Archives
Current issue
About
About us
Aims and Scope
Abstracting and Indexing
Editorial Office
Open Access Policy
Publication Ethics
Journal History
Publisher
Follow us: Twitter
Contact
For Authors
Editorial Policy
Peer Review Policy
Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
Copyright & Licencing
Publication Fees
Fee Waiver Policy for Doctoral Students
EJMSTE Language Editing Service
More
Statistics
Special Issues
Special Issue Announcements
Published Special Issues
RESEARCH PAPER
Enhancing creativity in genetics using three teaching strategies-based TPACK model
1
Department of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Negeri Malang, Malang, INDONESIA
2
Department of Biology Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Palembang, Palembang, INDONESIA
3
Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, MALAYSIA
Publication date: 2022-12-09
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2022;18(12):em2196
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Several studies show that the creativity of science students in Indonesia is still low and needs to
be empowered and improved. One of the subjects considered difficult by students is genetics
because it is abstract and complex. Therefore, educators try technological, pedagogical, and
content knowledge (TPACK) model with different strategies. This study aims to analyze and
describe the effect of active learning based on the TPACK model with three teaching strategies,
namely problem-based learning (PBL), reading, questioning, and answering (RQA), and PBL-RQA,
on student creativity in the genetics course at three classes. The research design used was a pre-test-post-test three treatment design. Several teaching strategies used in active learning based
on the TPACK model in the genetics course are PBL, RQA, and a combination of PBL-RQA. The
research was conducted for one semester. Data was collected through pre- and post-test in the
form of description questions distributed through Google Forms. The results showed that the
three active learning classes based on the TPACK model have the potential to increase student
creativity. The three classes did not differ significantly in increasing student creativity. The three
classes have their respective advantages, so educators can choose between the three strategies
used by considering the characteristics of students. The three TPACK-based active learning can
be used as recommendations in designing the learning process. Educators can also choose the
three TPACK-based active learning to empower and increase student creativity.
REFERENCES (70)
1.
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.
2.
Akinoglu, O., & Tandogan, R. O. (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/ejmst....
3.
Alrwaished, N., Alkandari, A., & Alhashem, F. (2017). Exploring in- and pre-service science and mathematics teachers’ technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK): What next? EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(9), 6113-6131. https://doi.org/10.12973/euras....
5.
Atun, H., & Usta, E. (2019). The effects of programming education planned with TPACK framework on learning outcomes. Participatory Educational Research, 6(2), 26-36. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.1....
6.
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. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/....
7.
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, 012199. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6....
8.
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/10.53378/35207....
9.
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/10.1080/089236....
10.
Brown, C. A., & Neal, R. E. (2011). Using 21st century thinking skills applied to the TPACK instructional model [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the AECT International Convention.
11.
Choden, T., & Kijkuakul, S. (2020). Blending problem based learning with scientific argumentation to enhance students understanding of basic genetics. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 445-462. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2....
12.
Cimer, A. (2012). What makes biology learning difficult and effective: Students views. Educational Research and Reviews, 7(3), 61-71.
13.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/978131....
14.
Corfman, T. D. (2017). Creativity in asynchronous online discussions [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University].
15.
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.....
16.
Duncan, R. G., & Tseng, K. A. (2011). Designing project-based instruction to foster generative and mechanistic understandings in genetics. Science Education, 95(1), 21-56. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20....
17.
Fauzi, A., & Fariantika, A. (2018). Courses perceived difficult by undergraduate students majoring in biology. Biosfer, 11(2), 78-89. https://doi.org/10.21009/biosf....
18.
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), 238-247. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.....
19.
Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and creativity in education and training in the EU member states: Fostering creative learning and supporting innovative teaching. JRC. https://publications.jrc.ec.eu....
20.
Ferreira, M., & Trudel, A. (2012). The impact of problem based learning (PBL) on student attitudes toward science, problem-solving skills, and sense of community in the classroom. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 47(1), 23-30.
21.
Fonseca, V. M. F., & Gómez, J. (2017). Applying active methodologies for teaching software engineering in computer engineering. Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias Del Aprendizaje [Iberoamerican Journal of Learning Technologies], 12(3), 147-155. https://doi.org/10.1109/RITA.2....
22.
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. PNAS, 111(23), 8410-8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1....
23.
Greenstein, L. (2012). Assessing 21st century skills: A guide to evaluating mastery and authentic learning. SAGE.
24.
Gross, M. E., Zedelius, C. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2020). Cultivating an understanding of curiosity as a seed for creativity. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 35, 77-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobe....
25.
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, 4(7), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.20431/2349-....
26.
Hatta, P., Aristyagama, Y. H., Yuana, R. A., & Yulisetiani, S. (2020). Active learning strategies in synchronous online learning for elementary school students. Indonesian Journal of Informatics Education, 4(2), 86-93. https://doi.org/10.20961/ijie.....
27.
Irdalisa, Paidi, & Djukri. (2020). Implementation of technology-based guided inquiry to improve TPACK among prospective biology teachers. International Journal of Instruction, 13(2), 33-44. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2....
28.
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.201....
29.
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.....
30.
Kaplan, D. E. (2019). Creativity in education: Teaching for creativity development. Psychology, 10(02), 140-147. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.....
31.
Kibuka-Sebitosi, E. (2007). Understanding genetics and inheritance in rural schools. Journal of Biological Education, 41(2), 56-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/002192....
32.
Kitchens, B., Means, T., & Tan, Y. (2018). Captivate: Building blocks for implementing active learning. Journal of Education for Business, 93(2), 58-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/088323....
33.
