1

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION

Background
The curricula of secondary schools were already full when science knocked for

admission. many lines of intellectual endeavor such as literature, linguistics,

mathematics, geography, art and music were highly developed and had already a place in

the curricula. On the other hand, the natural and physical sciences were considered in

their infancy even if they were specialized. In addition, the different branches were

treated as separate entities, making it impossible to find a place for all the desired science

courses in the curricula. Recognizing further that no one can study all branches and that

most Earth phenomena can be explained in a holistic and interdisciplinary manner, the

first science course established for Philippine secondary schools in the ‘30s was of the

general-science type. Thus, General Science was offered at different year levels to give

students a rounded view of the various fields of science, particularly as these apply to

their daily life.

Other science disciplines in high school were introduced as separate subjects

starting in the ‘60s. Biology, Chemistry and Physics were taught in 2 nd, 3rd and 4th years

respectively. But science education at the first year level remained as General Science. It

then became Integrated Science in the ‘70s, then Science and Technology in the ‘80s to

the ‘90s. As we approach the new millenium, the emphasis becomes the Earth as a

system.

The modifications in the content of the high school science program required the

development of relevant curriculum materials and the use of innovative strategies in

 2

promoting holistic and interactive learning. These modifications were envisioned to help

students acquire skills that are important to improve the quality of life and environment

as well as to prepare students for and to cope with the changing demands of Phillipine

society and that of the global community. All these efforts are directed towards

developing higher order thinking skills required for work, for citizenship, and for interest.

These thinking skills include problem solving and decision making.

The aims of education reflect the current needs and aspirations of a society as well

as its lasting values, and the immediate concerns of a community as well as broad human

ideals. Locating the term quality in educational discourse is now a universal concern

today. Quality has been extensively defined by Dewney et al. (1994) as, “meeting,

exceeding and delighting customer’s needs and expectations with the recognition that

these needs and desires will change over time.” Merely providing adequate infrastructure,

teaching-learning material, adequate teaching and non-teaching staff, providing

conducive atmosphere in the school for learning are not sufficient requirements towards

the quality education. Along with this, components of the curriculum, viz. syllabus,

pedagogy, examination, affiliation and accreditation standards are also important factors

which need to be addressed while dealing with quality issues in education. These issues

have been discussed separately in the light of different education boards. Some of the

basic items covered under the study to understand the quality concern in education.

In spite of the diverse approaches to chemistry teaching, the value of more

practical activities, the advantage of student-oriented tasks that takes into account

students’ interests, aptitudes and abilities, the prevailing teaching strategy in chemistry

remains to be the teacher talking with chalk in hand. Previous studies pointed out that
 3

some of the problem involve in science teaching, specifically in chemistry instruction, are

the following: inadequate laboratory facilities; inadequate laboratory apparatus and

equipment; lack of materials and chemicals; and lack of administrative support.

DepEd have implemented the new K-12 curriculum as a major step that will take

into consideration the enhancement of quality education in the primary and secondary

level of education. With this regards, this study shall take into consideration the first step

in evaluating and perform an assessment of the achievement of “quality” in science

teaching by determining the level of pedagogical content knowledge and self-efficacy of

science teachers and its relationship to their teaching performance on selected public high

schools in Zone II, Division of Zambales.

Significance of the Study

The findings of the aforementioned study shall be helpful in the improvement of

the practice of teaching science subjects and will therefore improve the learning

performance of the senior high school students, specifically those students who will be

graduating under the STEM strand of the new K-12 curriculum as implemented by the

DepEd.

The researcher believes that this study is beneficial to the following:

Curriculum Developer. The result of this study shall serve as an evaluation and

feedback data to curriculum developers and planners, guiding them in restructuring the

instructional system to attain the standards of teaching and optimum learning which is

defined by what the students should “know” and “do”, and determine how their students

will show they “know” the content and can “do” a skill or performance task
 4

School Administrator. The result of this study shall help school administrators in

the planning for quality instruction, monitoring and revision of school policies in order to

maintain the delivery of quality instruction.

Science Teacher. This study shall guide the professional development of teachers

by providing data on the different teacher-related factors that tend to affect the teaching-

learning process in chemistry classrooms, thus enhancing teachers in how they introduce

content, practice its use along with the students, and then allow students to use the

content on their own while providing students regular standards-based feedback to gain

mastery of the content.

Students. By knowing the different factors that tend to affect their learning

performance, students shall be provided with essential knowledge of monitoring,

regulating and enhancing the level of their proficiency in learning content and skills for

science education.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study shall determine the present status and level of the

pedagogical content knowledge, self-efficacy and performance of senior high school

science teachers among public schools in the Division of Zambales.

Specifically, this study shall answer the following questions:

1. What is the profile senior high school science teachers when grouped according to:

1.1 Age;

1.2 Gender/Sex;

1.3 Rank;
 5

1.4 Field of Specialization;

1.5 Years of Teaching Experience;

1.6 Highest Educational Attainment; and

1.7 Number of Science Trainings/Seminars attended?

2. What level of pedagogical content knowledge do the Senior High School Scince

teachers have?

3. What level of self-efficacy do the Senior High School Scince teachers have?

4. What is the level of performance of science teachers of senior high schools as

reflected in their Individual Performance Commitment and Review Form?

5. Is their a relationship between the profile variables and the level of teachers’

performance?

6. Is there a relationship between pedagogical content knowledge and the level of

teachers’ performance?

7. Is there a relationship between self-efficacy and the level of teachers’ performance?

Scope and Limitations

The study shall focus in the determining the profile of science teachers, their level

of pedagogical content knowledge, self-efficacy and their teaching performance. It shall

also determine if significant relationship exists between and among the mentioned

variables. This study shall be conducted in public senior high schools at the Division of

Zambales.

The survey checklist-questionnaire shall be adapted as based on PCK inventory

devised by Shulman. (2014), Banduras’ instrument for teacher self-eficacy scale, and

teachers’ performance as based on their IPCRF. Indicators as provided in these validated

 6

structured sources are considered accurate, reliable and time-tested and is beneficial in

the assessment of the realization of mandates and guidelines released in order to achieve

quality education. Responses that will be gathered by this study shall be limited to those

of science teachers in the senior high school department of public schools at the Division

of Zambales.

In the analysis of data gathered, the use of frequency and percentage distribution

shall be employed to show a qualitative description of the profile of the respondents.

Average weighted mean shall be used to indicate the responses made by the teacher-

respondents on various indicator statements used to evaluate the status of the level in

measuring the three above mentioned variables. The chi-square test will be used to

determine if there is any significant difference between the responses made by the

respondents when grouped based on their profile variables. And finally, Pearson r shall

be used to determine if there exist significant differences between and among the

variables (PCK, Self-Efficacy, Performance) used in this research study.

 7

Chapter 2

FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY

This chapter presents the relevant literature and studies that the researcher

considered in strengthening the claim and importance of the present study. Moreover, this

chapter also presents both theoretical and conceptual framework of the study that gives

vivid explanations regarding the relationship of the variables used, along with specific

explanation on the operational definition of terms as deemed important to the better

understanding of readers of this research.

Review of Literature and Related Studies

Recent research confirms that teachers are the single most important factor in

determining student achievement. “Nearly all observers of the educational process,

including scholars, school administrators, policy makers, and parents, point to teacher

quality as the most significant institutional determinant of student achievement”

(Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2010). Marszalek, Odom, LaNassa, and Adler (2010) state

that:

Teachers are the key to what happens in classrooms. They make the decisions
about what actually gets taught and how it gets taught. They assess what students
have learned and what individual needs particular students may have. Teachers
are the curricular-instructional gatekeepers.

