TPACK-based Active Learning to Promote Digital and Scientific Literacy in Genetics
Keywords:active learning, TPACK, digital literacy, scientific literacy, Genetics
Active learning is centred on students and encourages them to participate in various classroom activities, with the teacher as a facilitator. Students are expected to develop multiple 21st-century skills through an active learning process, including digital and scientific literacies. Numerous studies demonstrate that students lack digital and scientific literacy, necessitating the empowerment and improvement of both skills through active learning based on TPACK (Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge). The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of TPACK-based active learning on students’ digital literacy and scientific literacy in Genetics. PBL (Problem-based Learning), RQA (Reading, Questioning, and Answering), and a mix of PBL and RQA are all examples of active learning approaches. TPACK-based active learning was used in the Genetics course because students perceive genetics as challenging. A pretest-posttest three-treatment design was adopted, with each learning model being applied to a group of students. Data on students’ digital literacy and scientific literacy were obtained using a pretest and a posttest. The results indicated no statistically significant difference between the three learning models. The students’ digital literacy and scientific literacy both experienced an increase due to implementing the three learning models. The three active learning models based on TPACK can promote students’ digital and scientific literacies. Other educators can adopt the experience of teaching Genetics with PBL, RQA, and PBL-RQA to promote digital literacy and scientific literacy.
Aivelo, T., & Uitto, A. (2018). Teachers’ Approaches to Genetics Teaching Mirror their Choice of Content and Avoidance of Sensitive Issues. BioRxiv, 350710. https://doi.org/10.1101/350710.
Akinoǧlu, O., & Tandoǧan, R. Ö. (2007). The Effects of Problem-based Active Learning in Science Education on Students’ Academic Achievement, Attitude and Concept Learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75375.
Allen, D.E., Duch, B.J., & Groh S.E. (2001). Strategies for Using Groups. In Duch. B.J et. (ed). The Power of Problem Based Learning: A Practical "How To" for Teaching Undergraduate Courses in Any Discipline. Sterling: Stylus Publishing.
Alsofyani, M. M., Aris, B., Eynon, R., & Majid, N. A. (2012). A Preliminary Evaluation of Short Blended Online Training Workshop for TPACK Development using Technology Acceptance Model. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(3), 20–32.
Atun, H., & Usta, E. (2019). The Effects of Programming Education Planned with TPACK framework on learning outcomes. Participatory Educational Research, 6(2), 26–36.
Bahri, A., & Corebima, A. D. (2015). The Contribution of Learning Motivation and Metacognitive Skill on Cognitive Learning Outcome of Students within Different Learning Strategies. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(4), 487-500.
Bahri, A., Suryani Idris, I., Nurman, R., & Ristiana, E. (2019). PBLRQA Strategy Potential in Enhancing Metacognitive Skills of Students with Different Academic Achievement. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1317(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1317/1/012199.
Banayo, A., & Barleta, C. J. (2022). Online Education as an Active Learning Environment in the New Normal. International Journal of Educational Management and Development Studies, 2(4), 72–96. https://doi.org/10.53378/352078.
Brown, A. L. (2014). Implementing Active Learning in an Online Teacher Education Course. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(3), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2014.924695.
Brown, C. A., & Neal, R. E. (2011). Using 21st Century Thinking Skills Applied to the TPACK Instructional Model. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the AECT International Convention, Hyatt Regency Jacksonville Riverfront, Jacksonville, FL, Nov 08, 2011, 21–28.
Çakýrodlu, Ü. (2014). Evaluating Students’ Perspectives about Virtual Classrooms with Regard to Seven Principles of Good Practice. South African Journal of Education, 34(2). https://doi.org/10.15700/201412071201.
Çam, E., & Kiyici, M. (2017). Perceptions of Prospective Teachers on Digital Literacy. Malaysia Online Journal of Educational Techology, 5(4), 29–44.
Care, E., Kim, H., Vista, A., & Anderson, K. (2018). Education System Alignment for 21st Century Skills: Focus on Assessment. Center for Universal Education at The Brookings Institution., 1–40.
Cassidy, J., Ortlieb, E., & Grote-Garcia, S. (2019). What’s Hot in Literacy 2018: Going Digital and Disciplinary. Literacy Research and Instruction, 58(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2019.1526860.
Cavanagh, A. J., Chen, X., Bathgate, M., Frederick, J., Hanauer, D. I., & Graham, M. J. (2018). Trust, Growth Mindset, and Student Commitment to Active Learning in a College Science Course. CBE Life Sciences Education, 17(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-06-0107.
Çevik, M. (2018). Impacts of the Project based (PBL) Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education on Academic Achievement and Career Interests of Vocational High School Students. Pegem Egitim ve Ogretim Dergisi= Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 8(2), 281.
