A new decade
for social changes
ISSN 2668-7798
Pedagogical Content Knowledge Practices of Public School Science Teachers
Williza M. Cordova, Joji D. Linaugo
University of Negros Occidental-Recoletos, Bacolod City, Philippines [email protected], [email protected]
Abstract. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) is used to determine the development of pedagogical and disciplinary science teachers; knowledge over time. Hence, investigating the extent of PCK practice is essential as it predicts how teachers carry out instructions. The study determined science teachers’ extent of PCK practice in public schools in a medium-sized division in Central Philippines in the areas of Subject Matter Knowledge (SMK), Instructional Representation Strategies (IRS), Instructional Objective and Context (IOC), and Knowledge of Students’ Understanding (KSU) using the descriptive-comparative research design. Using a researcher-modified questionnaire, the study was conducted to 208 respondents who were identified through stratified random sampling. The findings revealed that the extent of PCK practice is very great. A significant difference exists in the extent of PCK practice in terms of SMK and IOC when teachers are grouped according to age, grade level taught, and length of teaching service. Likewise, there is a significant difference in the extent of PCK practice in terms of KSU when respondents are grouped according to the grade level taught. This means that although female doctorate degree elementary teachers with longer teaching experience perform better, all science teachers, have a very great subject matter mastery, effective instructional delivery, context and objectives, and processing and evaluation of students’
knowledge.
Keywords. Education, Science, PCK Practice, Descriptive-Comparative, Central Philippines
1. Introduction
The quality of science education is associated with teachers' knowledge of the subject matter, their way of teaching, and their ability to use them appropriately. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) is the combination of a teacher’s subject matter knowledge with pedagogical methods and strategies [69]. It was first introduced and developed by Shulman in 1986 to describe teachers' knowledge in transforming certain subject matters for student learning, allowing the possibility of misconceptions and learning difficulties [10]. He further explained that PCK was the missing content paradigm that the education sector had ignored. Since then, PCK has caught the attention of educational researchers and gradually shifted the focus of educational research to the so-called "missing content paradigm." In the context of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), a global organization for improving science education through research, PCK was described as a type of knowledge that is unique
to teachers and is based on how teachers relate their pedagogical knowledge (what they know about teaching) to their subject matter knowledge (what they know about what they teach).
PCK legitimizes teaching in general as a profession [52]. It has been recognized as the knowledge base necessary for the effective teaching of science subjects [8] which can be a great help in the success of the general vision of the International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) that aims to improve the quality in raising the standards among science educators and improving science teachers' understanding of the new trends in teaching science topics in the 21st century [46]. It is essential to ensure the quality of the teaching-learning process wherein PCK works as a good predictor of how teachers carry out the instructions, which helps science education enthusiasts and science teachers and educators in professional development [49].
In the Philippines, different institutions, such as the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and the University of the Philippines National Institute for Science and Mathematics Education Development (UP NISMED), created and developed the Framework for Science Teacher Education (FSTE). The said rubric intends to quantify the competency of public science teachers' professional growth and development. Through these initiatives, the extent of PCK practice of science teachers will be given attention after the Philippines faces great concerns in teaching science due to poor performance in benchmarking tests such as the TIMSS [25] and in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Filipino students only acquired 357 points in scientific literacy, which was significantly lower than the average of 489 as mentioned by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ranking the Philippines last among OECD participating countries.
The subject for this study was a medium-sized division in Negros Occidental, located in Central Philippines, where the science teachers in this division are continuously engaged in various training programs and assessments, such as in Regional Memorandum No. 327, s. 2018 - Regional Training of Teachers (RTOT) on Pedagogical Retooling in Mathematics, Languages, and Science for Junior High School, DepEd Memorandum No. 50, series of 2020, entitled
"DepEd Professional Development Priorities for Teachers and School Leaders for SY 2020- 2023," where one of its agenda is to upskill and reskill the PCK of public school teachers and school leaders and DepEd Memorandum No. 004, s. 2022- Implementation of the Results- Based Performance Management System-Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers for School Year 2021-2022. In the implementation of a spiral curriculum under the K-12 program, it is part of science teachers' PCK to ensure compliance and commitment to quality education, as was proven by a local study that science teachers’ PCK is an important factor to students’
learning [30].