The belief is that teachers who are “highly qualified” will have a greater impact

on student achievement than teachers who are not considered “highly-qualified” because

the “highly qualified” teachers have demonstrated content proficiency. Now, financially

strapped school systems are seeking ways to increase student achievement on

 8

standardized tests by hiring and retaining highly qualified teachers. However, there is not

much information to determine if “a teacher's quality is related to his/her credentials, or

about the credential related policy levers that might be used to raise the overall quality of

teachers and to ensure an equitable distribution of high-quality teachers across schools

and classrooms” (Clotfelter et al., 2010). The study at present shall therefore frame this

research based on the fundamental point of view that the teachers’ quality and the

teaching performance is determined by the teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge

(PCK) and self-efficacy.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)

Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) can be defined as “the ways of

representing and formulating the subject that makes it comprehensible to others” (Boz,

2012). It is dynamic, not static, involves the transformation of other types of knowledge,

and science subject matter knowledge is central to the development of PCK (Abell,

2008). Shulman (1987) first coined the term pedagogical content knowledge in reference

to a specific form of knowledge unique to teachers. He defined PCK as “that special

amalgam of content and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own

special form of professional understanding” (Shulman, 1987). Shulman’s work continues

to prove useful to researchers by allowing them to identify distinctions in teacher

knowledge that can make a difference in effective teaching (Ball, Thames, & Phelps,

2008). According to Abell (2008), not only do teachers possess PCK, “they employ the

components of PCK in an integrated fashion as they plan and carry out instruction.

Teacher use of PCK involves blending individual components to address the instructional
 9

problem at hand”. PCK can also be divided into four levels: General, subject-specific,

domain-specific, and topic-specific (Nezvalová, 2011).

General PCK

Nezvalova (2011) states that a teacher possessing general PCK has sound

knowledge of pedagogical concepts. It is more specific than basic pedagogy because the

strategies employed are specific to a specific subject (Veal & MaKinster, 1999).

Subject-specific PCK

Subject-specific PCK refers to the specific discipline. For example, subject-

specific PCK for teaching science might include such topics as: Nature of science,

discovery, inquiry, project-based science, and process. These strategies can be considered

subject-specific because their focus is on science (Nezvalová, 2011).

Domain-specific PCK

Domain-specific PCK is “more distinct than general PCK, because it focuses on

one of the different domains or subject matters within a particular discipline” (Nezvalova,

2011), such as biology, Earth science, chemistry, and physics (Veal & MaKinster, 1999).

Topic-specific PCK

Topic-specific PCK is related to an understanding of topics, terms, and concepts

specific to each science domain (Veal & MaKinster, 1999). A teacher who has topic-

specific PCK has a “repertoire of skills and abilities in the previous three levels”

(Nezvalova, 2011).
 10

In a follow-up 2003 study, Veal and Kubasko explored the topic-specific nature

of PCK by studying the practices used by both biology and geology teachers as they

taught a unit on the topic of evolution. Using observations and interviews, the researchers

concluded that the content background of the teachers influenced their approach to the

teaching of evolution. They also determined that varying levels of complexity in topic-

specific PCK was present in beginning teachers and in experienced (Veal & Kubasko,

2003). In a related study conducted by Lee (2008), it was demonstrated that general PCK

consists of different areas that are each emphasized in different ways, meaning that all

teachers maintain a core PCK, composed of knowledge of goals, content, and students,

and these varying components exist in different orientations and positions as PCK is

represented through a topic or domain. This suggested, “teachers concurrently hold

different forms of PCK, but the forms evolve differently at different points in their

careers. Thus, beginning teachers do not primarily hold domain and topic orientations—

they can also hold general orientations that are also developing, but all have knowledge

of content, goals, and students at the core” (Lee, 2008). However, it was Freidrichsen et

al. (2009) who identified three potential sources of subject-matter knowledge: (a) K-12

experiences of the teacher, (b) classroom teaching experiences, and (c) teacher education

programs and professional development.

According to Alanzo, Kobarg, and Seidel (2012), most teachers are unaware of

knowledge they use to make “instructional decisions, and day-to-day discussions of

teaching tend to center around practices, rather than the knowledge and reasoning

underlying them”. So, because teaching itself does not require “articulation of PCK,

teachers may not possess a shared language with which to communicate this knowledge”
 11

to each other or to their students. (Baxter & Lederman, 1999, as cited in Alanzo, Kobarg,

& Seidel, 2012). In a 2012 study, Alanzo et al. (2012) investigated mechanisms by which

PCK might affect student outcomes in the classroom by contrasting two German physics

teachers with high and low gains in student knowledge. The study found that teachers

must also be able to “make connections between various instructional representations and

the content they can help to illuminate” (Alanzo et al., 2012). In short, PCK is what

“allows excellent teachers to make disciplinary ideas comprehensible to non-experts. It

distinguishes a teacher from disciplinary experts, as well as from colleagues who teach

other subject matter” (Alanzo et al., 2012).

PCK and Teaching

In the 2002 “Secretary’s Report on Teacher Quality”, the United States

Department of Education stated "rigorous research indicates that verbal ability and

content knowledge are the most important attributes of highly qualified teachers. In

addition, there is little evidence that education school coursework leads to improved

student achievement" (as cited in Fantozzi, 2013). This report reflects the view that for

secondary teachers, content knowledge is more important than pedagogical knowledge

(Fantozzi, 2012). Additionally, in his 1986 analysis of the major programs in American

educational research, Shulman stated that teaching content has not been given any serious

attention. According to Doyle and Westbury (1992, as cited in Dijk, 2007), this

inattention to the teaching content has resulted in a separation between curriculum and

instruction. As a result, curriculum and instruction have become distinct fields within

educational research. They also observe that while instruction research has been focused

on measuring the effectiveness of teaching methods and teachers without paying regard
 12

to the subject being taught, curriculum research has been dealing mainly with

implementation of curriculum and institutional level construction of curriculum. It is only

on the classroom level that curriculum and instruction come together in the development

of learning environments (Dijk, 2007).

As previously mentioned in this paper, PCK refers to specific topics, and

therefore is different from general pedagogy knowledge. PCK also includes the teaching

of specific topics, and therefore differs from subject matter knowledge (Van Driel et al.,

1998). PCK is a unique domain that is influenced by numerous other knowledge areas.

Therefore, Dijk (2007) proposes that a third element is included in PCK. This element,

called “subject matter knowledge for teaching”, allows teachers to remain flexible in new

and unanticipated situations. Also, because teaching experience is essential for PCK

development, it can be assumed that beginning teachers usually possess little or no PCK.

A 1999 review of literature by Magnusson et al., confirmed Grossman’s results. They

observed that, though there is limited research on science teachers’ PCK of student

understanding, the findings of these studies are consistent. ‘‘Although teachers have

some knowledge about students’ difficulties, they commonly lack important knowledge

necessary to help students overcome those difficulties’’ (Magnusson et al., 1999). An

additional finding in the literature was that training is necessary for novice and

experienced teachers to enable them to learn from their experiences.

