PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1308 - 951X

Original article | International Journal of Research in Teacher Education 2019, Vol. 10(2) 34-53

Perceived Pedagogical-Content Knowledge of Teachers: Classroom Practices of as Correlates of College of Teachers Education Students' Academic Result

Yordanos Yibeltal

pp. 34 - 53   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1902-12-0001

Published online: June 26, 2019  |   Number of Views: 14  |  Number of Download: 46


Abstract

Background and Objectives: Teachers' pedagogical content knowledge competence is seen as a combination of something one has(knowledge), what one does in the classroom (abilities) and which values one bases teaching on (attitudes), to perform his/her functions satisfactorily. The study investigated the awareness's of teachers and students about teachers’ in-depth pedagogical content knowledge, teachers’ practices of PCK, and correlates of practicing PCK with academic result of students.

Research methods and Participants: The researcher used mixed design(descriptive survey & co-relational) and quantitative research approach. The study sample consisted of 257 who were selected by proportionate stratified sampling,74 comprehensively selected teachers and 6 department heads. The questionnaire developed consisted of 21 statements on teachers’ in-depth pedagogical content knowledge and 21 statements on teachers classroom practices of PCK and both teachers and students  were asked to rate the statements on a five likert scale. And department heads and the researcher rate teachers’ classroom practices of teachers using rubric developed for classroom observation in line with statements included in the questionnaire which asked teachers classroom practices of PCK. Standard deviations, arithmetic Means; one sample t-test, independent t-test, Pearson correlation coefficient, and regression coefficient were used for data analysis.

Results: Then the result from the process revealed that teachers perceived that they had adequate pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) but not to the maximum level intended to be per the scale (3.90 from the possible mean score of 5.00). It was also found that there was no statistically significant mean difference between teachers self-rating and students rating on teachers classroom practices of their PCK (3.2 and 3.04 respectively, from the maximum mean score 5.00); all the constructs of PCK  practices and students cumulative  grade point average have  statistically significant relationships in that  perceived practices of pedagogical knowledge with the magnitude of (r=.483); perceived practices of subject matter knowledge with the magnitude of(r=.663) and Perceived practices of knowledge of students learning characteristics coefficient of correlation(r=0.504)  all at P<0.01 and in similar directions. And last the cumulative effect of classroom practices of PCK was found to be with R-square=22.9 which accounts 22.9% effect for students’ academic result.

Conclusion: To conclude both teachers and students rated similarly rate that the status of applying PCK in classroom teaching was less than adequate level. Therefore, it can be suggested that provision of continuous and transformative professional training, arranging workshops and subject specific rigorous supervision to teachers on their practices of PCK can effectively improve quality of teaching towards attainment of high students’ academic results.

Keywords: Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Academic Result, Pedagogical Knowledge, Content Knowledge, Classroom Practices,


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Yibeltal, Y. (2019). Perceived Pedagogical-Content Knowledge of Teachers: Classroom Practices of as Correlates of College of Teachers Education Students' Academic Result . International Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 10(2), 34-53.

Harvard
Yibeltal, Y. (2019). Perceived Pedagogical-Content Knowledge of Teachers: Classroom Practices of as Correlates of College of Teachers Education Students' Academic Result . International Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 10(2), pp. 34-53.

Chicago 16th edition
Yibeltal, Yordanos (2019). "Perceived Pedagogical-Content Knowledge of Teachers: Classroom Practices of as Correlates of College of Teachers Education Students' Academic Result ". International Journal of Research in Teacher Education 10 (2):34-53.