Knippels, M. C. P. J., Waarlo, A. J., & Boersma, K. T. (2005). Design criteria for learning and teaching genetics. Journal of Biological Education, 39(3), 108-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/002192....
34.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205....
35.
Kuo, Y. C., & Kuo, Y. T. (2015). Active learning in online learning environments for adult learners. In Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 242-248).
36.
Kutaka-Kennedy, J. (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.....
37.
Lapek, J. (2018). Promoting 21st century skills in problem-based learning environments. CTETE-Research Monograph Series, 1(1), 66-85. https://doi.org/10.21061/ctete....
38.
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/10.1177/152910....
39.
Maksić, S. B., & Spasenović, V. Z. (2018). Educational science students implicit theories of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 30(3), 287-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/104004....
40.
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? American Journal of Physiology-Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159-167. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.....
41.
Millis, B. J. (2012). Active learning strategies in face-to-face courses. IDEA Paper, 53, 1-8.
42.
Mintu-Wimsatt, A., Sadler, T., & Ingram, K. (2007). Creativity in online courses: Perceptions of MBA students. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 324-330.
43.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2008). Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
44.
Mitchell, A., Petter, S., & Harris, A. L. (2017). Learning by doing: Twenty successful active learning exercises for information systems courses. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 16(1), 21-46. https://doi.org/10.28945/3643.
45.
Muralidhar, K. (2013). Biology education, creativity, & career. International Journal of Applied and Natural Sciences, 2(2), 53-64.
46.
Murray-Nseula, M. (2011). Incorporating case studies into an undergraduate genetics course. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(3), 75-85.
47.
Navaneedhan, C. G., & Kamalanabhan, T. J. (2016). Is metaphorical thinking related to development of cognitive structures among learners? World Scientific News, 52, 1-13.
48.
NEA. (2012). Preparing 21st century students for a global society: An educator’s guide to” the four Cs. National Education Association. https://dl.icdst.org/pdfs/file....
49.
Nikolopoulou, K. (2018). Creativity and ICT: Theoretical approaches and perspectives in school education. In T. A. Mikropoulos (Ed.), Research on e-learning and ICT in education (pp. 87-100). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-....
50.
Northcott, B., Miliszewska, I., & Dakich, E. (2007). ICT for (I)nspiring (C)reative (T)hinking. In Proceedings Ascilite Singapore 2007 (pp. 761-768).
51.
Novo, A., Bastos, G., & Vasconcelos, A. I. (2016). Effects of a virtual learning environment on librarians’ information literacy and digital literacy competences. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Literacy (pp. 655-664). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-....
52.
Olatoye, R., Akintunde, S., & Ogunsanya, E. (2010). Relationship between creativity and academic achievement of business administration students in Southwestern Polytechnics, Nigeria. African Research Review, 4(3), 134-149. https://doi.org/10.4314/afrrev....
53.
Papaleontiou-Louca, E., Varnava-Marouchou, D., Mihai, S., & Konis, E. (2014). Teaching for creativity in universities. Journal of Education and Human Development, 3(4), 131-154. https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.....
54.
Pllana, D. (2019). Creativity in modern education. World Journal of Education, 9(2), 136-140. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v9....
55.
Ray Gehani, R. (2011). Individual creativity and the influence of mindful leaders on enterprise innovation. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 6(3), 82-92. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-....
56.
Reche, I., & Perfectti, F. (2020). Promoting individual and collective creativity in science students. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 35(9), 745-748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree....
57.
Riegel, C., & Kozen, A. (2016). Attaining 21st century skills in a virtual classroom. Educational Planning, 23(3), 41-55.
58.
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/10.1080/153915....
59.
Samašonok, K., & Leškienė, B. (2015). Creativity development: Theoretical and practical aspects. Journal of Creativity and Business, 1, 19-34.
60.
Sandika, B., & Fitrihidajati, H. (2018). Improving creative thinking skills and scientific attitude through inquiry-based learning in basic biology lecture toward student of biology education. Journal of Biological Education Indonesia, 4(1), 23-28. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.....
61.
Scheffer, M., Baas, M., & Bjordam, T. K. (2017). Teaching originality? Common habits behind creative production in science and arts. Ecology and Society, 22(2), 29. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-092....
62.
Seechaliao, T. (2017). Instructional strategies to support creativity and innovation in education. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(4), 201-208. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6....
63.
Shively, C. H. (2011). Grow creativity! International Society for Technology in Education, 38(7), 10-15.
64.
Songkram, N. (2015). E-learning system in virtual learning environment to develop creative thinking for learners in higher education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 674-679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbsp....
65.
Sothayapetch, P., & Lavonen, J. (2022). Technological pedagogical content knowledge of primary school science teachers during the COVID-19 in Thailand and Finland. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(7), em2124. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmst....
66.
Starbek, P., Starčič Erjavec, M., & Peklaj, C. (2010). Teaching genetics with multimedia results in better acquisition of knowledge and improvement in comprehension. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(3), 214-224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365....
67.
Stoilescu, D. (2015). A critical examination of the technological pedagogical content knowledge framework: Secondary school mathematics teachers integrating technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(4), 514-547. https://doi.org/10.1177/073563....
68.
Tanak, A. (2018). Designing TPACK-based course for preparing student teachers to teach science with technological pedagogical content knowledge. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 41(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss....
69.
Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C., & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED5055....
70.
Yilmaz, D., Tekkaya, C., & Sungur, S. (2011). The comparative effects of prediction/discussion-based learning cycle, conceptual change text, and traditional instructions on student understanding of genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 607-628. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1305-8223 |
| ISSN: | 1305-8215 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
