PLOS ONE

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Evaluating teachers’ pedagogical content

knowledge in implementing classroom-based
assessment: A case study among esl
secondary school teachers in Selangor,
Malaysia
Rafiza Abdul Razak1, Shahazwan Mat Yusoff ID1*, Chin Hai Leng1, Anwar
Farhan Mohamadd Marzaini2

1 Department of Curriculum & Instructional Technology, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
a1111111111 2 Academy of Language Studies, University Teknologi MARA, Pulau Pinag, Malaysia
a1111111111
a1111111111 * [email protected]
a1111111111
a1111111111
Abstract
The Malaysian Education Blueprint (PPPM) 2013–2025 has spurred significant reforms in
the Primary School Standard Curriculum (KSSR) and Secondary School Standard Curricu-
OPEN ACCESS
lum (KSSM), particularly concerning classroom-based assessment (CBA). CBA evaluates
Citation: Abdul Razak R, Mat Yusoff S, Hai Leng C,
students’ understanding and progress, informs instruction, and enhances the learning out-
Mohamadd Marzaini AF (2023) Evaluating
teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in comes. Teachers with robust pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) are better equipped to
implementing classroom-based assessment: A design and implement effective CBA strategies that accurately assess students’ compre-
case study among esl secondary school teachers hension and growth, provide personalised feedback, and guide instruction. This study aims
in Selangor, Malaysia. PLoS ONE 18(12):
to investigate the relationship between PCK and CBA among English as a Second Lan-
e0293325. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0293325 guage (ESL) secondary school teachers in Selangor, Malaysia. A 5-point Likert-scale ques-
tionnaire was administered to 338 teachers across 27 regional secondary schools in
Editor: Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan, Al-Ahliyya
Amman University, JORDAN Selangor. The Covariance-based structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to analyse
the data. The findings revealed that the secondary school teachers demonstrated a high
Received: June 11, 2023
level of PCK, with content knowledge (CK) obtaining the highest mean, followed by peda-
Accepted: October 10, 2023
gogical knowledge (PK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). The CBA practices
Published: December 29, 2023 among these teachers were also found to be high. SEM analysis showed a positive associa-
Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the tion between PK and CBA practices and between PCK and CBA. However, no positive
benefits of transparency in the peer review association was observed between CK and CBA practices. In order to enhance teachers’
process; therefore, we enable the publication of
PCK and ensure the effective implementation of CBA, which is crucial for student learning
all of the content of peer review and author
responses alongside final, published articles. The outcomes in Malaysian ESL secondary schools, it is recommended that continuous profes-
editorial history of this article is available here: sional development opportunities be provided, specifically focusing on PCK and CBA.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325

Copyright: © 2023 Abdul Razak et al. This is an

open access article distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 1 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Data Availability Statement: The dataset can be Introduction

accessed through this link https://figshare.com/s/
7d3979c34c3b844d558e. The role of teachers in assessing student learning and development has evolved over the years,
with a growing emphasis on incorporating classroom-based assessments (CBAs) into the edu-
Funding: The authors received no specific funding
for this work.
cational process. CBA aims to create a more enjoyable and meaningful learning experience for
students and it is viewed as an integral components of student-centred and inclusive education
Competing interests: The authors have declared
practices. In Malaysia, the implementation of the second phase of the Malaysian Education
that no competing interests exist.
Blueprint (PPPM) 2013–2025 has led to notable transformations in classroom evaluation. This
shift has moved the role of assessment from the exam-centric culture to being primarily man-
aged by teachers, who now utilize the School-Based English Language Curriculum (DSKP)
along with guidance from the Classroom-Based Assessment (CBA) handbook [1]. In this
sense, Stiggins [2] accounted that the successful application of CBAs relies significantly on
teachers’ expertise in pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), content knowledge (CK), and
pedagogical knowledge (PK).
Despite incorporating CBA in the Malaysian educational system, researchers have found
that some English as a Second Language (ESL) secondary school teachers need help to imple-
ment CBA in their daily teaching practices [3]. The problem of inadequate knowledge and
ineffective assessment practices among teachers has raised concerns over the potential impact
on student’s learning outcomes and overall educational quality. A comprehensive understand-
ing of the relationship between teachers’ PCK, CK, and PK and their CBA practices is crucial
for devising strategies and policies to improve the implementation of CBAs in Malaysian ESL
secondary school contexts.
Jones & Moreland [4] emphasised the importance of PCK, PK, and CK for English teachers
working with students, as these competencies allow them to create engaging and effective edu-
cational experiences. In addition, Mat Yusoff et al. [5] highlighted the value of understanding
language acquisition theories and applying them in practice. Building on these ideas, exploring
the role of ESL teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) in classroom-based assess-
ment is crucial, which refers to integrating PCK, PK, and CK in real-world educational set-
tings. In ESL education, classroom-based assessment is pivotal in providing teachers with
meaningful information on students’ language development and learning progress. Teachers
must be knowledgeable in the subject matter and possess the skills to design and implement
appropriate assessment strategies that cater to the unique needs of language learners. This is
particularly significant, given that assessments can profoundly impact students’ motivation,
self-efficacy, and overall learning experience.
While studies emphasising the importance of PCK, Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), and Con-
tent Knowledge (CK) in ESL education have gained popularity in academic circles, there were
dearth of studies which specifically investigates the association between PCK and the execution
of CBA. The previous literature has limit their discussion in levelling these elements in ESL
instruction [5–7], and understanding the association of beliefs and knowledge into PCK strate-
gies [8]. Hence, the present study aims to fill the knowledge gap in the literature by examining
the impact of ESL teachers’ PCK on the quality of CBA implementation. This research will
shed light on the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and their ability to
design and implement effective assessment practices in the ESL classroom. Additionally, this
study intended to identify teachers’ challenges in enacting the new assessment system and pro-
pose potential strategies in improving assessment practices. The findings of this study lead to
the practical implications in ESL instruction. Understanding how PCK influences assessment
quality can inform the development of targeted professional development programs for teach-
ers, focusing on enhancing their pedagogical knowledge in the assessment domain. This, in
turn, can lead to more accurate and meaningful assessments, thereby improving the overall

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 2 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

educational experiences of young language learners. Thus, the research questions in this study
are formulated as below;
Research questions:
1. What is the relationship between ESL teachers’ content knowledge and classroom assess-
ment practices among secondary school teachers?
2. What is the relationship between ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and classroom-
based assessment practices among secondary school teachers?
3. What is the relationship between ESL teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and class-
room-based assessment practices among secondary school teachers?