References
  1. Adedoyin, O.O., (2011). The Impact In-Depth Pedagogical Mathematical Content Knowledge on Academic Performance: As Perceived By Botswana Junior Secondary School Pupils. University of Botswana: European Journal of Educational Studies 3(2),Retrieved on Dec.05, 2015 from http://www.ozelacademy.com/EJES_v3n2_10.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  2. Adunola, O. (2011). An Analysis of the Relationship between Class Size and Academic Performance of Students.  Ego Booster Book :Ogun State, Nigeria. [Google Scholar]
  3. ALISTER JONES and JUDY MORELAND(2004). Enhancing Practicing Primary School Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge in TechnologyInternational Journal of Technology and Design Education 14, 121–140. [Google Scholar]
  4. Allexander Muzenda (2013). Lecturers’ Competences and Students’ Academic Performance.International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention ISSN (Online): 2319 – 7722. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ball, D. L. (1990).Halves, pieces, and twoths: Constructing representational contexts in teaching fractions (Craft Paper No. 90‐2). East Lansing: Michigan StateUniversity, National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ball, D. L. (1991). Research on teaching mathematics: Making subject matter knowledge part of the equation. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research onteaching: Vol. 2. Teachersʹ knowledge of subject matter as it relates to theirteaching practice (pp. 1—48). Greenwich, CT: JAI. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ball, D. L. (1999). Crossing boundaries to examine the mathematics entailed in elementary teaching. Contemporary Mathematics, 243, 15—36. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ball, D. L. (2000).Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach.Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 241—247. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S. T., & Mewborn, D. S. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachersʹ mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 433—456). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. [Google Scholar]
  10. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Voss,  (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Education Research Journal, 47(1), 133-180. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L, & Cocking R.R. (Eds). (1999-2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. [Google Scholar]
  12. Brunning R, Schraw G, Ronning R (1999). Cognitive psychology and instruction (3rd Ed.).Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  13. Carmen FERNANDEZ (2014). Knowledge Base for Teaching and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and Some Useful Models and Implica¬tions for Teachers’ Training: problems of Education in the 21st Century,  Volume 60. [Google Scholar]
  14. Carpenter, T.P. (1988).Teaching as problem solving. Reston, VA. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chang, Y. (2010). Students’ Perceptions of Teaching Styles and Use of Learning Strategies, Retrieved from:    http://trace.tennessee.udu/utk grades/. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 263— 272. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An  integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 263—272. [Google Scholar]
  18. Craig, H. J., Kraft, R. J., & Du Plessis, J. (1998).  Teacher development: Making an impact. Washington DC: USAID and World Bank. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cress well John W.(2012). Educational Research: planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitatative and Qualitative research. 4th ed. Bolyston street: Boston. [Google Scholar]
  20. Dapaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: A systmatic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 12-25. [Google Scholar]
  21. David Orr et al.(2013). Pedagogy, Curriculum, teaching Practices and Teachers Education. USA. [Google Scholar]
  22.  Dewey, J. (1969). The logical and psychological aspects of experience: Theory of knowledge and problems of education. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. [Google Scholar]
  23.  Duschl, R. A. & Gitomer, D. H.(1997). ‘Strategies and Challenges to Changing the Focus of Assessment and Instruction in Science Classrooms’, Educational Assessment 4(1), 37–73. [Google Scholar]
  24. Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D. (2002). Strategies for Teachers: Teaching Content and Thinking Skills. 4th Ed. Needham Heights: M.A. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ehindero, OJ, Ajibade YA (2000). What our student say about how weteach. Ife J. Educ. Studies.7(1), 1-9. [Google Scholar]
  26. Genet G. and Haftu H(2014).Correctional Education Teachers’ Teaching Competence. Ethiop. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. 9  [Google Scholar]
  27.  Gess‐Newsome, J. (1999a). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J. Gess‐Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Pedagogical content knowledge and science education: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 3—17). Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  28. Gess‐Newsome, J. (1999b). Secondary teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and their impact on instruction.In J. Gess‐Newsome & N. G. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. B. (Eds.) (1999).PCK: How teachers transform subject  matter knowledge. J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical  content knowledge. (pp. 51-94). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  30. Glenda Anthon and Margaret Walshaw, (2009.Effective pedagogy in subject teaching.International Academy of Education (IAE) ፡ Geneva 20, Switzerland. [Google Scholar]
  31.  Gooyeon Kim (2004). The Pedagogical Content Knowledge Of Two Middle‐SchoolMathematics Teachers: A Dissertation Submitted To The Graduate Faculty Of The University Of Georgia In Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements For The Degree. Athens: Georgia. [Google Scholar]
  32. Grimmet, P., & MacKinnon, A. (1992).Craft knowledge and the education of Teachers.In G.  Grant (Ed.), Review of research in education, (18) (pp. 59-74). Washington, DC: AERA. [Google Scholar]
  33. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. [Google Scholar]
  34. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education  New York: Teachers College Press.  [Google Scholar]
  35. Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching. New York: Pergamon. [Google Scholar]
