TPACK Profile of Biology Teachers During Their Learning Process After Participating in Numerical Taxonomy and its Training Program


This study aimed to analyze the TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) profiles of biology teachers in their learning process after participating in numerical taxonomy and its training program. TPACK is a construction of knowledge that must be possessed by teachers in the 21st century. Numerical taxonomy and its training aim to develop biology teachers’ TPACK in the classification of living things. This training equips biology teachers with the knowledge needed to integrate TPACK components into the learning process, including contents related to TPACK and to the classification of living things, especially numerical taxonomy, learning technology, learning strategies, and methods to integrate TPACK into the learning process. This research is a descriptive study in which the data of biology teachers’ TPACK during the learning process were obtained from PaP-eRs and the results of the learning performance assessment. The results showed that biology teachers’ TPACK during the learning process after numerical taxonomy training had good results, and there has been an interactive phase between the TPACK components in the learning process. This is proven by teachers’ ability to develop good PaP-eRs and teachers’ performance based on the learning assessment results. It was further found that the use of technology in the learning process has been optimally applied by teachers. Meanwhile, the delivery of motivation and misconception were less developed by the teachers during the implementation of the TPACK learning process.

Keywords: TPACK, numerical taxonomy, training program, biology teachers

[1] Mishra P, Koehler M. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teach Coll Rec. 2006;108(6):1017–54.

[2] Shulman L. Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. 1986;15(2):4–14.

[3] Koseoglu P. Hacettepe university prospective biology teachers’ self-confidence in terms of technological pedagogical content. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2012;46:931– 4.

[4] Angeli C, Valanides N, Ioannou I. Developing computer science teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge. Presented at the (2015).

[5] Getenet ST. Adapting technological pedagogical content knowledge framework to teach mathematics. Educ Inf Technol. 2017;22(5):2629–44.

[6] Catley KM, Phillips BC, Novick LR. Snakes and eels and dogs! oh, my! evaluating high school students’ tree-thinking skills: an entry point to understanding evolution. Res Sci Educ. 2013;43(6):2327–48.

[7] Dees J, Momsen JL, Niemi J, Montplaisir L. Student interpretations of phylogenetic trees in an introductory biology course. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2014;13(4):666–76.

[8] Baum DA, Offner S. Phylogenies & tree-thinking. Am Biol Teach. 2008;70(4):222–9.

[9] Sa’adah S, Hidayat T, Sudargo F. Identifikasi miskonsepsi mahasiswa pendidikan biologi dalam memahami pohon filogenetika. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Sains dan Teknologi. Bandung: UIN Sunan Gunung Djati; 2015. pp. 337–42.

[10] Koehler M, Mishra P, Kereluik K, Shin T, Graham C. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. In: Spector JM, Merrill MD, Elen J, Bishop MJ, editors. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. 4th ed. 2014. pp. 101–11.

[11] Janssen N, Lazonder AW. Implementing innovative technologies through lesson plans: what kind of support do teachers prefer? J Sci Educ Technol. 2015;24(6):910– 20.

[12] Koehler MJ, Mishra P. What happens when teachers design educational technology? the development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. J Educ Comput Res. 2005;32(2):131–52.

[13] Stasinakis PK, Kalogiannnakis M. Analysis of a moodle-based training program about the pedagogical content knowledge of evolution theory and natural selection. World Journal of Education. 2017;7(1):14.

[14] Paik S, Zhang M, Lundeberg MA, Eberhardt J, Shin TS, Zhang T. Supporting science teachers in alignment with state curriculum standards through professionaldevelopment: teachers’ preparedness, expectations and their fulfillment. J Sci Educ Technol. 2011;20(4):422–34.

[15] Loughran J, Berry A, Mulhall P, editors. Professional Learning. New York: Springer; 2012.

[16] Purwaningsih W, Mardiyah A. Analysis of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) ability of science teachers in planning and reflecting on environmental pollution content. J Phys Conf Ser. 2018;1013(1):12076.

[17] Bertram A. ‘CoRes and PaP-eRs as a strategy for helping beginning primary teachers develop their pedagogical content knowledge. Educ Quím. 2014;25(3):292–303.

[18] Shing CL, Saat RM, Loke SH. The knowledge of teaching- Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences. 2015;3(3):40–55.

[19] Harris JB, Hofer MJ. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in action. J Res Technol Educ. 2011;43(3):211–29.

[20] Tsai HC. A senior teacher’s implementation of technology integration. Int Educ Stud. 2015;8(6):151–61.

[21] Jimoyiannis A. Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers professional development. Comput Educ. 2010;55(3):1259–69.

[22] Mikropoulos TA, Natsis A. Educational virtual environments: a ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009). Comput Educ. 2011;56(3):769–80.

[23] Estes TH, Mintz SL, Gunter MA. Instruction: a model approach. 3rd ed. London: Pearson Education; 2015.

[24] Rochintaniawati D, Widodo A, Riandi R, Herlina L. Pedagogical content knowledge development of science prospective teachers in professional practice programs. Unnes Science Education Journal. 2018;7(2):119–28.