Since PCK is shown to be integral to effective science teaching, several studies on the development of PCK in science teachers have been conducted globally [47] [51][53] and in the Philippines [26] [46]. Previous studies had captured the effectiveness of science teachers’ PCK in qualitative with limited variables. This means that there is not enough empirical evidence found in studies about the extent of PCK practices of science teachers, particularly in the different grade levels in public schools. This is the research gap that this study would like to fill.
Considering the effectiveness of PCK, as mentioned in several studies, it is indeed important to determine the extent of PCK practice of science teachers in public schools. The findings of this study formed the basis of the continuing professional development through Learning Action Cells (LAC) designed for teachers to help them mentor each other and acquire the necessary PCK skills in teaching Science.
2. Framework of the Study
This is anchored on Shulman’s PCK theory which focuses on the two components:
Knowledge and Teaching, in understanding how the subject matter is organized and represented for instruction, and content knowledge that deals with the teaching process. When combined, it is referred to as Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). PCK describes teachers’ knowledge in transforming certain subject matters for student learning, allowing the possibility of misconceptions and learning difficulties [10]. This means that Shulman considered teachers the main source of learners' subject knowledge, suggesting that effective teachers should have a deeper understanding of the subject matter.
PCK for Shulman had given a single path for defining the nature of PCK and what it meant when representing or describing effective teachers [68]. The extent of teachers' PCK varies in the depth of their understanding of what makes learning specific topics easy or difficult. They have developed ways to teach these topics comprehensibly to the students.
Nevertheless, PCK is considered a cornerstone of teachers' expertise in education.
This principle theory guided the present study. Understanding Shulman's PCK theory is important in determining the extent of PCK practice of science teachers that would lead to the appropriate professional developments for teachers and eventually contributes to students’
academic achievements.
3. Method 3.1. Design
This is a quantitative research that uses a descriptive-comparative design to determine the extent of PCK practices of public school science teachers in the areas of Subject Matter Knowledge (SMK), Instructional Representation Strategies (IRS), Instructional Objective and Context (IOC), and Knowledge of Students’ Understanding (KSU).
3.2. Respondents
The respondents of the study were 208 science teachers from public schools in a medium-sized division in Central Philippines in the school year 2020-2021, identified through stratified sampling.
3.3. Research Instrument
The research instrument used was adapted from Jang et al. [37]. The first part of the instrument contains the demographic profile of the respondents. The second part determined the extent of PCK practices of public school science teachers and was measured on a scale of 1 to 5, in which the highest is 5 labeled as "very great extent," and the lowest is 1, which means
"very poor extent". The adapted instrument was subjected to validity and reliability test which shows a result of 0.99, found as valid using the criteria of Content Validity ratio (CVR) and was found reliable using Cronbach's Alpha with a score of 0.967, indicating that the questionnaire has a good internal consistency.
3.4. Data Collection Procedure
Before conducting the study, the request letter stipulating the nature and details of the research of the Schools Division Superintendent of the medium-sized division in Central Philippines was obtained. After which, the online survey questionnaire was forwarded to the
Science coordinator in the said division for dissemination to the selected respondents of the study. Before answering the actual research instrument, the identified respondents were advised about the study, specifically its purpose, scope, nature, and the parts of the questionnaire. They were asked to click the box to indicate their agreement with participation in the study. The data collection proper commenced after the agreement form.
After the data collection, the online survey questionnaire was closed and treated with confidentiality with respect to the respondents of the study. The information gathered was then analyzed with the help of the statistician.
3.5. Data Analysis Procedure
The descriptive and comparative analyses were utilized using the appropriate statistical tools. Kolmogorov-Smirnov was conducted to determine the normality of the variables, and the normality test was conducted to determine the appropriate inferential statistical tool to be used.
Since the variables are not normally distributed, non-parametric statistical tools were used.
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Percentage Distribution were used to determine the extent of PCK practice by Science teachers.
Mann Whitney U test was used to determine the significant difference in the extent of PCK practice of science teachers when they are grouped according to age, sex, and length of service. Kruskal Wallis was used to determining the significant difference in the extent of PCK practice of science teachers when they are grouped according to educational attainment and grade level taught.
