Evaluation of EFL teachers’ knowledge bases and classroom practice: upper primary schools

Abstract

The study was conducted to assess and evaluate the upper primary English teachers’ status of content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and classroom practice. The factors that affected a classroom practice were explored in three dimensions: the students’ factors, the teachers’ factors, and the institutional factors. Mixed method approach was employed to triangulate numeric and textual data obtained through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. There were a total of 158 participants from which the sample size was determined. Considering the population size, comprehensive sampling technique was implemented to gather numeric data. For textual data collection, purposive sampling was employed. The data obtained through the questionnaires were analyzed with percentage, mean, standard deviation, correlation, one-way analysis of variance, and post hoc test. The interview data were analyzed thematically. Accordingly, the results revealed that the participants had poor content knowledge whereas their classroom practice was relatively the highest. They held moderate pedagogical knowledge in assessing students’ performance whereas they owned inadequate knowledge in classroom management and organization. They had intermediate pedagogical content knowledge in designing the instructional objectives and the context of learning environment, but their knowledge of students’ understandings and misapprehensions of a lesson was inadequate. The correlation analysis indicated that there was strong and positive relationship between content knowledge and classroom practice. Conversely, pedagogical content knowledge and classroom practice did not correlate completely. The problems of the teachers’ classroom practice were raised from the students’, the teachers’, and the school factors. The students’ factors were found to be the most to hamper EFL teachers’ classroom practice and it was followed by the teachers’ and then the school factors. Overall, the participants were not responsible for their careers since their status of knowledge bases and classroom practice were inadequate to practice the EFL curriculum successfully and to achieve the desired goals.

Keywords:

• Content knowledge
• pedagogical knowledge
• pedagogical content knowledge
• classroom practice
• EFL teachers

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Sammy King Fai Hui, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

SUBJECTS:

• Teachers & Teacher Education
• Classroom Practice
• Language Teaching & Learning

1. Background of the study

For many years, what teachers know and how they make use of their knowledge in teaching processes has been a topic of interest for educational researchers, teacher educators, and educational policy makers (Harris & Bain, 2010). Teacher educators and the researchers have recognized that the Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) as the most constitute of the knowledge required to effective and successful classroom practice. Assessing and evaluating teachers’ knowledge bases and classroom practice are vital to detect their status of Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), PCK, and to determine their roles to achieve academic goals. The researchers revealed that teachers require deep knowledge of content in order to employ an effective instruction (Archambault et al., 2022). Teachers with strong CK tend to have more awareness of common students’ ideas and relevant instructional strategies to address these ideas (Can-Kucuk et al., 2022) while weak CK limits teachers’ PCK (Käpylä et al., 2009). CK deals with the teachers’ conceptions of theories as well as understanding of structures of the subject matter to be taught. The lack of teachers’ knowledge bases causes the difficulties in teaching-learning processes.

The researchers claimed that without PK teachers could not convey their knowledge bases and skills to students (Dariotis et al., 2017). Teachers do not merely to have CK but they should be also innovative in teaching strategies and respond promptly to the demands of diverse students in a classroom. On the other hand, the PK is required by the teachers to explain, clarify, and motivate students with different knowledge levels through differentiated instruction and to improve their own professionalism (Sardegna & Dugartsyrenova, 2014). It is through PK that teachers could highly and successfully utilize the classroom setting or leaning environment to maximize instructional outcomes. There are many differences between knowing about a subject matter and knowledge about how to teach and learn the subject matter. For many eras, it was considered that the teachers need to know only limited content so as to teach the students effectively. However, it is not merely the content that characterizes good teachers. The teachers’ incompetence in the classroom practice is the most grievance of the students in general (Kind, 2009).

PCK is a theoretical formwork of the knowledge that teachers have to implement in the teaching-leaning process (Kind, 2009). The factor that makes the teachers most effective is their adequate PCK, which is the amalgamation of both the CK and PK and gained through teaching experience. It has been understood that the knowledge bases are necessary for the effective teaching of subject matters and to achieve the instructional objectives. This notion has led to several attempts aimed at assessing and evaluating teachers’ status of CK, PK, PCK, and classroom practice. The study indicated a positive correlation between PCK that comprised assessment of teacher-constructed assignments and a student survey on quality of individual learning support, and PK which included classroom management and organization strategies (Trinidad-Velasco & Reyes-Cárdenas, 2020). On the contrary, the correlation between PCK that was measured through a test and classroom teaching and the one which was measured through observational rubrics was not obtained (Hattie & Anderman, 2013). The students’ learning outcomes are greatly affected by the quality of teachers’ CK, PK, PCK, and teaching practice (Darling-Hammond, 2017). That is, the teachers who are well trained in the teaching profession are more confident and successful than those who are not well trained in their profession.

Considering the increasing interests in PCK, the researchers formulated the relationship between knowledge bases. They revealed that CK and PCK, and PK and PCK are more likely related than CK and PK (Kirschner et al., 2016). The growing interest in PCK resulted in evidences exposing teachers’ CK, PK, and understanding of students as learners, that have a combined effect on students’ progress (Barnett & Friedrichsen, 2015). Teachers’ knowledge bases portrayed the quality of teacher preparation programs. The features of quality teachers comprised the scope and intensity of the content areas of programs that include a PCK (Großschedl et al., 2015). Researcher recommended that there is the need for assessing the types of supports that the teachers required to encourage their classroom practice and to impact positively the development of their PCK (Bradbury, 2010). The teachers’ professional learning needs to be reformed as their PCK developed and learning happened immediately, allowing them to become participants in the community practice (Abell et al., 2009). There are several factors that hamper the practice of teaching English as Foreign language. One of the most dominant is teachers’ knowledge of teaching English. Knowledge of teaching English plays an important role in teachers’ effectiveness and their choice of instructional practice. The success or failure in teaching depends on the CK, PK, and PCK employed by the teachers, without which the teaching would appear to be the traditional approach (Jacob et al., 2020). An actual teaching learning does not only comprise the teachers’ skillful display of their knowledge bases but it includes the skills to monitor, manage, and organize the students and to assess their comprehension of subject matter meaningfully. This indicates the significance of CK, PK, and PCK in classroom practice and hence the current study points towards that teachers’ CK, PK, PCK and classroom practice are influential factor in contributing to students’ learning outcomes.

