Bridging Science and Society: Socio-Scientific Competencies and Training Needs of Future Educators in Bulacan, Philippines

Editha De Regla

doi:10.63931/ijchr.v7iSI3.338

Authors

Editha De Regla BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY-BUSTOS CAMPUS CAMPUS

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63931/ijchr.v7iSI3.338

Keywords:

Bulacan State University, Future Science Educators, Socio-scientific Teaching Competencies, Training Needs

Abstract

This study assessed the socio-scientific teaching competencies and training needs of future science educators at Bulacan State University. Using a quantitative approach, 3rd- and 4th-year BSEd Science major students participated through a validated survey adapted from Khatoon, Alam, and Bukhari (2014). The instrument measured self-perceived competencies in five areas: lesson planning and preparation, delivery and presentation, use of comparison and abstraction, formulation of generalizations, and application of lessons. Demographic factors such as age, residence, and family income were also considered.

Findings revealed that respondents were very competent in lesson planning and preparation, and competent in delivery and presentation, comparison and abstraction, generalization, and application. A significant difference emerged by age, with older respondents showing higher competencies, while younger ones reported relatively lower levels. No significant differences were found across residence and family monthly income.

The top five training needs identified were design thinking in science, authentic assessment, formative and summative assessment, integration of technology in science instruction, and contextual approaches in science instruction. These results underscore the importance of continuous professional development programs that integrate socio-scientific issues into teacher preparation curricula. Age-tailored trainings, hands-on workshops, and equitable access to professional development are recommended to enhance competencies and address generational gaps in delivering science lessons.

References

[1] Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities in the Philippines (AACCUP), Inc. (2014). Instruments for accreditation (Rev. ed.) [Unpublished accreditation manual]. AACCUP, Inc.

[2] Anderson, J., & Rainie, L. (2018, April 17). The future of well-being in a tech-saturated world. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/04/17/the-future-of-well-being-in-a-tech-saturated-world/

[3] Badeo, J. M. O., Duque, D. A. G., & Arnaldo, R. L. (2024). Teachers’ implementation of the socio-scientific issues-based approach in teaching science: A needs assessment. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 14(2), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1988 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1988

[4] Behrendt, M., & Franklin, T. (2014). A review of research on school field trips and their value in education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 9(3), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijese.2014.213a

[5] Capunitan, K. B., Lirado, J. D., & Gregana, C. F. (2023). Motivational factors in science learning, learners’ satisfaction and learning outcomes of pre-service teachers. International Journal of Scientific and Management Research, 6(5), 72–115. https://doi.org/10.37502/IJSMR.2023.6504 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37502/IJSMR.2023.6504

[6] Casey, B. J., Tottenham, N., Liston, C., & Durston, S. (2005). Imaging the developing brain: What have we learned about cognitive development? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(3), 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.01.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.01.011

[7] Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539

[8] Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

[9] Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791

[10] Department of Education (DepEd). (2016). K to 12 science curriculum guide (Grades 3–10). Department of Education, Republic of the Philippines.

[11] Department of Education (Philippines). (2001, December 20). DepEd Order No. 56, s. 2001: Policy on educational field trips. Supreme Court E-Library. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/10/39615

[12] Education: A cultural and historical perspective. (2023). International Journal of Culture, History and Religion, 5(2), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.53894/ijchr.v5i2.2023.45 DOI: https://doi.org/10.63931/ijchr.v5i1.19

[13] Gadaza, A., Manera, A., Santos, S., Alih, C., & Caban, R. (2025). Reviving the past, teaching the future: The role of Philippine cultural heritage in curriculum development of teacher education programs focus. International Journal on Culture, History, and Religion, 7(SI2). https://doi.org/10.63931/ijchr.v7iSI2.169 DOI: https://doi.org/10.63931/ijchr.v7iSI2.169

[14] Guo, S., Shi, L., & Zhai, X. (2024). Validating an instrument for teachers' acceptance of artificial intelligence in education. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.12345 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13338-6

[15] Hallinan, M. T. (2004). The development and validation of a framework for teaching competencies in higher education. Higher Education, 48(2), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000034318.74275.e4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000034318.74275.e4

[16] Hernández-Ramos, P., et al. (2021). Teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Science & Education. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100640

[17] Israel, G. D. (1992). Determining sample size. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences, EDIS.

[18] Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975 DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975

[19] Kelchtermans, G. (2022). Professional development and educational change: Teachers as agents, actors, and subjects. Journal of Educational Change, 23(4), 513–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-022-09463-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-022-09463-5

[20] Khatoon, Z., Alam, M. T., Bukhari, M. A., & Mushtaq, M. (2014). In-service teachers’ perception about their competencies in delivery of biology lessons. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 4(7), 820–834.

[21] Lorenzo, E. C. (2016). ICT integration in the educational system of the Philippines. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 5(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2015.1182

[22] Manalo, J. A. (2023). Integration of socio-scientific issues in the Philippine Grade 8 science curriculum: Opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 4(7), 2565–2576. https://mail.ijmaberjournal.org/index.php/ijmaber/article/view/1824

[23] Mohamed, N., & Othman, N. (2021). Experiential learning: Botanical garden as a place for learning plant science. Asian Journal of Quality of Life, 6(2), 142–151.

[24] OECD. (2019). Teaching and learning international survey (TALIS) 2018 results (Vol. I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en

[25] OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results: Philippines—Country note. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

[26] Pantić, N. (2015). A model for study of teacher agency for social justice. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 759–778. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044332 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044332

[27] Park, H., & Sung, J. (2013). The educational change in science teachers: Professional development and reflective practice. Asia-Pacific Education Review, 14(4), 511–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-013-9272-2

[28] Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472593520 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315678573-15

[29] Sá, M. J., & Serpa, S. (2023). Education for the digital age: Challenges and opportunities of Education 4.0. Education Sciences, 13(2), 183. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020183 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020183

[30] Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socioscientific issues as contexts for learning. Science & Education. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260802681839

[31] Sangcap, P., & Tindowen, D. (2024). The influence of teaching competencies on teachers’ performance and students’ academic achievement in primary science education. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 82(1), 70–85. https://scientiasocialis.lt/pec/node/1705 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/24.82.29

[32] SEAMEO INNOTECH. (2023). Notes on the Philippines’ PISA 2022 results. SEAMEO INNOTECH.

[33] 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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411

[34] Tenopir, C., Dalton, E., Christian, L., Jones, M., McCabe, M., Smith, M., & Fish, A. (2015). Changes in journal use and reading patterns of academics: Results of a U.S. survey. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5), 997–1008. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23304 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23304

[35] UNESCO. (2023). Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? UNESCO Digital Learning Report 2023. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385899

[36] Watson, S. (2025, May 8). Higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) in education: Teaching students to think critically. ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/higher-order-thinking-skills-hots-education-3111297

[37] Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173684