Literature review
The classroom-based assessment
Various studies related to classroom assessment utilised different terms to describe the proce-
dure for monitoring the students’ progress. The terms "approach," "tools and instruments,"
and "assessment procedures" have all been used interchangeably [9–12]. Teachers use various
exams to give students the chance to succeed and exhibit their skills. Contrary to large-scale
standardised testing, which frequently uses complex psychometric techniques, classroom
assessment allows teachers to choose the best assessment strategy to acquire precise informa-
tion on students’ learning progress.
Teachers utilise various assessment techniques to gauge their students’ learning, depending
on the learning context and how well the technique fits the needs of obtaining accurate data.
Researchers and educators have been researching the numerous student information-gather-
ing techniques teachers use for decades. A growing corpus of research offers helpful insights
into teachers’ strategies [13–15].
A diverse range of assessment methods is deemed crucial for enhancing learning as it
enables teachers to gather multiple sources of evidence that can comprehensively understand
their students’ progress towards their learning objectives [10]. According to Butler & McMunn
[10], information about students’ progress can be obtained through (1) General methods,
including teacher-student interactions, questioning, and observation, and (2) Specific meth-
ods, such as oral presentations, written essays, or multiple-choice exams. These specific assess-
ment methods are usually categorised into two broad categories, which may vary in
nomenclature based on the researcher’s preference.
In academic literature, the words "conventional assessment" and "alternative assessment"
are frequently used to distinguish between closed-ended and open-ended questions, respec-
tively. Multiple-choice, true/false, match, and other "chosen response" items are frequently
seen in traditional exams [16]. The term "paper-and-pencil evaluations" is occasionally used to
describe these tests [12]. However, "performance-based exams," which include oral presenta-
tions and compositional exercises like poem writing and recitation, are a kind of alternative
assessment that permits a show of learning [16].
Alternative assessment is frequently used to evaluate students’ knowledge exhibited through
real-world tasks and activities. Unlike conventional paper-and-pencil tests, which typically
measure verbal ability, alternative evaluations include pupils in active displays of their knowl-
edge. Alternative assessments are considered significant for offering a more thorough evalua-
tion of student’s learning while being subjective, and they are frequently used in conjunction
with standardised examinations to increase objectivity and fairness in assessments [17].

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 3 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

There has been some debate among researchers regarding the effectiveness of paper and
pencil assessments in capturing crucial aspects of student learning. Some authors argue that
such assessments must be improved in assessing higher-order skills like generative thinking,
collaboration, and sustained effort over time [18]. However, the findings of a study by Hawes
et al. [19] on the relationship between kindergarten students’ symbolic number comparison
abilities and future mathematics achievement suggest that paper and pencil assessments can be
a valid tool for assessing early math skills. In contrast, performance-based assessments, such as
portfolios, computer simulations, oral presentations, and projects requiring academic back-
ground, teamwork, and problem-solving abilities, have been touted as a better means of evalu-
ating these skills [18].
In recent research, the term "paper and pencil-based assessment" has been used to describe
a form of evaluation that consists of closed-ended and more structured questions that are usu-
ally administered on paper. Such assessments include objective evaluations where students are
required to select answers rather than generate them, and to provide concise responses to
inquiries in which they have limited personal involvement [20]. On the other hand, "perfor-
mance assessment" refers to forms of evaluation such as oral presentations, acting, and debates
that allow students to demonstrate their knowledge in various ways. According to Stiggins
[12], paper and pencil-based assessments can encompass teacher-made tests, quizzes, home-
work, seatwork exercises and assignments, observations of students’ behaviours and evalua-
tions of their work products for performance assessment.

Teachers’ practices in implementing classroom-based assessment

In academic environments, assessment is essential because it provides a comprehensive under-
standing of students’ and teachers’ learning progress [21]. To evaluate students’ progress or
focus on high-quality assessment, teachers must employ various assessment techniques in the
classroom. Comprehending teachers’ viewpoints and the rationale behind using different eval-
uation methods is vital for understanding their assessment approach. Black & Wiliam [22] and
Stiggins [23] assert that teachers must have a strong foundation in classroom assessment tech-
niques to establish a consistent method for both assessment for learning and assessment of
learning.
Formative assessment, also called assessment for learning, fosters student learning and aca-
demic growth [24–26]. Van der Kleij et al. [27] noted that multiple terms describe formative
assessment, and they investigated various assessment types for evaluating student learning,
including monitoring, diagnostic, and formative assessments. Alternatively, summative assess-
ment, known as assessment of learning, is executed at the end of a study period and helps
make informed decisions. It offers an extensive summary of what was taught and learned
throughout the session [28].
Classroom-based assessment perspectives and practices among teachers may need to be
more consistent. Buyukkarci [29] studied the assessment beliefs and practices of language
teachers in Turkish primary schools and discovered that although teachers supported forma-
tive assessment and feedback, they often needed to apply them consistently. Likewise, Saeed
et al. [21] investigated teachers’ views on incorporating classroom assessment techniques in
primary and secondary schools in Lahore. Many public and private school teachers predomi-
nantly used summative assessment, but they also recognised the possible role of formative and
summative assessments in enhancing student learning in the classroom.
Effective classroom-based assessment practices also emphasise the active participation of
teachers, students, and their peers [30]. This underlines the importance of viewing students as
information sources for themselves and their classmates [31]. Classroom-based assessment

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 4 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

that is more student-centred and encourages social learning processes, where students actively
participate in the teaching and learning process, is deemed more effective than teacher-domi-
nated methods [32].
Moreover, Harris & Brown [33] maintain that assessment results can be utilised for
accountability purposes concerning students, teachers, and schools. Specifically, evidence
from classroom assessments can evaluate the effectiveness of schools (school accountability),
teaching quality (teacher accountability), and student learning outcomes (student accountabil-
ity). It is important to note that accountability assessments are typically more connected with
summative assessments than formative assessment practices [31].