A study by Dewi et al. (2020) on PCK of teaching English to young learners to assess the EFL teachers’ practical implementation of PCK in teaching English revealed that there was poor implementation of PCK and classroom practice that was happened by the limitations of teachers’ commitment, preparation, and readiness. The study has been also conducted on the erosion of EFL teachers’ CK and PCK throughout the years of teaching. The finding of the study did not go with the actual expectation of considering a direct relationship between teaching experience and knowledge bases. The results showed that CK and PCK deteriorated as teaching experience increased. The teachers suffered from the erosion of knowledge bases since they did not have motivation to update themselves (Asl et al., 2014). Based on this research results, years of teaching experience was not necessarily a guaranty for teachers’ to have adequate CK, PK, PCK, and classroom practice. Because the teachers were not eager to learn from their experience, they did not improve themselves through classroom instructional practice. The scholar, on the other hand, indicated that the experienced teachers were more likely to have better CK, PC, PCK, and classroom practice. They were found to attain adequate knowledge bases as compared to the beginners (Freeman, 2016). The components of PCK grow as teaching experience increases. The growth of PCK often goes with many years of instructional practice, classroom observations, and classroom reflections. PCK expands and grows as the teachers gain more teaching experience.

While much has been written about the nature of PCK since Shulman first introduced the concept in 1986 and its indefinable characteristics have led to much debate (Williams & Lockley, 2012), there are still gaps in knowledge about teachers’ development of PCK. These scholars suggested that looking at the features of teachers’ PCK and how often they implement it in instructional classroom practice need further study. Another issue is that teachers’ knowledge might be undefined since the scholars do not yet have the vital words to debate about the knowledge sufficiently. To enhance the quality of students learning, it is necessary to discover teachers’ CK, PK, PCK, and classroom practice to make ease the transfer of knowledge to the students. The current study, therefore, has been conducted to assess and evaluate the status of the upper primary school EFL teachers’ CK, PK, PCK, and classroom practice and to see the relationships among these variables.

EFL teaching and learning means teaching and learning of English as a foreign language by non-native teachers where English is not the local language for communication, neither in the community nor in the schools as a medium of instruction (Harmer, 2015). Consequently, EFL teaching and learning is more challenging for both teachers and students since teaching and learning activities are employed within the boundary of specific educational institution in which teaching English as foreign language and learning is practiced. EFL almost becomes only classroom language in Ethiopian context. Under such circumstances students have no exposure to the target language outside the school compound so as to practice the English language and to develop their proficiency. Thus, it becomes extremely important to EFL teachers to be knowledgeable in both content and pedagogy in order to establish positive learning environment for students because English is almost a classroom language in Ethiopian context. In a rapidly changing globe, where knowledge, concepts, technology, and philosophies are quickly growing, education has been uncovered to some essential modifications. The world is currently shaped by rapid progress of knowledge and skills which lead to an explosion of teaching and learning that requires the EFL teachers at the level of renewed information, and to maintain sustainable professional development. Despite this realization, the concerns have increased for more than two decades in Ethiopia regarding the falling of the standards of education, professionalism, teachers’ effectiveness, and students’ low achievement in many subjects in general and English language in particular. Most of the Ethiopian students’ proficiency levels remain poor and the effectiveness of English language teaching remains in question despite the efforts made by the professionals, the community, and the government. Thus, there must be a need to know comprehensively the upper primary school EFL teachers’ knowledge bases, classroom practice, and the factors that impact classroom practice in Ethiopian context.

1.1. Research questions

Owing to the significance of the variables to enhance the quality of teaching English as foreign language, the current study addressed the following research questions:

1. What are upper primary school EFL teachers’ status of CK, PK, PCK, and classroom practice?

2. What is the relationship between the upper primary EFL teachers’ CK, PK, and PCK on action and classroom practice?

3. What are the factors that affect upper primary EFL teachers’ classroom practice?

1.2. Conceptual framework

The framework on Figure 1 illustrates the ways in which the knowledge bases interacted to influence classroom practice. It began with EFL teachers’ knowledge bases. The components of knowledge bases such as SMK, knowledge of instructional objectives and context, knowledge of students’ understandings and misunderstandings, instructional representations and strategies, language assessment knowledge, and knowledge of language classroom management and organization were influenced by EFL teachers’ prior knowledge and context. Then, personal CK PK, and PCK interacted with classroom context and curriculum to reflect EFL teachers’ overall classroom practice.

Figure 1. The influences of knowledge bases, classroom practice, and learning outcomes.

Classroom practice influenced the EFL teachers’ knowledge bases and similarly the classroom practice was influenced both by the EFL teachers’ knowledge bases and the components of knowledge bases. Learning outcomes in turn influenced classroom practice, the components of EFL teachers’ knowledge bases, and the knowledge bases.

It was through this relationship, where the classroom practice was influenced and it, in turn, influenced the knowledge that the framework was built based on the action. In other words, the EFL teachers were reflective agents reflecting on their practice and reassessed it to achieve better results with their students reconstructing and transforming personal CK, PK, and PCK, components of knowledge bases, and knowledge bases. In general, this framework revealed the influences of the EFL teachers’ knowledge bases, classroom practice, and learning outcomes.

2. Methodology

2.1. Research design

In the current study, the researcher employed explanatory sequential mixed method design due to the nature of the research problem. Mixed method design has a quantitative component, in which numeric data were collected and analyzed, followed by a qualitative aspect, in which textual data were collected and analyzed. It has steps for collecting, analyzing, and mixing both quantitative and qualitative methods to understand a research problem (Creswell & Clark, 2017). In this design, the researcher first collected and analyzed the quantitative data whereas the qualitative data were collected and analyzed second in the sequence and these data help to elaborate the quantitative results. To begin with the quantitative data, various sorts of questionnaires and Teaching Knowledge Test (TKT) were administered to the participants. During the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews were employed as a next step to triangulate the data

2.2. Participants

The study was conducted in western Ethiopia, at government upper primary schools. The participants were the teachers those who took subject matter courses, subject matter pedagogy courses, and general pedagogy courses and who have been involving in teaching profession. They were almost degree holders majoring in English teaching. A few participants were diploma holders in English major and they have been attending degree program in summer modality. All upper primary school in-service EFL teachers at Metekel zone represented the total population of the study. Since the research was a survey study, the researcher attempted to include all upper primary school EFL teachers from each woreda so as to get relevant data and to maintain the trustworthiness of the results. Table 1 shows the statistics of research sites and the numbers of upper primary school in-service EFL teachers at each woreda and administrative town. As indicated in Table 1, the total population was found to be 158 of which 61.39% were males and 38.61% were females.

Table 1. Research sites and upper primary school EFL teachers at Meteke zone, western Ethiopia.

