International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management 414

Volume 4, Issue 7, July 2021

https://www.ijresm.com | ISSN (Online): 2581-5792

Assessment of Pedagogical Content Knowledge

of Math Teachers: Basis for Professional
Development Program
Theresa G. Exconde1*, Evangeline B. Escabel2
1
Education Program Supervisor - Mathematics, Department of Education, Lipa City, Philippines
2
Public Schools District Supervisor, Department of Education, Lipa City, Philippines

Abstract: This study aimed to evaluate the pedagogical content pedagogical content knowledge; the higher student achievement
knowledge of mathematics teachers and its relationship to level is expected. As a result, a proposed Professional Development
students’ achievement level and to develop a Professional Program was developed to equip teachers with necessary skills to
Development Program that will further enhance their content enhance their content knowledge and pedagogical skills in
knowledge and pedagogical skills in teaching Mathematics. The teaching Mathematics.
respondents of the study were 365 Grade 10 students, 26 Grade 10
Mathematics teachers and 14 Math Coordinators including the Keywords: Approaches, Content, Competencies, Knowledge,
Head Teachers and School Heads whose specialization is Pedagogical.
Mathematics in the Schools Division of Lipa City. The Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (PCK) was measured in terms of Learning 1. Introduction
Competencies, Content Knowledge and Teaching Approaches of
Mathematics mentors/teachers. The study utilized two sets of There are many challenges that mathematics teachers face
research instrument, one is for Grade 10 students to determine today. Many of our teachers are unprepared or inadequately
their achievement level and the other one is for mathematics prepared to meet these challenges. Top of these is the amount
mentors to determine their level of competence on PCK. Out of 14 and depth of mathematics content that teachers ought to know.
national high schools 5 or 36% of them achieved an MPS At the heart of effective content teaching is the teachers’
equivalent to Moving Towards Mastery level, and 8 or 57% of pedagogical content knowledge. According to Shulman (as
them got an MPS matching to Average Mastery level.
Unfortunately, only one school obtained an MPS corresponding to cited by Hilderbrandt, 2010), pedagogical content knowledge is
Low Mastery level. Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Math a form of practical knowledge that is used by teachers to guide
Mentors in terms of Learning Competencies obtained an overall their actions in highly contextualized classroom settings.
mean score of 3.29, interpreted as Expert, Learning Competencies Likewise, pedagogical knowledge means the “how” of teaching
on the following areas, such as:(a) Measurement and Sequence acquired through education course work and personal
having the highest average rating of 3.5; (b) Polynomials and experience, while content knowledge is the “what” of teaching.
Polynomial Functions; and (c) Circles and Plane Geometry
obtaining a weighted mean of 3.35 and 3.37, respectively, had Teaching, by its nature, cannot be deemed effective unless
obtained an overall rating equivalent to Expert. Only in significant learning takes place.
Probability and Statistics that teachers were rated 2.95 equivalent Many educators like the idea that the primary measure of
to Experienced. In term of Content Knowledge, all content areas teaching effectively relies on students learning outcomes. The
such as: (a) Measurement, Sequence and Number Sense; (b) Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) is a series
Geometry; (c) Patterns and Algebra; and (d) Probability and of international assessments of the mathematics and science
Statistics were given rating equivalent to Experience with an
overall mean of 2.85. In terms of Teaching Approaches, math
knowledge of students around the world. TIMSS is one of the
mentors had an overall mean score of 2.57 which described the studies established by the International Association for the
teachers as Experienced. On the following teaching approaches: Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) aimed at
(a) Reflective; (b) Collaborative; and (c) Constructivist, mentors allowing educational systems to compare students' educational
were rated Experienced. On the other hand, mentors were rated achievement and learn from the experiences of others in
equivalent to Developing on Inquiry-Based and Integrative designing effective education policy. This study was first
Approaches. More so, there was no significant difference between
the PCK rating of teachers and administrators in terms of conducted in 1995, and has been performed every 4 years
Learning Competencies and Content Knowledge. However; there thereafter. In 2003, the Philippines ranked 34th out of 38
was a significant difference on the rating of two groups of countries in High School II Math. In 2008, even with only
respondents in terms of Teaching Approaches. On the other hand, science high schools participating in the Advanced
there was a significant relationship on the PCK of Mathematics Mathematics category, the Philippines ranked lowest among 10
teachers and student’s achievement level. PCK has vital countries. Filipino students are still weak in math and science,
contribution to quality teaching which means the higher teacher’s