Classroom-based assessment practice in Malaysian ESL secondary school

The primary focus of the Malaysian CBA system is data collection and analysis to encourage
consistent reflection on teaching and learning (T&L) and assist T&L improvement. According
to KPM [1], CBA aims to help teachers, parents, and students discover areas for improvement
in student learning, not to foster competition or comparisons among students. Teachers must
actively participate in implementing CBA by developing learning objectives, creating assessment
instruments, administering assessments, documenting outcomes, analysing data, and carrying
out follow-up procedures. CBA seeks to advance academic attainment and learner mastery.
In Malaysia, classroom-based assessment (CBA) has been widely implemented in English lan-
guage teaching to evaluate students’ learning progress and provide feedback to teachers for
instructional improvement. According to Santos et al. [34], CBA is a formative assessment that
enables teachers to identify students’ strengths and weaknesses in language skills and adjust their
teaching strategies accordingly. There has been a growing interest in CBA as a practical approach
to enhancing students’ English proficiency in Malaysian secondary schools in recent years.
One of the critical benefits of CBA is its potential to improve students’ learning outcomes.
According to a study by Baghoussi [35], CBA helped promote students’ active participation in
classroom activities and encouraged them to take responsibility for their learning. The study
found that when combined with teacher feedback, CBA resulted in significant improvements
in students’ language skills, particularly in reading and writing. However, implementing CBA
in Malaysian secondary schools is challenging. In their study, Mohamad Marzaini et al. [36]
identified several issues that could have improved the effective implementation of CBA, such
as inadequate teacher training, lack of time and resources, and resistance from students and
parents. These challenges highlight the need for a systematic and well-planned approach to
CBA implementation in order to achieve its intended benefits.
In order to address these challenges, some researchers have suggested using technology to
support CBA in English language teaching. For instance, Da-Hong et al. [37] proposed using
an online platform to facilitate CBA, which allowed teachers to monitor students’ progress and
provide timely feedback. The study found that the platform enhanced students’ engagement in
learning and facilitated feedback sharing among teachers and students. CBA can potentially
enhance students’ English language proficiency in Malaysian secondary schools. However, the
successful implementation of CBA requires adequate teacher training, appropriate resources,
and a systematic approach that considers the challenges and opportunities CBA presents.

The concept of pedagogical content knowledge

Shulman [38] is credited with introducing the concept of PCK (Pedagogical Content Knowl-
edge). This framework recognises the importance of integrating general PCK, PK, and CK and
represents a valuable tool for educational research (Fig 1). The Shulman model encompasses
multiple domains of knowledge related to pedagogy, including instructional strategies, child

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 5 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

development, motivation, student needs and behaviour, and understanding of subject matter.
The knowledge requirements for educators have undergone significant evolution throughout
the history of education. For example, in the 1500s, Paris University required teachers to pos-
sess a high degree of knowledge. By the mid-1980s, teacher training and education programs
had emphasised pedagogy more, with content knowledge as a secondary consideration [38].
Shulman [38] introduced the concept of PCK, which calls for integrating pedagogical and
subject matter knowledge in teaching. He suggested that treating teaching methodology and
content as separate entities is inadequate and that a more comprehensive approach is required
to consider the specific needs and requirements of various curriculum areas. Over the years,
the PCK framework has gained wide recognition and is frequently cited in educational
research and literature. Shulman introduced the concept of PCK in his keynote address to the
American Educational Research Association in 1985, which was subsequently published in
1986. Initially, PCK was regarded as a subset of content knowledge, aligned with Shulman’s
perspective on the significance of subject knowledge in education. Shulman’s PCK framework
was listed as one of seven components of a professional knowledge base for educational practi-
tioners in 1987 by delegates who further explored his ideas. This model is a crucial foundation
for substantial academic research in education and is considered an essential paradigm for
educational scholars and practitioners.

The relationship between teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and

classroom assessment practices
Teachers’ knowledge is considered ’learning specialist’, which stands on how their knowledge
functions and can be applied in their teaching and learning fraternity. In the context of class-
room assessment practices, the knowledge encultured by the teachers is used in the process of
making decisions pertaining to lesson design and making on-the-spot judgments in the class-
room [39]. Ma’rufi et al. [40] affirmed that content and pedagogical knowledge have been
closely related factors that affect teachers’ assessment practices at the micro level. Shulman
[38] posited that the PCK, PK, and CK are the three knowledge bases that combine to generate
teachers’ PCK.
In the practices of classroom-based assessment, the teachers’ PCK has exceptionally played
varying perspectives of teachers on how specific themes or subject matters are arranged, pre-
sented, and suited to the wide range of interests and abilities of the students might have an impact
on how teachers implement classroom assessment [38]. Shulman also posited that PCK was the
best fit suggested knowledge base for teaching, learning, and assessing because it serves as;

The ability of a teacher to translate the topic knowledge they possess into pedagogically effec-
tive forms yet adaptable to the variances of evaluation in ability and background provided by
the pupils is the key to differentiating their knowledge base of teaching.

According to this definition, PCK includes understanding and pedagogical reasoning,

transformation, and practice [38], which includes both teachers’ understanding and their
enactment of classroom assessment. Gess-Newsome [41] stated that teachers’ PCK is a funda-
mental knowledge used in the preparation and delivery of teaching on a particular subject [42]
and is also known as knowledge-on-action [43]. This knowledge is made explicit and available
from teachers or places like lesson plans. Enactment or knowledge-on-action directs what the
teacher does in the classroom, but it also involves the teacher making judgments immediately,
requiring a more dynamic knowledge called knowledge-in-action [43].

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 6 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Fig 1. Pedagogical content knowledge [38].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325.g001

Reflection-in-action during instruction allows for developing this knowledge-in-action

[44]. This demonstrates the inverse (non-linear) relationship between teachers’ PCK develop-
ment and PCK implementation. Although sometimes clear, knowledge-in-action is typically
implicit and more challenging to record [43]. According to this viewpoint, the relationship
between knowledge and conduct is by its very nature reciprocal, as information is developed
through experiences gained through classroom practice and interactions with peers [45].
Hence, this can contribute to the teachers’ learning trajectories, and the teachers’ PCK influ-
enced the different ways of teachers’ assessment practices.