Woredas and administrative town at Meteke zone/research sites/	The numbers of the teachers
	Male	Female	Total
Wombera	25	13	38
Dibatie	4	6	10
Bullen	19	9	28
Dangur	7	6	13
Pawe	20	12	32
Mandura	8	7	15
Guba	12	8	20
Gilgel Beles administrative town	2	0	2
Total	97	61	158

Initially, 158 participants were reported by woreda education officers as the population of the study. Later, 135 sample frames were obtained. To maintain the validity and trustworthiness of the findings, the researcher used the total sample frames (or total population) for data collection purpose. Accordingly, comprehensive sampling technique was used to collect the quantitative data so as to draw a plausible conclusion. The entire participants were considered as the sample since the population size was somewhat small and easily manageable. According to Gray (2021) comprehensive (or total population) sampling is a strategy that examines the case or instance of a given population that has specific characteristics such as attributes, experience, or knowledge a researcher is interested in for her/his study. 135 participants were, thus, the part of the study who involved in filling the questionnaire. However, only 128 participants filled in the questionnaire normally. Similarly, Teaching Knowledge Test (TKT) was administered to 135 participants, the same participants who filled in the questionnaire. However, only 122 participants attempted to answer all TKT questions. For the qualitative phase, 5 EFL teachers were selected purposively based on their consent, teaching experience, and the grade levels they taught. Thus, the researcher was limited to analyze 128 survey questionnaires, 122 TKT scores, and 5 interviews data of the same participants. Table 2 summarizes the sample participants’ English teaching experience.

Table 2. The participants’ English teaching experience.

English teaching experience	The numbers of participants	Remarks
≤5 years	9	Less experienced
6–10 years	23	Experienced
11–15 years	61	More experienced
≥15 years	35	Most experienced

2.3. Instrumentation

The survey questionnaire was employed to assess and evaluate the EFL teachers’ CK, PK, PCK, classroom practice, and the factors that affect classroom practice. Close-ended questions were used dominantly in the study. There were 60 items that CK, PK, PCK, and classroom practice held 15 items each. There were also 24 items that students’, teachers’, and institutional factors held 8 items each. Strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), undecided (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5) were the scales used to measure the items of CK, PK, PCK, and the factors whereas to measure the items of classroom practice the scales like never (1), rarely (2), sometimes (3), often (4), and always (5) were employed. The questionnaire was administered face-to-face starting from April 15, 2023 to June 5, 2023.The researcher along with his two colleagues engaged in data collection processes. The participants took 20–25 minutes to complete the questionnaire. Teaching Knowledge Test (TKT) was prepared in two broad categories of knowledge. The first part of the test was CK (30 items) whereas the second part was PK (30 items). The test items were adapted from English language competency tests for Ethiopian upper primary school EFL teachers. A few items were developed from upper primary school English curriculum by the researcher and the experts from the region education bureau. The test was employed to evaluate the knowledge gaps of the teachers’ content and pedagogy to meet the expectations in handling teaching English. It was administered after the participants completed the questionnaire. Since TKT contained 60 multiple choice items, the participants were allowed only 1 hour to complete the test.

Semi-structured interviews were preceded by questionnaire and TKT in order to allow the researcher to develop a good understanding of the EFL teachers’ status of CK, PK, PCK, and classroom practice. Reasons and beliefs of teachers, which the questionnaire and TKT could not elicit because of their closed ended nature, were explored through interviews. Thus, to complement the data gathered through questionnaire and TKT, 5 interview questions were employed. The interview questions were developed through adaptation from the survey questionnaire and insights gained from the literature.

Before conducting the interviews, researcher met the participants face-to-face. The interviews were audio recorded with anonymity and later transcribed. After the participants’ willingness was assured, the researcher adjusted the favorable room in school compound that was free from any destructors. The interviews were started with questions about the personal information in order to make the participants relaxed. Leading questions were avoided. Then, the participants were allowed to express their viewpoints freely based on the questions. The interviewing was conducted one-by-one. Accordingly, T01, T02, T03, T04, and T05 were interviewed for 26, 21, 34, 33, and 38 minutes, respectively. The average time taken for the interviewing was almost 30 minutes.

The pilot study was conducted at upper primary school EFL teachers at Metekel Zone where the main study was conducted but at different sites. It was conducted to minimize the risk that might be appeared due to the problems of the items or because of the participants’ misunderstandings of the items during data collection for the study. The pilot test was employed at seven schools where twenty EFL teachers participated. However, one of the participants was reluctant to complete the questionnaire. Then, the reliability of each item was determined through Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26. The alpha values for the items of CK, PK, PCK, classroom practice, and the factors that affect classroom practice were found to be 0.94, 0.91, 0.94, 0.84, and 0.90, respectively. Since the alpha value for each instrument was > 0.70, it was concluded that the instruments were reliable. The validity of TKT and the questionnaire were checked by three PhD candidates. Hence, the items were modified and reworded based on the comments given by the professionals.

Three participants were interviewed to test the interview questions. There were 9 interview questions during pilot test. Since 4 items were nearly repetitions, the researcher reduced the items to 5. The questions were tested to see the intensity and the depth of the participants’ understandings and descriptions on each item. To increase mutual understanding of the interviewing, the researcher encouraged the interviewees to use the local language (Amharic language). They expressed their ideas in more detail through the local language without frustration while expressing their ideas and it helped to minimize communication barrier, which might be occurred because of using English language. Thus, the researcher conducted the interview through the common language to all interviewees, which was Amharic language. Table 3 summaries the interviewees’ English teaching experience, education background, and grade level they taught.

Table 3. Interviewees’ English teaching experiences, education backgrounds, and grade level taught.

Interviewees	Sex	School Name	Education background	Grade level taught	Experience
T01	M	K2V2	Degree	Eighth grade	10 years
T02	F	K2V2	Degree	Seventh grade	11 years
T03	M	Gilgel Beles	Degree	Seventh grade	9 years
T04	M	Gilgel Beles	Degree	Eighth grade	17 years
T05	M	Genetemariam	Degree	Eighth grade	13 years

2.4. Data analysis

The researcher employed SPSS software version 26 to analyze the findings of the numeric data. The data obtained through the questionnaire were subjected to percentage, Mean, Standard Deviation (SD), correlation, one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and Post Hoc Test. The percentage was employed to analyze and display TKT scores. Mean and SD were employed to evaluate the status of the EFL teachers CK, PK, PCK, classroom practice, and to determine the factors that affect the classroom practice. One-way ANOVA was employed to see the significance difference of the mean scores of CK, PK, PCK, and classroom practice. Post Hoc Test was employed to identify which mean differences showed significance values. Correlation was employed to assess the relationships among CK, PK, PCK, and classroom practice. The interview data were analyzed thematically.

