Development and Validation of a STEM-Based Education with PCK Training Manual for Biology Teachers

The study aimed to develop and validate a professional training manual integrating Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education teaching approach (PCK+STEM) to enhance the instructional competence of public school Biology teachers in Iligan City. Guided by the ADDIE model-Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate. The study employed a mixed-method research design, integrating both quantitative and qualitative approaches to systematically develop and comprehensively evaluate the training manual. The manual was conceptualized based on the identified needs of Biology educators and encompasses the topics of 1st quarter of Grade 9 Science following the essential domains of PCK and seven (7) stages of STEM Education by Sutaphan & Yuenyong, (2019). The validation process involved six PhD experts specializing in STEM and PCK education who evaluated the manual’s content, structure, and instructional coherence. Quantitative data were collected using a validated instrument across the domains of Analyze, Design, and Development, while qualitative feedback was gathered from open-ended expert comments to improve clarity, relevance, and usability. The evaluation results revealed that the training design manual achieved overall “Excellent” quality, with a grand mean of 3.53. These findings indicate that the training manual meets expert expectations in terms of pedagogical soundness, content validity, and practical applicability for teacher training. Moreover, the training manual serves as a validated resource for professional development programs in promoting Biology teachers’ integrated understanding of disciplinary knowledge, pedagogy, and STEM-based instruction. It is recommended to implement and assess the manual’s effectiveness in actual teacher training and classroom settings, focusing on its impact on teachers’ PCK enhancement and students’ engagement and achievement in Biology.

ADDIE Model, Pedagogical

1. Bautista, R. G., & Tan, A. L. (2018). Integrating STEM in Philippine education: Issues and challenges. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. Springer Science & Business Media. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Branch, R. M., & Kopcha, T. J. (2014). Instructional design models. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 77–87). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Brown, A., & Green, T. (2020). The essentials of instructional design: Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. National Science Teachers Association Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (4th ed.). Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2015). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K–12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional design (5th ed.). Wadsworth. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Garcia, L. C. (2023). Pedagogical content knowledge components’ integration in teaching biology using IBA: Grade 8 teachers’ case study. Alipato: A Journal of Basic Education, 13. https://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/ali/article/view/8917 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K–12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260903142285 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Kurt, S. (2017). Definitions of the ADDIE model. Educational Technology. https://educationaltechnology.net/the-addie-model-instructional-design/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Lou, S. J., Shih, R. C., Diez, C. R., & Tseng, K. H. (2011). The impact of problem-based learning strategies on STEM knowledge integration and attitudes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(4), 482–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9296-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Mager, R. F. (2018). Preparing instructional objectives (4th ed.). The Center for Effective Performance. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 42(5), 34–37. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kalman, H. (2019). Designing effective instruction (8th ed.). Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. OECD. (2019). Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners: TALIS 2018 results. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2020). Instructional-design theories and models: The learner-centered paradigm of education. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L., & Russell, J. D. (2015). Instructional technology and media for learning (11th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2019). Instructional design (4th ed.). Waveland Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Sutaphan, S., & Yuenyong, C. (2019). STEM education teaching approach: Inquiry from the context-based. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1340, 012003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1340/1/012003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study