3.6. Ethical Consideration
The researcher conformed to the Philippine Health Research Ethics Board (PHREB) ethical guidelines and addressed the general ethical principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice to ensure the ethical soundness of the study. The researcher deemed it relevant and important to respond to the issue concerning the PCK practices of Public School Science teachers considering the learning modalities in DepEd due to the COVID 19 pandemic.
The categorical and context vulnerability of the research participants was safeguarded, and their consent was made without coercion, influence, or probability of being wrong. In the consent, the research title and nature of the study were clearly stipulated. Also, they were guaranteed that their willingness to participate is voluntary and they are free to withdraw from the said study if they felt they were not safe due to several factors. They were guaranteed their right to privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality on whatever information they would share throughout the study. No information that discloses their identity will be published without their consent or approval. As for the preventive measures against COVID-19, everything was done online through Google forms. There was no face-to-face or physical contact during the entire conduct of the study.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. PCK Practice of Science Teachers in Public Schools
The result showed that as a whole, the extent of PCK practice by public school science teachers is very great. This signifies that science teachers have mastery of their subject matter and can deliver their lessons successfully using appropriate pedagogical methods. Among the five components, Subject Matter Knowledge ranked first followed by Instructional Representation and Strategies and Instructional Objective and Context, and Knowledge of
Students Understanding as the last. Similarly, in terms of demographics, all science teachers' extent of PCK practice is very great regardless of their age, sex, educational attainment, grade level taught, and length of teaching experience. With Subject Matter Knowledge as the highest- ranked component, the findings further imply that Science teachers are adept in their subject matter which means that they are very knowledgeable on the topics they discuss with the students. Science teachers who have PCK can manage to learn, as seen by the pedagogical ability to plan learning programs, implement or manage the interaction of the learning process, and make an assessment [60].
The findings have drawn similar results to a literature, which shows that subject matter knowledge is important in professional development to make teachers more effective, resulting in positive effects on student learning [6]. It is also evident in another study which confirms that subject knowledge tends to be a stronger predictor of teacher effectiveness regardless of teachers' demographic profile [66]. Another study found that teacher SMK promotes effective teaching that results in student achievement [42]. In contrast, a study found no significant relationship between teachers' SMK and instruction quality [14].
4.2 Difference in the Extent of PCK Practice of Science Teachers in terms of Demographics
4.2.1 Difference in the Extent of PCK Practice of Science Teachers when they are grouped according to Age
The result showed that there is no significant difference in the extent of PCK practice of science teachers in terms of instructional representation and strategies and knowledge of students’ understanding when they are grouped according to age. There is a significant difference in the extent of PCK practice among science teachers and terms of Subject Matter Knowledge (SMK) and Instructional Objective and Context (IOC) when they are grouped according to age.
This means that older teachers have a significantly greater extent of PCK practice than younger teachers in terms of subject matter mastery, understanding the context of science content, and evaluating students’ knowledge and learning processes.
The findings of the study conformed to several studies that show that older teachers are more effective than younger ones [56] [34] [9] [2]. However, some studies revealed that age is not significantly related to the PCK of science teachers [54].
4.2.2 Difference in the Extent of PCK Practice of Science Teachers when they are grouped according to Sex
The result showed that there is no significant difference in the extent of PCK practice of science teachers and in terms of subject matter knowledge, instructional representation and strategies, instructional objective and context and knowledge of students understanding when they are grouped according to sex.
This suggests that both male and female science teachers equally have a very great grasp of their subject matter, apply and demonstrate instructional strategies, objectives, and context, and are very knowledgeable about their students' receptive tendencies and evaluate their understanding of the lessons.
The result of the study conformed to [77] [54] [63] who found that there is no difference statistically between male and female science teachers when it comes to their PCK. In contrast, it was found that the extent of PCK practice in science teaching males is stronger than that of females [44] [76]. As supported by literature, female teachers showed fewer positive attitudes toward teaching Science compared to male teachers [4].
4.2.3 Difference in the Extent of PCK Practice of Science Teachers when they are grouped according to Length of Teaching Experience
The result showed that that there is no significant difference in the extent of PCK practice of science teachers in terms of instructional representation and strategies and knowledge of students' understanding when they are grouped according to the length of teaching
experience. Meanwhile, there is a significant difference in the extent of PCK practice of science teachers in terms of subject matter knowledge and instructional objective and context when they are grouped according to the length of teaching experience.