This information implies that PCK is a type of knowledge that grows with

increasing years of teaching experience, and is almost completely absent at the beginning

of a teacher’s career (Saeli, 2012). However, that does not imply that beginning teachers

are incapable of teaching, but rather that they might not possess an ‘armamentarium of
 13

representations’ (Shulman, 2012). Thankfully, teacher training programs provide a

framework for novice teachers to use to begin to build their PCK (Grossman, 1990, as

cited in Lee & Luft, 2008). It is interesting to note that a completely different scenario

presents itself when experienced teachers are required to teach a subject that is outside of

their certification area. One study (Sanders, Borko, & Lockard, 1993) shows that when

teaching a topic outside of their specialty area, veteran teachers sometimes acted like

novice teachers. For example, they had difficulty answering student questions and

determining the depth and extent to which a topic should be taught. These findings

revealed that PCK knowledge is only somewhat transferable. Sometimes experienced

teachers possessing strong PCK are able to successfully recycle their knowledge to teach

subjects outside of their area of certification. Through their PCK, they are able to

recognize the need to:

Transform their knowledge for the students, even though there might be difficulty
in determining how much to present at a given time and how to sequence their
presentations. Through their PCK they can recognize the need to deal with
students’ input and try to determine students’ background knowledge (Saeli,
2012).
Dijk (2007) developed a model to be used in the study of science teachers’ PCK.

This model, called educational reconstruction for teacher education (ERTE), represents

an integrative approach to the study of PCK and aims to improve teacher education

programs. The ERTE model is used to assess secondary teachers’:

(1) knowledge and beliefs of students’ pre-scientific conceptions, (2) knowledge

and beliefs of representations of the subject matter, and (3) ‘subject matter knowledge for

teaching’, in relation to (a) the design of learning environments or teaching–learning

 14

sequences, (b) the study of students’ pre-scientific conceptions, and in relation to (c) a

subject matter analysis.

According to the model ERTE, in addition to deep understandings of subject

matter, pedagogy, and context, prospective teachers also need to develop a framework

that allows them to grow their PCK through learning experiences. This implies that

teacher education programs should deliver this knowledge in a purposefully integrated

manner. As a result, student teachers should be able to more quickly develop the skills

and knowledge needed to become effective teachers (Dijk, 2007).

The ERTE model integrates the following research domains: (1) the design of

learning environments, (2) the empirical study of students’ pre-conceptions, (3) the

analysis of the subject matter, (4) pedagogical content knowledge studies (PCK-S), and

(5) the design of teacher education. All of these components are strongly interrelated and

influence each other mutually. This model is the basis for an integrated approach to the

study of science teachers’ PCK. Within the ERTE framework, the teacher is an essential

element in the design process of learning environments (Dijk, 2007).

Magnusson et al. (1999) designed a five component PCK model specifically for

teaching science. The five components included in the model are, (a) orientations toward

teaching science, which includes an appreciation for the general approaches to teaching

science; (b) knowledge of students’ understanding of science, including an awareness of

needed student prerequisite knowledge and the difficulties students face when learning

science topics; (c) knowledge of science curriculum, entailing a familiarity with science

learning goals; (d) knowledge of instructional strategies used for teaching science,

including insight into strategies for teaching science topics; and (e) knowledge of science
 15

assessments, including knowing how to assess the outcomes. For each of these

components, teachers must develop PCK for both science topics and for scientific inquiry

practices (Davis & Krajcik, 2005; Zembal-Saul & Dana, 2002). Teachers must learn to

engage students in asking and answering scientific questions, exploring scientific

phenomena, making predictions, collecting and analyzing data, and drawing conclusions

based on evidence (National Research Council [NRC], 1996).

More thorough knowledge of a subject area allows teachers to better convey

important concepts and a deeper meaning of their discipline. Recently, research focused

on the area of history has been conducted to determine which methods and processes

indicate PCK within the field. This has resulted in increased collaboration between

historians and social studies educators. “The inclusion of historians in professional

development of in-service teachers has ranged from content lectures to a more

pedagogical focus in which historians and teachers exchange ideas on how to best teach

history” (Fantozzi, 2012). This partnership has resulted in the funding of several national

grants and the establishment of such institutions as the United States Department of

Education's Teaching American History (TAH) program and the Gilder Lehrman

Institute of American History. The aim of such programs is to connect history teachers

with historians in hopes of immersing these teachers in the historiographical debates and

disciplinary methods in the field. Fantozzi (2012) suggests that pairing an educator with a

historian may be a critical missing component. Because of this, some teacher education

programs have now begun to initiate collaborations with professional historians. Some of

the strategies being used include situating the social studies education program within the

history department, and having instructors from the history and education department co-
 16

teach courses. However, these innovative collaborations have produced only mixed

results. While pre-service teachers in these programs did gain a deeper understanding of

the nature of history, this understanding did not directly translate into altered pedagogical

views. This study serves to highlight the idea that teacher educators and historians may

have opposing views and goals in approaching a topic. Barton and Levstik (2004) point

out that to teachers the purpose of teaching history is to focus on using classroom

pedagogical practices to encourage students to become good citizens. In contrast, the

primary objective for most historians is to interpret and reconstruct the past. In contrast,

teacher educators are focused on sound pedagogical practice that can be enacted in the

reality of the classroom (Fantozzi, 2012).

According to Beyer (2010):

Just “knowing” something reflects a static view of PCK—an expression of

teachers’ ideas devoid of a particular context or situation. For example, teachers
may have ideas about the typical difficulties students face with a particular topic
or useful strategies or representations for teaching particular areas. However,
“using” knowledge entails a more dynamic view of PCK, where teachers flexibly
apply their knowledge to a particular task. From this perspective, teachers engage
in complex reasoning processes. These may include selectively retrieving
knowledge they think is most relevant and using that knowledge in flexible ways
to address a particular situation.
When teachers use their PCK in the classroom, they must combine their

knowledge in new and different ways, which results in new knowledge development

(Beyer, 2010). PCK must be flexible to a wide range of pedagogical activities included in

both teaching and planning of classroom activities (Ball & Bass, 2000). The study

conducted by Beyer (2010) also highlights specific areas in which teacher educators can

assist beginning teachers in identifying and addressing gaps in their knowledge. Such

areas include student teachers’ understanding of science curriculum and assessments,

 17

subject-specific instructional strategies, and scientific inquiry. By targeting these areas,

teacher educators can help novice teachers to: Develop greater capacities in applying

their PCK in the analysis of science lesson plans. In turn, they may be better positioned to

identify the strengths and weaknesses within curriculum-based lessons and make

modifications that meet the ambitious goals entailed in reform-oriented science teaching

(Beyer, 2010).

The Relationship Between CK and PCK

In the field of science education, there are two areas of research that have been in

the spotlight, one on content knowledge (CK) and the other on pedagogical content

knowledge (PCK). Studies on CK focused mainly on the subject-specific knowledge of

particular topics by methods such as concept mapping, free-recall technique, and semi-

structured interviews. These studies revealed mostly the type of subject matter possessed

by science teachers, not the kind required to teach a specific topic to students. In contrast,

studies examining PCK concentrated on the nature of teachers’ knowledge of pedagogy,

instructional strategies, and of students’ misconceptions using various methods such as

semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, and questionnaire surveys (Zongyi,

2007). Despite this distinction between CK and PCK, research findings on their

exclusivity are inconclusive. However, there is empirical evidence to suggest that CK

may be a prerequisite for the development of PCK (Kleickmann et al., 2013). In a 2013

cross-sectional comparison study, Kleickmann et al. investigated PCK and CK at various

points in the careers of pre- and in-service teachers. The results of the study revealed,

“the largest differences in CK and PCK were found between the beginning and the end of

initial teacher education” (Kleickmann et al., 2013, p. 90). This points to the importance
 18

of CK in the development of PCK. It can be concluded, “higher CK may lead to

increased uptake of learning opportunities to acquire PCK, thus moderating the

development of PCK” (Kleickmann et al., 2013).