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

T. G. Exconde et al. International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management, VOL. 4, NO. 7, JULY 2021 415

according to results of the Third International Mathematics and may guide them on the realization of the root cause of the
Science Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R)(http://nces.ed.gov/timss). achievement gaps in mathematics and implement appropriate
The poor performance in mathematics is brought about by development plan to ensure quality standard for basic
the kind of mathematics instruction currently followed in most education.
of our mathematics curriculum (Tan). Students’ low scores in Curriculum and Implementation Division: The identified
the National Achievement Test and Trends in International strengths and weaknesses may provide an avenue to look at the
Math and Science Study are a reflection of the current quality effectiveness and sustainability in the implementation of the
of education in the country. (K12Philippines, 2015). proposed program.
Most mathematics educators consider the development of Division and District Supervisors: The findings of this study
Mathematics framework for the Enhanced Basic Education may lead them to strengthen the professional and instructional
Curriculum timely and strategic with the current trends brought advice and support they render to school heads and teachers on
by the reforms and innovations in the curriculum and policies curricula supervision in the course of raising the mathematical
which are all cored to education today. The majority of achievement of students.
upcoming trends in K‐12 education relate to fostering 21st School Heads: The results of the study may provide
century skills by using technology in new and innovative ways directions to the school heads in implementing the school’s
(2014 Hanover Research). Thus, math programs are based on curricular and instructional processes in mathematics in the
the current and future needs of students making them as desire to achieve excellence. They too, could provide assistance
functions on their life situations. This is seen very vividly as the to teachers on the execution of effective teaching
challenges and hurdles in the modern times are at most met and Faculty/Teachers: The study may provide direction and
triumphed by the learners through teachers’ persistent and guidance to the teachers in ensuring the quality they provide to
indefatigable thrust for quality education. meet curricular standards. This may serve as a motivation to
improve their teaching. This may also be a tool for continuous
2. Statement of the Problem improvement and development and may help them to
This study was an attempt to determine the Pedagogical appropriately align instructional decisions and activities as well
Content Knowledge of mathematics teachers in the Division of as teaching styles and techniques within the level of students’
Lipa City. understanding and competence.
The study sought answers to the following questions: Students: The programs, instructional practices and activities
1. What is the achievement level of Grade 10 students in of the teachers may be more responsive to the students and may
Mathematics? focus on the students’ priority and needs. Also, students may be
2. To what extent do mathematics teachers’ Pedagogical the direct beneficiaries of this study since teachers may be more
Content Knowledge (PCK) rated by Grade 10 competent and the learning process may be facilitated
mathematics teachers and coordinators/ head teachers/ pedagogically.
school heads in terms of the following: Parents: With a better instructional practices and more
1.1. Learning competencies; efficient delivery of educational services to the students, the
1.2. Content; and parents may have the assurance that their children are acquiring
1.3. Teaching Approaches? quality education
3. Is there a significant difference between the PCK rating Educational System: This study may set a standard on
of Grade 10 math teachers and the PCK rating of assessing teachers’ instructional competence. Public high
mathematics coordinators/ head teachers/school heads? schools may be able to set a benchmark against the result of
4. Is there a significant relationship between the evaluation using the instrument, thereby assisting them in their
pedagogical content knowledge of Mathematics improvement and continuous growth and development as
teachers and students’ achievement level? institution of learning.
5. Based on findings of the study, what Professional Other Researchers: The study may also serve as a source of
Development Program can be developed for useful insights on the need for their studies of this kind in the
mathematics teachers? future.

3. Significance of the Study 4. Research Design

A country’s vision of inclusive growth and development In this study, a descriptive method of research was used. The
entails investment in human capital, particularly through the study entailed mixed method data analysis with phase one being
provision of quality basic education. In light with the reforms quantitative and the other is qualitative. The quantitative
in the Philippines, it is imperative to take actions which promote method was used to measure the level of students’ performance
programs that would help teachers to become effective and and the rating for mathematics teachers. Quantitative and
efficient mentors of learners. qualitative data processing was done to arrive at precise
The findings of the study may give significance to the analysis and interpretation of results.
following: A. Research Instrument and Technique
Schools Division Superintendents: The results of this study
The study utilized two sets of research instrument, one is for
T. G. Exconde et al. International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management, VOL. 4, NO. 7, JULY 2021 416