The findings imply that the teachers with longer years of service have greater mastery of their subject matter and better understand the context, the curriculum, and classroom management in science teaching.
The result of the study conformed to the literatures, in which it was found out that experienced teachers tend to value science education which results in a positive teaching quality compared to the new ones [58] [16]. Another study has drawn a similar result as teachers were found to be knowledgeable in their subject matter because of longer teaching experience [59].
However, in some studies, science teachers' length of teaching experience has no association with teaching quality [65] [7].
4.2.4 Difference in the Extent of PCK Practice of Science Teachers when they are grouped according to Educational Attainment
The result showed that there is no significant difference in the extent of PCK practice of science teachers and in terms of subject matter knowledge, instructional representation and strategies, instructional objective and context and knowledge of students understanding when they are grouped according to educational attainment.
This means that science teachers with bachelor's, master's, and doctorate degrees have an equally very great extent of knowledge and expertise in terms of their subject matter, instructional strategies, construction of lesson objectives and context, and understanding of how students process and understand their lessons and they should be evaluated. This further implies that regardless of educational attainment, science teachers possess competence as far as PCK practices are concerned.
In contrast, a study asserted that master teachers are more experts in the curriculum and are considered mentors to neophyte teachers [27]. Also, in another study it was found that educational attainment is significantly related to a science teacher's competence. She further discussed that competent science teachers are those who continuously attend higher graduate education [54]. Furthermore, science teachers must pursue graduate studies to further enrich their subject matter knowledge [71].
4.2.5 Difference in the Extent of PCK Practice of Science Teachers when they are grouped according to Grade Level Taught
The result showed that there was no significant difference in the extent of PCK practice of science teachers in terms of instructional representation and strategies when grouped according to grade level taught. The results suggest that elementary, junior high school, and senior high school teachers deliver their lessons effectively, evident in their very great extent of PCK practice in terms of delivering instructions and utilizing pedagogical strategies.
There is a significant difference in the extent of PCK practice of science teachers and in terms of subject matter knowledge, instructional objective, and context and knowledge of students understanding when they are grouped according to grade level taught.
The post hoc test revealed that in terms of Subject Matter Knowledge, elementary teachers have significantly higher PCK than other teachers. This means that elementary teachers are more knowledgeable of their subject matter than junior and senior high school science teachers. In terms of Instructional Objective and Context, elementary teachers likewise have a higher level of PCK practice. This indicates that elementary teachers have a higher understanding of the context of their subject matter, the curriculum, and classroom management than junior and senior high school science teachers.
Finally, in terms of Knowledge of Students' Understanding, the post hoc test also revealed that elementary teachers have a higher level of PCK practice which means that they are more aware of different teaching methods in evaluating their students' performances than junior and senior high school science teachers.
Supporting the findings are some pieces of literature that have mentioned the existing difference between grade levels taught, wherein secondary teachers have been found to have a more negative view of science competence than elementary science teachers [58] [65].
However, a piece of literature contradicts the findings of the study, which claims that Science elementary teachers lack subject matter knowledge [41].
To sum up, PCK is a unique professional knowledge base held by science teachers and a good determinant of effective science teaching. Shulman’s PCK theory emphasized the importance of the teacher's pedagogy and knowledge of the subject matter. More so, it could be concluded that the findings conform to the theoretical framework of the study, which theorizes that the extent of PCK practices of public school science teachers in terms of SMK, IRS, IOC, and KSU varies by their demographics— age, grade level taught, and length of teaching experience. On the other hand, part of the findings opposed the theory of the study, which resulted to sex and educational attainment having no significant difference in the areas of SMK, IRS, IOC, and KSU, which are the components of PCK.
5. Conclusion
The extent of PCK practice by public school science teachers is very great. The findings imply that all science teachers, regardless of demographic difference, have mastery of their subject matter, effective instructional delivery, context and objectives of the subject, and processing and evaluation of students' knowledge. However, the descriptive data imply that
older female doctorate degree elementary science teachers with longer teaching experience perform even better. The findings further signify that science teachers perform what is expected of them by the curriculum.
