Science Coursework and Pedagogical Beliefs of Science Teachers: The Case of Science Teachers in the Philippines: A Critical Review

 

Article Critique

 

Summary

 

Eva B. Macugay is an educator and researcher from the Philippines whose expertise in science education has helped schools develop learning strategies and educational frameworks that promote science learning. Her work has influenced the professional growth of future teachers and contributed to raising the standards of science instruction in the country through her research and teaching.

Allan B. I. Bernardo is a psychologist and educational researcher from the Philippines known for his significant contributions to educational psychology, learning, and cognition. He previously served as chancellor of De La Salle University, one of the leading universities in the Philippines. He is now a professor at the University of Macau, where he continues to expand his research and influence. His scholarly work has played an important role in educational reform and policy development, especially in understanding how students think, process information, and succeed academically.

Together, Macugay and Bernardo authored the study “Science Coursework and Pedagogical Beliefs of Science Teachers: The Case of Science Teachers in the Philippines.” This research explores the connection between science teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and the amount and nature of science-related coursework they completed during their preservice training. It specifically looks at whether teachers with more extensive science coursework hold different views about how science should be taught and learned compared to those with less background in the subject.

In their paper, the authors examined the assumption that having more science coursework in teacher preparation programs leads to: (1) stronger adherence to pedagogical beliefs that support student learning (such as viewing teaching as helping students learn and focusing on student-centered approaches). (2) weaker acceptance of beliefs that restrict learning (for example, thinking that success depends mainly on natural ability or that cultural beliefs limit learning). (3) differences in beliefs between groups of teachers — comparing elementary and high school science teachers (since high school teachers generally have more science coursework) and comparing those who majored in science with those who did not.

Their findings show that teachers who handle more science subjects and have had greater exposure to science coursework are more likely to believe that teaching involves helping students understand concepts. They are also less likely to hold cultural or superstitious beliefs that could hinder learning in science or to think that aptitude limits students’ learning potential.

The results further revealed that secondary school teachers differ from primary school teachers due to their more prolonged exposure to science courses. In the same way, science majors differ from non-science majors in that they are more likely to support student learning and less likely to accept the influence of cultural beliefs or limits based on natural ability.

These findings suggest that science courses in teacher preparation programs can foster more progressive perspectives on teaching and learning while also strengthening teachers' content knowledge. Teacher training programs may therefore consider the importance of balancing strong subject-matter knowledge with pedagogical and conceptual understanding. They may review policies on teaching requirements for science educators, especially at levels where teachers have less subject expertise.

                                                                  Critique

 

The study predicted a link between the level of science coursework completed by teachers and the extent to which they endorse different pedagogical and cultural beliefs. I agree with this prediction. A higher level of science content knowledge gained through extended coursework can influence educators to adopt more supportive perspectives on teaching and learning. When an educator is exposed to more subjects in science, it widens his/her scope of understanding of things. He/She may see the learning process in a different perspective. This, in turn, may foster a more student-centered learning environment rather than one that is restrictive or shaped by cultural limitations. If learning environment is student-centered, students may feel confident of themselves. They will feel supported and cared. This type of environment allows students to fully participate and perform inside the classroom with no fear of being judged or discriminated.

Shulman (1986) noted that deep content knowledge enables teachers to design learning experiences that connect with students’ prior knowledge, address misconceptions, and accommodate diverse backgrounds. This implies that greater content knowledge can lead to more responsive and effective teaching practices.

Similarly, Meschede et al. (2017), in their study titled “Teachers’ Professional Vision, Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Beliefs: On its Relation and Differences between Pre-service and In-service Teachers,” found that both in-service teachers and master’s level students with stronger pedagogical content knowledge showed fewer “transmissive beliefs” (such as seeing learning as simply receiving knowledge from the teacher) and more student-centered beliefs. Their findings highlight a shift from passive learning to active learning and show a clear relationship between higher levels of pedagogical content knowledge and reduced reliance on transmissive teaching beliefs.

Transmissive beliefs reflect the traditional view that learning is mainly about students passively receiving knowledge from the teacher. In contrast, teachers with greater pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)—whether pre-service teachers at the master’s level or experienced in-service teachers—are more likely to hold student-centered beliefs that emphasize active learning, student engagement, and knowledge construction. Both groups with advanced PCK demonstrated similar shifts away from transmissive beliefs, showing that the development of PCK is closely tied to changes in instructional philosophy.

However, in-service teachers displayed a more refined professional vision—the ability to observe and interpret classroom interactions effectively—likely due to their real-world teaching experience. Pre-service teachers, meanwhile, showed promising growth in PCK and beliefs at the master’s level, indicating that teacher education programs can foster these shifts even before full classroom immersion.

