveys, case studies, and mixed-methods research that present original findings. Theoretical papers, pure literature reviews, and opinion pieces were excluded.

Using these criteria, articles that were not related to the DM or STEM or that were not empirical were excluded from the final sample. An additional study was excluded because its website was inaccessible owing to a potential security risk warning. A total of 49 publications were ultimately incorporated into this investigation. Figure 1 depicts the specifics of the data gathering process.

Regarding RQ1, the benefits and challenges of using the DM were extracted and are summarized in

Table 1. Fifteen benefits of the demonstration method.

Benefits of Demonstration
Benefits		Descriptions	n
Student-Related Benefits	Promoting knowledge and understanding	Demonstrations help students acquire and retain knowledge, improve their memory, and enhance their understanding of the subject matter.	15
	Enhancing academic performance	Demonstrations have been shown to foster students’ academic performance by providing visual and practical examples.	11
	Increased interest, motivation, and positive learning attitude	Demonstrations increase students’ interest, motivation, positive learning attitude, and engagement in the learning process.	9
	Student preference	Students generally prefer demonstrations as a teaching method.	7
	Cross-disciplinary linkage and real-life application	Demonstrations help students connect knowledge between different subjects and connect theoretical knowledge to real-life applications.	4
	Development of technical lab skills	Demonstrations contribute to the development of students’ technical lab skills.	3
	Reduced cognitive load	Demonstrations help reduce cognitive load for students, making learning more manageable.	1
	Increased curiosity	Demonstrations arouse students’ curiosity, stimulating their interest in the subject matter.	1
	Avoids negative impact of students’ inadequate lab skills	Conducting a demonstration does not necessitate a high level of laboratory proficiency among students.	1
Faculty-Related Benefits	Comparable effect to other strategies	Demonstrations have a comparable effect to other teaching methods in fostering students’ performance and attitudes.	5
	Favorable to teachers	Demonstrations are popular and favorable among teachers, as they facilitate the planning and implementation of lab activities.	3
	Increases students’ attention	Demonstrations can draw students’ attention to the experiment or content.	2
	Addresses teachers’ blind spots	Demonstrations help teachers identify and address their blind spots.	1
Operational Benefits	Time-saving and efficiency	Demonstrations save time and promote efficiency in the teaching and learning process.	1
	Improved preparation efficiency	Demonstrations require less preparation time after the creation of video resources.	1

and

Table 2. Fourteen challenges of the demonstration method.

Challenges of Demonstration
Challenges		Descriptions	n
Student-Related Challenges	Limited impact on academic performance	Demonstrations may be less effective at fostering academic performance.	6
	Limited impact on procedural knowledge and lab skills	Demonstrations may be less effective at fostering students’ procedural knowledge and lab skills.	3
	Lack of direct experience	Demonstrations may lack direct experience for students, as they are more teacher-centered.	3
	Limited impact on soft skills	Demonstrations may be less effective at fostering students’ soft skills, such as creativity, cooperation, algorithmic thinking, critical thinking, and problem-solving.	2
	Less opportunity for mistakes	Demonstrations may limit opportunities for students to make mistakes, which can be an important learning experience.	1
	Weaker at enhancing science literacy	Demonstrations may be weaker in enhancing students’ science literacy.	1
	Lack of understanding of purpose and connection	Students may not fully understand the purpose or connection between observations and the knowledge or procedures.	1
Faculty-Related Challenges	Teaching difficulties	Demonstrations can increase teaching difficulties, especially when students lack prior knowledge or when there are insufficient teaching materials or tools.	4
	Difficulty in checking learning progress	It can be challenging to monitor students’ learning progress, as important information may be missed, or it may be difficult to determine if students have watched the demonstration video.	4
	Lack of professional training	Teachers may lack professional training for conducting effective demonstrations.	2
	Lack of immediate feedback	Demonstrations may lack immediate feedback for students.	2
Operational Challenges	Limited teaching hours	The allocation of teaching hours for demonstrations may be insufficient.	2
	Lack of teaching materials or equipment	There may be insufficient teaching materials or tools.	2
	Challenges in large class sizes	Demonstrations may be difficult to conduct with large class sizes.	1

, including the frequency counts. Based on Lo and Hew (2017), the issues reported in the reviewed studies were classified into three main themes: student-related challenges, faculty-related challenges, and operational challenges with sub-categories. To obtain further information, please refer to Supplementary Tables S1–S3.