ESL teachers’ content knowledge and classroom-based assessment practices

The relationship between English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers’ content knowledge
and classroom-based Assessment (CBA) has been a critical area of study in language educa-
tion. Content knowledge, referring to teachers’ understanding of the subject matter they teach,
is essential in informing the design and implementation of effective classroom assessment
practices. Researchers like Shulman [38] and Minor et al. [46] have emphasised the importance
of content knowledge in shaping pedagogical practices, while other assessment researchers like
Black & Wiliam [22], Puad & Ashton [31], and Liontou [47] have stressed the value of CBA as
an integral part of the teaching and learning process. In the context of ESL teaching, the litera-
ture has explored how content knowledge influences assessment strategies, with scholars such
as Jung Youn [48], Phothongsunan [49], and Savić [50] providing insights into the connection
between language teachers’ expertise and the development of context-sensitive, authentic
assessments. This body of research demonstrates that a strong foundation in content knowl-
edge can contribute significantly to the effectiveness of CBA in ESL settings, enabling teachers
to design assessments that cater to the diverse needs of their students and ultimately enhance
learning outcomes.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 7 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and classroom-based assessment

practices
Pedagogical knowledge encompasses the knowledge of teaching methods, instructional strate-
gies, and learning theories that inform the instructional practices of ESL teachers. Scholars
such as Shulman [38] and Borko & Putnam [51] have explored the importance of pedagogical
knowledge in shaping teaching practices, while assessment experts like Black & Wiliam [22]
have highlighted the significance of CBA in providing valuable feedback and promoting stu-
dent learning. Within the context of ESL teaching, research conducted by Mohamad Marzaini
et al. [52], Mat Yusoff et al. [5], and Dadvand & Behzadpoor [53] have shed light on the rela-
tionship between ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and the design, implementation, and
interpretation of assessment in the classroom. These studies suggest that a solid foundation in
pedagogical knowledge can enhance the effectiveness of CBA by informing the development
of context-appropriate, learner-centred assessment strategies. Consequently, the literature
underscores the need for continuous professional development to strengthen ESL teachers’
pedagogical knowledge and optimise their use of CBA in diverse learning contexts.

ESL teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and classroom-based

assessment practices
In the realm of English as a Second Language (ESL) education, pedagogical content knowledge
(PCK) and classroom-based Assessment (CBA) have emerged as critical factors in effective
language teaching. Researchers such as Shulman [38], Kind & Chan [54], and Nind [55] have
contributed significantly to the understanding of PCK, which refers to the specialised knowl-
edge teachers possess, including their understanding of how to represent and teach a subject to
diverse learners. Conversely, CBA involves teachers’ implementation of assessment strategies
within the classroom context to measure and enhance students’ learning outcomes. Research-
ers like F Mudin [56], Abeywickrama [57], and Mohamad Marzaini et al. [7] have illuminated
the importance of CBA in ESL settings, emphasising that authentic, formative assessment
practices can significantly benefit student learning. Throughout the literature, the integration
of PCK and CBA is recognised as a vital component in developing effective, learner-centred
ESL teaching practices. Studies by Mumamad Marzaini et al. [52] and Ducar [58], for instance,
highlight the intricate relationship between these two elements and suggest that further
research is necessary to optimise the alignment of PCK and CBA in ESL contexts. Therefore,
the hypotheses of the study can be posited as:
H1: “There is a significant relationship between content knowledge and classroom-
based assessment practices.”
H2: “There is a significant relationship between pedagogical knowledge and
classroom-based assessment.”
H3: “There is a significant relationship between pedagogical content knowledge and
classroom-based assessment.”

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 8 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Methodology
Research design
The primary objective of this quantitative study, employing a survey research design, is to
assess teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and classroom-based assessment practices.
The researcher adopted a quantitative approach, explicitly utilising a survey research design, to
comprehensively understand the educational context, particularly concerning teachers’ per-
ceptions, beliefs, and behaviours. Survey research is a widely used method in social sciences
area, enabling researchers to systematically collect information related to human perceptions,
beliefs, and behaviours [59]. Consequently, this method is well-suited for the present study,
effectively addressing the research objectives. The quantitative approach allows for the mea-
surement of variables. It facilitates in identifying the relationships and patterns among them,
providing a robust understanding of the factors impacting pedagogical content knowledge and
classroom-based assessment practices. By employing a survey research design, this study has
the potential to uncover valuable insights into the intricacies of pedagogical content knowledge
and assessment practices in the educational context, which can, in turn, contribute to the
development of practical teacher training programs and strategies. Ultimately, this method
can support the broader goal of enhancing educational outcomes by shedding light on the cru-
cial role of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and classroom-based assessment practices
in the teaching and learning process.

Sample
This study employed a simple random sampling method to ensure a representative sample of
ESL teachers in secondary schools in Selangor, Malaysia, from January 2023 to April 2023. The
researchers upheld ethical standards by securing permission letters for distributing the survey
instrument and obtaining approvals from both the Educational Policy Planning and Research
Division of the Ministry of Education Malaysia (approval letter number KPM.600-3/2/3-eras
(13277)) and the University Malaya Research Ethics Committee (Non-medical) (approval let-
ter number UM.TNC 2/UMREC). Prior to participating, written consent was obtained from
all respondents.
To ensure the generalizability of research findings to the broader population, a widely rec-
ognized probability sampling technique was utilized, affording every member of the target
population an equal opportunity for selection. This approach minimizes selection bias. The
sample was drawn from 27 public secondary schools located in the Petaling Utama district of
Selangor, encompassing 338 secondary school teachers. The gender distribution among the
participants included 73 males and 265 females. Teaching experience varied from 1 year to
more than 20 years, and participants’ academic qualifications are detailed in Table 1. This
diverse sample allows for a comprehensive exploration of teaching strategies employed by ESL
teachers with diverse backgrounds and levels of experience.

Instrumentation
For this study, a single survey was employed to collect data, adapted from Goggin [60], empha-
sising classroom-based assessment practices. The survey was developed by referencing "Class-
room Assessment for Student Learning" by Chappuis et al. [61]. Five individuals, including
four secondary school teachers and one teacher educator from University A, were consulted
based on their experience with classroom-based assessment to ensure face validity. To establish
content validity, the survey was distributed to twenty experts in the field through email,
Researchgate, and social media platforms such as WhatsApp, Telegram, and Facebook

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 9 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Table 1. Demographic information of the participants.