The study points out that PCK is not only about having content and pedagogical knowledge but also about how teachers perceive and respond to classroom situations. A well-developed professional vision enables teachers to notice student thinking, misconceptions, and engagement, which in turn informs their pedagogical decisions. This aligns with the perspectives of Grossman and Cochran et al., who view PCK as practical, situated knowledge that integrates content understanding, pedagogy, and awareness of student needs.

The findings highlight the importance of combining PCK development with opportunities for reflection on beliefs and classroom observation skills. Teacher education programs should explicitly address beliefs about teaching and learning, encouraging future teachers to move toward student-centered approaches. Strategies such as video analysis, classroom simulations, and guided reflection can strengthen professional vision, enhance PCK, and foster more effective teaching beliefs.

Moreover, Riegle-Crumb et al. (2023) argued that exposure to inquiry-based science courses that actively engage pre-service teachers enhances their perspectives on science, including their confidence, satisfaction, and sense of relevance. This kind of progressive thinking aligns with more open and growth-oriented views of teaching and learning. When consistently practiced, the inquiry-based science teaching approach can support the holistic development of students.

Specifically, Riegle-Crumb et al. (2023) examined the impact of inquiry-based science content courses on pre-service teachers’ perceptions and confidence in teaching science. Their findings highlight several important points relevant to teacher preparation and the development of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK).

       1. Inquiry-Based Learning Enhances Engagement

Inquiry-based courses actively engage pre-service teachers in the scientific process through exploration, questioning, and hands-on investigations. This approach contrasts with traditional lecture-based delivery, allowing pre-service teachers to experience science as a dynamic and interactive discipline rather than a static body of facts.

       2. Positive Shifts in Personal Confidence and Satisfaction

Exposure to inquiry-based content also leads to positive shifts in personal confidence and satisfaction. Pre-service teachers report greater confidence in understanding and teaching science, along with higher levels of satisfaction in the learning process. This increase in confidence is crucial, as self-efficacy strongly influences a teacher’s motivation and willingness to implement effective instructional strategies in the classroom.

3. Enhanced Perceptions of Science Relevance

Another key finding is that these courses enhance pre-service teachers’ perceptions of science relevance. They become more aware of how science connects to everyday life and broader societal issues, which in turn supports their ability to design lessons that relate to students’ experiences and interests—a vital aspect of effective PCK.

4. Implications for Developing Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Pre-service teachers get a more sophisticated and lived grasp of science by thoroughly interacting with it via inquiry. This experiential learning promotes the integration of topic knowledge with instructional practices that encourage active student involvement, which is a key component of PCK. Inquiry-based courses serve as a bridge, enabling pre-service teachers to exercise scientific thinking and build skills for supporting student inquiry, which is consistent with Cochran et al.'s focus on pedagogical expertise that promotes student-centered learning.

Riegle-Crumb et al.’s findings support the premise that teacher education programs should go beyond passively conveying subject information. Instead, they should (1) provide active, inquiry-based experiences that reflect authentic scientific practice, (2) foster pre-service teachers' confidence and positive attitudes toward science, which are essential for effective teaching, and (3) encourage the development of pedagogical strategies that emphasize inquiry and student engagement, in line with Cochran, DeRuiter, and King's view that PCK entails tailoring content delivery to student needs.

The research also expected that more scientific coursework would lead to constructivist teaching. I do not necessarily agree with this. Although Shulman (1986) said that having greater subject knowledge allows educators to develop learning experiences that are relevant to students' previous knowledge, content knowledge alone is insufficient to support student-centered learning. Educators must also exhibit pedagogical competence in order to teach certain topics properly.

The term pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) was introduced by Lee Shulman in his presidential address to the American Educational Research Association (Shulman, 1986). He argued that, for many years, research on teaching and teacher education had largely overlooked the content of the lessons being taught. Shulman made a strong case for PCK as a distinct form of knowledge for teaching, describing it as the transformation of subject-matter knowledge into forms that facilitate student understanding.

According to Shulman, teachers require this type of knowledge to structure lesson content effectively, select or develop appropriate representations and analogies, and anticipate students’ preconceptions or learning difficulties. He emphasized that teachers possess a unique way of viewing their practice, and his interest in this perspective led him to examine teachers’ pedagogical thinking with the expectation that it would reveal what teachers must know to teach their subject matter most effectively.

Grossman (1990) built on Shulman’s framework by emphasizing the centrality of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). She argued that educators must transform content knowledge into forms that students can easily understand, which requires knowing how to deliver the material and actively engage learners with the content.