Grade 10 students to determine their achievement level and the studied and identified. The Budget of Work (BoW) for Grade
other one is for mathematics mentors to determine the 10 was considered in making the Table of Specification (ToS).
Pedagogical Content Knowledge of mathematics teachers A ToS is a plan that provides an assurance that the test will
The researcher developed an assessment tool for grade 10 measure the desired competencies. In this study, a ToS was
students comprising the learning competencies from first made for the 50-item multiple choice test. The researcher used
quarter up to third quarter of school year 2016-2017. The various textbooks as references for the test items.
content of the assessment tool was based on the learning Likewise, the researcher devised Part 1 of the questionnaire
competencies as prescribed by the Department of Education for for the rating of PCK of Mathematics teachers as to the level of
Grade 10 learners. The content of the test was purposively mastery of the Learning Competencies and Content of
studied and identified. The Budget of Work (BoW) for Grade Mathematics under the Enhanced Basic Education Curriculum.
10 was considered in making the Table of Specification (ToS). For Part 2 of the questionnaire, the researcher asked permission
A ToS is a plan that provides an assurance that the test will from the author of a study, “Towards Developing a Pedagogical
measure the desired competencies. In this study, a ToS was Based Training Design for Public Secondary School Teachers
made for the 50-item multiple choice test. The researcher used in a City Division” (Morcilla 2013), to use part of her
various textbooks as references for the test items. instrument in the present study to rate the mathematics teachers
Likewise, the researcher devised Part 1 of the questionnaire knowledge on teaching approaches.
for the rating of PCK of Mathematics teachers as to the level of Three master teachers, five head teachers and a school head
mastery of the Learning Competencies and Content of whose area of specialization is Mathematics were consulted and
Mathematics under the Enhanced Basic Education Curriculum. approved the test.
For Part 2 of the questionnaire, the researcher asked permission
D. Validity and Reliability of the Instrument
from the author of a study, “Towards Developing a Pedagogical
Based Training Design for Public Secondary School Teachers The research instruments for students and teachers were
in a City Division” (Morcilla 2013), to use part of her presented to five instructional leaders whose area of
instrument in the present study to rate the mathematics teachers specialization is Mathematics. The items were evaluated and
knowledge on teaching approaches. validated by these experts. Their comments and suggestions
Three master teachers, five head teachers and a school head were considered in the final making of questionnaire. On the
whose area of specialization is Mathematics were consulted and other hand, Part 2 questionnaire for PCK of Mathematics
approved the test. teachers had already been validated and used in previous study.
The pilot testing of two sets of instrument was tried out to
B. Validity and Reliability of the Instrument Grade 10 students, mathematics teachers and school head of the
The research instruments for students and teachers were Lipa City National Science High School, a high school in the
presented to five instructional leaders whose area of Division of Lipa City which was not part of the respondents.
specialization is Mathematics. The items were evaluated and The questionnaires were retrieved and tabulated the results
validated by these experts. Their comments and suggestions using Microsoft excel. The tabulated result was then submitted
were considered in the final making of questionnaire. On the to the statistician for the computation of the internal consistency
other hand, Part 2 questionnaire for PCK of Mathematics using Cronbach’s Alpha.
teachers had already been validated and used in previous study.
The pilot testing of two sets of instrument was tried out to 5. Summary of Findings
Grade 10 students, mathematics teachers and school head of the
A. Achievement Level of Grade 10 Students
Lipa City National Science High School, a high school in the
Division of Lipa City which was not part of the respondents. Out of 14 national high schools 5 or 36% of them achieved
The questionnaires were retrieved and tabulated the results an MPS equivalent to Moving Towards Mastery level, and 8 or
using Microsoft excel. The tabulated result was then submitted 57% of them got an MPS matching to Average Mastery level.
to the statistician for the computation of the internal consistency Unfortunately, only one school obtained an MPS corresponding
using Cronbach‘s Alpha. to Low Mastery level.

C. Research Instrument and Technique Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) of Mathematics

Teachers
The study utilized two sets of research instrument, one is for
Grade 10 students to determine their achievement level and the 1) In terms of Learning Competencies
1.1. Sequence
other one is for mathematics mentors to determine the
Math teachers were rated as Expert under the category
Pedagogical Content Knowledge of mathematics teachers
Sequence in 9 out of 10 learning competencies. For this result,
The researcher developed an assessment tool for grade 10
it was concluded that both respondents had almost the same
students comprising the learning competencies from first
assessment that teachers were competent on numbers 1 to 9
quarter up to third quarter of school year 2016-2017. The
indicators. Only in the indicator to Solve real-life problems
content of the assessment tool was based on the learning
involving geometric sequence, that Math teachers were rated
competencies as prescribed by the Department of Education for
average mean of 3.05, interpreted as Experienced. As a whole,
Grade 10 learners. The content of the test was purposively
teachers got an overall rating of 3.45, interpreted as Expert in
T. G. Exconde et al. International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management, VOL. 4, NO. 7, JULY 2021 417