In order to address RQ2 in a systematic manner, the studies were categorized into two groups, effective practice and ineffective practice, based on the reported outcomes. The components used in the intervention and control groups were documented in

Table 3. Studies that suggest that the DM is more effective (n = 15).

			Components in DM Group						Components in Non-DM Group
Articles	Intervention in Sample Group	Intervention in Control Group	P	Q	E	D	T	O	P	Q	C	E	D	T	O
Ragadhita et al. (2023)	Video demonstration	Conventional direct teaching with video	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y		Y	Y			Y	Y
Inderanata and Sukardi (2023)	Demonstration + practical work	Direct teaching	Y						Y
Nandiyanto et al. (2022)	Experimental demonstration using video	Conventional direct teaching
Thahir et al. (2019)	Demonstration	Direct teaching
Basheer et al. (2017)	Demonstration	Conventional direct teaching		Y						Y
Lazarowitz and Naim (2013)	Practical	Demonstration/direct teaching	Y						Y
Barak and Hussein-Farraj (2013)	Inquiry web-based models and animations	Demonstration/direct teaching (other)
Xu and Clarke (2012)	Demonstration + practical work	Direct teaching		Y	Y			Y			Y		Y		Y
A. P. D. Oliveira et al. (2012)	Lecture + visual demonstration + laboratory practice	Lecture + laboratory practice
Pell et al. (2010)	Demonstration	Direct teaching		Y	Y			Y		Y
Rowell and Mansfield (1980)	Demonstration	Student activities			Y							Y
Yager et al. (1969)	Demonstration	Laboratory–discussion/discussion only	Y			Y			Y	Y	Y		Y
Boeck (1956)	Demonstration/demonstration + reading	Reading approach (reading + discussion)	Y			Y			Y				Y
Ward (1956)	Demonstration	Group method	Y					Y	Op		Y		Y		Op
Goldstein (1937)	Demonstration	Laboratory practical work/no practices	Y		Y			Y
		Total Count	7	4	5	3	1	4	6	4	3	1	5	1	2

Note. Op = Optional; P = Pre-lab worksheet/textbook material; Q = Questioning; E = Students’ engagement; D = Discussion; T = Teacher’s feedback; O = Post-demonstration materials; and C = Collaborative work with others.

and

Table 4. Studies that suggest that the DM is less effective (n = 20).

			Components in DM Group						Components in Non-DM Group
Articles	Intervention in Sample Group	Intervention in Control Group	P	Q	E	D	T	O	P	Q	C	E	D	T	O
Sharma et al. (2024)	Jigsaw	Lecture + demonstration			Y	Y								Y
Lestari et al. (2023)	Virtual laboratory combination with demonstration methods	Only virtual laboratory				Y	Y					Y	Y	Y
X. Liu et al. (2023)	Practical work	Demonstration method							Y	Y	Y	Y		Y
Nicol et al. (2022).	Inquiry-based teaching	Traditional demonstration							Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Manishimwe et al. (2022)	Group work + watching video + practical work	Direct teaching + demonstration + practical work			Y						Y	Y
Amin and Ikhsan (2021)	Virtual lab or virtual lab with practical work	Demonstration method	Y		Y	Y		Y	Y			Y	Y		Y
Paxinou et al. (2020)	Lecture + simulation with VR	Lecture + demonstration										Y
Wang et al. (2019)	Web-based multimedia assessment + lab	Demonstration + lab		Y			Y		Y			Y		Y
Viswasom and Jobby (2017)	Conventional direct teaching	Video demonstration
Popoola (2014)	Guided play	Demonstration										Y		Y
Lazarowitz and Naim (2013)	Practical work	Demonstration/direct teaching	Y						Y			Y
Barak and Hussein-Farraj (2013)	Inquiry web-based models and animations	Demonstration/direct teaching (other)									Y	Y	Y	Y
Devetak et al. (2010)	Student modeling	Demonstration/virtual model using computer							Y			Y	Y
Dharmadasa and Silvern (2000)	Interacting with activities	Lecture with demonstration	Y	Y					Y	Y	Y		Y	Y
Thijs and Bosch (1995)	Demonstration	Practical work (small group)	Y			Y		Y	Y	Y	Y	Y			Y
Glasson (1989)	Demonstration	Hands-on activities	Y				Y	Y	Y			Y	Y		Y
Eniaiyeju (1983)	Self-paced mode of instruction	Demonstration	Y						Y					Y	Y
Kruglak (1952)	Demonstration	Laboratory practical work		Y		Y		Y	Y		Y	Y	Y		Y
Goldstein (1937)	Demonstration	Laboratory practical work/no practices	Y		Y			Y	Y			Y
Kiebler and Woody (1923)	Demonstration	Laboratory practical work	Y	Y	Y				Y		Y	Y	Y
		Total Count	8	4	5	5	3	5	13	4	8	16	9	9	5