Chai, C. S., Koh, E., Lim, C. P., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). Deepening ICT Integration through Multilevel Design of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal of Computers in Education, 1(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-014-0002-1.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education: Eighth edition. USA and Canada: Routledge.
Corbit, M., Kolodziej, S., & Bernstein, R. (2005). SciFair: a Multi-user Virtual Environment for Building Science Literacy. Beijing PCST Working Symposium, June, 21–24.
Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C. (2009). Using the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge Framework to Design Online Learning Environments and Professional Development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(3), 319–346. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.41.3.d.
Dragoş, V., & Mih, V. (2015). Scientific Literacy in School. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 209(July), 167–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.273.
Driessen, E. P., Knight, J. K., Smith, M. K., & Ballen, C. J. (2020). Demystifying the Meaning of Active Learning in Postsecondary Biology Education. CBE Life Sciences Education, 19(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-04-0068.
English, J. A. (2016). A Digital Literacy Initiative in Honors: Impact on Learning and Pedagogy. 125–155.
Espinosa, J. M. R. (2005). The Importance of Scientific Literacy in Our Society. Astrophysics, and How to Attract Young People into Physics”; Proc. JENAM 28–31.
Fauzi, A., & Fariantika, A. (2018). Courses Perceived Difficult by Undergraduate Students Majoring in Biology. Journal of Biological Education, 11(2), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.v11n2.78-89.
Fauzi, A., & Ramadani, S. D. (2017). Learning the Genetics Concepts through Project Activities using Drosophila Melanogaster: A Qualitative Descriptive Study. Journal of Biological Education Indonesia, 3(3), 238. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v3i3.4897.
Finger, G., & Finger, P. (2013). Understanding TPACK in Practice: Praxis through Technological Pedagogical Reasoning. International Conference on Educational Technologies, 22–32.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
Gamar, M. M., Al Faruq, M. S., & Lina, L. (2018). Challenging the Indonesian Primary Education in Industrial Revolution 4.0 Era. 269(CoEMA), 46–48. https://doi.org/10.2991/coema-18.2018.12.
Ghozali, I., & Tamansiswa, U. S. (2018). Educational Challenges to the 4.0 Industrial Revolution : Experience from Indonesia. At the International Academic Seminar, 1–7.
Gormally, C., Brickman, P., & Lut, M. (2012). Developing a Test of Scientific Literacy Skills (TOSLS): Measuring Undergraduates’ Evaluation of Scientific Information and Arguments. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 364–377. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-03-0026.
Greene, K. (2018). Transferable Digital Literacy Knowledge. The Language and Literacy Spectrum, 28(1), 1-15.
Gündoğmuş, N., & Gündüz, Ş. (2015). Study on the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge of Teacher Candidates and their Learning Strategies. Participatory Educational Research, 2(2), 47-58.
Hartman, K. B., Moberg, C. R., & Lambert, J. M. (2013). Effectiveness of Problem-based Learning in Introductory Business Courses. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 1–14.
Hariyadi, S., Corebima, A. D., Zubaidah, S., & Ibrohim, I. (2017). The Comparison of the Question Types in the RQA (Reading, Questioning, and Answering) Learning Model and Conventional Learning Model. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education (IJHSSE), 4(7), 10-18.
Hatta, P., Aristyagama, Y. H., Yuana, R. A., & Yulisetiani, S. (2020). Active Learning Strategies in Synchronous Online Learning for Elementary School Students. IJIE (Indonesian Journal of Informatics Education), 4(2), 86. https://doi.org/10.20961/ijie.v4i2.46019.
Heider, K.L., & Jalongo, M.R (Eds.). (2014). Young Children and Families in the Information Age: Applications of Technology in Early Childhood (Vol 10). USA: Springer.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The Meaning of Scientific Literacy. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3), 275-288.
Holden, J. T., Westfall, P. J. L., & Gamor, K. I. (2010). Implications for Blended Learning Featuring an Introduction to Virtual Worlds. http://www.usdla.org/USDLA_Ins_Media.pdf.
Jgunkola, B. J., & Ogunkola, B. J. (2013). Scientific Literacy: Conceptual Overview, Importance and Strategies for Improvement. Journal of Educationai and Social Research, 3(1), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2013.v3n1p265.
Johnson, J., & Jackson, F. (2015). Use of Multiple Intelligence Modalities to Convey Genetic and Genomic Concepts in African American College Biology Students. Natural Science, 07(06), 299–308. https://doi.org/10.4236/ns.2015.76033.
Joy, K.-K. (2015). A Proposed Model to Increase Creativity, Collaboration and Accountability in the Online Classroom. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(11), 873–876. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijiet.2015.v5.630.
Kaeophanuek, S., Jaitip, N.-S., & Nilsook, P. (2018). How to Enhance Digital Literacy Skills among Information Sciences Students. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 8(4), 292–297. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2018.8.4.1050.
