Bridging a University and Its Partner Schools in Chemistry Education: A Practice-Based Account of Managing and Evaluating a Knowledge Transfer Programme in Malaysia

University–community knowledge transfer programmes offer universities a practical means of bridging research and classroom practice by supporting school teachers, yet accounts of how such programmes are managed and how well they work remain limited. This article shares a university programme team's experience of planning, delivering, and evaluating a three-day chemistry education knowledge transfer programme implemented in October 2025 in partnership with a district education authority in Malaysia. The team developed four teacher-guide modules (Modules A–D) integrating inquiry-based, contextual, and cooperative approaches, delivered them to teachers and students, and evaluated their usability with teachers (n = 15). Teachers rated the modules highly for usefulness, ease of use, ease of learning, and satisfaction (means 4.45–4.62 on a five-point scale). The programme was delivered as scheduled to 15 teachers and 90 students, three times its student target, although the larger group stretched facilitators and materials. Effectiveness is judged here by teacher-perceived usability; student learning was not measured. The team's experience offers practical lessons on documenting design decisions, retaining evaluation data, and agreeing participant numbers with partners in advance.

knowledge transfer; university–school partnership; chemistry education; teacher-guide modules; programme evaluation; CIPP model

1. Ahmad, Z., Ammar, M., Sellami, A., & Al-Thani, N. J. (2023). Effective pedagogical approaches used in high school chemistry education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(5), 1796–1810. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00739 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Apriwanda, W. N., Mahanan, M. S., Ibrahim, N. H., Surif, J., Osman, S., & Bunyamin, M. A. H. (2021). Dual mode module as new innovation in learning chemistry: Project based learning oriented. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 15(18), 47–64. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i18.24549 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Damschroder, L. J., Reardon, C. M., Widerquist, M. A. O., & Lowery, J. (2022). The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation Science, 17, Article 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Demelash, M., Belachew, W., & Andargie, D. (2023). Context-based approach in chemistry education: A systematic review. African Journal of Chemical Education, 13(3), 163–201. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajce/article/view/251876 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Güngör, F., Altunbaşak, İ., Aydın, A. T., Kaya, M., & Erdem, C. (2026). A second-order meta-analysis on the effects of cooperative learning on students' academic achievement, higher-order thinking, and affective behaviors. Current Psychology, 45, Article 552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-08943-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hamid, S. N. M., Lee, T. T., Taha, H., Rahim, N. A., & Sharif, A. M. (2021). E-content module for chemistry massive open online course (MOOC): Development and students' perceptions. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 11(1), 67–92. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1074 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Jegstad, K. M. (2024). Inquiry-based chemistry education: A systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 60(2), 251–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2023.2248436 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Lund, A. M. (2001). Measuring usability with the USE questionnaire. Usability Interface, 8(2), 3–6. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Morgan, H. (2022). Conducting a qualitative document analysis. The Qualitative Report, 27(1), 64–77. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5044 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Priya, A. (2021). Case study methodology of qualitative research: Key attributes and navigating the conundrums in its application. Sociological Bulletin, 70(1), 94–110. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038022920970318 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Proctor, E. K., Bunger, A. C., Lengnick-Hall, R., Gerke, D. R., Martin, J. K., Phillips, R. J., & Swanson, J. C. (2023). Ten years of implementation outcomes research: A scoping review. Implementation Science, 18, Article 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-023-01286-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Sankaran, S., & Saad, N. (2022). Evaluating the Bachelor of Education program based on the context, input, process, and product model. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 924374. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.924374 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Sarmiento-Márquez, E. M., Pishtari, G., Prieto, L. P., & Poom-Valickis, K. (2023). The evaluation of school-university partnerships that improve teaching and learning practices: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 39, Article 100509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100509 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Shanklin, R., Kortum, P., & Oswald, F. L. (2022). USE-Lite: Psychometric item reduction of the USE (Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of Use) questionnaire. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 66(1), 1882–1886. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181322661142 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Siew, N. M. (2021). Developing students' 21st century skills in STEM mentor-mentee outreach programs. In V. Lamanauskas (Ed.), Science and technology education: Developing a global perspective. Proceedings of the 4th International Baltic Symposium on Science and Technology Education (BalticSTE2021) (pp. 166–179). Scientia Socialis Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. https://doi.org/10.33225/BalticSTE/2021.166 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Strat, T. T. S., Henriksen, E. K., & Jegstad, K. M. (2024). Inquiry-based science education in science teacher education: A systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 60(2), 191–249. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2023.2207148 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). The CIPP model for evaluation. In T. Kellaghan & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 31–62). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0309-4_4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Taha, H., Zahari, N. L., Lee, T. T., & Damanhuri, M. I. M. (2021). An exploratory study on green chemistry practices and experiments in Malaysian secondary schools. Journal of Science and Mathematics Letters, 9(2), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.37134/jsml.vol9.2.2.2021 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Talanquer, V. (2022). The complexity of reasoning about and with chemical representations. JACS Au, 2(12), 2658–2669. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacsau.2c00498 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Veerasinghan, K., Balakrishnan, B., Damanhuri, M. I. M., & Gengatharan, K. (2021). Design thinking for creative teaching of chemistry. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(3), 670–687. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v11-i3/8979 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• A Study to Assess the Impact of a Nurse-Led Educational Intervention on Knowledge Regarding Oral Health Among Primigravida in Selected Hospitals of Navi Mumbai
• Attitude towards Mathematics and Science in Relation to STEM Career Aspirations among Senior Secondary School Students
• AI-Driven Personalized Learning in Educational Systems: A Framework for Adaptive Learning and Decision Support
• Institutionalizing Indigenous Peoples Education in Philippine Basic Education: Development of the Integrated Institutionalization Framework for Indigenous Peoples Education (IIF-IPEd)
• Toward an Integrated Theory of Enterprise Risk Management: A Multi-Theoretical Conceptual Framework