3. Results

3.1. What are upper primary school EFL teachers’ status of CK, PK, PCK, and classroom practice?

Table 4 summarizes the teachers’ status of CK (M = 2.93; SD=.126), PK (M = 3.00; SD=.162), PCK (M = 3.03; SD=.106), and classroom practice (M = 3.43; SD=.114). The teachers’ status of the three knowledge bases was seen quite differently. The results revealed that the teachers’ CK was inadequate to manage the subject matter whereas they might have better status of PK, PCK, and classroom practice relative to CK. The EFL teachers might be good at PK in drawing up clear class rules, creating a friendly atmosphere, and developing good relationships with students, in monitoring classroom routines systematically within the context of the EFL classroom and in using antecedent strategies to prevent inappropriate behavior. Similarly, the results revealed that the teachers might have moderate PCK in designing instructional objectives and context and in practicing instructional representations and strategies. On the other hand, the EFL teachers’ classroom practice was found to be the highest. This portrayed that the teachers tried to practice the behaviors in a classroom regardless of their status of knowledge bases. The frequency of their classroom practice was likely to be ‘sometimes’. Overall, the results in Table 4 revealed that the participant EFL teachers might not be accountable to their professional career since their status of knowledge bases and classroom practice were inadequate to implement the curriculum successfully and hence to gain the desired goals.

Table 4. The EFL teachers’ status of knowledge bases and classroom practice with mean scores.

Knowledge Bases	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean score	Std. Deviation
Content knowledge	128	2.74	3.27	2.9347	.12597
Pedagogical knowledge	128	2.68	3.23	3.0027	.16211
Pedagogical content knowledge	128	2.83	3.31	3.0340	.10561
Classroom practice	128	3.28	3.73	3.4327	.11405

3.2. Is there significance difference between EFL teachers’ knowledge bases and classroom practice?

Table 5 shows one-way ANOVA to check the significance difference of the EFL teachers’ knowledge bases and classroom practice mean scores. Although the mean scores of the CK, PK, PCK, and classroom practice figured out differently, it could not be possible to generalize the existence of significance difference between the mean scores. Therefore, one-way analysis of variance was employed to determine the significance difference between the variables as indicated in Table 5. A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of EFL teachers’ CK, PK, and PCK on their classroom practice. There was a statistically significance difference at p <.01 level in the mean scores of the four groups as shown the significance with the value of F (3, 56) = 45.856, p = .000. Besides reaching statistically significance, the actual difference in mean scores was quite large.

Table 5. The significance difference of EFL teachers’ knowledge bases with one-way ANOVA.

Sources of Variation	Sum of Squares (SS)	Degrees of Freedom (df)	Mean squares (MS)	F	Sig
Between Groups	2.279	3	.760	45.856	.000
Within Groups	.928	56	.017
Total	3.207	59

Table 6 indicates the Post-hoc comparison of the mean scores using the Scheffe test. As it was indicated in Table 6 the mean score for CK (M = 2.93; SD = 0.13), PK (M = 3.00; SD = 0.16) and PCK = 3.03; SD = 0.11) were significantly differ from classroom practice (M = 3.43; SD = 0.11) at p < 0.05 level. CK, PK, and PCK did not differ significantly from one another. This implied that the significance difference of the variables was obtained due to the mean score differences between CK and classroom practice, PK and classroom practice, and PCK and classroom practice.

Table 6. Post-hoc comparison of the mean score differences using the Scheffe Test.

(I) Code	(J) Code	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower bound	Upper bound
CK	PK	−.06733	.04700	.566	−.2028	.0681
	PCK	−.09933	.04700	.227	−.2348	.0361
	Practice	−.49800*	.04700	.000	−.6335	−.3625
PK	CK	.06733	.04700	.566	−.0681	.2028
	PCK	−.03200	.04700	.926	−.1675	.1035
	Practice	−.43067*	.04700	.000	−.5661	−.2952
PCK	CK	.09933	.04700	.227	−.0361	.2348
	PK	.03200	.04700	.926	−.1035	.1675
	Practice	−.39867*	.04700	.000	−.5341	−.2632
Practice	CK	.49800*	.04700	.000	.3625	.6335
	PK	.43067*	.04700	.000	.2952	.5661
	PCK	.39867*	.04700	.000	.2632	.5341

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

3.3. What is the relationship between the upper primary school EFL teachers’ CK, PK, and PCK on action and classroom practice?

A correlation analysis in Table 7 indicates that moderate correlations exist between the variables. As the results revealed, the variables were generally related to one another with 2 of the 6 correlations statistically significance. There was fairly strong positive correlation between CK and PK, r (128) = .530, p < .05, two tailed. This relationship suggested that the two knowledge bases might build upon each another. The ‘r’ value shows that CK and PK in the sample share 28% of their variation in common. CK correlated with PK, suggesting that knowledge related to creating a classroom community characterized by active participation, student engagement, assessment, and feedback has application on content teaching. CK appeared to be more distinct than the other variables because it was the only variable that significantly correlated to classroom practice. There was a strong positive correlation between the two variables, r (128) = .739, p < .01, two tailed, with high levels of CK associated with classroom practice. This relationship suggested that the CK and the classroom practice might build upon each another. The ‘r’ value indicates that the teachers’ CK and their classroom practice in the sample shared 55% of their variation in common. The teachers with higher CK might exhibit potentially more classroom practice. There was a weak positive correlation between PK and classroom practice, r (128) = .435, P < 0.05, two tailed, with a weak level of PK associated with classroom practice. In the contrast, there was not statistically significance relationship between PCK and classroom practice.

Table 7. Correlation matrix of the EFL teachers’ knowledge bases and classroom practice.

Indicators	CK	PK	PCK	Practice
CK	—
PK	0.530*	—
PCK	−0.181	−0.071	—
Practice	0.739**	0.435	0.000	—

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

3.4. Analysis of the EFL teachers’ TKT scores

As it was indicated on Figure 2, the content and the pedagogy test scores were analyzed separately to see the teachers’ knowledge gaps at each area. As the evidences were indicated on Figure 2, 8 teachers (6.6%) answered correctly few questions of the content test and their scores were found to be less than 25%. There were 47 teachers (38.5%) whose scores were within the range of 25–49%. This could indicate that entirely 55 teachers (45.1%) have inadequate CK as their test scores were less than 50%. On the other hand, 53 teachers (43%) showed better performance as their scores were laid in the interval of 50–74%. Relatively, there were 14 teachers (11.5%) who owned adequate language area knowledge since their test scores were found in the interval of 75–100%. Entirely, 67 teachers (54.9%) answered equal to or greater than 50% of the language area questions correctly whereas 55 teachers (45%) achieved less than 50%.

