PILOT TEST: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LOCALIZED CONTEXT-BASED STEM EDUCATION APPROACH ON SELECT BIOLOGY TOPICS
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study designed and implemented a localized context-based STEM education approach to enhance Grade 3 students understanding of selected Biology topics, particularly Things in the Surroundings and Our Local Ecosystem. There were 70 Grade 3 students chosen as respondents of the study using the purposive sampling technique. Anchored in Sustainable Development Goals 4 (Quality Education), the pilot program was conducted at Sultan Naga Dimaporo, and integrated with local environmental and cultural contexts into the curriculum to promote meaningful, inquiry-driven learning. Utilizing a mixed-methods design, data were gathered through observations, prototype evaluations, formative assessments, pretest–posttest achievement tests, and student reflections. Results revealed significant improvements in students’ conceptual understanding and performance, as evidenced by a highly significant difference (p = 0.000) between pretest and posttest scores. Qualitative findings indicated increased engagement and environmental awareness, with students demonstrating the ability to relate scientific concepts to real-world situations. The approach proved feasible, culturally relevant, and effective in fostering active participation and higher-order thinking among young students. The study underscores the value of integrating localized knowledge and community resources into STEM education, aligning instruction with students lived experiences. Future directions emphasize expanding the program’s implementation and providing teacher training to sustain contextualized STEM instruction across grade levels and disciplines.
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
Aikenhead, G. S., & Elliott, D. (2010). An emerging decolonizing science education in Canada. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 10(4), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2010.524967
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete ed.). Longman.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
Barrun, J. A., & Cajurao, E. C. (2025). Development and validation of contextualized lessons in Science, Technology, and Society (STS): Impacts on students’ conceptual understanding, science process skills, and attitudes toward science. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 15(2), 30–41.
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. National Science Teachers Association Press.
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, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305021
Johnson, C. C. (2012). Implementation of STEM education policy: Challenges, progress, and lessons learned. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00110.x
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057
Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). FT Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543675
Moluayonge, G. E., & Park, I. (2017). Effect of challenges with class size, classroom management, and availability of instructional resources on science teachers’ teaching practices in secondary schools. Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 135–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.21796/jse.2017.41.1.135
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
OECD. (2016). OECD factbook 2015-2016: Economic, environmental and social statistics. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/factbook-2015-en
Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2008). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students’ prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20203
Sutaphan, S., & Yuenyong, C. (2019). STEM education teaching approach: Inquiry from the context-based. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1340(1), Article 012003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1340/1/012003
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Jossey-Bass.
Wortham, S. C. (2006). Early childhood curriculum: Developmental bases for learning and teaching (4th ed.). Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