The significant difference in the extent of PCK practice in terms of Subject Matter Knowledge (SMK) and Instructional Objective and Context when teachers are grouped according to age, length of service, and grade level taught suggests that older elementary teachers with longer years in service are statistically more knowledgeable of their subject matter, understanding of context, the curriculum, and classroom management.
Nonetheless, with the exemplary results of the "very great" extent of overall PCK practice, it can be deduced that public school science teachers deliver science content and process students' learning effectively.
Another limitation of the findings is that most of the respondents were taken from urban areas, thus limiting the data. For future directions, it is suggested to explore the said study, including the aforementioned variable, to cover a larger scope that would satisfy the research being studied
References:
[1] Ahmed, S., Khan Farooqi, M. T., & Iqbal, A. (2021). A study of teachers’ teaching styles and students’ performance. Ilkogretim Online, 20(2).
https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2021.02.124
[2] Akiri, E., & Dori, Y. J. (2022). Professional growth of novice and experienced STEM teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(1), 129–142.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09936-x
[3] Amua-Sekyi, E. T. (2016). Assessment, student learning and classroom practice: A review. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(21), 1-6. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1109385 [4] Arnado, A. A., Pene, A. J. P., Fuentes, C. J. F., & Astilla, K. M. (2022). Fostering sustainable STEM education: Attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs of STEM teachers in conducting laboratory activities. International Journal of Studies in Education and Science, 3(1), 54-74. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijses.33
[5] Aydin. S. & Boz. Y. (2012). Review of studies related to pedagogical content knowledge in the context of science teacher education: Turkish case. Educational Science:
Theory & Practice, 12(1), 497-505. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ978455
[6] Azuelo, A. G., Sariana, L. G., & Manual, A. (2015). Science teachers’ teaching competencies and their training experience in classroom pedagogical approaches. Liceo Journal of Higher Education Research, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.7828/ljher.v11i1.886
[7] Bangao, B. J. D. (2020). Competency level of junior high school science teachers in mountain province, Philippines. PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 17(2), 547–558. https://mail.palarch.nl/index.php/jae/article/view/2886
[8] Barendsen, E., & Henze, I. (2019). Relating teacher PCK and teacher practice using classroom observation. Research in Science Education, 49(5), 1141–1175.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9637-z
[9] Batool, S., & Shah, S. M. A. (2018). Causative factors behind an efficacious teacher:
Evaluating teacher efficacy. Journal of Human Psychology, 1(1), 18–26.
https://doi.org/10.14302/issn.2644-1101.jhp-18-2261
[10] Berry, A., Depaepe, F., & van Driel, J. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education. In International Handbook of Teacher Education (pp. 347–386). Springer
Singapore.
[11] Blömeke, S., Olsen, R. V., & Suhl, U. (2016). Relation of student achievement to the quality of their teachers and instructional quality. In IEA Research for Education (pp. 21–50).
Springer International Publishing.
[12] Bozkuş, K. (2021). A systematic review of studies on classroom management from 1980 to 2019. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 13(4), 433–441.
https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2021.202
[13] Campbell, T., Melville, W., & Goodwin, D. (2016). Science teacher orientation and PCK as a sum of constructions across subject topic domains in middle school science. American Educational Researchers Association.
[14] Cauet, E., Liepertz, S., Borowski, A., & Fischer, H. E. (2015). Does it matter what we measure? Domain-specific professional knowledge of physics teachers. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Bildungswissenschaften, 37(3), 462–479. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:12746 [15] Cochran, K. (2018). Pedagogical content knowledge: Teachers' integration of subject matter, pedagogy, students, and learning environments. NARST. https://narst.org/research- matters/pedagogical-content-knowledge
[16] Cook, J. B., & Mansfield, R. K. (2016). Task-specific experience and task-specific talent: Decomposing the productivity of high school teachers. Journal of Public Economics, 140, 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.04.001
[17] Curran, F. C. & Kitchin J. (2019). Early elementary science instruction: Does more time on science or science topics/skills predict science achievement in the early grades?. Sage Journals. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419861081
[18] Department of Education (DepEd). (2018). RM No. 327, s .2018 – Regional Training of Teachers (RTOT) on Pedagogical Retooling in Mathematics, Languages, and Science for Junior High School (PRIMALS JHS). Department of Education, Region VI.