Gender Frequency
Male 73
Female 265
Total 338
Years of Teaching
1–5 years 152
6–10 years 89
11–15 years 33
16–20 years 24
More than 20 years 40
Total 338
Academic Qualifications
Diploma 1
Degree 324
Master’s Degree 13
Total 338
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325.t001

Messenger. The experts were selected based on their research experience, educational back-
ground, and accomplishments in related research activities [62]. Of the twenty experts
approached, ten agreed to participate, two declined due to time constraints, and the remainder
have yet to respond. As suggested by Hong et al. [63], a sample of experts with experience in
the research area can enhance content validity and minimise biases in the research instrument.
The experts were asked to evaluate the instrument’s relevance, clarity, and simplicity by com-
pleting a questionnaire. This process helped ensure that the survey used in the study was both
reliable and valid, thus contributing to the overall quality and rigour of the research findings.

Data analysis
The researchers actively conducted screening tests in SPSS to address issues related to missing
values, straightlining, and outliers. The researchers assessed missing values by implementing
the count blank method. To ensure compliance with the straightlining rule, the researchers
inspected for straightlining, noting a non-zero standard deviation value, as described by Hair
et al. [64]. The team also performed an outlier test using the Mahalanobis Distance. After com-
pleting these steps, the researchers proceeded with a descriptive analysis.
The researchers used PLS-SEM for additional analysis, employing the SmartPLS software.
This method maximises the explained variance of exogenous variables on endogenous ones to
focus on prediction, as explained by Hair et al. [64] and Rigdon et al. [65]. Because it is suitable
for testing theoretically supported and additive causal models, as Chin [66] and Haenlein &
Kaplan [67] suggest, the team used it in line with the proposed theoretical framework, which is
an exploratory model. Contrastingly, CB SEM tests the alignment between the proposed theo-
retical model and the observed data, as per Ramayah et al. (2018). It is, therefore, effective
when working with confirmatory models. Wold [68] initially developed SEM, and his two dis-
ciples, Lohmoller and Joreskog, refined it. Lohmoller adapted it into PLS-SEM, while Joreskog
developed it into CB-SEM.
Before progressing with hypothesis testing, the researchers verified internal consistency and
convergent and discriminant validity. The researchers applied internal consistency to highlight
the interrelation among items, as per Sekaran & Bougie [69], ensuring a composite reliability
value of 0.7 for its successful implementation [64, 69]. The researchers examined convergent

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 10 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

validity through factor loadings and average variance extracted (AVE), demonstrating the
degree to which specific indicators of a construct share a substantial proportion of variance,
following Hair et al. [64]. They achieved convergent validity when factor loading values were
at least 0.5 while also maintaining an AVE score above 0.5, according to Byrne [70]. The
researchers also confirmed discriminant validity, demonstrating that each latent variable is dis-
tinct from others, pointing to the uniqueness of constructs [64, 71]. The researchers checked
discriminant validity using the advanced method of the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correla-
tions (HTMT), with a threshold value of 0.9, as suggested by Franke & Sarstedt [72]. The
researchers then conducted a lateral collinearity assessment with a cut-off value of 3.3 to pre-
vent misleading results, based on Diamantopoulos & Siguaw [73]. Following these validation
steps, the team performed hypothesis tests using structural modelling.

Results
The measurement model
The structural equation modelling (SEM) technique, which links measurement items to their
underlying latent variables, necessitates establishing a measurement model. The present study
provides the theoretical foundations and statistical analysis to support the validity and reliabil-
ity of the measurement model. The analysis used the R programming language, utilising the
lavaan package for SEM analysis [74].

Operationalisation of latent variable

Four complex latent variables, which a single observed variable cannot assess, make up the
conceptual model. In order to measure each of the latent variables in the conceptual model,
the researchers use several observed items.
The first three exogenous variables relate to the teacher’s PCK. The well-known study by
Shulman [38] developed measurement scales to measure PCK. Under pedagogical content
knowledge, there were 13 items divided into three dimensions. The items were adopted from
past literature: CK [75, 76], PK [77], and PCK [77].
To measure the CBA practices, the researchers refer to related work from Chappuis et al.
[61] and the items adopted from Goggin [60].

Normality check
The researchers use multivariate and univariate normality tests to determine whether the mea-
surement items are normal before moving forward with the confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) model. The estimating method used in CFA (and SEM) depends on the normality of
the data. Hence, the data must be normal. The Shapiro-Wilk test (all p-values 0.05) of all mea-
surement items rejects the null hypothesis of univariate normality, just as the Mardia test (p-
value 0.05) does the same for the null hypothesis of multivariate normality. In order to estimate
the measurement model, the researchers instead employ the maximum likelihood robust
(MLR) estimator, also known as the Satorra-Bentler rescaling approach [74].

Reliability and validity

Self-reported questionnaires are used to gather the measurement item data. Each item is
scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with 5 denoting strong agreement and 1 denoting strong dis-
agreement with the statements. The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the 21 items indicates
a four-factor model after eliminating item one of the pedagogical knowledge construct and
items one through two, five, seven, thirteen, and fourteen of the classroom assessment

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 11 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

construct (see Table 2). This model was later confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA). The right column of Table 2 displays the standardised factor loadings of the CFA
model. All of them are statistically significant (p-value < 0.001), indicating that the items prop-
erly reflect the underlying latent construct. This attests to the measurement model’s conver-
gence validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Additionally shown in Table 2 are each factor’s
composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha [78]. According to Hair et al. [79], all factors’
Cronbach’s Alpha and CR values must be higher than the specified cutoff point of 0.70. Refer-
ring to Table 2, although pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge are not
exceeding 0.70 (moderate Cronbach’s alpha), the researchers decided to maintain the con-
struct as Pallant [80] said if the items are less than 10 in a construct, it is hard to get a high
value of Cronbach’s alpha, so it is acceptable if the value is >.05. On the other hand, high com-
posite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE), and a moderate to high Cronbach’s
alpha, indicate a good measurement model in partial least squares structural equation model-
ling (PLS-SEM) [79, 81]. In this case, the researcher decided not to delete the item. Thus, the
measurement model’s reliability is confirmed.

Table 2. Measurement items and their reliability.