  36.  Grossman, P., Wilson, S., & Shulman, L. (1989). Teachers for substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teachers (pp. 23-36). London: Pergamon Press. [Google Scholar]
  37. Harlen, W. & James, M.(1997,)‘Assessment and Learning: Differences and Relationships Between Formative and Summative Assessment’, Assessment in Education 4(3), 365–379. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hayes, G. & Chamberlain, R.: (1998), Improving Literacy in the Primary School;  Routledge, London. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hill, H.C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. (2004).Effects of teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement.American Educational Research Journal, 42 (2), 371– 406. [Google Scholar]
  40. 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. [Google Scholar]
  41. Howie (2002. Evaluating students achievement with different contexts. In Prospects, XXXV(1), Paris: International Bureau of Education: UNSCO. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kahan, J. A., Cooper, D. A., & Bethea, K. A. (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, 223—252. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kang’ahi, M., Indoshi, F.C., Okwach, T.O. & Osido, J. (2012). Teaching Styles and Learners’  Achievement . International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 1(3):62-87.  [Google Scholar]
  44. Kang’ahi, M., Indoshi, F.C., Okwach, T.O. & Osido, J. (2012). Teaching Styles and Learners’ Achievement, International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 1(3):62-87.  [Google Scholar]
  45.  Kenneth N. Ross (2005): Quantitative research methods in educational Planning: Sample design for educational survey research,  International Institute for Educational Planning/UNESCO. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress, Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169-204. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lampert, M. (1991).Connecting mathematical teaching and learning. In E. Fennema, T. P. Carpenter & S. J. Lamon (Eds.), Integrating research on teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 121‐152). Albany: State University of New York. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lange, K., Kleickmann, T., & Möller, K. (2012). Elementary Teachers` Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Student Achievement in Science Education:  Science Learning and Citizenship. Proceedings of the Ninth ESERA-Conference. Lyon. [Google Scholar]
  49. Lederman (Eds.), Pedagogical content knowledge and science education: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 51—94). Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  50. Leinhardt, G., & Smith, D. (1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 247—271. [Google Scholar]
  51. 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 (Vol. 6, pp. 95-132). [Google Scholar]
  52. Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 3–11. [Google Scholar]
  53. Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. M. (1998).Evaluating technology-based processes and products.New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 74, 69–77. [Google Scholar]
  54. Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers' knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (fourth ed., pp. 877-904). Washington: American Educational Research Association. [Google Scholar]
  55. Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachersʹ knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 877—904). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. [Google Scholar]
  56. Mushashu, B.K. (1997). Quality of education in public secondary schools: Major problems andsolutions. Paper presented at the conference on quality of education in Tanzania, Arusha. [Google Scholar]
  57. Paliakoff A. & Schwartzbeck T.D. (Eds). (2001). Eye of the storm: Promising practices for improving instruction. Washington D.C.: CBE. [Google Scholar]
  58. Peterson, P. L. (1988). Teachers’ and students’ cognitional knowledge of classroom teaching and learning.Educational Researcher, 17(5), 5—14. [Google Scholar]
  59. Shulman, L. (1997a). Professional development: Learning from experience. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  60. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4—14. [Google Scholar]
  61.  Shulman, L. S. (1986a). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. (3rd ed.) (pp. 3-36). New York, NY: Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  62.  Shulman, L. S. (1986b). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), pp. 4-14.  [Google Scholar]
  63.  Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundation of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), pp. 1-22.  [Google Scholar]
  64. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1—22. [Google Scholar]
  65. Shulman, L. S. (2000). Teacher development: Roles of domain expertise and pedagogical knowledge. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 129— 135. [Google Scholar]
  66. Shulman, L. S., & Grossman, P. (1988). Knowledge growth in teaching: Stanford, CA: Stanford University.  [Google Scholar]
  67. Shulman, L. S., & Sykes, G. (1986).A national board for teaching?In search of a bold standard.A report for the task force on teaching as a profession. New York. [Google Scholar]
  68. Smith, D. C., & Neale, D. C. (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science teaching.Teaching and Teacher Education, 5, 1—20. [Google Scholar]
  69. Taconis, R., Jochems,W. Rohaan, E.J., (2010). Measuring teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in primary technology education.Research in Science and Technological Education, 27(3), 327–338. [Google Scholar]
  70. Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education.Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 99—110. [Google Scholar]
  71. Veal, W. R., & MaKinster, J. G. (1999).Pedagogical Content Knowledge Taxonomies.Electronic Journal of Science  Education, 3(4). [Google Scholar]
  72. Voss, T., Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2011). Assessing teacher candidates’ general pedagogical/ psychological knowledge: Test construction and validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 952-969. [Google Scholar]
  73. Wilson, S., Shulman, L., & Richert, A. (1987)."150 different ways of knowing".Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers'  thinking(pp. 104-123). Eastbourne, England: Cassell. [Google Scholar]
  74. Wineburg, S., & Wilson, S. M. (1991).The subject matter knowledge of history teachers.In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching, 2, 305-345. Greenwich CT: JAI Press. [Google Scholar]