the Learning Competencies under Sequence. Math teachers were rated Experienced in all indicators except
1.2. Polynomials and Polynomial Functions in indicator No. 1, *Describing correctly the structure and
Out of 7 learning competencies, 4 were rated as Expert, properties of real numbers that obtained a highest rating of 3.38
among these were Apply the Remainder Theorem and the and described teachers as Expert on this field. Among the
Factor Theorem having the highest average weighted mean of indicators, proving fundamental theorems involving numbers
3.55; followed by Perform Division of Polynomials using Long had the lowest mean of 2.84. The next indicators with the lowest
Division and Synthetic Division with 3.48 rating; and Factor mean were *Making correct conjectures based on observed
Polynomials and Solve Polynomial Equations both with 3.44 numerical patterns and relationships; *Posting problems
rating. This assessment revealed that teachers were on high involving these numbers; *Solving problems involving real
level of competencies with respect to these indicators. On the numbers, with weighted mean of 3.05, 3.09 and 3.24,
other hand, the remaining 3 learning competencies, solve respectively. The overall rating achieved by Math teachers was
problems involving Polynomial Equations and Graph 3.10, meaning they were categorized as Experienced teachers.
Polynomial Functions acquired an average weighted mean of 1.2. Measurement
3.24 and Solve problems involving polynomial functions got The second group of administrators had common rating of
3.13 weighted mean which described as Experienced. As a 3.33 in three indicators. However, on the part of the math
whole, this category obtained an overall mean of 3.36 which teachers, *Converting of units of measurement had the highest
described that Math teachers are experts on these field. They rating of 3.31. This indicator also described math teachers as
have almost all the competencies at high level for effective Expert having a mean of 3.32. Teachers were rated Experienced
teaching. in the last two indicators, *Solving problems involving
1.3. Circle and Plane Geometry measurements ideas; *Formulating problems involving
Teachers were rated Expert in the 5 learning competencies, measurements having weighted mean of 3.17 and 3.13.
namely: Illustrate tangents and secants of circles; Find the 1.3. Geometry
center and the radius of a circle given the equation; Determine The two sets of respondents rated Math teachers as
the center and radius of the circle given the equation and vice Experienced teachers in this skills except in * Drawing
versa, with weighted mean of 3.55, 3.48 and 3.44, respectively; geometric figures based on a given description, wherein
and Solve for segments and sector of a circle; and, Use and teachers were rated 3.33 meaning Expert on the eyes of the
apply the Distance Formula to prove some geometric properties administrators. It was observable that the lowest indicators that
with both 3.36 weighted mean. Meanwhile, teachers were rated need to be prioritized are the following: * Making conjectures
Experienced on the following learning competencies: Solve about properties of shapes which includes transformation and
problems involving chords, arcs, central angles and inscribed combination of shapes, obtaining an average mean of 2.52; *
angles of a circle; Solve problems involving tangents and Proving theorems involving geometric concepts; and * Solving
secants of a circle; having weighted mean of 3.28 and 3.20, problems involving congruent and similar figures having 2.56
respectively, while; Prove theorems on tangents and secants of and 2.89 average mean, respectively.
a circle; and Solve problems involving geometric figures on the 1.4. Patterns and Algebra
coordinate plane had the lowest rating of both 3.01. An overall The indicator * Solving linear and quadratic functions was
mean of 3.30 which give a description of Expect was achieved. confidently rated as Expert by both groups of respondents.
1.4. Probability and Statistics However, other indicators were rated as Experienced by both
Teachers were rated as Expert on 4 out 12 learning respondents. The indicator with the lowest average mean of
competencies. Three of these competencies had similar 2.68 was *Making conjectures based on the observed patterns
weighted mean of 3.4, such as: Find the permutations of n using functions. Other indicators, *Proving properties of
objects taken r at a time; Find the combinations of an object equations and inequalities, *Constructing mathematical
taken r at a time Calculate quartile, decile, percentile of problems based on real life situations and *Recognizing
ungrouped data. On the other hand, calculate quartile, decile, patterns based on observed patterns using functions obtained an
percentile of grouped data acquired 3.32 weighted mean. The average mean of 2.80, 2.93 and 3.01, respectively. This content
learning competency with the lowest weighted mean of 2.69 is area had an overall rating of 2.96, meaning teachers were
Calculate quartile, decile, percentile of grouped data. Illustrate assessed as Experienced.
and find probability of mutually exclusive events and Illustrate 1.5. Patterns and Algebra
independent and dependent events had the same weighted mean Indicators that quite alarming were *Applying probability
of 2.93. Solve problems involving permutations and concepts in making decision in real-life situations and * Making
combinations and Identify conditional probability had predictions about outcomes, having means of 2.36 and 2.43 and
consecutive weighted mean of 2.96 and 2.97, respectively. The described as Developing. The result of these two indicators
overall weighted mean for Probability and Statistics was 3.11 revealed the weaknesses of Math teachers in terms of content.
which means mathematics teachers are Experienced teachers. Although the first two indicators: *Analyzing and interpreting
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) of Mathematics data and *Solving problems involving probability achieved
Teachers rating of 2.96 and 2.8, equivalent to Experienced.
1) In terms of Content
1.1. Number and Number Sense
T. G. Exconde et al. International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management, VOL. 4, NO. 7, JULY 2021 418