In her seminal work The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education (1990), Grossman expanded Shulman’s concept of PCK by underscoring that it is not purely theoretical but also practical knowledge shaped by teaching experience. She identified three key components of PCK: knowledge of representations (how to present content effectively), knowledge of student understanding and misconceptions (awareness of how students typically think about and approach the content), and knowledge of instructional strategies tailored to specific subject matter. Grossman also highlighted the importance of situated learning, explaining that PCK develops through real classroom experiences where teachers interact with actual students and refine their practice.

In addition, in Grossman’s 1999 article, titled "Shifting Perspectives: From Teacher as Knowledgeable Professional to Teacher as Curriculum Maker", she broadens the view of PCK beyond just delivering content. She introduces the idea that teachers are curriculum makers, actively adapting and designing curriculum based on their PCK. This means PCK also includes decision-making about what to teach and how, informed by knowledge of learners, context, and content. She highlights how PCK is intertwined with the curricular and cultural context in which teaching occurs.

Grossman advocates for integrated teacher preparation programs that combine content knowledge, pedagogy, and practical experience. She suggests that PCK can be developed in pre-service teachers through (1) Opportunities to analyze teaching episodes, (2) Collaborative reflection, and (3) Guided practice in real classrooms with mentor support.

Further, Magnusson et al. (1999) conceptualized PCK as fundamental for effective teaching of science, stressing that educators need to consider the integration of content knowledge with knowledge on instructional methodologies and student understanding to promote meaningful learning. Specifically, Magnusson et al. (1999) presented PCK as a separate domain of teacher knowledge which exists alongside other domains, such as pedagogical knowledge and beliefs. In their discussion of the nature of PCK, they presented a model in which PCK for science teaching consists of five aspects or components: (1) orientations toward teaching science, (2) knowledge of science curricula, (3) knowledge of students' understanding of science, (4) knowledge of assessment in science, and (5) knowledge of subject-specific and topic-specific strategies. Acknowledging that these components may interact in very complex ways, these authors claim that effective teachers need to develop expertise in all aspects of PCK, and with respect to all topics they teach. Orientations toward teaching science have been identified as a critical component within this PCK model. Sources that shape teachers' orientations toward teaching science include prior work experiences, professional development choices, beliefs about students and about learning, as well as time constraints.

Similarly, Cochran, DeRuiter, & King (1993) emphasized the need for pedagogical knowledge in understanding how to deliver content effectively, thereby supporting the argument that content knowledge must be facilitated by pedagogical knowledge to experience student-centered learning. Cochran et al. describe PCK as the understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners. This means PCK is subject-specific but also student-specific, emphasizing the tailored approach teachers must take when teaching different students. They argue that content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge are distinct but interdependent. Effective teaching happens when these two knowledge domains are integrated: knowing what to teach (content) and how to teach it (pedagogy). They stress that pedagogical knowledge is critical to making the content accessible and meaningful to students.

Cochran and colleagues highlight the necessity for teachers to understand students’ prior knowledge, misconceptions, and cognitive processes. This understanding informs how teachers select instructional strategies, design lessons, and explain concepts. Their work supports the idea that PCK is essential for creating learning environments where students actively construct knowledge rather than passively receive information. They emphasize that PCK allows teachers to facilitate inquiry, encourage exploration, and foster deeper conceptual understanding. PCK is not just theoretical but practical knowledge that teachers apply daily. It involves a dynamic and adaptive process, where teachers continually modify their approaches based on student feedback and learning progress.

Another belief that the study was able to point out was that teacher’s beliefs are not solely shaped by academic background. The study finds that educators with strong academic backgrounds in science do not directly lead to progressive teaching beliefs.  Rote memorization methods are still utilized by educators even with more advanced degrees, while others with fewer science coursework utilize active, student-centered teaching methodologies. With this, teaching beliefs are also influenced by school culture, educational frameworks, ongoing professional development programs, and personal experience, not just mere scholastic credentials.

III.             Comparison and contrast

 

A. Comparing the study “Science Coursework and Pedagogical Beliefs of Science Teachers in the Philippines” by Macugay and Bernardo (2013) with the study “Pedagogical Beliefs and Learning Assessment in Science” by Namoco (2021).

The work of Macugay and Bernardo (2013) focused on investigating whether extensive science coursework among Filipino science teachers correlates with constructivist pedagogical beliefs. In contrast, the study of Namoco (2021) examined how external factors shape science teachers’ assessment practices and beliefs. This highlights two complementary lines of inquiry: one centered on teachers’ academic preparation and the other on contextual influences.

In terms of methodology, Macugay and Bernardo (2013) adopted a quantitative approach. They conducted a survey among 305 respondents to analyze their coursework backgrounds and belief orientations. Meanwhile, Namoco (2021) employed a phenomenological qualitative design. Using directed content analysis framed by the Theory of Reasoned Action, the study explored the experiences of six participants in depth.