Note. P = Pre-lab worksheet/textbook material; Q = Questioning; E = Students’ engagement; D = Discussion; T = Teacher’s feedback; O = Post-demonstration materials; and C = Collaborative work with others.

based on the information provided in the methodology and result sections of the studies. Studies lacking a control group were excluded, but studies with several control groups may be considered repeatedly based on their effectiveness. In the end, a total of 35 studies were included in the RQ2 analysis. Six components were identified in relation to the DM: (1) Pre-lab worksheet/textbook material; (2) questioning; (3) students’ engagement (e.g., as a helper/need to perform calculations); (4) discussion; (5) teacher’s feedback; and (6) post-demonstration worksheet/task/textbook material. They were coded as P, Q, E, D, T, and O, respectively. An additional component, collaborative work with others, was identified in non-DM approaches. Similarly, it is coded as C in the relevant tables. The corresponding frequencies of the components were measured so that the observed pattern could serve as an indication of the potential effective components. Based on this, studies that measure the effectiveness of different types of DMs were compared (refer to

Table 5. Studies that compare the effectiveness of different types of DMs (n = 5).

			Components in Sample Group (That Yield a Superior Effect)						Components in Control Group
Articles	Intervention in Sample Group	Intervention in Control Group	P	Q	E	D	T	O	P	Q	C	E	D	T	O
With Distinguishable results
Moore et al. (2024)	Teacher demonstration	Video demonstration and reading		Y		Y	Y
Hošnjak et al. (2019)	Video demonstration + simulation	Teacher demonstration + simulation		Y	Y		Y					Y
Karpin et al. (2014)	Demonstration + practical	Demonstration + discussion	Y		Y			Y	Y				Y
With Indistinguishable result
Burton (2022)	Video demonstration (experimental)	Demonstration + practical work	Y						Y
Smith (1949)	Demonstration	Demonstration by film/mixed			Y							Y

Note. P = Pre-lab worksheet/textbook material; Q = Questioning; E = Students’ engagement; D = Discussion; T = Teacher’s feedback; O = Post-demonstration materials; and C = Collaborative work with others.

). A further investigation was carried out considering how these components may result in an effective DM in STEM.

3.2. Demographic Information

Figure 2 indicates that Asia and North America are the primary regions where the majority of research is produced, accounting for 33% and 21%, respectively. The proportions of studies from Europe, Oceania, Africa, and the Middle East are comparable. Each of them comprises around 6–12% of the articles. South Africa has the lowest amount, accounting for only 2%. Figure 3 illustrates the study allocation across various disciplines. The major topics in the STEM field are chemistry (23%), physics (19%), and science (18%). Medical science accounts for 18% of the total, while mathematics, biology, and engineering each account for 6–8%. Figure 4 indicates that 51% of the studies concentrate on the secondary school setting, while college studies account for 25% of the total. The proportions of primary, vocational diploma, early childhood, and post-graduate studies are similar—each consists of around 5–10%.

4. Result

4.1. Advantages of Demonstration Method

Table 1 presents the advantages of using the DM in the process of teaching and learning, as indicated by studies reviewed. These can be broadly categorized into student-related, faculty-related, and operational benefits.

