International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 12, Issue 2 (February 2025), Pages: 44-51

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Perceptions of Indonesian and Thai science lecturers on e-BIMO in science teacher education programs

 Author(s): 

 Indah Juwita Sari 1, *, R. Ahmad Zaky El Islami 2, Zakaria Zakaria 3, Prasart Nuangchalerm 4, Suparman Suparman 5, Selfi Maharani 1

 Affiliation(s):

 1Department of Biology Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Serang, Indonesia
 2Department of Science Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Serang, Indonesia
 3Department of English Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Serang, Indonesia
 4Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, Mahasarakham University, Kham Riang, Thailand
 5Department of Biology Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Khairun, Ternate, Indonesia

 Full text

  Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5810-2945

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.02.005

 Abstract

The e-Bioinformatics Module (e-BIMO) was developed to address the needs of science lecturers and enhance pre-service science teachers’ skills. This study examined the perceptions of nine science lecturers—seven from Indonesian universities and two from a Thai university—before and after implementing e-BIMO in science teacher education programs. Using qualitative methods, data were collected through genetic learning needs and experience interview sheets and analyzed using content analysis. Before implementation, discussions focused on curriculum, learning resources, teaching strategies, assessments, and conceptual understanding. Post-implementation results revealed that e-BIMO provided a more engaging and interactive learning experience, particularly in topics such as genetic diseases and forensic science, and helped pre-service teachers connect theoretical knowledge with practical applications, improving understanding and critical thinking. The study concludes by recommending the integration of e-BIMO into science teacher education programs, particularly in Indonesia and Thailand.

 © 2025 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Bioinformatics module, Science education, Pre-service teachers, Critical thinking, Interactive learning

 Article history

 Received 17 September 2024, Received in revised form 11 January 2025, Accepted 18 January 2025

 Acknowledgment

The authors thank the Directorate of Research, Technology, and Community Service, Directorate General of Higher Education, Research, and Technology, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia for funding this research through an applied research grant with contract number 092/E5/PG.02.00.PL/2024. This research is also financially supported by Mahasarakham University, Thailand.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

In this study, all participants were given complete information about the purpose, methods, potential risks, and benefits of the study before they gave written consent to participate. The identities and personal information of the participants will be kept confidential, and the data will be anonymized in the research report. In addition, participants were given the right to withdraw from the study at any time without negative consequences.

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Sari IJ, El Islami RAZ, Zakaria Z, Nuangchalerm P, Suparman S, and Maharani S (2025). Perceptions of Indonesian and Thai science lecturers on e-BIMO in science teacher education programs. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(2): 44-51

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 

 Tables

 No Table

----------------------------------------------   

 References (33)