With regard to similarities, both studies demonstrate that teacher behavior is influenced not only by content knowledge but also by other factors. However, Namoco (2021) places stronger emphasis on the significant role of contextual mandates in shaping educational beliefs and practices.

As for the key differences, Macugay and Bernardo (2013) concentrated on the impact of academic credentials and coursework, whereas Namoco (2021) underscored external influences—such as peer expectations and existing policies—as critical agents in determining teachers’ pedagogical choices.

B. Comparing the study “Science Coursework and Pedagogical Beliefs of Science Teachers in the Philippines” by Macugay and Bernardo (2013) with the study “Science Teachers’ Beliefs on Purposes and Goals” by Sanchez III & Monterola (2024)

Macugay and Bernardo (2013) examined whether extensive science coursework among Filipino science teachers is connected with constructivist pedagogical beliefs. In contrast, Sanchez III and Monterola (2024) explored the beliefs of Filipino high school teachers about the why, how, and what of science teaching. These two studies approach similar themes but from different perspectives — one focusing on the link between coursework and beliefs, and the other on the broader nature of teachers’ belief systems.

In terms of methodology, Macugay and Bernardo (2013) used a quantitative approach, conducting a survey of 305 respondents to analyze their coursework background and belief orientation. Sanchez III and Monterola (2024), on the other hand, applied a mixed-method design that combined surveys and interviews to examine the alignment of teachers’ beliefs with constructivism. Their analysis also included the role of cultural myths and teaching experience as factors shaping those beliefs.

Looking at similarities, both studies show that constructivist beliefs among educators do not necessarily match their classroom practices. Sanchez III and Monterola (2024) attribute this gap to deeply rooted belief systems and cultural myths held by individual teachers rather than to the influence of science coursework.

As for the differences, while both studies support the idea that science coursework does not strongly shape teachers’ beliefs, Macugay and Bernardo (2013) did not examine how teaching experience affects pedagogical beliefs. This factor, however, emerged in the findings of Sanchez III and Monterola (2024), making their study a broader look at the interplay between belief systems, cultural influences, and teaching experience.

The three (3) studies cited above, generally affirmed the arguments of Grossman (1990) that teachers’ prowess in content knowledge, when taken as an individual variable in learning, is never sufficient to transform pedagogical beliefs or practice, more so in creating student-centered learning.

With this, if can be inferred that teacher development must be multi-faceted – one that underscores reflective pedagogical approach, values institutional support, and recognizes cultural ideologies – and not just merely focusing on content coursework.

Hence, science teacher training should not just dwell on content mastery but must explicitly demonstrate integration of dynamic pedagogical techniques, putting premium on inquiry-based, constructivist, and student-centered teaching approaches.

It is also noteworthy to say that continuous career development among science teachers must go beyond technicality. In-service training should not be limited to introduction of new teaching methods only. It should provide clarity on belief transformation, classroom practice reflection, and the alignment of theory and practice. This can be best supported if reforms in policy and curriculum considers the prevailing belief systems of educators and establish educational environments where belief development are well-guided through coaching, modeling, and community exchanges.

 

Conclusion

 

The study of Macugay and Bernardo (2013) presents important implications for science education. It challenges the commonly held assumption that academic preparation or advanced degrees in science automatically lead to student-centered teaching practices. Instead, the study revealed no clear relationship between teachers’ content knowledge in science and their pedagogical beliefs, suggesting that greater content mastery does not necessarily translate into more progressive teaching approaches.

In view of this, the following questions are formulated for future research direction:

 

1. To what extent do professional development and classroom experience influence Filipino science teachers’ pedagogical beliefs?

2. What role do cultural and institutional factors play in reinforcing traditional teaching beliefs among science teachers with advanced academic backgrounds?

3. How effective are belief-focused teacher education interventions (e.g., reflective teaching modules, mentoring, action research) in promoting constructivist teaching among science teachers?

 

References

Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowledge: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263-272.

Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 91(1), 45-56.

Macugay, E. B., & Bernardo, A. B. I. (2013). Science coursework and pedagogical beliefs of science teachers: The case of science teachers in the Philippines. Science Education International, 24(1), 63–77.

Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95-132). Springer.

Namoco, S. (2021). Pedagogical beliefs and learning assessment in science: Teacher’s experiences anchored on theory of reasoned action. Journal of Turkish Science Education. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.67 (TUSED)

Sanchez III, R. L., & Monterola, S. L. C. (2024). Secondary school physical science teachers’ beliefs on the purposes and goals of science teaching: The presence of cultural myths. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 23(5), 931–... https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/24.23.931 (ResearchGate)