Regarding student-related benefits, multiple studies have indicated that the act of demonstrating can enhance students’ academic performance (Barak & Hussein-Farraj, 2013; Basheer et al., 2017; Lestari et al., 2023; Ragadhita et al., 2023; Rowell & Mansfield, 1980), comprehension of the topic, and retention of knowledge (Lestari et al., 2023; Manishimwe et al., 2022; Moore et al., 2024). Through the demonstrations in these studies, visual and practical examples are used to transform abstract ideas and knowledge into concrete items, enabling pupils to learn via intuitive observation. For instance, in a study of an acid–base neutralization DM conducted by Kaneza et al. (2024), students learn about the process of neutralization by seeing the colors of the acid and base, instead of relying on abstract thinking like they would in a regular classroom setting. This decreases the cognitive load required by students, thereby enhancing their comprehension and retention and eventually enhancing their academic achievements. Meanwhile, when students have the opportunity to directly observe the practical implementation of the entire experiment, their proficiency in the relevant experimental techniques improves (Inderanata & Sukardi, 2023; Kaneza et al., 2024). As the teacher is in charge of the experiment, demonstrations do not require students to have a high degree of laboratory skills, unlike practical work. Consequently, they are more equipped to concentrate on comprehending experimental ideas and knowledge (Kaneza et al., 2024; Manishimwe et al., 2022). In addition, several studies also proposed that the DM is highly effective in terms of fostering a positive learning attitude (Nicol et al., 2022; Gorucu-Coskuner et al., 2020; Pell et al., 2010; Thijs & Bosch, 1995; Wu et al., 2024). It not only stimulates students’ curiosity but also greatly enhances their interest, motivation, and active participation in the learning process (Basheer et al., 2017). Consequently, students often favor the DM as a pedagogical approach (Barak & Hussein-Farraj, 2013; A. P. D. Oliveira et al., 2012; Rose, 2018; Zhou et al., 2016).

Moreover, the DM serves as a means to establish connections across many disciplines and effectively apply acquired knowledge to real-life situations, hence facilitating the accomplishment of STEM education missions (Basheer et al., 2017; Inderanata & Sukardi, 2023; Xu & Clarke, 2012). In the study conducted by Manishimwe et al. (2022), students demonstrated their ability to connect their understanding of microscopes across different subjects. Specifically, when these students observed the use of a microscope in a biology experiment related to bread-making, they were able to effectively relate their knowledge of microscopes from their physics class (Manishimwe et al., 2022). For example, to observe enzymes, students had to understand their size and adjust the microscopes to a suitable magnification level. This allowed them to establish connections between the principles and theories of microscopes in both biology and physics classrooms. This facilitates a connection between the practical use of microscopes in biology and the underlying principles and theories of physics. Additionally, DM provides a relationship between these concepts and their application in everyday life, such as in bread-making.

In addition to student-related aspects, studies have highlighted several faculty-related benefits of using the DM, indicating that it produces effects comparable to other teaching strategies (Nicol et al., 2022; Thijs & Bosch, 1995; Wu et al., 2024). As the DM can facilitate the planning and implementation of lab activities as well as grasp students’ attention, it is very popular among teachers (Babaita et al., 2024; El Batri et al., 2022; Manishimwe et al., 2022). As suggested by Cheng et al. (2022), an additional benefit that DMs can offer is that they can compensate for teachers’ blind spots. For instance, Kaneza et al. (2024) observed that teachers conduct a pre-class rehearsal in order to familiarize themselves with the content. Thus, they can more readily translate difficult concepts into simple language in response to students’ questions.

Regarding operational benefits, the DM has the ability to save time and promote efficiency in the teaching and learning process (Amin & Ikhsan, 2021). If a video is used for the demonstration, the preparation time could be further reduced after the creation of video resources (Rose, 2018) because the content becomes reusable and easily accessible.

4.2. Disadvantages of Demonstration Method

On the other hand, we have also identified the drawbacks of using DMs in the teaching and learning process, which are presented in Table 2. These challenges can be broadly categorized into student-related, faculty-related, and operational issues.

Regarding student-related challenges, several studies have argued that the use of the DM does not produce a substantial enhancement in students’ academic performance (Devetak et al., 2010; Dharmadasa & Silvern, 2000; Eniaiyeju, 1983; Goldstein, 1937). In comparison to conventional experiments or current interactive teaching methods, like inquiry-based education, with DMs students shifted from being active learners to passive observers. As a result, they lack direct learning experiences and miss out on the precious opportunity to learn from their mistakes (Lestari et al., 2023; Logar & Savec, 2011). Additionally, several studies have determined that the DM approach is less successful than the standard experimental technique at improving students’ skills, including experimental (Glasson, 1989; Kaneza et al., 2024) and problem-solving skills, creativity, and scientific literacy (Amin & Ikhsan, 2021; X. Liu et al., 2023). Furthermore, one study indicated that the effectiveness of the demonstration teaching approach is conditional upon students’ understanding the correlation between teaching objectives, processes, phenomena, and knowledge points, despite the approach’s ability to establish connections between topics and everyday life (Logar & Savec, 2011). In other words, the DM necessitates a certain level of pre-existing student knowledge. Consequently, students may find it challenging to comprehend demonstrations in the absence of such prior information (Logar & Savec, 2011).