Karpati, A. (2011). Digital Literacy in Education. Policy Brief, May, 1–12.
Kılıç, İ., & Moralar, A. (2015). The Effect of Problem-based Learning Approach on Academic Success and Motivation in Science Education. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 5(5), 625-636.
Knolton, D. V. (2014). Technological, Pedagogical, Content Knowledge (TPACK): an Exploratory Study of Adjunct Faculty Technology Proficiency. Doctoral Dissertations, 1–133.
Kuo, Y. C., & Kuo, Y. T. (2015). Active Learning in Online Learning Environments for Adult Learners. Proceedings of The Annual Convention of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 242-248).
Lapek, J. (2018). Promoting 21st Century Skills in Problem-based Learning Environments. Ctete-Research Monograph Series, 1(1), 66-85.
Lee, J., & Hirumi, A. (2004). Analysis of Essential Skills and Knowledge for Teaching Online. Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 534–540. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED485021.
Levano-Francia, L., Sanchez Diaz, S., Guillén-Aparicio, P., Tello-Cabello, S., Herrera-Paico, N., & Collantes-Inga, Z. (2019). Digital Competences and Education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.20511/pyr2019.v7n2.329.
Lombardi, D., Shipley, T. F., Bailey, J. M., Bretones, P. S., Prather, E. E., Ballen, C. J., Knight, J. K., Smith, M. K., Stowe, R. L., Cooper, M. M., Prince, M., Atit, K., Uttal, D. H., LaDue, N. D., McNeal, P. M., Ryker, K., St. John, K., van der Hoeven Kraft, K. J., & Docktor, J. L. (2021). The Curious Construct of Active Learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 22(1), 8–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620973974.
Michael, J. (2006). Where's the Evidence that Active Learning Works?. Advances in physiology education, 30, 159-167.
Miller, J. S. (2004). Problem-based Learning in organizational Behavior Class: Solving Students’ Real Problems. Journal of Management Education, 28(5), 578–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562903257937.
Murray-Nseula, M. (2011). Incorporating Case Studies into an Undergraduate Genetics Course. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(3), 75–85.
Ng, W. (2012). Can We Teach Digital Natives Digital Literacy? Computers and Education, 59(3), 1065–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016.
Novo, A., Bastos, G., & Vasconcelos, A. I. (2016). Effects of a Virtual Learning Environment on Librarians’ Information Literacy and Digital Literacy Competences. In European Conference on Information Literacy, 655-664.
Phillips, J. M. (2005). Strategies for Active Learning in Online Continuing Education. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 36(2), 77-83.
Rahmawati, N., Budiyanto, C., & Basori. (2019). Revisting Blended Learning in TPACK: Literature Review. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2194(December). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5139828.
Redfield, R. J. (2012). “Why Do We have to Learn this Stuff?”-a New Genetics for 21st Century Students. PLoS Biology, 10(7), 6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001356.
Risniawati, M., Serevina, V., & Delina, M. (2020). The Development of E-learning Media to Improve Students’ Science Literacy Skill in Senior High School. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1481(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1481/1/012075.
Rosenberg, J. M., & Koehler, M. J. (2015). Context and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): A Systematic Review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 186–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.1052663.
Schullo, S., Hilbelink, A., Venable, M., & Barron, A. E. (2007). Selecting a Virtual Classroom System: Elluminate Live vs. Macromedia Breeze (Adobe Acrobat Connect Professional). MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 331–345. http://jolt.merlot.org/vol3no4/hilbelink.htm.
Seechaliao, T. (2017). Instructional Strategies to Support Creativity and Innovation in Education. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(4), 201. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n4p201.
Shaffer, J. F., Ferguson, J., & Denaro, K. (2019). Use of the Test of Scientific Literacy Skills Reveals that Fundamental Literacy is an Important Contributor to Scientific Literacy. CBE Life Sciences Education, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-12-0238.
Shahroom, A. A., & Hussin, N. (2018). Industrial Revolution 4.0 and Education. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(9), 314–319. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v8-i9/4593.
Statti, A., & Torres, K. M. (2020). Digital Literacy: The Need for Technology Integration and Its Impact on Learning and Engagement in Community School Environments. Peabody Journal of Education, 95(1), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2019.1702426.
Traxler, J. (2018). Digital Literacy: A Palestinian Refugee Perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 26(1063519), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.1983.
Turiman, P., Omar, J., Daud, A. M., & Osman, K. (2012). Fostering the 21st Century Skills through Scientific Literacy and Science Process Skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.253.
Wang, S. (2021). Transition from Face-to-Face Teaching to Online Teaching: an Action Research Study. Journal of Educators Online, 18(2), 1-9.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2023 Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.