http://region6.deped.gov.ph/memorandum/rm-no-327-s-2018-regional-training-of-teachers- rtot-on-pedagogical-retooling-in-mathematics-languages-and-science-for-junior-high-school- primals-jhs/
[19] Department of Education (DepEd). (2022). Implementation of the results-based performance management system-Philippine professional standards for teachers for school year 2021-2022. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2022/02/10/february-9-2022-dm-004-s-2022- implementation-of-the-results-based-performance-management-system-philippine-
professional-standards-for-teachers-for-school-year-2021-2022/
[20] Department of education (DepEd). (2017). DO 42, s. 2017- National adoption and implementation of the Philippine professional standards for teachers.
https://www.deped.gov.ph/2017/08/11/do-42-s-2017-national-adoption-and-implementation- of-the-philippine-professional-standards-for-teachers/
[21] Department of Education (DepEd). (2020). DM no. 50, s. 2020 DepEd professional development priorities for teachers and school leaders for school year 2020-2023. Department of Education, Region VIII. https://region8.deped.gov.ph/2020/05/07/may-04-2020-dm-no-50- s-2020-deped-professional-development-priorities-for-teachers-and-school-leaders-for-
school-year-2020-2023/
[22] Ding, H. (2021). Gender differences in teaching and research performance of university teachers based on discrete data analysis. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2021, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5066668
[23] El-Madi, A. A., Said, Z., Friesen, H. L. (2019). Teaching style differences between
male and female science teachers in Qatari schools: Possible impact on student achievement.
EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(12), em1800.
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/109236
[24] Fisher, M. R., Jr., & Bandy, J. (2019). Assessing Student Learning. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/assessing-student-learning/.
[25] Galiza, J. D. R., Nicdao, R. F., & Guidote, A. J. M. (2018). Educational attainment, teaching experience, professional development and self-efficacy as predictors of chemistry content knowledge: Implication for the development of a national promotion examination.
KIMIKA, 29(2), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.26534/kimika.v29i2.7-22
[26] Gamayao, M., & Binas, E. (2021). Teaching competence and pedagogical content knowledge of science teachers in the first district of Capiz, Philippines: Basis for a sustainable instructional program. European Journal of Humanities and Educational Advancements, 2(1), 26-34, https://scholarzest.com/index.php/ejhea/article/view/147
[27] General, J. R. (2019). From novice to expert: The lived experience of master teachers in science. CNU Journal of Higher Education, 13(1), 34-42.
[28] George, I. N., Sakirudeen, O., Abisola, & Sunday, H., Adam. (2017). Effective classroom management and students’ academic performance in secondary schools in Uyo local government area of Akwa Ibom state. Research in Pedagogy, 7(2), 43–56.
https://doi.org/10.17810/2015.47
[29] Graham, L. J., White, S. L. J., Cologon, K., & Pianta, R. C. (2020). Do teachers’
years of experience make a difference in the quality of teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education, 96(103190). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103190
[30] Gueco, E. R. & Linaugo, J. (2016). Team teaching: An effective approach in the junior high school. http://lccbresearch.ph/news/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Team-Teaching- An-Effective-Approach-in-the-Junior-High-Sch.pdf
[31] Gustafsson, J. E., & Nilsen, T. (2016). The impact of school climate and teacher quality on mathematics achievement: A difference-in-differences approach. Teacher Quality, Instructional Quality and Student Outcomes, 2, 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 41252-8_4
[32] Heggart, K. (2016). How important is subject matter knowledge for a teacher?
https://www.edutopia.org/discussion/how-important-subject-matter-knowledge-teacher
[33] Ismail, R. A. M., Arshad, R. & Abas, Z. (2018). Can teachers’ age and experience influence teacher effectiveness in HOTS?. International Journal of Advanced Studies in Social Science and Innovation, 2(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.30690/ijassi.21.11
[34] Ismail, R. A., Rozita, A., & Abas, Z. (2018). Can teachers’ age and experience influence teacher effectiveness in HOTS?. International Journal of Advanced Studies in Social Science and Innovation, 2, 144-158. https://doi.org/10.30690/ijassi.21.11
[35] Iter, N. (2017). Using performance task-GRAPS to assess student performance in higher education courses. American Journal of Educational Research, 5(5), 552-558.