Constructs and items Factor loadings
Content Knowledge (CK, alpha: 0.63, CR: 0.95)
1. CK1 .753
2. CK2 .703
3. CK3 .807
Pedagogical Knowledge (PK, alpha: 0.81, CR: 0.87) .668
1. PK1 Dropped
2. PK2 .744
3. PK3 .786
4. PK4 .737
5. PK5 .706
6. PK6 .774
7. PK7 Dropped
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK, alpha: 0.59, CR: 0.83)
1. PCK1 Dropped
2. PCK2 .826
3. PCK3 .732
Classroom-based Assessment (CBA, alpha: 0.94, CR: 0.95)
1. CBA1 Dropped
2. CBA2 Dropped
3. CBA3 .852
4. CBA4 .853
5. CBA5 .793
6. CBA6 .744
7. CBA7 Dropped
8. CBA8 .786
9. CBA9 .793
10. CBA10 .760
11. CBA11 .793
12. CBA12 .797
13. CBA13 .722
14. CBA14 .752
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325.t002

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 12 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

If constructs that should not be related to one another are truly unrelated, this is known as
divergent or discriminant validity (DV). This can be confirmed by contrasting the average
extracted variance (AVE) with the squared correlations of all latent variables in a matrix, as
illustrated in Table 3. According to Hair et al. [79], squared correlations below the diagonal
must be less than the AVE of each latent variable to indicate DV. Table 4 shows that all con-
structs for AVE and squared correlation are below thresholds, confirming the DV of the latent
variables. The researchers can thus attest to the latent variables’ DV.
The Root Mean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA) and Standardized Root Mean
Square Residual (SRMR), which are below the cut-off value of 0.08, as well as the Comparative
Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), which are above the recommended threshold
of 0.90 [79], more evidence for the measurement model’s accuracy and a good fit (refer to
Table 2). After establishing the measurement model, the researchers present the descriptive
statistics in Table 4.
It should be noted that the mean and standard deviation (SD) values are determined by tak-
ing the arithmetic mean of the item scores that measure the respective latent variables. Based
on factor values retrieved by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the correlation matrix shows
a correlation between the latent variables.

Assess the structural model for collinearity issue

The optimal VIF values, according to contemporary theories [82], should be lower than three
(<3). For the PLS process, this study used Hair et al.’s [82] threshold of VIF values of less than
three to prevent collinearity and common method bias. Knock [83] posits that a VIF exceeding
3.3 signifies excessive collinearity, potentially indicating the presence of common method bias
within the model. Consequently, if all VIFs derived from a thorough collinearity assessment
are at or below 3.3, the model can be deemed devoid of common method bias. The SmartPLS
specifically generated the order of predictors to evaluate the collinearity. CK, PK, and PCK are
predictors of CBA. The researchers assessed all VIF values; however, one indicator, PK (3.390),
had values greater than 3. While the rest were assessed with the VIF values (<3), CK (2.123),
and PCK (2.081). After considering the VIF values below, the researcher considered the work
from Ringle et al. [84] that concur collinearity issues are performed when the VIF value is
equal to or greater than five. Therefore, VIF values >3.3 and <5 were accepted in this study.
According to the results of all VIF values (Table 5), it can be noted that collinearity is not an
issue in this study.
Fig 2 and Table 6 show a structural equation model illustrating the relationships between
Content Knowledge, Pedagogical Knowledge, and Pedagogical Content Knowledge with
Classroom-based Assessment. The summary of hypothesis testing reveals that only Pedagogi-
cal Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge significantly influence Classroom-based
Assessment.

Table 3. Divergent validity analysis.

CBA CK PCK PK
CBA 0.787
CK 0.494 0.756
PCK 0.624 0.526 0.842
PK 0.702 0.693 0.737 0.750
AVE 0.657 0.618 0.748 0.601
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325.t003

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 13 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Table 4. Descriptive statistics and association among latent variables.

Latent Variables Mean SD CBA CK PK PCK
CBA 3.80 0.58 1.00
CK 4.06 0.43 0.49 1.00
PK 3.97 0.44 0.65 0.69 1.00
PCK 3.91 0.46 0.62 0.52 0.73 1.00
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325.t004

Common method bias

Measurement inaccuracies resulting from methodological problems are referred to as com-
mon method bias. For example, using the same measurement scale (e.g., a 5-point Likert scale)
for all survey questions may result in common method bias. Podsakoff et al. [85] outline sev-
eral statistical treatments for common method bias, each with advantages and disadvantages.
Harman’s single-factor test, which is the most commonly used, is used in this study. The
researchers used the 21 items loading on one latent factor to perform unrotated exploratory
factor analysis. Only 39% of the average variance is explained by a single factor, significantly
less than the recommended cutoff point of 50%. So, in this study, common method bias is not
a problem.

Assess the level of R2

The coefficient of determination (R2) measures the proportion of variance in the dependent
variable explained by the model’s independent variables. In Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), an R2 value of 0.8 or greater is considered an acceptable fit of
the model to the data, while an R2 value of less than 0.5 indicates a poor fit. In Table 7, the cal-
culation of the coefficient determination (R2) is presented. The coefficient of determination
(R2) score for the Classroom-Based Assessment (CBA) was found to be 0.472, reflecting a
moderate level of explained variance of the dependent variable by the model. This indicates a
satisfactory fit of the model to the data and a significant degree of accuracy in its prediction.

Assess the f2 effect size

The magnitude of the f2 value is indicative of the strength of the relationship between the
latent variable and its indicators. A higher f2 value implies a robust connection between these
two elements and suggests that the latent variable effectively captures the assessed underlying
construct.
According to Hair et al. [82], small, medium, and large effect sizes are categorised as .02,
.15, and .35, respectively. Following the hypotheses, Table 8 presents the values of f2 for the
endogenous constructions and the exogenous constructs or predictors: CK, PK, and PCK. The
f2 value for the relationship between CK and CBA is .005, which is considered to have a small
effect size. Likewise, the f2 value for PK and CBA is .098, indicating a small effect size. The f2
value for the relationship between PCK and CBA, .030, also depicts a similarly small effect size.

Table 5. VIF values.

