Rethinking Science Teaching for the 21st Century: A SWOT Analysis of a Multi-Strategic Model ^†

Abstract

This work presents the Integrated Multi-Strategy Teaching (IMST) model, developed for science education to enhance autonomy, engagement, and professional competencies. Applied in a pharmacy course, IMST combines flipped classrooms, peer assessment, and scenario-based learning. A SWOT analysis based on student and faculty feedback highlights strengths in skill development and practical relevance, while noting challenges such as workload and classroom constraints. The results support the effectiveness of IMST and suggest improvements to promote broader acceptance and sustainability.

1. Introduction

The rapid evolution of scientific knowledge, coupled with the complexity of professional demands in science-related fields, calls for innovative pedagogical approaches that move beyond traditional, lecture-based instruction. In science education, there is a growing emphasis on fostering deep learning, critical thinking, autonomy, and transferable skills essential for lifelong learning and adaptability [1,2]. Contemporary educational paradigms advocate for student-centred methodologies that promote active participation and engagement, such as flipped classrooms, guided self-study, peer evaluation, and scenario-based learning [3,4,5].

The Integrated Multi-Strategy Teaching in Science (IMTS) approach responds to these imperatives by blending diverse evidence-based strategies into a cohesive model. It has been developed, systematically applied, and improved in the pharmaceutical context, specifically of Drug Delivery and Targeting, in the last decade. It emphasizes structured autonomy, collaborative problem solving, and reflective learning, leveraging digital tools, for blended learning and continuous assessment. This pedagogical model aims not only to enhance knowledge acquisition but also to cultivate professional competencies aligned with the needs of 21st-century science graduates [5,6].

This paper summarizes the IMTS practice and presents a SWOT analysis of the methodology as applied in a university-level science course. It explores its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, based on student outcomes and engagement levels, and the reflective input of the two faculty members involved in its development and application. The analysis explores the benefits and limitations of the approach, as well as its potential for scaling and institutional integration across academic contexts.

2. Materials and Methods

The IMST model aligns with contemporary educational trends that emphasize maximum learning with minimum teaching, structured around three core pillars: knowledge, skills, and attitudes. To foster active student engagement, a variety of strategies (e.g., flipped classes, role-playing, group work, peer assessment) are implemented during theoretical-practical sessions. The learning process typically unfolds in three phases; the key elements considered at each stage to increase effectiveness and commitment are presented:

2.1. Pre-Class

Students engage with research materials and self-study, supported by curated content. Guidelines for the weekly activities to be completed before, during, and after each class are clearly presented on Moodle platform (https://moodle.egasmoniz.edu.pt/). Content that is scientifically sound, up-to-date, and aligned with the course objectives is selected, highlighting current scientific trends and prioritizing literature reviews for a comprehensive perspective. Incorporation of examples of the professor’s own work fosters interest, engagement, and relevance. Strict adherence to deadlines is enforced to promote accountability and a sense of responsibility among students.

2.2. In-Class

Interactive activities such as bibliographic search, content selection and management; ethical and responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI); production of written materials with or without oral presentation; intra- and/or inter-group discussion; problem-solving tasks or role-playing, ensure active participation. The class begins with a brief contextualisation of the activity and verification of whether autonomous preparatory work has been completed and finishes by consolidating the content, clearly and concisely summarizing key takeaways and their relevance or impact. The time allocated to each task is carefully managed to maintain focus and efficiency. Themes, media format of presentations (e.g., report, abstract, poster, oral), and communication contexts (e.g., patient, doctor, scientific meeting), are varied while also employing diverse pedagogical approaches to enhance engagement and learning.

2.3. Post-Class

To reinforce learning, students are invited to reflect on the activity and engage with curated content (e.g., short videos) or to evaluate and provide feedback on peers’ work, as applicable. Credible, up-to-date multimedia resources directly aligned with the lesson topic are selected to reinforce and deepen understanding. Moodle Workshop tool is used to conduct individual, randomized peer evaluations, guided by a structured assessment grid developed by the professor to ensure fairness and consistency.

The level of complexity and autonomy required from students increases progressively throughout the course, culminating in a final group assignment. This task involves the production of an abstract and a scientific poster, which are gradually developed and refined in class with the professor’s guidance.

Assessment is multi-faceted and includes written components, oral presentations—delivered both in class and at a Students’ Scientific Meeting—as well as an individual discussion of the work. Evaluation is carried out by both the professor and peers, fostering accountability and reflective learning. An Objective Structured Clinical/Practical Exam (OSCPE) is applied at the end of the course as a skills assessment methodology [7].

An online survey, featuring a 16-item questionnaire with a continuous 0–10 scale, was conducted using Mentimeter (https://www.mentimeter.com/); voting outputs were invisible to participants. It targeted fourth-year pharmacy students (2024–2025; n = 64) at the end of the “Advanced Therapeutic Systems” course, which implemented the IMST model. The survey was applied prior to the final evaluation to reduce the impact that a less favourable mark might introduce. The questionnaire assessed students’ perceptions of course structure and organization, the perceived validity and reliability of the practice, and comparisons between the IMST approach and traditional lecture-based teaching. Open-ended questions gathered qualitative feedback on strengths, weaknesses, and suggestions for improvement. Additionally, professors, independently and before treating student data to avoid bias, reflected on application of the model and student performance. A SWOT analysis was used to compare student responses and professor insights, and identify opportunities for improvement.

3. Results and Discussion

The students’ perspective on the IMST model, based on an online survey (96.9% response rate), is summarized in Figure 1. Overall, the practice was well-received, with students reporting clear gains in key academic and professional skills. The results underscore the method’s effectiveness in promoting autonomy, active engagement, and preparedness for professional challenges—core objectives of the IMST approach. Areas of moderate satisfaction point to opportunities for enhancing the perceived accessibility and motivational impact of learning. Notably, the highest rating was given to the increased preparation time required, reflecting a significant workload compared to traditional methods, probably explaining the moderate enjoyment as a learning strategy. Conversely, the lowest score—related to enthusiasm for study—suggests that while students valued the method, it did not always translate into greater personal motivation or emotional engagement. In open-ended responses, many students suggested carrying out most of the work during class time (22.6%), interspersing preparatory and presentation sessions (6.5%), and extending deadlines for coursework and peer evaluation (4.8%). Only one student expressed a preference for traditional classes, due to the reduced effort, a greater reliance on the professor’s explanations, and concerns over the fairness of peer review.

A combined SWOT summary comparing professors’ and students’ perspectives regarding their experiences with the IMTS practice is given in

Table 1. Combined SWOT analysis integrating the perspectives of students [S], professors [P] or both students and professors [SP], highlighting commonalities and contrasts.

Strengths (S)	Weaknesses (W)
[S] Felt more actively involved in learning (6.81) and more responsible for their learning (7.11);	[S] Found the method demanding in terms of time (8.35), with moderate enjoyment (6.52) and enthusiasm (5.81); [S] Moderately improved problem-solving skills (6.52) and learning ease (6.47). $$―●●―$$ [P] High workload due to preparation, marking, and feedback delivery; [P] Limited time in class for deep exploration and individual feedback; [P] Some students miss post-class tasks, leading to incomplete learning cycles; [P] Difficulties managing large groups and tracking peer evaluations on Moodle; [P] Students with poor English or lack of autonomy struggle to follow class structure; [P] Rigid schedules and physical classroom limitations hinder collaboration and responsiveness; [P] Lack of consistent post-class engagement and challenges to use OSCPE as a learning strategy due to late application (end of semester).
[S] Reported gains in research (7.56), presentation and communication (6.87) skills; [S] Perceived practical relevance of the model (7.45); [S] Stated promoted learning efficiency (6.81) and interest in the subject (6.92); [S] IMTS stimulates critical thinking (7.10), interest in scientific topics (6.74), and commitment (7.05). $$―●●―$$ [P] Students are required to take a proactive approach to achieve the specific goals of each class; [P] Lessons are dynamic and diversified due to the varied teaching–learning methodologies and subjects; [P] Peer evaluation gives [S] a clearer understanding of their own performance, highlights areas of improvement; [P] Increase in transversal competencies (e.g., stress management, teamwork, communication in various contexts); [P] Unique group projects enrich overall learning/discussion; [P] IMTS fosters curricular integration and real-life simulation through final OSCPE exam.
Opportunities (O)	Threats (T)
[P] Good Pedagogical Practice (awarded in 2024) offers institutional credibility and dissemination potential; [P] Encourage AI use for problem-solving, real-world task alignment and work opportunities; [P] Use high-impact elements (research, relevance) as drivers of engagement; [P] Adaptable to various curricula; transferable across disciplines. $$―●●―$$ [SP] Include motivation strategies (e.g., gamification); [SP] Feedback-driven improvements and flexible evaluation models to promote continuous refinement.	[P] High workload perception may reduce engagement or increase stress; [P] Risk of inequity if autonomy levels overwhelm less prepared students; [P] Unsuitable for students resistant to active learning or lacking self-discipline; [P] Non-native [S] may disengage due to language barriers; [P] Student absences and disengagement negatively affect group dynamics and outcomes; [P] Overreliance on AI without critical thinking can lead to unstructured or superficial learning; [P] Risk of professor burnout due to intense demands and limited support infrastructure; [P] Current peer-assessment tools (Moodle) lack transparency and efficiency for formative use.

. The pedagogical value of the model in the development of transversal and academic skills such as research, communication, and critical thinking is also recognized by professors. However, weaknesses are evident in the method’s high time demands and implementation challenges—especially for students lacking autonomy or English language proficiency. Professors highlighted the logistical burden of applying IMST, including preparation and grading time, managing peer assessment, and limited classroom adaptability. Some students also failed to complete post-class tasks, weakening the learning cycle.

There are clear opportunities to further refine the model by leveraging its recognition as an award-winning practice, integrating motivational strategies like gamification, and expanding its transdisciplinary reach. The strategic use of AI and continuous feedback loops also present growth paths. Nonetheless, significant threats remain, such as resistance to non-traditional methods, inequities in student readiness, and professor burnout risk due to limited support. Inadequate digital tools and classroom infrastructure further limit scalability and long-term sustainability.

4. Conclusions

The IMST model effectively cultivates active learning, professional competencies, and curricular integration. While students and professors alike recognize its educational value, its sustainability depends on addressing structural, logistical, and motivational barriers. Balancing innovation with realistic workload expectations and inclusive design is key to broadening its acceptance and impact across diverse learning environments.