https://doi.org/10.12691/education-5-5-12
[36] Jabbar, S. O. (2018). Teaching styles and educational philosophies of secondary school teachers in Kano Metropolis, Nigeria. African Journal of Teacher Education, 7(3), 37–
49. https://doi.org/10.21083/ajote.v7i3.4333
[37] Jang, S.-J., Guan, S.-Y., & Hsieh, H.-F. (2009). Developing an instrument for assessing college students’ perceptions of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 596–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.107
[38] Jocson, J. & McPhan, G. (2015). Contexts and processes for the development of content tests to assess teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. The Online Journal of Quality in Higher Education, 2(4). https://www.tojned.net/journals/tojqih/articles/v02i04/v02i04- 01.pdf
[39] Kini, T. & Podolsky, A. (2016). Teaching experience increase teacher effectiveness? A review of the research. Learning Policy Institute. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED606426
[40] Kultsum, U. (2017). The concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): recognizing the English teachers’ competencies in Indonesia. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 134(1). https://doi.org/10.2991/icirad-17.2017.11
[41] Küçükaydin, M. A., & Sağir, S. U. (2016). An investigation of primary school teachers’
pck towards science subjects using an inquiry-based approach. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 9(1), 87-108. https://iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/146 [42] Lawyer, B. N. (2019). Teacher competence as a determinant of students’ interest in science education. Merit Research Journal of Art, Social Science and Humanities, 6(1), 001- 011, ISSN: 2350-2258.
[43] Lehane, L., & Bertram, A. (2016). Getting to the CoRe of it: A review of a specific PCK conceptual lens in science educational research. Educación Química, 27(1), 52–58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eq.2015.09.004
[44] Lesha, J. (2017). Gender differences in primary school teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. European Journal Education Studies, 3(10). http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.1174 [45] Li, S., Liu, L., & Jiang, A. L. (2021). Understanding the development of Chinese EFL student-teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 627728.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.627728
[46] Lucenario, J. L. S., Yangco, R. T., Punzalan, A. E., & Espinosa, A. A. (2016).
Pedagogical content knowledge-guided lesson study: Effects on teacher competence and students’ achievement in chemistry. Education Research International, 2016, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6068930
[47] Melo, L., Cañada-Cañada, F., González-Gómez, D., & Jeong, J. S. (2020). Exploring pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of physics teachers in a Colombian secondary school. Education Sciences, 10(12), 362. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10120362
[48] Menon K.P, S., & Sobha. (2017). Teacher efficacy of secondary school teachers. International Journal of Research Granthaalayah, 5(6), 637–643.
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v5.i6.2017.2096
[49] Mim, S. A., Rahman, S. M. H., & Jahanara, Q. A. (2017). Secondary science teachers’ pedagogical Content Knowledge from Content Representation (CoRe) on genetics. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 18(2).
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1179329
[50] Moore, J. M. (2020). Validation of the assessment of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge as a self-assessment with k-12 teachers in a title 1 school district.
https://csuepress.columbusstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1407&context=theses_dissert ations
[51] Moreno, A. M. A., & Ballena, C. T. (2021). Exploring Online Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Business English Teaching: A Hermeneutic Study. Philippine Social Science Journal, 4(4), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.52006/main.v4i4.432
[52] Niño, L. V., Buitrago, A., Canada, F. & Mellado V. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge on electric force teaching in high school: A case study. Tecné, Episteme y Didaxis:
TED, (39), 52-80.
[53] Nilsson, P., & Vikström, A. (2015). Making PCK explicit—Capturing science teachers’
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 37(17), 2836-2857. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1106614 [54] Nipales, J. B. (2019). Competencies of science teachers in teaching science subjects in the K to 12 curriculum. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 4(4), 1186–1188. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijels.4443
[55] Nixon, R. S., Campbell, B. K., & Luft, J. A. (2016). Effects of subject-area degree and classroom experience on new chemistry teachers’ subject matter knowledge. International
Journal of Science Education, 38(10), 1636-1654.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1204482
[56] Nyagah, G., & Gathumbi, A. (2017). Influence of teacher characteristics on the implementation of non-formal basic education curriculum at the non-formal education centres in Nairobi, Mombasa and Kisumu Cities, Kenya. International Journal of Education and Research, 5(1), 207-221. https://www.ijern.com/journal/2017/January-2017/18.pdf
[57] Oyelekan, O. S., Igbokwe, E. F., & Olorundare, A. S. (2018). Science teachers’ utilisation of innovative strategies for teaching senior school science in Ilorin, Nigeria. MOJES: Malaysian
Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(2), 49-65.