Regarding faculty-related challenges, several studies have highlighted that the present circumstances have increased teachers’ concerns and considerations regarding teaching obstacles, particularly in cases where there is a lack of instructional materials, resources, and prior student knowledge (El Batri et al., 2022; Logar & Savec, 2011; Pell et al., 2010; Viswasom & Jobby, 2017). Furthermore, the use of DMs necessitates that teachers possess adequate professional training in order to effectively execute a smooth demonstration (El Batri et al., 2022; Viswasom & Jobby, 2017). Despite the effectiveness of the DM, teachers’ attention is mostly directed at the process, resulting in insufficient monitoring (Karpin et al., 2014; Logar & Savec, 2011; Rose, 2018) and a lack of immediate feedback for students (Kaneza et al., 2024; Thijs & Bosch, 1995). These may be two important factors that affect successful learning.

Finally, regarding the operational challenges, the DM process necessitates a greater amount of time and resources (such as lab instruments, chemicals) (El Batri et al., 2022; Pell et al., 2010). Additionally, in classrooms with a relatively large number of students, the majority may direct their attention towards the demonstration table, resulting in obstructed visibility for those situated at the back. This, in turn, represents a hindrance to learning (El Batri et al., 2022).

4.3. The Essential Components That Contribute to the Benefits of DMs

Among the 35 studies extracted, 15 of them suggested that DMs could produce a superior effect on students’ learning (e.g., academic performance, lab skills, soft skills, or learning attitude), while 20 of them held the opposite view. As shown in Table 3, which highlights studies indicating that DM is more effective, the pattern of components (P-Q-E-D-T-O) in DM groups and non-DM groups were similar (DM 7-4-5-3-1-4 vs. non-DM 6-4-1-5-1-2). The major difference was that the DM group usually involves more engagement than the non-DM group. On the other hand, the pattern of components in DM groups and non-DM groups in Table 4, which indicates that DM is less effective, presents a slightly different picture (DM 8-4-5-5-3-5 vs. non-DM 13-4-16-9-9-5). The DM group usually involves fewer distributed pre-class materials, less engagement, and fewer opportunities for discussion and receives less teacher feedback. In other words, studies that demonstrated a more favorable effect exhibit a comparable pattern of components between the DM group and the non-DM group, with the exception that the DM group may experience a higher level of student engagement. For studies indicating that teaching in the DM group is generally less effective, are the above-mentioned factors what contribute to effective DMs?

To answer this, studies that focus on investigating the effectiveness of different types of demonstrations were extracted and are compiled in Table 5. The results appear to indicate that the superiority of the teacher demonstration or the video demonstration is still undecided. One study supports teacher demonstrations (Hošnjak et al., 2019), another supports video demonstrations, and two studies imply that their effects are indistinguishable (Burton, 2022; Smith, 1949). Nevertheless, it is evident that the DM group that generates a more significant impact in studies with distinguishable effectiveness typically exhibits a higher level of questioning, engagement, discussion, and teacher feedback (Pell et al., 2010; Ragadhita et al., 2023). The key components may be the questioning, engagement, discussion, and teacher feedback, which may act as the catalysts for DMs (Moore et al., 2024). How do these components affect the factors that determine the effectiveness of the DM? What is the underlying mechanism?

As revealed by Table 1 and Table 2, the DM has its own advantages for improving teaching and learning performances (Basheer et al., 2017; Hošnjak et al., 2019). By visualizing ideas and concepts, it can effectively reduce the cognitive loads among students (Ginns et al., 2016; C. C. Liu et al., 2022) and thus help them to overcome the ZPD proposed by Vygotsky (Vygotsky, 1978). Through the visualization process, the DM helps students to connect their textbook knowledge with reality (Inderanata & Sukardi, 2023; Manishimwe et al., 2022). To secure the method’s success, there is an assumption: students are paying attention to the demonstration. However, this is exactly one of the weaknesses of DMs (Amin & Ikhsan, 2021; Lestari et al., 2023). The study conducted by Kaneza et al. (2024) and Moore et al. (2024) demonstrated that students in DM classes may exhibit some non-learning-related activities, such as leaving the classroom, looking at another object that was not related to the lab activity, having off-task conversations, or being distracted by something. Engagement is precisely the appropriate resolution to this issue (Moore et al., 2024). Distributing some of the tasks to students can help them stay focused, thus unleashing the potential of the DM. Meanwhile, this allows the teacher to monitor the learning progress and thus adjust the teaching pace if necessary. By shifting some tasks to students, the degree of retention increases as students can learn through direct experience.

Questioning, pre-class materials, and teacher feedback may have a similar function in keeping students’ attention (Logar & Savec, 2011). However, they do perform additional important functions besides this. Gorucu-Coskuner et al. (2020) found that if a video demonstration was paused and relevant questions, additional information, and feedback were provided, it helped students to grasp the important points and internalize difficult concepts. Thus, this boosts students’ learning performance. Meanwhile, the use of pre-class material in DMs can provide sufficient pre-knowledge (content knowledge, procedural knowledge, as well as the connections between the knowledge and the phenomena) to students. It also helps students to identify what is important and what phenomena should be observed. Eventually, this helps students to stay focused and keep them on the right track (Logar & Savec, 2011). Furthermore, Pell et al. (2010) found that students may become overwhelmed and exhausted because they may feel during the demonstration that the experiment was more difficult than they thought. Even though pre-class material was provided, students may not have been able to memorize all the necessary pre-knowledge, and thus timely teacher feedback is crucial.

On the other hand, as suggested by Xu and Clarke (2012), uncertainty may sometimes occur when someone is performing an experiment, and thus, it may not align with what students expected. According to Piaget’s theory of cognitive development (Piaget, 1971), learning happens when new information (the uncertainty) does not align with the pre-existing cognitive schemas (knowledge known). If Piaget’s theory holds true, this will then be followed by assimilation and accommodation to adapt to the new knowledge. Discussion and teacher feedback play an important role here. For DM classes with these components, students can discuss their hypothesis based on facts and lab guidelines followed by verification from the teacher (Xu & Clarke, 2012). Therefore, this facilitates the adaptation of new knowledge and thus facilitates assimilation and accommodation.

5. Discussion

5.1. When and How to Use the Demonstration Method?

A critical synthesis of the findings suggests that the effectiveness of the DM is not absolute but highly context-dependent. It is likely to be most appropriate and effective in specific educational scenarios: (1) when the primary instructional goal is conceptual understanding and observation, such as introducing complex, abstract, or invisible processes (e.g., chemical reactions and physics phenomena) to build an accurate mental model; (2) under severe constraints of resources, time, or safety, where equipment is lacking, materials are hazardous or expensive, or the lesson time is limited; (3) when students lack the necessary prerequisite skills or knowledge, as the DM provides a structured, risk-free observational experience that can scaffold later hands-on activities; (4) for demonstrating high-risk procedures to ensure safety and model correct techniques; and (5) as a pragmatic means to ensure all students in a large class are exposed to a core phenomenon.

Conversely, the DM may be pedagogically limiting or less appropriate in other contexts: (1) when the core learning objective is the development of hands-on practical skills (e.g., instrumentation or data collection), as observational learning cannot substitute for the psychomotor and procedural knowledge gained through direct practice; (2) when the aim is to foster higher-order thinking skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and scientific inquiry, as passive observation offers limited opportunities for the active engagement and trial and error essential for developing these competencies; (3) when assessing students’ laboratory skills, as the DM itself does not constitute a valid assessment of student performance; and (4) when student motivation relies heavily on autonomous exploration and discovery, as over-reliance on teacher-centered demonstrations may inadvertently diminish intrinsic motivation and learner agency.

Therefore, the decision to employ the DM should not stem from a generic endorsement but from a nuanced consideration of the specific learning objectives, student readiness, and contextual constraints. The PEDDI framework proposed in this study is designed precisely to optimize the use of the DM in scenarios where it has been deemed the suitable pedagogical choice.

5.2. Advancing STEM Teaching Practices via the Demonstration Method: The PEDDI Approach

Drawing upon prior findings, DMs associated with pre-class material, engagement, questioning, discussion, and teacher feedback may yield a better result than the DM alone. This paper introduces the PEDDI approach, a pedagogical technique that enhances the DM through the integration of five interrelated components, namely pre-class materials, engagement, DMs, discussion, and immediate teacher feedback. When the PEDDI approach (Figure 5) is implemented, these components have the potential to produce more effective learning outcomes and address challenges (Table 6). The following section elaborates on each component in detail.