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) of Mathematics 4, Develops interpersonal relationship and 2, Allows the
Teachers students to broaden their perspectives to an issue based on their
1) In terms Teaching Approaches cultural differences which obtained average mean scores of
1.1. Reflective Approach 3.69 and 3.46, respectively. These top 3 ranking categories were
Indicators No. 9. Takes time to reflect on his own during and interpreted Very Satisfactory. On the other hand, the remaining
after classes; No. 7, Transforms every day classroom life and 2 categories obtained an average mean scores of 3.39 and 3.23
No. 3, Helps students develop analysis of feelings, evaluation which interpreted Satisfactory.
of experience, should be prioritized in designing professional 1.5. Constructivist Approach
program for teachers since these indicators got the lowest rank Indicator 1, Acknowledges individual differences had the
of 7th, 8th and 9th, respectively. highest average mean of 3.89. This indicator ranked 1 for both
1.2. Inquiry-Based Approach respondents. On the contrary, indicator 6, Sees to it that learning
The lowest assessed five indicators which were all given situations, environments, skills, content and tasks are relevant,
Satisfactory rating were the following: No. 2, Requires to seek realistic, authentic and represent the natural complexities of the
out knowledge as well as apply historical skills to determine 'real world' had the lowest rank of 15 having a mean of 3.33 and
why events occurred and what motivated the people to take the Satisfactory interpretation. Aside from this category 6, all other
action they took; No. 11, Collaborates within and beyond the categories obtained Very Satisfactory interpretation except for
classroom; No. 14, Draws out and work with students pre- the following indicators which have also Satisfactory rating: 4
existing understandings and make student ‘thinking’ visible and a. Activities are provided to encourage metacognition, self-
central to the learning; No. 15, Classroom activities were analysis -regulation, -reflection & -awareness; b. Opportunities
designed to develop understanding through in-depth study of are provided to encourage metacognition, self-analysis -
curriculum topics and No 7, Engages learners and researchers regulation, -reflection & -awareness; d. Environments are
with the foundational belief that the topics they teach are rich, provided to encourage metacognition, self-analysis -regulation,
living and generous places for wonder and exploration; having -reflection & -awareness and 12, Errors provide the opportunity
rank 15, 14,13, 12 and 11, respectively. It was noted that for insight into students' previous knowledge constructions. The
Indicator No.2 ranked lowest for the teachers; on the contrary it results revealed an overall weighted mean of 3.54 which could
ranked highest for the administrators. Both showed different be interpreted as Very Satisfactory.
views in this indicator that need to be clarified. As a whole, the B. Significant Difference between the Pedagogical Content
overall average rating was 3.45 which interpreted Very Knowledge (PCK) Rating of Mathematics Teachers and the
Satisfactory for the pedagogical skills of mathematics teachers PCK Rating of Mathematics Coordinators/ Head Teachers/
in terms of Inquiry-based approach. School Heads
1.3. Integrative Approach
Learning Competencies obtained a significant value of .221
The consolidated result of responses of two groups on the
which was greater than .05 level of significance. This result
PCK of Mathematics Teachers in terms of Integrative Approach
revealed that there is no significant difference on the responses
of Teaching. Indicator 7b, Teaches the students to direct their
of the two sets of groups. Likewise, both respondents had a
own learning so they become self-regulated learners had the
weighted mean of 3.30. This is an indication that both teachers
highest in the average ranks with a Very Satisfactory
and administrators have common assessment on the level of
interpretation. On the contrary Indicator 7a, Teaches the
PCK in terms of Learning Competencies and the position or
students to monitor their own learning so they become self –
designation in the school does not affect the rating of teachers.
regulated learners obtained the lowest in the average ranks with
On the other hand, PCK in terms of Content yielded a computed
Satisfactory interpretation. Likewise, Indicator 1, Develops the
p value greater than .05 which was .296. This result revealed
ability to discover and create, integrate and interpret knowledge
that there is no significant difference on the responses of
from different disciplines, applying knowledge through real-
teachers and administrators. This could be attributed to the fact
world engagements was rated the same interpretation of
that administrators are also knowledgeable in terms of content
Satisfactory. There were indicators which obtained similar
in Mathematics. The result of computed P value for PCK of
average mean of 3.56, Anchors teaching in students' diverse
Math Teachers in terms of Teaching Approaches was -.215. The
life-contexts and Emphasizes problem-solving. Indicators 2a,
p value was less than .05 level of significance which indicates
leads students to synthesize learning from a wide array of
that null hypothesis should be rejected that there is a significant
sources, learn from experience; 2b, makes significant and
difference between the rating of teachers and administrators.
productive connections between theory and practice and 3,
This was also seen in the overall means of the two groups of
Recognizes the need for teaching and learning to occur in a
respondents, 3.35 rating of mathematics teachers and 3.79
variety of contexts such as home, community and work sites
rating of administrators. It was also noted that there was a
had similar average mean of 3.44 interpreted as Very
difference of 0.44 on the average means of the two groups of
Satisfactory.
respondents.
1.4. Collaborative
Indicator 1b, provides a place where teachers become C. Significant relationship between the pedagogical content
learners at times, and learners sometimes teach was rated knowledge of mathematics teachers and students’ achievement
highest average mean of 3.79. This was followed by Indicators Learning Competencies reached a significant value of .159
T. G. Exconde et al. International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management, VOL. 4, NO. 7, JULY 2021 419

