Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Secondary Chemistry Teachers

Ace Michael B. Magalso^1, and Ma. Teresa M. Fajardo²

¹La Paz National High School, La Paz, Agusan del Sur, Philippines2College of Science and Technology Education, University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines

²1La Paz National High School, La Paz, Agusan del Sur, Philippines2College of Science and Technology Education, University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines

Cite this paper:
Ace Michael B. Magalso and Ma. Teresa M. Fajardo. Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Secondary Chemistry Teachers. American Journal of Educational Research. 2026; 14(10):321-325. doi: 10.12691/education-14-10-1

Abstract

This qualitative descriptive study examined how secondary chemistry teachers demonstrate pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and how the resulting profile can inform professional development. Eleven of 13 chemistry teachers in La Paz District, Schools Division of Agusan del Sur, met the inclusion criteria and participated. Data from an open-ended PCK questionnaire and focus group discussions were analyzed thematically; a supplementary seven-point self-assessment checklist was used descriptively to contextualize the qualitative evidence. Teachers reported checking prior knowledge, using diagrams, models, analogies, demonstrations, simulations, and familiar examples, aligning lessons with curriculum competencies, and using questioning, feedback, and reteaching. Stronger accounts connected a specific student difficulty with a chemistry representation, an instructional adjustment, and evidence of subsequent understanding. Development needs centered on more precise diagnosis of misconceptions, explicit movement among macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic representations, contextualized planning under resource constraints, and clearer documentation of how assessment evidence changes instruction. The checklist was generally positive (overall item-weighted mean = 6.32), with Chemistry Content Representation lowest among the reported domain means (6.20); these self-ratings were interpreted as supplementary rather than as verified proficiency. The findings support sustained, chemistry-specific professional development organized around collaborative lesson design, diagnostic assessment, feasible practical work, coaching, classroom application, reflection, and revision.

Keywords:
pedagogical content knowledge chemistry education teacher professional development instructional representations formative assessment Philippines

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	A. H. Johnstone, “Chemical education research in Glasgow in perspective,” Chemistry Education Research and Practice, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 49–63, 2006.
[2]	V. Talanquer, “Progressions in reasoning about structure and bonding,” Chemistry Education Research and Practice, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2020.
[3]	L. S. Shulman, “Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching,” Educational Researcher, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 4–14, 1986.
[4]	S. Magnusson, J. Krajcik, and H. Borko, “Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching,” in Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Construct and Its Implications for Science Education, J. Gess-Newsome and N. G. Lederman, Eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999, pp. 95–132.
[5]	J. Gess-Newsome, “A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK: Results of the thinking from the PCK Summit,” in Re-examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education, A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, and J. Loughran, Eds. Routledge, 2015, pp. 28–42.
[6]	K. K. H. Chan and A. Hume, “Towards a consensus model: Literature review of how science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge is investigated in empirical studies,” in Repositioning Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Teachers’ Knowledge for Teaching Science, A. Hume, R. Cooper, and A. Borowski, Eds. Springer, 2019, pp. 3–76.
[7]	OECD, PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do. OECD Publishing, 2019.
[8]	W. M. Cordova and J. D. Linaugo, “Pedagogical content knowledge practices of public school science teachers,” Technium Social Sciences Journal, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 37–50, 2022.
[9]	A. Georgiadou and G. Tsaparlis, “Chemistry teaching in lower secondary school with methods based on: (A) psychological theories; (B) the macro, representational, and submicro levels of chemistry,” Chemistry Education Research and Practice, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 217–226, 2000.
[10]	L. Darling-Hammond, M. E. Hyler, and M. Gardner, Effective Teacher Professional Development. Learning Policy Institute, 2017.
[11]	L. M. Desimone, “Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures,” Educational Researcher, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 181–199, 2009.
[12]	B. Avalos, “Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education over ten years,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 10–20, 2011.
[13]	P. Mishra and M. J. Koehler, “Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge,” Teachers College Record, vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 1017–1054, 2006.
[14]	N. Rutten, W. R. van Joolingen, and J. T. van der Veen, “The learning effects of computer simulations in science education,” Computers & Education, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 136–153, 2012.
[15]	P. A. Ertmer and A. T. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, “Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect,” Journal of Research on Technology in Education, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 255–284, 2010.