An additional hypothesis of the Kleickmann et al. (2013) study was that informal

and formal learning opportunities are especially important to the development of both CK

and PCK. Formal learning is mostly intentional, takes place in an institution, and the

learner has the express goal of acquiring knowledge. In contrast, informal learning is

mainly informal, has no set learning outcomes and takes place incidentally outside of an

educational institution. Informal learning can also be referred to as learning by

experience. Informal learning can occur through collaborating with peers, in teaching

experiences, and even learning situations prior to formal teacher education. Formal

learning occurs through teacher education programs and professional development

(Kleickmann et al., 2013). Kleickmann et al. (2013) concluded that both formal and

informal learning opportunities occurring during initial teacher education are critical to

the development of subject matter knowledge. However, teaching experience produced

only a weak development of subject matter knowledge. Therefore CK can be regarded as

a prerequisite for the development of PCK. Recent studies have also provided strong

evidence that subject-matter knowledge affects both teachers’ instructional practices and

student achievement gains (Kleickmann et al., 2013)

Self Efficacy of Teachers based on Bandura’s Survey

The Teacher Self-Efficacy survey instrument which was considered as part of this

study’s questionnaire was based on Bandura’s Socio-Cognitive Theory. Self-efficacy is a

hot topic amongst psychologists and educators, and it can have a huge impact on just
 19

about everything from psychological states to motivation to behavior. It plays a major

role in how you approach goals, tasks, and challenges. If you have a strong self-efficacy

you: (1) Tend to view challenging problems as simply another task to be mastered; (2)

Develop a much deeper interest in the activities you do participate in; (3) Tend to form a

stronger sense of commitment to your activities and interests; (4) Might actually recover

more quickly when it comes to disappointments and setbacks. Whereas, if you have a low

self-efficacy you: (1) Might avoid challenging tasks; (2) May believe that difficult tasks

or situations are beyond your control or capability; (3) Tend to focus on negative

outcomes or personal failures more often; and, (4) Have a tendency to lose confidence

quickly or lose faith in your personal abilities.

According to Bandura (1997), there are two types of expectancies that exert a

powerful influence on behavior: (1) Expectancies related to outcome or the belief that a

behavior will lead to a certain outcome; and, (2) Self-efficiency expectancy or the belief

that you can successfully perform the behavior in question.

According to Bandura, expectations of self-efficacy are a very powerful

determinate of behavioral changes because one’s expectations determine the initial

decision to perform the behavior in the first place. As a result, one expends effort and

overcomes adversity.

Achieving a powerful mastery of experiences can lead to transformation and

personal change, as self-efficacy beliefs are manifested across diverse realms of

functioning. A teacher’s efficacy belief is a judgment of his or her capabilities to bring

about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among those students

who may be difficult or unmotivated. (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).

 20

Teaching Performance

The evaluation of teaching performance should be a holistic assessment of the

extent of contribution by the staff member in all areas of work in which the staff member

can reasonably be expected to have engaged in given his/her rank and position (or has

engaged in regardless), and the relative importance of the criteria should reflect the

expectation.

Generally speaking, ‘quality of teaching’ and ‘impact on student learning’ are

regarded as the core criteria for all teachers. These two criteria should apply to all staff

members with teaching responsibility, regardless of rank. Their importance is such that

poor performance on them cannot be compensated with good performance on other

criteria or domains of activities. ‘Contribution to development/management’ and

‘educational leadership’, on the other hand, are conditional criteria in that their

applicability and importance depend on the roles and responsibilities of the staff member

in learning and teaching, which typically increase with seniority in rank. For a staff

member who has not been assigned any duty in any of those areas of work, these criteria

simply do not apply (unless the staff member has, out of his/her own initiative, engaged

in associated work and made some significant contributions, then the contributions

should be recognised).

A very important educational endeavour is the assessment of teacher‘s

performance. Its relevance in the context of school accountability on the learning of

students cannot be underestimated (David and Macayan, 2010). Accountability is a top

 21

priority in any educational programs and assessments to measure the effectiveness of

teachers.

Furthermore, there are many factors contributing to effective classroom

instruction and the teacher is recognized as the greatest influence on the program‘s

success. Hence, the assessment of teachers‘ performance should be a major concern of

educational institution to determine how teachers perform their roles as facilitators of

learning inside the classroom. Teachers performance can be interpreted into students‘

learning achievement and their progress towards the desired skills and abilities (David

and Macayan, 2010).

Above all, great teachers are most often noted for the heart they have put into

teaching. Many of the best teaching practices and innovations we see today are a result of

their commitment to providing the best possible learning experience to their students.

The Deped K-12 Science Curriculum at Senoir High Schools

Science education aims to develop scientific literacy among students that will

prepare them to be informed and participative citizens who are able to make judgments

and decisions regarding applications of scientific knowledge that may have social, health,

or environmental impacts. The science curriculum recognizes the place of science and

technology in everyday human affairs. It integrates science and technology in the civic,

personal, social, economic, and the values and ethical aspects of life. The science

curriculum promotes a strong link between science and technology, including indigenous

technology, keeping our country’s cultural uniqueness and peculiarities intact. Whether

or not students pursue careers that involve science and technology, the K to 12 science
 22

curriculum will provide students with a repertoire of competencies important in the world

of work and in a knowledge-based society. The K to 12 science curriculum envisions the

development of scientifically, technologically, and environmentally literate and

productive members of society who manifest skills as a critical problem solvers,

responsible stewards of nature, innovative and creative citizens, informed decision

makers, and effective communicators. This curriculum is designed around the three

domains of learning science: understanding and applying scientific knowledge in local

setting as well as global, context whenever possible, performing scientific processes and

skills, and developing and demonstrating scientific attitudes and values. The acquisition

of these domains is facilitated using the following approaches: multi/interdisciplinary

approach, science–technology society approach, contextual learning, problem/issue-based

learning, and inquiry-based approach. The approaches are based on sound educational

pedagogy namely: constructivism, social cognition learning model, learning style theory,

and Gestalt psychology. Science content and science processes are intertwined in the K to

12 curriculum. Without the content, learners will have difficulty utilizing science process

skills since these processes are best learned in context. Organizing the curriculum around

situations and problems that challenge and arouse students’ curiosity motivates them to

learn and appreciate science as relevant and useful. Rather than relying solely on

textbooks, varied hands-on, minds-on, and hearts-on activities will be used to develop

students’ interest and let them become active learners. As a whole, the K to 12 science

curriculum is learner-centered and inquiry-based, emphasizing the use of evidence in

constructing explanations. Concepts and skills in Life Sciences, Physics, Chemistry, and

Earth Sciences are presented with increasing levels of complexity from one grade level to
 23

another (spiral progression), thus paving the way to deeper understanding of a few

concepts. These concepts and skills are integrated rather than discipline-based, stressing

the connections across science topics and other disciplines as well as applications of

concepts and thinking skills to real life.

The DepED aims to provide an education that is humanistic in spirit, global in

perspective, and patriotic in orientation; thus, envisions to produce technologically and

globally competitive graduates. This resulted in the implementation of a special science

class curriculum for advanced and scientifically inclined students. This is also a way to

answer the demands of science-related courses in the country.

Theoretical Framework

This study is based in the notion that higher level of teaching performance is

based on: (1) the self-efficacy of teachers; and on (2) the enhanced and specialized

capabilities of teachers to make use of strategies and materials for instruction,

understanding of the leaners and the learning environment, as well as, their conception of

the subject matter they are teaching. Thus, this study is based on the theory of learning as

based on the concept of “Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)” conceived by Shulman

and on Bandura’s view on teachers’ “Self-Efficacy”.