http://ajba.um.edu.my/index.php/MOJES/article/view/12624
[58] Park, H., Byun, S.-Y., Sim, J., Han, H.-S., & Baek, Y. S. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions and practices of STEAM education in South Korea. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 12(7). https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1531a
[59]Premacio, R. (2021). Competence of science teachers, learning interest and academic performance of grade four-six pupils. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(4). https://www.ijams-bbp.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/IJAMS-December-25- researches-190-201.pdf
[60] Rahman, M. H. (2014). Professional competence, pedagogical competence and the performance of junior high school of science teachers. Journal of education and practice, 5(9), 75-80. https://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/11868/12216
[61] Robinson, E. S. (2017). Science content knowledge: A component of teacher effectiveness
in a primary school in Jamaica.
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5122&context=dissertations [62]Sabic, J. & Baranovic, B. (2019). Gender differences in teachers’ self-efficacy for using information and communication technology: Exploring the moderating effect of age. European Educational Research Association. https://eera-ecer.de/ecer- programmes/conference/24/contribution/47543/
[63] Sachdev, S., & Eamoraphan, S. (2020). A comparative study of teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching stem subjects and Attitudes Toward stem education according to gender at Wattana Wittaya Academy, Bangkok, Thailand. Scholar: Human Sciences, 12(2), 251–264.
http://www.assumptionjournal.au.edu/index.php/Scholar/article/view/4086
[64] Shah, S. R. & Udgaonkar, U. S. (2018). Influence of gender and age of teachers on teaching: Students perspective. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 7(1), 2319-7706. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.701.293
[65] Srikoom, W., Hanuscin, D. L., & Faikhamta, C. (2017). Perceptions of in-service teachers
toward teaching STEM in Thailand.
https://www.eduhk.hk/apfslt/download/v18_issue2_files/srikoom.pdf
[66]Sancassani, P. (2021). The effect of teacher characteristics on students’ science achievement. Leibniz Institute for Economic Research. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/231544 [67]Scherer, R., & Siddiq, F. (2015). Revisiting teachers’ computer self-efficacy: A differentiated view on gender differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 48–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.038
[68] Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reforms. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 [69]Sofianidis, A., & Kallery, M. (2016). Assessing students’ perceptions of their physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education Research: Engaging Learners for a Sustainable Future, 4.
[70]Sofianidis, A., & Kallery, M. (2021). An insight into teachers’ classroom practices: The case of secondary education science teachers. Education Sciences, 11(10), 583.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100583
[71] Tolentino, K. S. (2021). The research capability of secondary school Science teachers.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 2(3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.02.03.05
[72]Ualesi, Y., & Ward, G. (2018). Teachers' attitudes toward teaching science in a New Zealand intermediate school. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 43(6), 35-49.
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n6.3
[73]Walag, A. M., Fajardo, M. T., Guimary, F. , & Bacarrisas, P. (2020). Science teachers’ self- efficacy in teaching different kto 12 science subjects: The case of Cagayan de Oro city, Philippines. Science International, 32(5),587-592.
[74] Wanakacha, C. K., Aloka, P. J. O., & Nyaswa, P. (2018). Gender differences in motivation and teacher performance in core functions in Kenyan secondary schools. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 7(1), 89–95. https://doi.org/10.2478/ajis-2018-0009
[75]Wilson S. D., Borowski, A. & Driel J. (2019). Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education. New York, London: Routledge.
[76]Yang, X., & Wang, Q. (2019). Factors influencing science teachers’ self-efficacy.
http://www.ijese.net/makale_indir/IJESE_2135_article_5d82582eed975.pdf
[77] Yusof, C. M., & Nor, M. M. (2017). Level of teacher’s self efficacy based on gender, teaching experience and teacher training. Advanced Science Letters, 23(3), 2119–2122.
https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017