CK PCK PK CBA
CK 2.123
PCK 2.081
PK 3.390
CBA
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325.t005

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 14 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Fig 2. The structural equation model was estimated.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325.g002

Assessing the predictive relevance, Q2

The predictive relevance of the model was assessed by utilising the Blindfolded Techniques in
SmartPLS 4 [82] to obtain the Q2 value. The Q2 value measures a latent variable’s capacity to
predict the dependent variable in the model. A high Q2 value signifies that the latent variable
holds a robust predictive ability towards the dependent variable, whereas a low Q2 value indi-
cates a weak predictive ability. The results of the predictive relevance assessment, as presented
in Table 9, show that the Q2 value of CBA is above 0 (.459), thereby validating the predictive
validity of the endogenous construct in the model.

Table 6. Summary of hypothesis testing.

Hypothesis Standardised Coefficient Remark
H1: Content Knowledge -> Classroom-based Assessment 0.144* Not supported
H2: Pedagogical Knowledge -> Classroom-based Assessment 0.000** supported
H3: Pedagogical Content Knowledge -> Classroom-based Assessment 0.000** supported

Standard parenthesis error.

***p < 0.001,
**p < 0.01,
*p < 0.05,
+p < 0.10.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325.t006

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 15 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Table 7. Results of R2 of the integrated model.

R2 Consideration
CBA .472 Moderate
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325.t007

Discussion
Following establishing the measurement model in the previous sections, the researchers go on
to the structural model to look at relationships between the latent variables. Once more, the
researchers estimate SEM using the MLR method, as Rosseel [74] advised for non-normal
data. In Fig 2, the researchers present the estimated SEM. It can be challenging to develop a
theoretical structural model similar to the observed model at 5% statistical significance in com-
plex SEM research with more than 12 measurement items, as in this study [79]. According to
Bollen & Long [86], the chi-square statistic to degrees of freedom (DF) ratio in these circum-
stances should be less than three. The estimated SEM model (707.381/313 = 2.260) meets this
requirement, indicating a robust model fit. Besides, other model-fit indices conditions are also
satisfied. The RMSEA and SRMR are below 0.08, and the CFI and TLI are above 0.90. Hence,
SEM estimations are thus valid. The model accounts for around 50% and 10% of the variance
of the one endogenous variable, classroom-based assessment (as shown by the r-square of
latent endogenous variables).
Other than that, the researchers summarise hypothesis testing in Table 5 based on the SEM
model in Fig 2 and Table 5. All hypotheses relate to the association between teachers’ knowl-
edge and classroom-based assessment. Among those hypotheses, only H1 is not supported,
suggesting that content knowledge is not associated with classroom-based assessment practices
in the context of Malaysian secondary school teachers. In contrast, H2 and H3 are supported,
suggesting a positive association between the pedagogy knowledge of teachers and classroom-
based assessment practices. The overall results of path coefficient, t-value, p-values, R2, f2, and
Q2 can be seen in Tables 2–8 above.
Teachers’ grasp of pedagogy holds significant importance since it can impact their practices
in classroom-based assessment. This research focuses on investigating the pedagogical content
knowledge and classroom-based assessment practices of secondary school teachers. In sum-
mary, the researchers first evaluate the PCK levels of secondary school teachers, which are
based on their CK, PK, and PCK. As depicted in Table 4, the highest mean score is attributed
to content knowledge (mean: 4.06, SD: 0.43), followed by PK (mean: 3.97, SD: 0.44), PCK
(mean: 3.91, SD: 0.46), with classroom-based assessment (CBA) receiving the lowest but still
relatively high mean score (mean: 3.80, SD: 0.58). Consequently, teachers may want to con-
sider enrolling in additional courses that are relevant to their curriculum teaching, as this can
enhance their confidence in PCK and, in turn, enable them to deliver an exceptional curricu-
lum to their students more effective.
Similarly, a study done by Moh’d et al. [87], which assesses the level of teachers’ PCK in
selected secondary schools of Zanzibar, revealed that the level of teachers’ PCK was moderate.
According to the researchers, teachers’ PCK plays a significant role in assessment practices

Table 8. Results of f2 of the integrated model.

f2 Effect Size
CK -> CBA .005 small
PK -> CBA .084 small
PCK -> CBA .086 small
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325.t008

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 16 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Table 9. Results of Q2 of the integrated model.

Q2 Predictive relevance
CBA .459 Large
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325.t009

and students’ performance, implying that teachers must have relevant knowledge in a particu-
lar area. Therefore, more in-service training on increasing teachers’ PCK levels is required,
ultimately resulting in better teaching and learning [87].
Next, the researchers delve into the impact of content knowledge on the classroom-based
assessment practices of secondary school teachers. According to the findings, there is no dis-
cernible link between content knowledge and classroom assessment practices. This stands in
contrast to the results obtained by Gess-Newsome et al. [42], who identified a substantial cor-
relation between content knowledge and classroom assessment practices. Furthermore, these
outcomes differ from those reported by Akram et al. [37], who established a noteworthy asso-
ciation between content knowledge and the utilization of ICT during teaching practice. One
plausible explanation for these findings is that content knowledge may undergo occasional
enhancements due to changes in the curriculum, leading teachers to perceive that it might not
significantly influence their assessment practices [88]. Additionally, educators with high-qual-
ity content knowledge have the ability to seamlessly integrate subject matter expertise with
other teaching knowledge, thereby facilitating comprehensive learning and assessment [40].
Akram et al. [6] underscore the significance of content knowledge, highlighting that a strong
foundation in subject matter expertise is indispensable for effective online teaching. This
implies that teachers’ proficiency within their respective fields plays a pivotal role in their
capacity to adapt teaching methodologies and engage students in meaningful learning
experiences.
In addition, the researchers discovered a positive correlation between teachers’ content
knowledge and their assessment practises in the classroom. This result contradicts the findings
of Herman et al. [89], who discovered no direct correlation between teachers’ assessment use
and their knowledge. According to the study, when teachers devote more time to evaluating
and analysing student work, they gain valuable insights into how students’ knowledge is devel-
oping and are able to identify any potential misunderstandings or obstacles. These findings are
consistent with those of Akram et al. [6], who found that teachers in their study employed a
variety of teaching strategies and techniques. The researchers emphasise the significance of
diverse pedagogical approaches such as role modelling, narrative, and experiential activities,
emphasising the significance of interactive and engaging teaching and learning techniques.
Given the obvious relationship between pedagogical content knowledge and effective class-
room assessment practises, it is recommended that teachers prioritise encouraging and contin-
uously supporting student engagement with key subject concepts as part of their assessment
practises in order to improve student learning [4].
Next, there is also a positive association between pedagogical knowledge and classroom
assessment practices. This finding is in contrast with the findings from Depaepe & König [90],
who found that there is no relationship between pedagogical knowledge and classroom assess-
ment practices. It is generally believed that these two factors are connected and impact instruc-
tional practice [90]. Not only that, Akram et al. [6] found a crucial integration of pedagogical
content knowledge in teaching and learning. The findings indicate that teachers exhibit posi-
tive perceptions regarding pedagogical content knowledge, believing that incorporating a solid
understanding of subject matter and effective instructional strategies enhances teaching effec-
tiveness and makes the learning process more exciting, interactive, and motivating for