Figure 2. The EFL teachers’ TKT scores.

On the other hand, Figure 2 reveals that the EFL teachers’ pedagogy test scores were definitely less than their content test scores within the four ranges. The pedagogy test scores of 26 teachers were less than 25%, implied that 21% of the teachers might be extremely poor in their PK. There were 57 teachers (46.7%) whose pedagogy test scores were found within the interval of 25–49%. This indicated that considerable teachers might have insufficient PK in EFL teaching. Among 122 participants, 37 (30%) EFL teachers’ pedagogy test scores were found between 50 and 74%. Only 2 teachers’ (1.6%) scored greater than 75% on the pedagogy test: one teacher scored 76.7% and the other one scored 80%. This indicated that two teachers might have adequate PK in EFL. A total of 83 teachers (68%) achieved less than 50% on pedagogy test whereas 39 teachers’ (32%) scores were equal to or greater than 50% for the same test. Overall, the teachers scored higher results at the content area as compared to the pedagogy part. This could indicate that the teachers attained more CK than PK.

3.5. What are the factors that affect classroom practice?

As indicated on the Figure 3, the students, the teachers and the school/institution/were the determinant factors to influence the classroom practice. Based on the participants’ responses, it was found that the students’ factors were the largest (M = 3.973). The students’ lack of motivation, interest, creativity and autonomous in learning EFL were the complex factors that hindered classroom practice. The students became dependent learners as they did not have any exposure to learn EFL out of school environment. They developed hatred of English subject as it required extensive practice and reflections in a classroom. The teachers’ factors (M = 3.803) were the second to influence the classroom practice. The EFL teachers’ lack of motivation and low self-confidence were the critical factors to affect classroom practice. They did not support extensive instructional practice during lesson delivery. The teachers did not also motivate the students to practice English language freely as they had low content and pedagogy knowledge. They rarely taught the students in English language since they owned low subject matter knowledge. They often used the local language (Amharic language) as a medium of instruction to teach EFL to students. The school factors (M = 3.795) were the third to influence the classroom practice. The lack of English textbook, library, and English language improvement and pedagogical centers were the school factors that limited classroom practice. The students did not have opportunities to practice EFL outside the classroom. The lack of external interaction of individuals outside the classroom has remarkable influence on the students’ learning of EFL. EFL learning is limited to only the boundary inside a classroom. Overall, the findings on Figure 3 reveals that classroom practice was influenced by the limitations resulted by the students, the EFL teachers, and the school/institutional/factors besides other factors which were not considered in the current study.

Figure 3. The mean scores of the factors that affect classroom practice.

3.6. Analysis of the interview data

The participants were interviewed how much they could understand the curriculum they often taught for the students. They were also interviewed about their personal CK, PK, PCK, classroom practice, and the factors that affect classroom practice. The data were analyzed thematically and the participants’ responses were analyzed as follow:

Q1. How could you describe your CK of EFL? How could you describe your knowledge about English textbook that you often teach? Why? What could you say about your knowledge of activities/tasks that can improve students’ achievements from time to time? Why?

The participants were interviewed to reflect their views about their CK as well as the activities they dealt in the class with the students. The researcher posed the interview questions in order to characterize the participants CK in English language profession. They reflected that they have limited CK to teach the students effectively. They also responded that teaching English as a foreign language needed day to day training to promote their CK. Though they possessed knowledge about EFL activities, it was not sufficient to enhance the students’ knowledge and to do the classroom activities so as to support the students’ understandings.

The participants also responded that they did not have adequate CK about the textbook they often taught due to various factors. Because of the lack of infrastructure in the schools, they could not deeply teach students EFL. English text book was new and it was not available in the school. The students did not have the book at hand individually as well as in group. Since the students did not have motivation to learn EFL, the participants did not make preparation on the lesson. They did not worry to read more instructional materials before the class was begun. They accustomed to rely on the teacher guide to do the activities. They did not give extended explanation or clarification for the students.

Moreover, the participants admitted that they possessed certain amount of EFL knowledge when they were graduated from the university; however, it was not enough to understand and to manage the contents of EFL textbook they often taught. There was not in-service short term trainings provided by the school or by the region education bureau to improve their CK of EFL. English textbook was updated frequently nationwide. However, they reported that they did not participate on the training to evaluate the new textbook. They were not often introduced with the newly adapted textbook before its implementation in a class. Sometimes, they became uncertain about the answers of some activities that they gave as a feedback for the students.

Q2. How could you describe your PK of EFL? Why? How could you often assess students’ performances? For example, do you use verities of techniques to assess students’ performances? Explain in detail. Describe how could you manage and organize a classroom

The participants were also interviewed to reflect about their PK related to language assessment and classroom management and organization. They indicated that they sometimes applied student-centered methods to teach EFL. On the other hand, they used teacher-centered methods which did not provide opportunities for the students to participate in the class. Moreover, they were not ready to apply their PK for forty minutes instruction as the students did not participate in the class. To assess the students in the classroom, they used different assessment techniques such as quiz, tests, assignment, oral questions, presentation, and demonstration. Moreover, they reported that they let individual students read simple texts to assess their reading competence. Similarly, they encouraged the students to write varieties of sentences on the blackboard to assess whether they could write grammatically correct sentences. They gave marks for the students who tried to read, speak and write so as to motivate the other students’ participations on the activities. Only a few students participated and gave responses when they were asked to do the activities. There were large numbers of students in a classroom that was impossible to manage and to check all students’ performances. The participants reported that there were about 90 students in a classroom that were difficult to assess, manage, and organize.

Moreover, the participants replied that the school structure was not conducive to manage the misbehaved students. The classrooms were narrow to move freely and to control the students. The chairs were too crowded. Some students disturbed teaching-learning process in a class. They tried to talk with their friends while the teachers were teaching a lesson. Anyway, the participants attempted to manage the classroom by providing different activities to the students in order to make them busy. Overall, they confirmed that their PK was not complete to manage a lesson effectively. There were not supportive trainings given by the institution to improve their methods of teaching English. Besides, they did not get supportive materials or infrastructure to refer and improve their PK in language assessment and classroom management and organization.

Q3. How could you characterize your PCK? Why? How do you design instructional objective (the match of course objectives with the content, the use of instructional methods appropriate with the learning objectives)? Do you realize students’ knowledge of understandings and misunderstandings of a lesson? How? Do you use appropriate instructional representations and strategies, such as appropriate examples, authentic EFL resources, and varieties of teaching methods? Explain in it detail.