which indicates that there was a very low significant 2. The Education Program Supervisor In-Charge of
relationship. But then, the computed P-value for the Content Mathematics should conduct trainings/ seminars/ workshop
Knowledge as predictor variable is .746 which denotes that for teachers to improve their knowledge on content and
there is a strong significant relationship to student’s pedagogy
achievement level. Likewise, it was also found out that 3. School heads and other instructional leaders should provide
Teaching Approaches had strong significant relationship to technical assistance to teachers to improve their teaching
student’s achievement level with a calculated significant value performance and teaching practices. Intensive instructional
of .877. The strong results of significant relationship of the last supervision may give school heads the idea of the kind of
two predictors indicate that improvements on teacher’s assistance needed by teachers.
knowledge of content and teaching approaches may predict an 4. Assessment of teachers PCK can be done to identify the
increase on student’s achievement level. In totality, the need-based priority area and include those needs in the next
significant value computed was .409 which indicates that there Professional Development Program for teachers.
was a moderate significant relationship between the 5. Professional Development Program for Teachers should be
Pedagogical Content Knowledge of teachers and student’s done regularly to achieve the desire level of competency or
achievement level. mastery on the Pedagogical Content Knowledge.

6. Conclusion References
From the findings, the following conclusions are drawn. [1] Alicia C. Alonzo, Mareike Kobarg, Tina Seidel (2012). Pedagogical
content knowledge as reflected in teacher–student interactions: Analysis
1. Only one school exceeded the 75% MPS standard of of two video cases
rating in the assessment given to Grade 10 students. [2] Arrington, S. E. (2010) Elementary principals’ follow-through in teacher
2. Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Mathematics evaluation to improve instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Georgia Southern University.
teachers in terms of Learning Competencies are almost
[3] Banog, Yolanda A. (2013). Developing the Mastery Level of Grade Three
at high level. Only in Probability and Statistics that Paced Learners in Comprehension of Whole Numbers Through the Use
teachers still need improvement. In term of Content of Multimedia. TNTC
Knowledge, majority of the competencies were at high [4] Barton, S. N. B. (2010). Principals’ perceptions of teacher evaluation
practices in an urban school district. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
level but necessary to be enhanced. In terms of Teaching University of the Pacific: Stockton, California
Approaches, teachers had a very satisfactory rating in the [5] Boyle, Tiffany Penland (2014), "High School Teachers' and
five pedagogical approaches. Administrators' Perceptions of Teacher Motivation Factors". Education in
Leadership for Learning Dissertations. Paper 1.
3. There is no significant difference between the rating of [6] http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/educ_etd/1
teachers and administrators in PCK in terms of Learning [7] Berinderjeet Kaur, Glenda Anthony, Minoru Ohtani, David Clarke,
Competencies and Content, however; there is a (2013) Student Voice in Mathematics Classrooms around the World
[8] Brian J. Reiser (2013). What Professional Development Strategies Are
significant difference in terms of Teaching Approaches. Needed for Successful Implementation of the Next Generation Science
Besides, the rating of administrators was higher than the Standards?
rating of teachers. Perhaps, administrators were [9] Burns, Rebecca W (2015). Shulman Pedagogical Content Knowledge.
Harvard Educational Review
confident that teachers were well-informed on this [10] C. Langston, R.L. Todd, N. W. Moon (2016). E-mentoring and its
approaches since these were mandated by the relevance for competency-based education for students with disabilities:
Department of Education. research from the GSAA Break Thru model, The Journal of Competency
Based Education.
4. There is a significant relationship on the PCK of
Chapman, O. (2013). Investigating teachers’ knowledge for teaching
Mathematics teachers and students achievement level. mathematics Journal Math Teacher Education
Pedagogical Content Knowledge has important [11] Coffield, F. (2012). Learning styles: unreliable, invalid and impractical
contribution to effective teaching which means the and yet still widely used. In P. Adey and J. Dillon (Eds.) Bad education:
debunking myths in education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
higher teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge; the [12] Escabel, Evangeline B. (2016). Leadership and Management
higher student achievement level is expected. The Competencies of School Heads: Basis for the Design of a Training
teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge have an Program
[13] Fatimah Binti Hashimb, (2013). Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs and their
impact on student’s learning. English Language Proficiency: A Study of Nonnative EFL Teachers in
5. Professional Development Program is needed to enhance Selected Language Centers
teacher’s PCK based on the result of the study. [14] Figueiras, L, Ribeiro, M., Carrillo, J., Fernández, S. & Deulofeu, J.
(2011). Teachers’ advanced mathematical knowledge for solving
mathematics teaching challenges: a response to Zazkis and Mamolo.
7. Recommendations [15] Gal, I. & Tout, D. (2014). Comparison of PIAAC and PISA Frameworks
for Numeracy and Mathematical Literacy. OECD Education Working
1. Teachers should analyze the result of the assessment given Papers, No. 102. Paris: OECD Publishing.
to students for them to identify the least mastered skills of [16] Fatimah Binti Hashimb, (2013), Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs and their
students. They should also provide necessary intervention to English Language Proficiency: A Study of Nonnative EFL Teachers in
Selected Language Centers
address the gap on basic knowledge of students that hinders [17] Figueiras, L, Ribeiro, M., Carrillo, J., Fernández, S. & Deulofeu, J.
their understanding of the lesson. In addition, constant (2011). Teachers’ advanced mathematical knowledge for solving
practice of basic knowledge through Drills to help students mathematics teaching challenges: a response to Zazkis and Mamolo.
master the competencies.
T. G. Exconde et al. International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management, VOL. 4, NO. 7, JULY 2021 420