• Pre-class material: Through the use of pre-class materials, students are equipped with the prior knowledge, experimental skills, materials, and detailed procedures required for the DM, making it easier for students to grasp the knowledge and purpose of the experiment. According to Table 3, which presents studies indicating that DM is more effective, pre-class material is more commonly found in the DM group.
• Engagement: The DM content should be as interactive as possible, involving students through student helpers or step-by-step calculations to enhance learning. In the study conducted by Ragadhita et al. (2023), engagement is present in effective DM conditions.
• DM: As the main teaching session, teachers need to make appropriate adjustments to the presentation and venue, considering the following questions: What type of demonstration should be used? Is it better to use traditional experimental tools or videos? Is the number of students too large, or will the venue result in obstructions to students’ vision?
• Discussion: Teachers should provide sufficient time for students to discuss and thus construct what they have learnt so far and to remove any blind spots in their learning. According to Table 4, which presents studies indicating that DM is less effective, discussion is less frequently observed in the DM group.
• Immediate teacher feedback: While students are discussing, teachers provide immediate feedback to address students’ learning difficulties. According to Table 4, teachers’ feedback is less frequently observed in the DM group.

Figure 5. The mechanism of the PEDDI approach.

Figure 5. The mechanism of the PEDDI approach.

Table 6. PEDDI approach and the challenges it addresses.

PEDDI Components	Challenges Addressed
Pre-class Material	Addressing the lack of understanding of purpose and connection.
Engagement	Mitigating passivity.
Demonstration	Mitigating impact on limited procedural knowledge. Addressing the lack of direct experience and impact on limited soft skills. Mitigating challenges with large class sizes and limited teaching hours.
Discussion	Addressing misunderstanding and blind spots. Enhancing science literacy.
Immediate Teacher Feedback	Addressing misunderstanding and blind spots. Mitigating the lack of immediate feedback.

Table 6. PEDDI approach and the challenges it addresses.

PEDDI Components	Challenges Addressed
Pre-class Material	Addressing the lack of understanding of purpose and connection.
Engagement	Mitigating passivity.
Demonstration	Mitigating impact on limited procedural knowledge. Addressing the lack of direct experience and impact on limited soft skills. Mitigating challenges with large class sizes and limited teaching hours.
Discussion	Addressing misunderstanding and blind spots. Enhancing science literacy.
Immediate Teacher Feedback	Addressing misunderstanding and blind spots. Mitigating the lack of immediate feedback.

5.3. Theoretical Underpinnings of the PEDDI Approach

The PEDDI approach is conceptually supported by several cornerstone learning theories, ensuring its pedagogical coherence and potential efficacy.

• Cognitive Load Theory (CLT): CLT posits that the working memory is limited, and instructional design should optimize the load associated with learning (Sweller, 1988). In PEDDI, the pre-class materials (P) and structured demonstration (DM) serve to reduce extraneous cognitive loads. By providing essential background and visualizing complex processes, they help students channel their cognitive resources towards integrating new information with prior knowledge, rather than struggling with unfamiliar procedures or abstract representations.
• Social Learning Theory (SLT): SLT emphasizes learning through observation, imitation, and modeling (Bandura, 1977). The core demonstration (DM) component embodies this principle, as the teacher acts as a model who exhibits specific skills and thought processes. Students observe these modeled behaviors, which can lead to the acquisition of new strategies and understandings without the need for an initial direct performance.
• Constructivism: Constructivist theories assert that learners actively build their own knowledge through experience, reflection (Piaget, 1971), and social interaction (Vygotsky, 1978). PEDDI incorporates this through student engagement (E) and discussion (D). Engagement transforms passive observation into active participation, while peer and class discussions provide a forum for articulating, challenging, and refining mental models, thereby co-constructing knowledge.
• Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): Vygotsky’s ZPD defines the distance between what a learner can do independently and what they can achieve with guidance (Vygotsky, 1978). PEDDI is designed to operate within this zone. Pre-class materials (P) are designed to raise the learner’s independent level (actual development). Subsequently, the demonstration (DM), guided engagement (E), and discussion (D) provide structured support (scaffolding). Crucially, the immediate teacher feedback (I) component offers real-time, adaptive scaffolding to address misconceptions and guide understanding, directly facilitating progress from the actual to the potential level of development.

By integrating these theoretical perspectives, the PEDDI approach moves beyond a mere checklist of activities to become a theoretically informed pedagogical framework aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of demonstration-based learning in STEM. The proposed PEDDI approach offers a potential pathway to enhance the DM’s effectiveness in situations where it is the chosen instructional method, by addressing some of its inherent limitations.