The participants replied that they did not have sufficient PCK. Since the English textbook book was new, they could not understand the contents and the methodology how to approach and manage the book. They reported that they did not make preparation before a class to have profound PCK. They have the problem of how to motivate students to participate during EFL instruction. Since they held low PCK, they could not integrated content and pedagogy knowledge to teach, assess, motivate, and manage the students. They attempted to prepare the instruction plan but its implementation was not adequate. They did not make ready themselves when they set the instructional objectives. They did not practice what they designed in the instructional plan. The objectives were rarely matched with the course contents. As a result, the objectives were achieved occasionally.

Moreover, the participants confirmed that they did not know all students’ characteristics rather they knew only a few students’ understandings and misunderstandings of a lesson during the classroom instruction. They followed and realized, particularly, the students who frequently participated to answer the questions but they did not follow and check low achiever students. They could not use the authentic materials to promote students’ understanding of EFL since there were not materials in the school. The participants sometimes used instructional representations such as examples, charts, pictures, and tables. However, there were not audio and video recorded materials to represent the listening texts. They confirmed that they could not use appropriate examples, strategies, authentic EFL resources, and varieties of teaching approaches as the school was poor in resources. There was not a library and pedagogical center at the school. Consequently, there were the limitations of employing the instructional representations and strategies during the instruction.

Q4. What could you think the relationship between your CK, PK, PCK, and classroom practice? Why?

The participants told that their PCK was rarely consistent with their classroom practice. Since there were pedagogy and content knowledge gaps, it was difficult to implement classroom practice effectively. Most of the time, the participants did not implement classroom practice regularly. However, they tried to give different activities for the students to enhance their understandings. On the other hand, the participants reported that a classroom circumstance did not encourage classroom practice. The chairs were too crowded and it was impossible to organize students in pair or in group to practice on language skills. It was difficult for the teachers to move freely in a classroom to assess students while they were practicing on the theory. According to the participants’ responses, their classroom practice did not have positive relationship with their PCK because of limited content and pedagogy knowledge, students’ misbehaviors, the lack school infrastructure, and the inconvenience of classroom environment.

Q5. What could you think the factors that affect the classroom practice: students’ factors, teachers’ factors, and institutional factors? Explain in detail.

The participants responded that the students, the subject teachers, and the institution/school/have their own contributions to affect the classroom practice. They told that the students’ lack of interest toward EFL was the main problem that hindered the classroom practice. The students were not interested to speak English language. They considered EFL as a difficult subject and hence they were not motivated to learn it. Only the competent students made efforts to do the assignments, projects, and home works. Similarly, the participants reported that there were teachers who did not feel responsibility to their profession. Most of the teachers taught EFL through Amharic language which made the students remained poor at English. They translated EFL into Amharic language which was common language to majority of the students. The teachers had the skill problems/knowledge gap/to teach EFL. They did not play great roles to motivate students to develop interest toward EFL. They did not use appropriate example in classroom instruction to make easier the lesson to the students. The teachers’ approaches and methods of teaching EFL were not appropriate to the students. Likewise, the schools did not fulfill the necessary infrastructures to facilitate learning EFL. The seats, chairs, and the classrooms were not conducive to practice EFL. There were not books, library, and pedagogical center in the school compound. The instructional materials which could help the students to develop literacy competencies were not available in the school. The students were not lucky to listen to recorded materials to enhance their listening skills. Overall, participants reported that the students’, teachers’, and school factors negatively influenced teaching English to the students.

4. Discussion

Although the TKT results indicated that the teachers scored better performances in CK, the survey results showed that they had inadequate CK. Their knowledge of subject matter or CK was in low category since the mean score was found to be 2.93 that was less than the mid-value. They did not have deep subject matter knowledge that they often taught for the students. However, the education background of the participants was degree level in teaching English as a foreign language that they obtained studying the subject of English language for four or five years in the universities. This directly contradicted with the finding of Keller et al. (2017) which stated that the teachers who studied the subject matter previously in-depth were particularly effective in CK. On the contrary to this scholars’ theory, the results of the current study did not show the effectiveness of the teachers in CK even if they had previously studied the subjects in degree level for more than four years. The students’ results were highly affected by the teacher’s CK than previously acquired academic knowledge of the students (Darling-Hammond, 2017). The shortage of CK could cause teaching problems, and these problems could make the students to develop hatred to learn the subject matter. This indirectly could make the students unsuccessfully in their academic performances. This is also true in Ethiopian context that the students have developed a negative attitude towards learning EFL .This might be resulted from the teachers’ poor CK. The students’ poor performances at EFL might be also resulted from poor CK of the teachers in Ethiopian context. The teachers’ inadequate CK could causes the students’ errors and misapprehensions of the subject matter in a classroom practice (Keller et al., 2017).

PK comprises the teaching principles and strategies that involve both classroom assessment and management (Shulman, 2013). The EFL teachers’ status of PK in connection with language assessment and classroom management and organization was evaluated. It was found that the teachers had moderate PK, especially to assess students’ understandings of a lesson. They had moderate PK in drawing up clear classroom rules, creating a friendly atmosphere, and in developing a good relationship with students. However, the overall results revealed that the teachers were not adequately equipped in PK. Pedagogically enriched teachers know how to manage their class by motivating the students, by creating a friendly atmospheres in a class, and developing a good relationship and then promote students’ achievement (Tsafe, 2013).

The mean score of teachers’ PCK in teaching English was 3.03 which belonged to intermediate category. This indicated that the teachers had moderate PCK to teaching English to students. The first component of PCK was the knowledge of students’ understandings and misunderstandings. The teachers’ knowledge of this component was low because the mean score was found to be 2.972. It showed that the teachers had low knowledge related to the characteristics of the students and they could not demonstrate rich knowledge of the students’ ideas during classroom instruction. On the other hand, they had moderate PCK in designing instructional objectives and context (M = 3.06). The effectiveness of teaching relies on teachers’ understandings of the teaching environmental contexts and the students’ diverse needs (Richards, 2017). However, in the current study it was found that the EFL teachers could not attempt to understand what students think and why by providing specific insightful interpretations. The teachers who have inadequate PCK could not usually teach the information available in the students’ textbook appropriately and their instruction was vague and could not be meaningful to the students (Jackson & Cho, 2018). The teachers’ PCK of the subject matter is a significant factor that affects the classroom instruction (Lucenario et al., 2016). The EFL teachers manifested moderate PCK in using instructional representations and strategies (M = 3.07) with appropriate examples and illustrations in order to make clear the concepts for the students. This implied that the teachers owned some knowledge in providing specific examples of instructional strategies with clear connections to students’ ideas. Although the teachers provided examples of instructional strategies commonly used in an EFL class, they could not necessarily articulate how their instruction would address the students’ learning difficulty or support students’ understandings. Overall, the teachers had a little knowledge of the strategies (not adequate) for illustrating topics and representing the contents using appropriate strategies and various approaches.