  1. Adistana GYPA, Mulyono WD, and Suryaman H (2024). Three crucial points in implementing learning on Independent Learning Independent Campus (MBKM) curriculum based on student perceptions. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 813: 321-328. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-198-2_43   [Google Scholar]
  2. Amaditha FF, Fitri SG, and Ekanara B (2024). Students’ communication skills and scientific literacy ability in biology through guided inquiry learning. International Journal of Biology Education Towards Sustainable Development, 4(1): 21-31. https://doi.org/10.53889/ijbetsd.v4i1.435   [Google Scholar]
  3. Araujo ALSO, Andrade WL, Guerrero DDS, and Melo MRA (2019). How many abilities can we measure in computational thinking? A study on Bebras challenge. In the Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Association for Computing Machinery, Minneapolis, USA: 545-551. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287405   [Google Scholar] PMid:32685754 PMCid:PMC7363261
  4. Attwood TK, Blackford S, Brazas MD, Davies A, and Schneider MV (2019). A global perspective on evolving bioinformatics and data science training needs. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 20(2): 398-404. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbx100   [Google Scholar] PMid:28968751 PMCid:PMC6433731
  5. Boonmoh A and Kulavichian I (2023). Exploring Thai EFL pre-service teachers' technology integration based on SAMR model. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4): ep457. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13567   [Google Scholar]
  6. Dewi SN and Hamdiyati Y (2024). Student STEM literacy ability profile on environmental change issues. Quagga: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Biologi, 16(2): 203-208. https://doi.org/10.25134/quagga.v16i2.344   [Google Scholar]
  7. Djambong T, Freiman V, Gauvin S, Paquet M, and Chiasson M (2018). Measurement of computational thinking in K-12 education: The need for innovative practices. In: Sampson D, Ifenthaler D, Spector J, and Isaías P (Eds.), Digital technologies: Sustainable innovations for improving teaching and learning: 193-222. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73417-0_12   [Google Scholar]
  8. Donmez I (2020). STEM education dimensions: From STEM literacy to STEM assessment. Research Highlights in Education and Science 2020: 154-170.   [Google Scholar]
  9. El Islami RAZ, Sari IJ, and Utari E (2023). Conceptualizing bioinformatics education in STEM literacy development for pre-service biology teachers. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 10(12): 193-202. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2023.12.021   [Google Scholar]
  10. Gatherer D (2020). Reflections on integrating bioinformatics into the undergraduate curriculum: The Lancaster experience. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 48(2): 118-127. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21320   [Google Scholar] PMid:31793726
  11. Hizqiyah IYNA, Nugraha I, Cartono C, Ibrahim Y, Nurlaelah I, Yanti M, and Nuraeni S (2023). The project-based learning model and its contribution to life skills in biology learning: A systematic literature network analysis. Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia, 9(1): 26-35. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v9i1.22089   [Google Scholar]
  12. Irmak M and Tüzün ÖY (2019). Investigating pre-service science teachers' perceived technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) regarding genetics. Research in Science and Technological Education, 37(2): 127-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1466778   [Google Scholar]
  13. Japee G and Oza P (2021). Curriculum and evaluation in outcome-based education. Psychology and Education Journal, 58(2): 5620-5625. https://doi.org/10.17762/pae.v58i2.2982   [Google Scholar]
  14. King AJ, Fisher AM, Becich MJ, and Boone DN (2017). Computer science, biology and biomedical informatics academy: Outcomes from 5 years of immersing high-school students into informatics research. Journal of Pathology Informatics, 8(1): 2. https://doi.org/10.4103/2153-3539.201110   [Google Scholar] PMid:28400991 PMCid:PMC5359992
  15. Li B, Jia X, Chi Y, Liu X, and Jia B (2020). Project-based learning in a collaborative group can enhance student skill and ability in the biochemical laboratory: A case study. Journal of Biological Education, 54(4): 404-418. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2019.1600570   [Google Scholar]
  16. Lim SJ, Khan AM, De Silva M, Lim KS, Hu Y, Tan CH, and Tan TW (2009). The implementation of e-learning tools to enhance undergraduate bioinformatics teaching and learning: A case study in the National University of Singapore. BMC Bioinformatics, 10: S12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-10-S15-S12   [Google Scholar] PMid:19958511 PMCid:PMC2788352
  17. Magana AJ, Taleyarkhan M, Alvarado DR, Kane M, Springer J, and Clase K (2014). A survey of scholarly literature describing the field of bioinformatics education and bioinformatics educational research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(4): 607-623. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-10-0193   [Google Scholar] PMid:25452484 PMCid:PMC4255348
  18. Mahdi TA and Uyuni YR (2023). Transformasi bahasa Arab dalam era digital dalam perkembangan pembelajaran bahasa Arab di Indonesia. Prosiding Pertemuan Ilmiah Internasional Bahasa Arab, 14(1): 1487-1498.   [Google Scholar]
  19. Makolo AU, Smile O, Ezekiel KB, Destefano AM, McCall JL, and Isokpehi RD (2022). Leveraging H3Africa scholarly publications for technology-enhanced personalized bioinformatics education. Education Sciences, 12(12): 859. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120859   [Google Scholar]
  20. Morris MC (2023). Improving undergraduate student engagement in STEM through bioinformatics research. The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  21. Muslimin AI, Mukminatien N, and Ivone FM (2023). TPACK-SAMR based lecturers' digital literacy competence and its implementation in EFL classroom. Computer-Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal, 24(3): 154-173.   [Google Scholar]
  22. Nithitakkharanon P and Nuangchalerm P (2022). Enhancing pre-service teachers in learning management competency by TPACK framework study and professional requirement. International Journal of Evaluation and Research Education, 11(3): 1473-1479. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v11i3.22181   [Google Scholar]
  23. Nuangchalerm P (2020). TPACK in ASEAN perspectives: Case study on Thai pre-service teacher. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(4): 993-999. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i4.20700   [Google Scholar]
  24. Pratumsala K and Nuangchalerm P (2023). Enhancing scientific literacy of lower secondary students through technological pedagogical and content knowledge framework. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences, 5(2): 263-274. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonses.499   [Google Scholar]
  25. Pucker B, Schilbert HM, and Schumacher SF (2019). Integrating molecular biology and bioinformatics education. Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics, 16(3): 20190005. https://doi.org/10.1515/jib-2019-0005   [Google Scholar] PMid:31145692 PMCid:PMC6798849
  26. Robeva RS, Jungck JR, and Gross LJ (2020). Changing the nature of quantitative biology education: Data science as a driver. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 82: 127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-020-00785-0   [Google Scholar] PMid:32951075
  27. Sari IJ, El Islami RAZ, and Safkolam R. (2022a). Implementation of bioinformatics learning in senior high school: A systematic review. International Journal of Biology Education Towards Sustainable Development, 2(2): 87-98. https://doi.org/10.53889/ijbetsd.v2i2.164   [Google Scholar]
  28. Sari IJ, Vongsangnak W, and Pongsophon P (2022b). The effect of bioinformatics module on molecular genetics concepts on senior high school students' computational thinking skills. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 10(2): 9-17. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v10i2.4680   [Google Scholar]
  29. Sayres MAW, Hauser C, Sierk M, Robic S, Rosenwald AG, Smith TM, Triplett EW, Williams JJ, Dinsdale E, Morgan WR, and Burnette III JM et al. (2018). Bioinformatics core competencies for undergraduate life sciences education. PLOS ONE, 13(6): e0196878. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196878   [Google Scholar] PMid:29870542 PMCid:PMC5988330
  30. Wilkerson MH and Polman JL (2020). Situating data science: Exploring how relationships to data shape learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(1): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1705664   [Google Scholar]
  31. Williams JJ, Drew JC, Galindo-Gonzalez S, Robic S, Dinsdale E, Morgan WR, Triplett EW, Burnette III JM, Donovan SS, Fowlks ER, and Goodman AL et al. (2019). Barriers to integration of bioinformatics into undergraduate life sciences education: A national study of US life sciences faculty uncover significant barriers to integrating bioinformatics into undergraduate instruction. PLOS ONE, 14(11): e0224288. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224288   [Google Scholar] PMid:31738797 PMCid:PMC6860448
  32. Yoon SA, Shim J, Miller K, Cottone AM, Noushad NF, Yoo JU, Gonzalez MV, Urbanowicz R, and Himes BE (2022). Professional development for STEM integration: Analyzing bioinformatics teaching by examining teachers' qualities of adaptive expertise. In: Superfine AC, Goldman SR, and Monica Ko ML (Eds.), Teacher learning in changing contexts: 69-90. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003097112-6   [Google Scholar]
  33. You Y, Lai X, Pan Y, Zheng H, Vera J, Liu S, Deng S, and Zhang L (2022). Artificial intelligence in cancer target identification and drug discovery. Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy, 7: 156. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-022-00994-0   [Google Scholar] PMid:35538061 PMCid:PMC9090746