SCIENCE TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF PCK+STEM EDUCATION: A FOUNDATION FOR A TEACHER-TRAINING PROGRAM
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study explored the perceptions and understanding of science teachers in Iligan City regarding Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and the STEM education approach proposed by Sutaphan and Yuenyong (2019). A mixed-methods design was employed, combining quantitative and qualitative approaches to gain comprehensive insights into teachers’ knowledge, familiarity, teaching practices, and training needs. Data were collected from fifteen purposively selected science teachers through semi-structured interviews conducted during a focus group discussion (FGD). The interview guide, developed by the researcher, was validated by six PhD experts in PCK and STEM education, yielding a mean validity score of 3.61, interpreted as “exceeds expectations.”
Findings revealed that teachers generally have moderate knowledge of STEM education and high familiarity with PCK, reflecting their professional experience, though they acknowledged a lack of in-depth understanding. Teachers held positive perceptions toward integrating PCK in STEM, recognizing its role in enhancing problem-solving, fostering innovation, and preparing students for future careers. They emphasized that strong PCK enables the design of engaging, relevant, and inquiry-based lessons that connect learning to real-world contexts. However, despite this positive outlook, teachers identified challenges in implementing STEM-based instruction, including limited training and exposure, insufficient time and resources, and difficulties in aligning activities with the existing curriculum. These constraints were seen as barriers to the consistent and meaningful application of PCK-STEM integration in daily practice. Mainly, the study recommends addressing these challenges through curriculum enhancement, adequate resource allocation, and sustained professional development programs focused on PCK-STEM integration. Strengthening teacher collaboration, institutional support, and community partnerships is also vital. Overall, the study underscores the importance of continuous teacher training and reflective practice in promoting effective PCK-STEM integration and fostering student-centered, inquiry-driven learning that develops essential 21st-century skills.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright License
Permission is granted to use text, content, images, or any other material from the publication for anyone who wishes to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full text of the article, compile data for indexing, transfer data to software, or use for any other legal purposes, provided that it is not used for commercial purposes or for business benefit. All articles published in the Journal of Research and Innovation for Sustainability are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
References
Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction: Assessing the inquiry level of classroom activities. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30–33.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press.
Combalicer, L. F. (2016). Best practices and problems in the initial implementation of the K to 12 curriculum among teachers in Infanta, Quezon: Implications to an effective implementation of Senior High School. Journal of Education in Science and Social Sciences, 4, 1–17.
Constantino, R. W. D., & Antonio, R. P. (2025). Mapping the STEM education research in the Philippines. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 83(5), 626–644. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/25.83.626
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.
Deghaidy, H., & Mansour, N. (2015). Science teachers’ perceptions of STEM education: Possibilities and challenges. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 51–54. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijlt.1.1.51-54
Demirdöğen, B., & Uzuntiryaki-Kondakçı, E. (2016). Context-based chemistry: The effect of teaching in context on pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 747–768. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00025K
Department of Education. (2016). K to 12 curriculum guide: Science. http://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Science-CG_with-tagged-sciequipment_revised.pdf
DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. D. C. Heath.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305016
EDCOM II. (2023). Miseducation: The failed system of Philippine education (Year One Report).
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K–12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 28–42). Routledge.
Giri, V., & Paily, M. U. (2020). Effect of scientific argumentation on the development of critical thinking. Science & Education, 29(3), 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00120-y
Glazewski, K. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2020). Fostering complex problem solving for diverse learners: Engaging an ethos of intentionality toward equitable access. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(2), 679–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09762-9
Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18612
Hurley, M., Kelly, C., Rice, C., & McHugh, N. (2023). STEM teacher professional learning through immersive learning experiences. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1082479. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1082479
Institute for Promotion of Teaching of Science and Technology. (2002). National science curriculum standards. Kurusapa Ladproa.
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
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
Knight, J. (2012). High-impact instruction: A framework for great teaching. Corwin Press.
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson FT Press.
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting Learning by Design™ into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2
Lai, C. S. (2018). Using inquiry-based strategies for enhancing students’ STEM education learning. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 4(1), 110–117. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.389740
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Lee, Y. S., & Yeh, Y. F. (Eds.). (2019). Asia-Pacific STEM teaching practices: From theoretical frameworks to practices. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0768-7
Llewellyn, D. (2013). Teaching high school science through inquiry and argumentation (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.
Mafugu, T., Nzimande, E., & Makwara, C. (2024). Teachers’ perceptions of integrative STEM education in life sciences classrooms. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(11), Article em2535. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15624
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of PCK for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Springer.
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
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
Mientus, L., Hume, A., Wulff, P., Meiners, A., & Borowski, A. (2022). Modelling STEM teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in the framework of the refined consensus model: A systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 12(6), Article 385. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12060385
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667014
Nilsson, P. (2008). Teaching for understanding: The complex nature of PCK in pre-service teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1281–1299. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802186993
Nind, M. (2020). A new application for the concept of pedagogical content knowledge: Teaching advanced social science research methods. Oxford Review of Education, 46(2), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2019.1644996
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). PISA 2015 results: Excellence and equity in education (Vol. 1). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en
Papagiannopoulou, T. (2024). Teachers’ attitudes towards STEM education. Education Sciences, 14(3), Article 279. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14030279
Park, S., & Chen, Y. C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of PCK: Examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 922–941. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21022
Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of PCK: PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6
Park, S., Oliver, J. S., & Chen, J. (2011). Pedagogical content knowledge of science teachers. Science Education, 95(2), 337–358. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20412
Pellegrino, J. W. (2014). Assessment as a positive influence on 21st-century teaching and learning: A systems approach to progress. Psicología Educativa, 20(2), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2014.11.002
Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660020306
Rehman, N., Liang, L., & Zhang, Y. (2025). Emerging trends and effective strategies in STEM teacher professional development: Evidence from China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), Article 56. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04272-y
Rehmat, A. P., & Hartley, K. (2020). Building engineering awareness: Problem-based learning approach for STEM integration. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.14434/ijpbl.v14i1.28636
Roberts, M. (2024). Addressing the deficiency of STEM professional development in elementary education [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh]. University of Pittsburgh Institutional Repository. https://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/46835/
Roehrig, G. H., Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E., & Wieselmann, J. R. (2021). Understanding coherence and integration in integrated STEM curriculum. International Journal of STEM Education, 8, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00259-8
Rozenszajn, R., & Yarden, A. (2014). Expansion of biology teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) during a long-term professional development program. Research in Science Education, 44(1), 189–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9378-6
Schneider, M. R., & Plasman, K. (2011). Science teacher learning progressions: A review of science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge development. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 530–565. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311423382
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653
Sutaphan, S., & Yuenyong, C. (2019). STEM education teaching approach: Inquiry from the context based. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1340, Article 012003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1340/1/012003
Taber, K. S. (2014). Alternative conceptions, PCK, and science teaching for conceptual change: Understanding and addressing learning difficulties. Education Sciences, 4(4), 220–246. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci4040220
Thompson, A., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38–64.
Tillema, H. (2011). Teacher learning in assessment practices: Teachers’ response to feedback from classroom observations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 662–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.11.004
Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & De Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ PCK. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Yoon, S. A., & Klopfer, E. (2006). Feedback (F) fueling adaptation (A) network growth (N) and self-organization (S): A complex systems design and evaluation approach to professional development. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(5), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9024-x
Yuenyong, C., & Narjaikaew, P. (2009). Scientific literacy and Thailand science education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3), 335–349.
Zhou, X., Shu, L., Xu, Z., & Padrón, Y. (2023). The effect of professional development on in-service STEM teachers’ self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00422-x