PCK embraces the idea that successful teachers have a special understanding of

content knowledge and pedagogy which they draw on in teaching that content. It includes

the most useful forms of representation of topics and the most powerful ways of

representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others. It carries
 24

the idea that successful teachers have a special knowledge about learners which informs

their teaching of particular content.

The idea of self-efficacy stems from Bandura’s socio-cognitive theory. Bandura

(1993) defines self-efficacy as self-referent a phenomenon that influences the selection

and reation of his or her environment. Self-efficacy is a mechanism of agency that is two

dimensional. The theory of self-efficacy tells us that things like psychotherapy and

behavioral changes both operate through a common mechanism, the change or alteration

of someone’s individual expectations as it relates to both personal mastery and success.

The value of any psychological theory is judged not only by its predictive or

explanatory power but also in its operational power and its power to effect change.

Knowing how to build a sense of self-efficacy and knowing how it works, provides a

wonderful platform to think differently and enhance your self-belief.

Human behavior is continually changing and manifesting according to different

contexts. Self-efficacy assessments can identify different patterns as well as strengths and

limitations. All of this can lead to enhanced perception and increased self-efficacy.

Thus, the researcher of this study lays the foundation of this study in the notion

that - an increase in the “self-efficacy” of science will in turn increases the level of his or

her “pedagogical content knowledge” or vice versa, these will result to an increase in

“teaching performance”. An increase in “teaching performance” will lead to an increase

in learning and eventually lead to the attainment of quality education.

 25

Conceptual Framework

This study shall be framed based on the following paradigm.

Independent Variables
Teacher-Respondents' Pedagogical Content
Profile: Teachers' Self Efficacy:
Knowledge
Age Dimension 1: Perception of
Knowledge of Content one's self to perform behaviors
Gender Knowledge of Curriculum based on his abilities
Rank Knowledge of Teaching Dimension 2: Belief that thne
Highest Educational Knowledge of Students' performance of one's action
Attainment Thinking will ahve desirable results
Field of Specialization
Years of Teaching Experience
No. of Trainings/Seminars in
Science
Dependent Variable

TEACHING PERFORMANCE
(Based on Teachers' IPCR)
Results to

Figure 1: Paradigm of the Research Process

 26

This study shall make use of a descriptive research design. In the course of this

study the research shall make use of: the respondents’ profile, the teachers’ pedagogical

content knowledge (PCK), and teachers’ self efficacy; as independent variables that tend

to affect the overall teaching performance (dependent variable) of science teachers as

they perform their task to attain academic excellence (characterized by the increase of

learners’ performance, attainment of curricular goals and educational quality, better

involvement of the community and industry in the education process, and the

accreditation of schools as a center of excellence).

This study shall make use of the teacher-respondents’ age, sex/gender, rank, field

of specialization, highest educational attainment, number of relevant trainings and

seminar attended, and years of teaching,; as the demographic or respondents profile.

These attributes will characterize the respondents which will be used in this study and

shall be treated as descriptive statistical data during its analysis. This data shall be

presented by means of frequency and percentage distribution. In addition to such

analysis, mean shall be computed for the following: the profile on age, number of years

in teaching, and the number of seminars/trainings attended.

The science tearchers’ PCK and self-efficacy shall be used also as independent

variables. There shall be 38-indicator statements that will be used in the evaluation of

science teachers PCK and 23-indicator statements for the assessment of these science

teachers’ self-efficacy. The teachers’ PCK survey instrument that will be used in this

research shall consider the same indicator statement listed on Shulman’s (1987) PCK

survey study. Whereas, those indicator statements that will be used for this present

research are items enumerated on Bandura’s instrument for Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale.
 27

Responses gathered both for PCK and Self-Efficacy shall be treated statistically by means

of average weighted mean.

This study will also be tasked in determining: (1) the existence of any significant

difference on the responses made by the respondents as based on their profile; and (2)

determination of significant relationship that may exist between and among variables that

will be use by this study. These data shall be treated inferentially by mean of the chi-

square test and the Pearson r method for correlation analysis.

Hypothesis

As a general concept that frames this study, the researcher believes that the

increasing constructed the following working hypothesis as a guide in providing tentative

solution and explainations for the problems cited in this study: This study basically

hypothesized; that higher level of pedagogical content knowledge of science teacher and

the teachers’ self-efficacy, will enhance and polish the teaching performance of science

teachers and thus will in-turn increases the both of the skill and the academic

performance of the learners.

This study concerns and makes use of the following variables: (1) pedagogical

content knowledge, (2) teachers’ self-efficacy, and (3) teachers’ performance. Hence the

following hypothetical statements shall guide the course of this research and shall be

tested:

1. There exists no significant difference between the responses made by the

respondents when grouped based on their profile.

2.
 28

Definition of Terms

For the purpose of this study the researcher will apply the following terms and

definitions:

Level of Individual Performance Commitment anf Review Form (IPCRF).

This refers to the to the document that is being filled-up by those teachers who are under

the DepEd at the end of the school year for purposes of evaluating teachers. It contains

the key result areas (KRSs) where the individual performance is being measured. Once

the objectives and the performance indicators are clearly defined, the rater and the ratee

commit and reach an agreement by signing this IPCRF. Teaching Performance is

measured on areas of teaching-learning process, students outcomes, professional growth

and development, as well as community involvement.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). According to Shulman (1987), PCK

includes a teacher’s “knowledge of how particular subject matter topics, problems, and

issues can be organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of

learners and presented for instruction. It represents the synthesis of teachers’ knowledge

of both subject matter and pedagogy, distinguishing the teacher from the content

specialist”.

Respondents’ Profile. This refers to the demographic profiles of respondents that

will be used in this study.It refers to those different attributes or characteristics of science

teachers that are considered important in the conduct of this study. With this regards, the

researcher have chosen age, gender/swex, rank, field of specialization, years of teaching

experience, highest educational attainment and number of relevant seminars and trainings

attended.
 29

Research Locale: This refers to the institution where this study will be

conducted. In this case, the researcher of this study will be making use of public high

schools located at Zone II, Division of Zambales.

Self-Efficacy: Self-efficacy is all about your belief in your own abilities as it

pertains to dealing with various situations. Self-efficacy can play a big role in your life,

impacting not only how you feel about yourself but also how successful you might be. In

this study, self-efficacy of teachers will be evaluated as based on the areas: “Efficacy to

Influence Decision-Making”, ”Efficacy to Influence School Resources”, “Instructional

Self-Efficacy”, “Disciplinary Efficacy”, and “Efficacy to Create a Positive School

Climate”.
 30

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the researcher methodology that will be used by the

researcher. It includes the research design, sample population of the study, research

locale, instrumentation, data gathering procedure and the statistical treatment to be used.

Research Design

The Descriptive research design and documentary analysis method of research

will be use in gathering data for this study. This research design was used since it is

characterized by a purposive process of gathering, classifying, tabulating, and analysis of

data about a prevailing conditions, practices, beliefs, processes, trends, and cause-effect

relationships. It entails accurate interpretation of data specifically upon using appropriate

statistical treatment. This is a design used when the researcher attempts to describe

systematically a situation, problem, and phenomena. It provides information about living

conditions of a community, describes attitudes, perceptions and beliefs of individuals

towards an issue, and is used to ascertain the status of existing conditions. A

questionnaire checklist will be use to gather the needed data on the factors associated to

the intergenerational gap between teachers use and students needs on the application of

computer technology.

In as much as this research study deals with a certain group of teachers and

students, descriptive method is considered to be very much applicable and suited to the

particular study. As mentioned, addressing the status and quality of science teaching
 31

through the determination of the level of the teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge

and teachers’ self-efficacy among public high schools in Zone II, Division of Zambales.