5.4. Limitations

Although this systematic literature review comprehensively reflects current trends involved in using DMs in STEM education, it is not without limitations.

First, if the words used in this search engine did not appear in the title, abstract, or keywords of the articles, those articles could not be included in this review.

Second, it is important to note that only one search engine (Scopus) was used in this study, and the studies identified by this search engine do not represent all the studies conducted in the past (Muka et al., 2020). Although Scopus is a widely utilized and reputable abstract and citation database that includes a large number of high-quality, peer-reviewed journals, it does not index all relevant publications in the field of education. Consequently, pertinent studies indexed in other major databases (e.g., Web of Science) or within regional or disciplinary repositories, as well as unpublished articles, may have been omitted, which could affect the comprehensiveness of our literature sample. Future research could enhance the findings by conducting searches across multiple databases and by incorporating gray literature to achieve a more exhaustive coverage of the field.

Third, a publication bias may be present, as studies reporting positive or significant outcomes of DMs are more likely to be published than those with neutral or negative findings. This could lead to an overrepresentation of favorable results in our synthesis. A regional bias is also possible, as the distribution of included studies shows a concentration in Asia and North America (see Figure 2), which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other educational contexts and cultures.

Fourth, no formal quality appraisal tool was applied to evaluate the methodological rigor of the individual studies included. All studies were synthesized and weighted equally in our frequency analysis, regardless of variations in research designs, sample sizes, controls for confounding variables, or potential sources of bias. This approach may affect the reliability of the summarized trends.

These limitations suggest that these findings should be interpreted cautiously. Future research could address these gaps to provide a more comprehensive understanding of DMs in STEM education.

5.5. Further Studies

Although this study presents a comprehensive PEDDI approach for effective DMs in STEM education, it primarily focuses on pedagogical adaptations, leaving certain teacher-related and operational challenges insufficiently addressed. Therefore, future research could place a greater emphasis on these aspects. For instance, future studies could explore the development of new DMs to alleviate teaching challenges, such as leveraging virtual reality technology (Liou & Chang, 2018) to minimize material preparation and address operational difficulties, including the constraints of teaching large classes and sightline limitations (Copridge et al., 2021). Additionally, design-based research could be conducted to test the full PEDDI approach against DM-only approaches to evaluate its effectiveness in diverse classroom settings. Comparative studies across disciplines or educational levels could also provide valuable insights into how the PEDDI framework performs in varied contexts, such as humanities versus STEM or primary versus secondary education.

6. Conclusions

This systematic literature review provides an in-depth analysis of the DM in STEM education. This review identified 49 relevant studies, summarizing 15 benefits and 14 challenges associated with the DM, encompassing their impact on students, teachers, and operational aspects. The DM’s effectiveness can be enhanced when paired with key components such as pre-class preparation, student engagement, questioning, discussion, and teacher feedback, as these elements help overcome DM’s shortcomings. These components are collectively referred to as the PEDDI approach, designed to facilitate recall and support educators in implementing DMs in practice.

This review suggests that the DM can play a valuable, though context-specific, role in STEM education. Its value is maximized when aligned with appropriate learning objectives and constraints. The findings and recommendations presented in this review have the potential to enhance STEM education by improving the implementation of DMs. By applying these insights, we aim to support both educators and students, fostering more effective teaching practices and enriching learning experiences in STEM education.

Implications

This study offers the following recommendations for three key stakeholders: policymakers, universities, and schools.

Based on this review’s findings, policymakers are encouraged to allocate additional resources to support the use of DMs in curriculum planning. For example, policymakers can consider providing more funding to universities to offer professional development programs focused on DMs and the PEDDI approach. These programs can equip educators with the necessary skills and strategies to implement DMs effectively. Furthermore, policymakers can allocate additional resources to schools to hire additional staff who can assist with the preparation and management of materials required for demonstrations. Such support would allow teachers to focus more on refining their teaching methodologies.

Universities can improve teacher training by expanding the availability of courses related to the PEDDI approach. These courses can equip teachers with the skills needed to effectively implement DMs, including strategies for incorporating discussion and immediate feedback to enhance teaching outcomes. By doing so, universities can better prepare educators to utilize DMs effectively in their classrooms.

Schools can organize regular sharing and collaborative sessions for teachers to share their practices and experiences related to DMs and the PEDDI approach. By fostering a supportive environment and providing adequate resources, schools can empower teachers to implement DMs more effectively.