The teachers showed good classroom practice in organizing group work, in giving positive feedback to encourage students, in assessing students’ prior knowledge, and in using a variety of assessment strategies. However, the frequency of their classroom practice was likely to be ‘sometimes’ (not always). The relationship between teachers’ classroom practice and students’ academic performance was extremely weak; suggesting that the teachers’ classroom practice was not the intermediary of their CK, PK, and PCK (Gess-Newsome et al., 2019). The teachers tried to practice the behaviors demonstrated on the items regardless of their status of CK. Instructional quality is a construct that indicates the features of teachers’ classroom practice that were well known to be positively related to students’ cognitive and affective outcomes (Decristan et al., 2015) and (Fauth et al., 2014). TKT scores revealed that the teachers had better knowledge in content area as compared to the pedagogy area. One-way analysis of variance indicated that there was a statistically significance difference of the mean scores of the variables that suggested CK, PK, and PCK could have the potential to influence the classroom practice.

There was fairly strong positive correlation between CK and PK. CK correlated with PK, suggesting that active participation, student engagement, assessment, and feedback have application on content teaching. There was a strong positive correlation between CK and classroom practice. This relationship suggests that the CK and the classroom practice could build upon each another. CK influenced effective classroom practice. The teachers with higher CK could exhibit potentially more classroom practice. There was a weak positive correlation between PK and classroom practice but the scholars in their study found that of all the knowledge bases, only PK was significantly correlated to classroom practice. They also found that CK and PCK constructs were not significant in predicting classroom practice but PCK showed a weak negative relationship to classroom practice (Gess-Newsome et al., 2019). In line with this, the results of the current study showed that there was not statistically significance relationship between PCK and classroom practice.

The participants acknowledged that students’, teachers’, and institutional factors affected classroom practice extremely. They replied that the teachers’ lack of motivation, low self-confidence, and inadequate CK, PK, and PCK hindered the effective classroom practice. The quality of teacher education could have an influence on educational outcomes in terms of teachers’ knowledge and skills (Blömeke et al., 2012) that significantly related to classroom quality and students’ achievement (Baumert et al., 2010) and (Kersting et al., 2012). The research evidence indicated that teachers’ classroom practice reflected their real thought and good understanding of teaching context that shape their classroom behaviors (Chen & Goh, 2011). The absences of external interaction of individuals outside the classroom, the lack of school infrastructures, and the limited boundary to learn EFL were found to be the critical factors to determine the classroom practice. The school, institution or educational system offers immediate environment for the language classroom (Hall, 2017). The lack of authentic environment negatively impacts students’ language proficiency development (Fareh, 2010). The students’ lack of motivation, lack of interest to improve their EFL, their dependency to learn EFL… were the critical factors that negatively affected teachers’ classroom practice. Students’ motivation is the most complex and challenging issue that teachers faced now-a-day. The teachers admitted that students’ lack of motivation is the main factor which affects classroom practice and students’ results (Scheidecker & Freeman, 2015).

5. Conclusions and recommendations

The upper primary school in-service EFL teachers held moderate PK and PCK but they owned inadequate CK. Their classroom practice was found the highest as compared with their knowledge of content and pedagogy. They had moderate knowledge to design instructional objectives and context whereas their knowledge of students’ understandings and misapprehensions was inadequate. They had moderate PCK in using appropriate examples and illustrations to present concepts related to the subject matter. The teachers’ frequency of classroom practice was found to be ‘sometimes’. Their CK and classroom practice showed strong and positive significant correlation whereas the relationship between PCK and classroom practice showed no consistency. The lack of the correlation could be the difficulty of the teachers to use their PCK in the classroom practice exhaustively. There was lack of teachers’ commitment to update themselves through reading textbooks, referring to EFL journals, and sharing experience with the professionals. The students’, teachers’, and school/institution/were basically the factors to influence classroom practice.

Since there was not significance relationship between PCK and classroom practice, the EFL teachers should enrich their knowledge related to the students’ characteristics and the use of various instructional strategies and approaches. The teachers should also enhance their CK, PK, and PCK in order to design meaningful instruction by considering students’ understandings and misunderstandings of a lesson together with appropriate instructional representations and strategies. To make the teachers capable in knowledge bases and in classroom instructional practice, there must be strong and close communication among educational experts, curriculum designers, material developers, EFL teachers, and EFL learners.

5.1. Limitations and areas for future study

As this study depended on the survey data, it was limited to describing and narrating only the participants’ responses on their current status of CK, PK, PCK, classroom practice, and the factors that affect classroom practice. For future research, it is recommended to conduct experimental study to investigate the potential changes of the upper primary school in-service EFL teachers’ CK, PK, PCK, classroom practice, and students’ learning outcomes as a result of an intervention.

Ethical approval statement

The participants’ involvement in data collection was based on their consents. The confidentiality of the study was prioritized to protect the privacy of the participants.

Data availability statement

All data supporting this study are available from the corresponding author.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no direct funding for this study.

Notes on contributors

Tadesse Hirpa

Tadesse Hirpa is a PHD candidate at Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia. He pursued his D.Ed. and M.Ed. in TEFL from the same university. Following his graduation, he began working at Gilgel Beles College of Teacher education as a lecturer. After serving some years at Gilgel Beles CTE, he has been pursuing his PHD degree at Bahir Dar University. He wrote national third grade students’ English textbook and modules for colleges of teacher education in collaboration with ministry of education. He conducted the researches on mother tongue literacy skills, analysis of students’ common errors in paragraph writing, and teachers’ professional practices and challenges. He has developed the introduction, methodology, collected data, and analyzed the results of the current study. His research interest is laid in advanced EFL teaching methods and integrated language teaching skills. Tadesse was the corresponding author of this study. He can be contacted at email address: [email protected]

Birhanu Simegn

Birhanu Simegn attained Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Foreign Language Teacher Education at Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia, from 2009 to 2012. With a robust skill set that includes science, university teaching, qualitative research, statistics, higher education, and more, he has contributed valuable insights to the industry. There are several research reports, book chapters, books, and journal articles he has published in this field. Nowadays, he is the coordinator of doctor of education at Bahir Dar University in the research industry and has a title of Associate Professor. Dr. Birhanu was the major advisor and the second author of this study. He gave constructive comments, professional support, and guidance for the accomplishment of the study. He exerted efforts by editing and revising the entire sections of the study. He is accessible at email: [email protected]