Respondents and Location

This study shall make use of all science teachers who are currently teaching in the

senior high school department of public high schools at Zone II, Division of Zambales,

under the K-12 curriculum. A universal sampling procedure is advised for use in this

study since a limited number of science teachers where identified by the DepEd Division

Office, that is, no sampling procedure will be used in this study.

Instruments

This study shall adopt the instrument that was structured based on four (4) major

variables considered essential in the attainment of quality education through the

understanding of the following: (1) the profile of the science teacher-respondents; (2) the

pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of science teachers; (3) the teachers’ self-efficacy;

and (4) the teaching performance of these respondents. The checklist-questionnaire shall

be composed of four (4) parts that shall be used to gather data on the above-mentioned

variables used in this study. This Questionnaire will be based from the researcher’s

readings or related literatures and studies, as such; this study shall be adopting the

following instruments - the instrument devised by Shulman (1986) on the PCK of

teachers, Bandura’s teacher self-efficacy inventory, and the Individual Performance

Commitment and Review Form of the DepEd.

 32

Data Collection

The researcher will ask permission from the office of the schools Division

Superintendent, District Supervisor and administrators of high schools under Zone II

specifically including Palauig District, Iba District and Botolan District. The researcher

will give the questionnaire to these science teachers and requested them to indicate both

of their demographic profile and their perceptions regarding various indicator statements

concerning PCK, self-efficacy and teaching performance. After a week the instruments

will be retrieved, assuring respondents that all information will be treated with utmost

confidentiality and the respondents who prefer to conceal their identity on the

questionnaire will be considered and the same respect and honor will be rewarded to

them.

Data Analysis

Data gathered will be tallied, tabulated, analyzed and interpreted accordingly.

IBM SPSS software program was used in the tabulation and statistical treatment of the

data gathered using the survey questionnaire. Specifically, the researcher have made used

of frequency counts, percentages, mean and average weighted mean for descriptive

statistical treatment, whereas, the chi-square test and the Pearson r will be used as

treatment in order to determine significant difference between each the profile variable of

the teacher-respondents and draw inferences of the relationship among and between the

PCK, Self-Efficacy and Teaching Performance..

1. Frequency Count – This is a simple count of the tallies for each indicator of the

respondents profile variables listed in the problem statement #1.

 33

2. Percentage (%) – To answer the questions of the study related to disclosing the

ratio distribution as to the respondents’ personal profile, percentage was used.

Specifically, it is used to describe the profile variables of sample respondents as

based on the frequency distribution of gathered data in terms of age, sex/gender,

highest educational attainment, academic rank/position, field of specialization in

science, number of years teaching, and the number of relevant trainings and

seminars.

3. Mean – This statistical treatment was used to determine the average of the

following profile variables: age, number of years teaching science subjects, and

the number of relevant trainings/seminars of science teachers.

4. Average Weighted Average – To answer the questions of the study related to

disclosing the respondents’ perception and evaluation to the statements pertaining

to the different categories of the science teachers’ pedagogical content

knowledge. self-efficacy and their teaching performance.

For meaningful interpretation of the results on the perception of these science

teacher-respondents on the different indicator factors and parameters, the following 5 –

point Likert Scale was used.

5. Chi-square Test - It is a collection of statistical models, and their associated

procedures, in which the observed variance is partitioned into components due to

different explanatory variables. Data were computed using the IBM-SPSS

statistical software.

6. Pearson Product Moment Correlation of Coefficient (Pearson r) – This is a

non-parametric type of test to determine the existence of any significant

 34

relationships or the level of significant differences among and between the

variables considered for this study.

7. Interpretation of data for Product Moment Correlation of Coefficient shall be

based on the values identified below:

Computed Correlation
Interpretation
Coefficient r
±1.0 Perfect Relationship
±0.70 to ±0.99 Strong Relationship
±0.50 to ±0.69 Moderate Relationship
±0.30 to ±0.49 Weak Relationship
±0.01 to ±0.29 Negligible Relationship
0 No Relationship

8. Fot the average weighted mean that shall be computed from responses to each

indicator statements on PCK and Self-Efficacy, the following table shall be use to

determine its qualitative description:

Likert Scale for the Interpreting

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) Inventory

Value Range Qualitative Description

5 4.20 – 5.00 Very High Extent
4 3.40 – 4.19 High Extent
3 2.60 – 3.39 Moderately Extent
2 1.80 – 2.59 Low Extent
1 1.00 – 1.79 Not at All

Likert Scale for the Interpreting

Science Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Survey

Value Range Qualitative Description

5 4.20 – 5.00 A Great Deal
4 3.40 – 4.19 Quite a Bit
3 2.60 – 3.39 Some Influence
2 1.80 – 2.59 Very Little
1 1.00 – 1.79 Nothing
 35

Likert Scale for the Assessment of

Teaching Performance based on IPCRF

Value Range Qualitative Description

5 4.500 - 5.000 Outstanding
4 3.500 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
3 2.500 – 3.499 Satisfactory
2 1.500 – 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1 Below 1.499 Poor
 36

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a
useful idea? International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1405-1416. doi:
10.1080/09500690802187041.

Adesola, A. A. (2005). Resource Provision and Utilization, Mathematics Ability and

learning Environment as prediction of learning Outcome in Undergraduate
Practical Geography. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.

Akinfolarin, C. A. (2008). Resource utilization in Vocational and Technical Education in

Colleges of Education in South-West Nigeria.Unpublished Ph.D
Thesis.University of Ado-Ekiti, Ado-Ekiti.

Alanzo, A. C., Korbag, M., & Seidel, T. (2012). Pedagogical content knowledge as
reflected in teacher-student interactions: Analysis of two video cases. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 49(10), 1211-1239. doi: 10.1002/tea.21055.

Alimi, O. S. (2004). Appraisal of the Adequacy of Available School Plant for Primary
Education In Ayedaade Local Government Area of Osun State. Educational
Thought, 4(1) 64-69.

Alimi, O. S. (2007). Physical Plant Maintenance Practices in the Public Secondary

Schools in Akoko Zonal Education Area of Ondo State. Ife Journal of
Educational Studies, 13(1):73-78.

Ayodele, J. B. (2000). School Size, Class Size and Teacher’s Quality as Correlation of
Internal Efficiency in Primary School in Ondo State, Nigeria; Unpublished PhD
Thesis, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.

Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and
learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple
perspectives on the teaching and learning of mathematics. Westport, CT: Ablex.

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What
makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. doi:
10.1177/0022487108324554.
 37

Bandele, S. O. (2003). The Universal Basic Education in Perspective, Need for Formative
Evaluation. Nigeria Journal of Educational Research and Evaluation, 1(4), 54-
56.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-Efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human

Behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H.
Friedman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mental Health. San Diego: Academic Press.

Barton, K., & Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching History for the Common Good. Mahwah, NJ:
LEA.

Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., & … Tsai, Y.
(2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom,
and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133-180.
doi: 103102/0002831209345157.

Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2012). Learning to critique and adapt science curriculum
materials: Examining the development of preservice elementary teachers'
pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 96(1), 130-157.

Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in

mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational
Research Journal, 26(4), 473–498.

Boz, N. (2012). pedagogical content knowledge of variables. Asia-Pacific Education

Researcher, 21(2), 342-352.

Brawdy, P. & Byra, M. (1994, April). A Comparison of Two Supervisory Models in

Preservice Teaching Practicum. Paper present at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Services No. ED 372065).