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 17 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

students. Nevertheless, it is crucial to help educators develop pedagogical knowledge and facili-
tate its application in the classroom to assure high-quality instruction and favourably impact
student learning outcomes [54].

Conclusion
As a conclusion, this study has significantly contributed to the existing knowledge on ESL
teachers’ professional knowledge and assessment practices in Malaysian secondary schools.
The findings indicate that ESL teachers possess a high level of professional knowledge, as dem-
onstrated by their content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content
knowledge. Furthermore, the study has identified positive correlations between pedagogical
knowledge and classroom-based assessment and between pedagogical content knowledge and
classroom-based assessment practices. In contrast, no relationship was found between content
knowledge and classroom-based assessment.
In general, this study has the potential to enhance the professional development of ESL
(English as a Second Language) teachers, which is an important contribution. By identifying
positive correlations between pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge and
classroom-based assessment practises, the research highlights the significance of these specific
domains in teacher preparation and ongoing professional development programmes. Educa-
tors and policymakers can use this information to devise targeted training modules that aim to
improve teachers’ assessment practises by enhancing their pedagogical knowledge.
In addition, the findings of the study have the implications for curriculum design and
assessment guidelines as well. The identified correlations can be considered for incorporation
into curriculum frameworks. For example, the curriculum can be structured to emphasise the
development of pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, ensuring that
teachers are well-equipped to implement classroom-based assessments. This, in turn, can
result in curricula that are more comprehensive and student-centred. Moreover, the absence
of a correlation between content knowledge and classroom-based evaluation is an intriguing
observation. It suggests that effective ESL instruction requires a more holistic approach, rather
than relying solely on content expertise. This finding challenges the conventional belief that
content expertise alone is sufficient to make a teacher effective. Consequently, teacher training
programmes can emphasise the significance of combining content knowledge and pedagogical
expertise in order to develop well-rounded educators capable of optimising student learning
outcomes.
As this study is in congruence with Akram et al.’s [6] emphasis on diverse pedagogical
approaches such as role modelling, narrative, and experiential activities, this study highlights
the importance of interactive and engaging teaching techniques. The findings call for a depar-
ture from traditional didactic teaching styles in favour of more interactive and participatory
approaches, which can foster a deeper comprehension of the subject matter and improve
assessment procedures. Finally, the study contributes to the academic field by emphasising
areas in need of additional research. The lack of a direct relationship between content knowl-
edge and classroom-based assessment, for instance, raises queries about the nuanced factors
influencing ESL teacher effectiveness. Future research can delve deeper into these variables
and investigate how they interact with teacher education and classroom dynamics. In conclu-
sion, this study’s contributions transcend the immediate context of ESL instruction in second-
ary institutions in Malaysia. They have the potential to inform pedagogical practises,
curriculum development, and teacher training programmes, which will ultimately benefit both
ESL teachers and students.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 18 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Acknowledgments
The authors sincerely thank the numerous secondary school teachers who graciously partici-
pated in the study as volunteers.

Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Rafiza Abdul Razak.
Data curation: Shahazwan Mat Yusoff, Anwar Farhan Mohamadd Marzaini.
Formal analysis: Shahazwan Mat Yusoff.
Investigation: Shahazwan Mat Yusoff, Anwar Farhan Mohamadd Marzaini.
Methodology: Shahazwan Mat Yusoff, Chin Hai Leng.
Resources: Chin Hai Leng.
Supervision: Rafiza Abdul Razak, Chin Hai Leng.
Validation: Chin Hai Leng, Anwar Farhan Mohamadd Marzaini.
Writing – original draft: Shahazwan Mat Yusoff.
Writing – review & editing: Rafiza Abdul Razak, Anwar Farhan Mohamadd Marzaini.

References
1. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia (KPM). (2018). Panduan Pelaksanaan Pentaksiran Bilik Darjah.
Putrajaya: Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum.
2. Stiggins R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan,
83(10), 758–765.
3. Yuh Tan Jia & Husaina Banu Kenayathulla. "Pentaksiran Bilik Darjah Dan Prestasi Murid Sekolah Jenis
Kebangsaan Cina Di Hulu Langat, Selangor." JuPiDi: Jurnal Kepimpinan Pendidikan 7, no. 3 (2020):
70–90.
4. Jones A., & Moreland J. (2005). The importance of pedagogical content knowledge in assessment for
learning practices: A case-study of a whole-school approach. Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 193–206.
5. Mat Yusoff S., Arepin M., & Mohd Marzaini A. F. (2022). Secondary school teachers’ perspectives
towards the implementation of CEFR-Aligned English Curriculum. Creative Practices in Language
Learning and Teaching (CPLT), 10(1), 32–48.
6. Akram H., Yingxiu Y., Al-Adwan A. S., & Alkhalifah A. (2021). Technology integration in higher educa-
tion during COVID-19: An assessment of online teaching competencies through technological pedagog-
ical content knowledge model. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.736522
PMID: 34512488
7. Mohamad Marzaini A. F., Sharil W. N. E. H., Supramaniam K., & Yusoff S. M. (2023). The Teachers’
Professional Development in The Implementation of CEFR-Aligned Classroom Based Assessment.
Asian Journal of Assessment in Teaching and Learning, 13(1), 1–14.
8. Habibi A., Riady Y., Samed Al-Adwan A., & Awni Albelbisi N. (2022). