Bionavigator: Personalized Learning Package in General Biology 2
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23679562Keywords:
personalized learning, General Biology 2, quasi-experimental design, BioNavigator, level of understanding, STEM education, thematic analysis, PhilippinesAbstract
Personalized learning has the potential to address differences in learners’ readiness and pace, yet evidence on its use in senior high school biology remains limited in local public-school contexts. This study evaluated BioNavigator, a personalized learning package in General Biology 2, and examined learners’ and the teacher-implementer’s experiences during its use. A quasi-experimental nonequivalent control-group design with a qualitative component was employed among 66 Grade 12 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics learners at Zarraga National High School. Thirty-three learners received BioNavigator-based instruction, while 33 received the lecture method. A validated 60-item General Biology 2 Understanding Assessment with a Kuder-Richardson 20 reliability coefficient of 0.825 was administered as pre-test and post-test. Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and thematic analysis were used. The groups had comparable pre-test performance (U = 461.150, p = .878). Both groups improved significantly, but the BioNavigator group obtained a higher post-test mean (M = 49.45, SD = 2.36) than the lecture group (M = 47.12, SD = 3.67), with a significant between-group difference (U = 308.000, p = .033). Qualitative findings indicated that the package stimulated curiosity, deepened conceptual understanding, strengthened scientific reasoning, supported mastery and confidence, and helped learners connect science with societal issues. The teacher-implementer likewise observed stronger participation and independent learning, while recommending differentiated supports and more collaboration. BioNavigator therefore offers a promising supplementary approach for improving understanding in General Biology 2 when implemented with structured teacher guidance, differentiated materials, and collaborative learning opportunities.
Downloads
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Çimer, A. (2012). What makes biology learning difficult and effective: Students’ views. Educational Research and Reviews, 7(3), 61–71.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (4th ed.). Wiley.
Crowe, A., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2008). Biology in Bloom: Implementing Bloom’s Taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 7(4), 368–381. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024
Department of Education. (2016). K to 12 curriculum guide: Science (Grades 1–10 and Senior High School). https://www.deped.gov.ph
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
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
Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2015). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. Jossey-Bass.
Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2008). What needs to develop in the development of inquiry skills? Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 512–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802391745
Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660020306
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion Press.
Tekkaya, C., Özkan, Ö., & Balcı, S. (2001). Biology concepts perceived as difficult by Turkish high school students. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 21, 145–150.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Walkington, C. (2013). Using adaptive learning technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: The impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 932–945. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031882
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Joriane Lorenz P. Deocampo (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