Brookhart, S. M., Walsh, J. M., & Zientarski, W. A. (2006). The Dynamics of Motivation
and Effort for Classroom Assessments in Middle School Science and Social
Studies. Applied Measurement in Education. 19(2), 151-184.

Calderon, J.F. & Gonzales, E. (1993). Measurement and evaluation. Manila: National
Book Store.
 38

Clariana, R. B., & Koul, R. (2006). The effects of different forms of feedback on fuzzy
and verbatim memory of science principles. British Journal of Educational
Psychology. 76, 259-270.

Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2010). Teacher credentials and student 80
achievement in high school. Journal of Human Resources, 45(3), 655-681.

Cynthia, U., & Megan, T. (2008). The Walls Speak: the interplay of quality facilities,
school climate, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration,
46 (1), 55-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230810849817

David, A. & Macayan, J. (2010) Assessing Teacher Performance, Retrieved October 23,
2011, from www.permea.club.officelive.com/Documents/AH_V3_A5.pdf

Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to

promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.

Dijk, E. M., & Kattmann, U. (2007). A research model for the study of science teachers’
PCK and improving teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 23(6),
885-897. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.002

Fantozzi, V. B. (2012). Divergent Purposes: A Case Study of a History Education Course

Co-taught by a Historian and Social Studies Education Expert. History Teacher,
45(2), 241-259.

Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why
money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28(2), 465–498.

Fuller B. (1987). What school factors raise achievement in the third world? Review of
Educational Research, 57 (3), 255-292.

Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school
teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 22(2), 129-145. doi: 10.3102/01623737022002129.
Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J., & Anderson, D. J. (1999). A three-way error
components analysis of educational productivity. Education Economics, 7(3),
199–208.

Gray, P. (1990). Science and technology education issues. Impact of science on society,
156, 56-57.
 39

Grossman, P. L. (2008). Responding to our critics: From crisis to opportunity in research

on teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(1), 10–23.

Hill, H. C. (2007). Mathematical knowledge of middle school teachers: Implications for

the no child left behind policy initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 29(2), 95–114.

Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical
knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 42(2), 371–406.

Kahan, J., Cooper, D., & Bethea, K. (2003). The role of mathematics teachers’ content
knowledge in their teaching: A framework for research applied to a study of
student teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(3), 223–252.

Kleickmann, T., Richter, D., Kunter, M., Elsner, J., Besser, M., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J.
(2013). Teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: The
role of structural differences in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,
64(1), 90-106. doi: 10.1177/0022487112460398.

Lee, E., & Luft, J. (2008). Experienced secondary science teachers’ representation of
pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education,
30(10), 1343-1363. doi: 10.1080/09500690802187058.

Luschei, T. F., & Chudgar, A. (2011). Teachers, student achievement and national
income: A cross-national examination of relationships and interactions.
Prospects, 41(4), 507-533. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11125-011-9213-7.

Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of
pedagogical content - knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.
G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct
and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Boston: Kluwer.

Martin, A. J. (2006). Personal bets (PBs): A proposed multidimensional model and

empirical analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 76, 803-825.

Mazer, J. P., Richard, E. M., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I’ll See You On “Facebook”: The
Effects of Computer-Mediated Teacher Self-Disclosure on Student Motivation,
Affective Learning, and Classroom Climate. Communication Education. 56(1), 1-
17.
 40

Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science

teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125–
145.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report
of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington,

DC: National Academy Press.

Nezvalová, Danu. (2011). Researching science teacher pedagogical content knowledge.

Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 35, 104-118.

Ojose, Bobby. (2012). Content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge of algebra

teachers on certain mathematical axioms. International Education Studies, 5(4),
150-165. doi: 10.5539/ies.v5n4p150.

Palmer, D. (2005). A Motivational View of Constructivist-informed Teaching.

International Journal of Science Education. 27(15), 1853-1881).

Philias, O. Y., & Wanjobi, W. C. (2011). Performance Determinants of Kenya Certificate

of Secondary Education (KCSE) in Mathematics of Secondary Schools in
Nyamaiya Division, Kenya. Asian Social Science, 7 (2), 107-112.

Sanders, L., Borko, H., & Lockard, J. (1993). Secondary science teachers’ knowledge
base when teaching science courses in and out of their area of certification.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 723–736.

Shulman, L. (2012). Domains: Pedagogical content knowledge. Retrieved January 18,

2014 from http://www.leeshulman.net/domains-pedagogical-content-
knowledge.html.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.

Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Silva, J. & Ysseldyke J.A. (1998). Assessment (7th Ed.) New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Slavin, R.E. (2003). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (Seventh ed). Boston:
Pearson Education, Inc.
 41

The Glossary of education reforms, 2013 retrieve from http://edglossary.org/assessment/

Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & De Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’
pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6),
673–695.

Vandiver, B. (2011). The Impact of School facilities on the Learning Environment.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Capella University.

Veal, W. R., & Kubasko, W. R. (2003). Biology and geology teachers’ domain-specific
pedagogical content knowledge of evolution. Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision, 18(4), 344–352.

Veal, W.R., & MaKinster, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge taxonomies.

Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(4). Retrieved December 20, 2013,
from http://ejse.southwestern.edu/article/view/7615/5382ejse/vealmak.html.

Yoon, J & Gilchrist, J (2003). Elementary teacher’s perception of administrative support

with disruption and aggressive students. Questia, Trusted Online Research.
Retrieved September 2011, from www.questia.com/googlescholar.qst?
docid=5001928384

Zembal-Saul, C., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2002). Elementary student teachers’
science content representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6),
443 – 463.

Republic of the Philippines

President Ramon Magsaysay State University
 42

Main Campus, Iba, Zambales

________________________________________________________________________
_____________
***GRADUATE SCHOOL***

PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE, SELF-EFFICACY AND

PERFORMANCE OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS
AMONG PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE DIVISION OF ZAMBALES

QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Respondent,
The undersigned is currently conducting a research entitled, “Pedagogical Content
Knowledge, Self-Efficacy and the Performance of Senior High School Science Teachers
among Public Schools in the Division of Zambales”. In this connection, please answer
the questionnaire below with honesty. Rest assured that your responses will be regarded
with utmost confidentiality.
Thank you.

RODEL M. EBAL
Researcher

PART 1: RESPONDENTS’ PROFILE

Please provide a check on the box provided herein to provide a statistical description of
you as respondent of this study:

AGE-GROUP:
: 21 to 25 years old
: 26 to 30 years old
: 31 to 35 years old
: 36 to 40 years old
: 41 to 45 years old
: 46 to 50 years old
: 51 to 55 years old
: 56 to 60 years old
SEX/GENDER:
 43

: Male
: Female
ACADEMIC RANK: ________________________________
FIELD OF SPECIALIZATION:
: Biology
: Chemistry
: Physics
YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE:
: Less than 5 years of teaching chemistry subjects
: More than 5 years but less than 10 years of teaching chemistry subjects
: More than 10 years but less than 15 years in teaching chemistry subjects
: More than 15 years but less than 20 years in teaching chemistry subjects
: More than 20 years of teaching chemistry subjects
HIGHEST EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT:
: Bacchalaureate Degree Holder
: Masteral Degree Holder
: Doctoral Degree Holder
NUMBER OF PERTINENT SEMINARS/TRAININGS ATTENDED:
: Attended less than 10 trainings/seminars
: Attended 11 to 20 trainings/seminars
: Attended more than 20 trainings/seminars

PART 2: PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE INVENTORY

Using the scale indicators listed below, encircle the number of your perceived knowledge about each item
Please use the following scale in answering each item.