[18] Gal, I. & Tout, D. (2014). Comparison of PIAAC and PISA Frameworks [43] Tom Lumley, Juliette Mendelovits Rachel Stanyon, Ross Turner Maurice
for Numeracy and Mathematical Literacy. OECD Education Working Walker (2015), Outcomes of a Learning Assessment of Mathematical
Papers, No. 102. Paris: OECD Publishing. Reading and Writing Literacy. Australian Council for Educational
[19] Gurudeo An and Tularam (2013). A Study of First Year Tertiary Students’ Research. Australia.
Mathematical Knowledge ConceptuaL AND Procedural Knowledge< [44] Valarie L. Akerson, Khemmawadee Pongsanon, Meredith A. Park
Logical Thinking and Creativity. Rogers, Ingrid Carter, Enrique Galindo (2015) Exploring the Use of
[20] Helena Mazi Golob (2012) The impact of teachers’ professional Lesson Study to Develop Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Pedagogical
development on the results of pupils at national assessment of knowledge Content Knowledge for Teaching Nature of Science, International Journal
Cyprus International Conference on Educational Research (CY-ICER- of Science and Mathematics Education. pp 1-20.
2012) North Cyprus, US08-10 February, 2012 [45] Van Driel, Verloop & de Vos (2012) Developing Science Teachers’
[21] Hulya Kilic (2010) The Nature of Preservice Teachers’ Pedagogical Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal of Research in Science
Content Knowledge. Teaching, February 2012.
[22] Ismail Sahin (2009) Development of Survey of Pedagogical and Content [46] Vanessa Vega (2013) Teacher Development Research Review, January
Knowledge (TPACK), Department of Computer Education and 25, 2013.
Instructional Technology. Education Faculty Selcuk [47] Viktor Freiman Manon LeBlanc (2011). Mathematical and Didactical
[23] Jakobsen, A., Thames, M. H. &Ribeiro, C. M. (2013) Delineating issues Enrichment for Preservice Teachers: Mentoring Online Problem Solving
related to horizon content knowledge for mathematics teaching. Paper in the CASMI project:
presented at the Eighth Congress of European Research in Mathematics [48] Yilmaz Nurbanu (2014) A Comparative Analysis of Mathematics Teacher
Education (CERME-8). Content Knowledge Examinations in Turkey.
[24] Jakobsen, A., Thames, M. H., Ribeiro, C. M. & Delaney, S. (2012) Using [49] Zakaria Effandi (2015), The Integration of Teacher's Pedagogical Content
practice to define and distinguish horizon content knowledge. Pre- Knowledge Components in Teaching Linear Equation
proceedings of 12th International Congress of Mathematics Education, [50] Edward S. Ebert II, Christine Ebert, Michael L. Bentley, Curriculum
pp. 4635-4644. Seoul, South Korea: ICMI. Definition, Educators Field Guide, July 2013.
[25] Julia Isabel Hüttner, Barbara Mehlmauer-Larcher, Susanne Reichl (2012). [51] Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
Theory and Practice in EFL Teacher Education: Bridging the Gap for Educators
[26] Kleickmann, T., Richter, D., Kunter, M., Eisner, J., Besser, M., Krauss, [52] https://books.google.com.ph/books?isbn=1317675053 – Edited by Mary
S., &Baumert, J. (2012). Teachers’ Content Knowledge and Pedagogical C. Herring, Matthew J. Koehler, Punya Mishra – Second Edition
Content Knowledge: The Role of Structural Differences in Teacher Published 2016 by Routledge
Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(90), 90-106. [53] Charoula Angeli, Nicos Valanides, Technological Pedagogical Content
[27] Manaog, Dulce M. (2016) Performance of Grade 10 in Algebra Towards Knowledge: Exploring and Developing, 2015.
a Proposed Contextualized Plan, PWU. Manila. [54] Ball, Thames and Phelps: Content Knowledge for Teaching, What Makes
[28] Mason (2010) The Role of Mathematics Teachers' Content Knowledge in It Special? Journal of Teacher Education 59(5) 389-407, 2008.
their Teaching: A Framework for Research applied to a Study of Student [55] What Teachers Need to Know to Teach Mathematics, 2013.
Teachers. [56] Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol 38. 11. November 2013:
[29] Manizade, A.G. & Mason, (2011). Using Delphi methodology to design What Teachers Need to Know to Teach Mathematics: An argument for a