Dawit Amogne

Dawit Amogne attended Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) major in communication, English, philosophy, and business at Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia, from 2010 to 2014. He has worked at different administrative positions at Bahir Dar University. He currently works at Addis Ababa University in the research industry and has a title of Associate Professor. He is senior researcher. His teaching experience includes various graduate and undergraduate courses. There are several research reports, book chapters, books, and journal articles he has published in this field. Dr. Dawit was the co-advisor and third author of this study. He is available at email address: [email protected]

Meseret Getnet

Meseret Getnet has a doctoral degree in Teaching English as a Foreign Language with 15 years of experience at Bahir Dar University. She is a dynamic TEFL scholar with a keen interest in language teaching, mentoring students and developed course materials, including, module, textbooks, course guide books and exams. Her research interest is on classroom language, written discourse and oral feedback. She is motivated to learn, grow and excel in the field of language teaching practice and committed to helping students accomplish academic goals. Dr. Meseret was the co-advisor and the fourth author of this study. She gave immediate and constructive feedback throughout the study. She is reached at email: [email protected]

Appendix

Interview protocol

Interviewee’s code: ––––––––––––––––-

Date: –––––––––––––––––––––––––

Start Time: –––––––- End Time: –––––––

Dear participants,

I am conducting the research titled “Evaluation of EFL Teachers’ Knowledge Bases and Classroom Practice: Upper Primary Schools”. The primary purpose of the research is to investigate the status of the EFL teachers’ CK, PK, PCK, classroom practice, and the factors that affect classroom practice.

I appreciate your willingness to take role in the interviewing process. I have a list of questions to which your replies are vital. I assure you that there is absolute anonymity. Since accumulated data will be analyzed and interpreted, no individual will be identified with their particular point of view. If you feel uncomfortable at any time, please let me know and we will stop the interview.

I would like to record the interviews so that I will analyze the transcripts later. Your name would not be attached to the record. I use a coding system to strengthen the anonymity.

1. How could you describe your CK of EFL? How could you describe your knowledge about English textbook that you often teach? Why? What could you say about your knowledge of activities/tasks that can improve students’ achievements from time to time? Why? በእንግሊዝኛ ትምህርት ይዘት ላይ ያለህን/ያለሽን እውቀት እንዴት ትገልፃለህ/ትገልጪያለሽ? ዘወትር በምታስተምረው/በምታስተምሪው የእንግሊዝኛ መፅሐፍ ላይ ያለህን/ያለሽን እውቀት እንዴት ትገልፃለህ/ትገልጪያለሽ? ለምን? የተማሪዎችን ውጤት ከጊዜ ወደ ጊዜ ሊያሻሽሉ የሚችሉት ተግባራት ላይ ያለህን/ያለሽን እውቀት እንዴት ትገልፃለህ/ትገልጪያለሽ? ለምን?

2. How could you describe your PK of EFL? Why? How could you often assess students’ performances? For example, do you use verities of techniques to assess students’ performances? Explain in detail. Describe how could you manage and organize a classroom? የእንግሊዝኛን ትምህርት ማስተማሪያ ስነ-ዜዴ ላይ ያለህን/ያለሽን እውቀት እንዴት ትገልፃለህ/ትገልጪያለሽ? ለምን? የተማሪዎችን ውጤት/ማሻሻል/እንዴት ትገመግማለህ/ትገመግሚያለሽ? ለምሳሌ-የተማሪዎችን ውጤት/ማሻሻል/ለመገምገም የተለያዩ የመገምገሚያ ቴክኒኮችን ትጠቀማለህ/ትጠቀሚያለሽ? በሰፊው አብራራ/አብራሪው፡፡ በክፍል ውስጥ ተማሪዎችን እንዴት እንደምትቆጣጠር/እንደምትቆጣጠሪ እና እንደምታደራጅ/እንደምታደራጂ አብራራ/አብራሪው፡፡

3. How could you characterize your PCK? Why? How do you design instructional objective (the match of course objectives with the content, the use of instructional methods appropriate with the learning objectives)? Do you realize students’ knowledge of understanding and misunderstanding of a lesson? How? Do you use appropriate instructional representation and strategies, such as appropriate examples, authentic EFL resources, and varieties of teaching methods? Explain in detail. ስለአንተ/ስለአንቺ የማስተማሪያ ስነ-ዘዴና የይዘት እውቀት ቅንጂት/ውህደት/በአንድ ላይ እንዴት ትገልፃለህ/ትገልጪያለሽ? ለምን? የትምህርት/የማስተማሪያ/ዕቅድን እንዴት ታዘጋጃለህ/ታዘጋጂያለሽ? የምታዘጋጀው/የምታዘጋጂው የትምህርት ዕቅድ ከትምህርቱ ይዘት ጋር ይዛመዳል ወይ? ለትምህርቱ ይዘት ምቹ የሆነ የማስተማሪያ ዜዴዎችን ትጠቀማለህ/ትጠቀሚያለሽ? በምታስተምርበት/በምታስተምሪበት ጊዜ ተማሪዎች ትምህርቱን መርዳታቸውና አለመረዳታቸውን ተገነዘባለህ/ተገነዘቢያለሽ ወይ? እንዴት? ለማስተማሪያ የሚያገለግሉትን ምቹ ምሳሌዎችን፤ ስዕሎችን፤ ምስሎችን፤ እንግሊዝኛን ለማስተማር የሚያግዙትን አዳዲስ ቁሳቁሶችንና የተለያዩ የማስተማሪያ ዘዴዎችን ትጠቀማለህ/ትጠቀሚያለሽ ወይ? በሰፊው አብራራ/አብራሪ፡፡

4. What could you think the relationship between your CK, PK, PCK and classroom practice? Why? ያአንተ/ያአንቺ የትምህርት ይዘት እውቀት፤ የማስተማሪያ ስነ-ዜዴ እውቀት እና የማስተማሪያ ስነ-ዜዴና የይዘት እውቀት ቅንጂት/ውህደት/በአንድ ላይ በክፍል ውስጥ ከምታደርገው/ከምታደርጊው ትግበራ ጋር ያለው ቁርኝት ምን ይመስላል? ለምን?

5. What could you think the factors that affect the classroom practice: students’ factors, teachers’ factors, and institutional factors? Explain in detail. የክፍል ውስጥ ትግበራን የሚያደናቅፉት ምንድን ናቸው በለህ/ብለሽ ታስባለህ/ታስቢያለሽ? ከተማሪዎች አንፃር፤ ከመምህራን አንፃርና ከትምህርት ቤቱ አንፃር:: በሰፊው አብራራ/አብራሪ፡፡

Thank you!

አመሰግናለሁ!