5 4 3 2 1
Very High Extent High Extent Moderate Extent Low Extent Not at All

Be discriminating! Your results will be more helpful if you think about each item and distinguish the things
that you really do all the time from the things that you do seldom or never.

# INDICATORS Your Responses

1 I know about the context of my lesson 1 2 3 4 5
2 I know the critical points of my lessons 1 2 3 4 5
3 I pursue the last improvement regarding teaching lessons 1 2 3 4 5
 44

4 I recognize lacking areas related to my lessons 1 2 3 4 5

5 I know about the basic definitions in my lessons 1 2 3 4 5
6 I know about relation, rule and formula in my lesson 1 2 3 4 5
7 I know theory, axiom, theorems, etc. in my lesson 1 2 3 4 5
8 I meet the difficulties of students during my lesson 1 2 3 4 5
I determine the point that the students may be pressured in my lessons
9 1 2 3 4 5
in advance
I prepare appropriate lesson plans in accordance with the point that the
10 1 2 3 4 5
students may be prssured in my lessons
11 I determine misconceptions of students during teaching new topics 1 2 3 4 5
12 I select problems suitable for teaching contexts in my lesson 1 2 3 4 5
13 I connect among topics in the lesson 1 2 3 4 5
14 I effectively use my voice in the lesson 1 2 3 4 5
15 I determine insufficiency related to vocation and overcome it 1 2 3 4 5
16 I know about learning theories 1 2 3 4 5
17 I select appropriate teaching methods for standards 1 2 3 4 5
18 I control my emotions during lessons 1 2 3 4 5
19 I know about the instructional program 1 2 3 4 5
20 I know which teaching method and techniques to use for the topic 1 2 3 4 5
I notice misconception of students in the course of teaching a new
21 1 2 3 4 5
topic
22 I correct a s necessary in accordance with students’ feedback. 1 2 3 4 5
23 I use question-answers activities during lessons 1 2 3 4 5
24 I organize a suitable learning environment for students 1 2 3 4 5
25 I begin different activities to motivate students for lessons 1 2 3 4 5
I present systhematically in contexts of lessons (from concrete to 1
26 2 3 4 5
abstract, … etc.)
27 I construct a suitable platform during lessons 1 2 3 4 5
28 I know how to connect with students outside of the classroom 1 2 3 4 5
29 I prepare lesson plans considering the important points of topics 1 2 3 4 5
30 I use suitable learning and teaching instruments 1 2 3 4 5
I construct a democratic environment that provides self-expression of 1
31 2 3 4 5
students
I teach concepts using multi-representation as tables, diagrams and 1
32 2 3 4 5
graphic equations
33 I control negative situations while teaching lessons 1 2 3 4 5
34 I effectively use award, punishment and reinforcements 1 2 3 4 5
35 I take precautions determining the individual differences of students 1 2 3 4 5
I try to understand concepts that exemplify with daily life for students 1
36 2 3 4 5
in the lesson
37 I use time effectively in the lesson 1 2 3 4 5
38 I know how to assess students’ performance in the classroom 1 2 3 4 5

PART 2: BANDURAS’ INSTRUMENT OF TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY SCALE

 45

Please indicate your opinions about each of the statements below by encircling the
appropriate number that is equivalent to a particular qualitative description.. Your
answers will be kept with full confidentiality.

5 4 3 2 1
A Great Deal Quite a Bit Some Influence Very Little Nothing

# Indicator Statements Your Responses

Efficacy to influence Decision-Making
How much can you influence the decisiuon makings that
1 1 2 3 4 5
are made
How much can you expess your view freely on important
2 1 2 3 4 5
school matters?
Comments:
_______________________________________________________________________

Efficacy to Influence School Resources

How much can you do to get the instructional materials
3 1 2 3 4 5
and equipment you need?
Comments:
_______________________________________________________________________

Instructional Self-Efficacy
How much can you do to influence the class sizes in your
4. 1 2 3 4 5
school?
How much can you do to motivate students who show low
5. 1 2 3 4 5
interests in school work?
6. How much can you do to get students to work together? 1 2 3 4 5
How much can you do to overcome the influence of
7. 1 2 3 4 5
adverse community conditions on students’ learning?
How much can you do to get the learners to do their
8. 1 2 3 4 5
homework?
Comments:
_______________________________________________________________________

Disciplinary Self-Efficacy
How much can you do to get the learners follow
9. 1 2 3 4 5
classroom rules?
How much can you do to control disruptive bahavior in
10. 1 2 3 4 5
the classroom?
How much can you do to make parents comfortable
11. 1 2 3 4 5
coming to school?
Comments:
_______________________________________________________________________

Efficacy to Enlist Community Involvement

12. How much can you do to get community groups involved in 1 2 3 4 5
 46

working with the school?

How much can you do to get churches involved in working
13. 1 2 3 4 5
with the school?
How much can you do to get businesses involved in
14. 1 2 3 4 5
working with the school?
How much can you do to get local colleges and universities
15. 1 2 3 4 5
involved in working with the school?
Comments:
_______________________________________________________________________

Efficacy to Create a Positive School Climate

16. How much can you do to make the school a safe place? 1 2 3 4 5
How much can you do to make students enjoy coming to
17. 1 2 3 4 5
school?
How much can you do to get students to trust their
18. 1 2 3 4 5
teachers?
How much can you help other teachers with their teaching
19. 1 2 3 4 5
skills?
How much can you do to enhance collaborative interaction
20. between teachers and the administration to make the school 1 2 3 4 5
run effectively?
21. How much can you do to reduce school dropouts? 1 2 3 4 5
22. How much can you do to reduce school absenteeism? 1 2 3 4 5
How much can you do to get students to believe they can do
23. 1 2 3 4 5
well in schoolwork?
Comments:
_______________________________________________________________________

PART 3: TEACHER’S PERFORMANCE SCALE

Determining the Teachers’ Performance using the Overall Rating for Accomplishments.
The overall rating/assessment for the accomplishments shall fall within the following
adjectival ratings and shall be in three (3) decimal places.

ADJECTIVAL RATINGS
Mean Score Interpretation
4.500 – 5.000 Outstanding
3.500 – 4.499 Unsatisfactory
2.500 – 3,499 Satisfactory
1.500 – 2,499 Unsatisfactory
Below 1.499 Poor

KRAS Weigh Objectives Weight Ratin Scor

 47

per
t per
Objective g e
KRA
s
Monitored attendance, appreciation, safe,
positive and motivating environment,
TEACHING overall physical atmosphere, cleanliness
LEARNING of classroom including proper waist
PROCESS disposal
Use cooperative learning/other strategies
in teaching/presenting different lessons
Involved atleast 50% of the pupils to
participate in atleast two school activities
as stated in the school calendar of
activities
STUDENTS Monitored, evaluated, created and
OUTCOME administered four periodic test on as
scheduled date and increased MPS
quarterly in every subject taught
Maintain updated pupils’ school records
within the rating period
Trained/Coached 3 contestants to
represent the school in the District Level
Science Competition
PROFESSIONA
Updated self with recent development in
L GROWTH
education through attendance in
AND
continuing professional education and
DEVELOPMEN
attended at least four (4)
T
trainings/seminars and similar activities.
Practiced the code of ethics for
professional growth.
Participated atleast two clean and green
program initiated by the school and local
COMMUNITY
government.
INVOLVEMEN
Conducted quarterly and other parental
T
meetings of student’s needing academic
monitoring or follow-up.
OVERALL RATINGS FOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS
ADJECTIVAL RATING

---- Thank you for your time and patience -----