assessments of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge re-conceptualised model. Derek P. Hurrell University of Notre Dame
[30] Mason, J. (2010). Effective questioning and responding in the Australia.
mathematics classroom. Retrieved November 15th, 2012 [57] Deborah Loewenberg Ball and Francesca M. Forzani, “Teaching Skillful
[31] Morcilla, Marife T. (2014). Towards the Development of Pedagogical Teaching,” The Effective Educator, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 40-45, January
Based-Training Design for Public Secondary Teachers. PNU. Manila. 2011.
[32] Mulligan, Donald G. (2016) Teacher and School Administrator [58] Teachers’ Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The
Perceptions of their Learning Community Walden University Role of Structural Differences in Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher
[33] Nicholas H. Wasserman, Julianna Connelly Stockton (2013), Horizon Education, January/February 2013 64: 90-106,
content knowledge in the work of teaching: a focus on planning FLM [59] TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, The
Publishing Association, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 10, no. 1, January
(November, 2013). 2011.
[34] Rosa Tomas Ferriera (2014): Essay on the role of teachers’ questioning in [60] Teacher and School Leader Effectiveness: Lessons Learned from High-
inquiry-based mathematics teaching, December 2014. Performing Systems: Alliance for Excellent Education: Issue Brief 2011.
[35] Ross Turner (2010) Identifying cognitive processes important to [61] Mathematics Learner’,s Module and Teachers Guide – Grade 10
mathematics learning but often overlooked: Australian Council for Department of Education, First edition 2015.
Educational Research, 2010. [62] Preparing Teachers to Make the Formative Assessment Process Integral
[36] Sarah Lange – (2016) Achieving Teaching Quality in Sub-Saharan Africa: to Science Teaching and Learning. Article in Journal of Science Teacher
Empirical Results Education 20(5):475-494 · October 2009.
http://www.philippinesbasiceducation.us/2013/11/timss-scores-2011 [63] Ángel Gutiérrez, Gilah C. Leder, Paolo Boero, The Second Handbook of
[37] Schoenfeld, A. H. (2013). Classroom observations in theory and practice. Research on the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2016, Sense
ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education Publisher
[38] Sigrid Blömeke, Feng-JuiHsieh, Gabriele Kaiser, William H Schmidt [64] Research Methods: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications
(2013) International Perspectives on Teacher Knowledge, Beliefs and Editor: Management Association, Information Resources, June 2015.
Opportunities [65] Judith Chemutai Bett, Richard Maite Sigilai, Difference in Perceptions
[39] Siu Cheung Kong (2015), An experience of a three-year study on the between Head Teachers and Teacher Counsellors of the Effectiveness of
development of critical thinking skills in flipped secondary classrooms Peer Counselling Among Students in Public Secondary Schools in Molo
with pedagogical and technological support. Sub-County, Kenya, International Journal of Humanities and Social
[40] Spear-Swerling, L. & Cheesman, E. (2012) Teachers’ knowledge base for Science, vol. 3, no. 10, May 2013.
implementing response-to-intervention models in reading. Reading and [66] Ng’eno, J. K & Chesimet, M. C. Gary Mc Culloch, David Crook,
Writing August 2012, Volume 25, Issue 7. “Differences in Mathematics Teachers’ Perceived Preparedness to
[41] Surwela, Elisa L. (2014), The Use of Manipulatives in Teaching of Demonstrate Competence in Secondary School Mathematics Content by
Algebra and its Relationship to Students’ Socio-Personal Variables: Teacher Characteristics,” The Routledge International Encyclopedia of
Towards the Development of a Module. PWU. Manila. Education, 2013.
[42] Tan H. (2011) Students ways OF using handheld calculators in Singapore [67] RA 10533 (K to 12 Law).
and Australia (Eds.) [68] DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2016.
[69] Regional Memorandum 233, s. 2016.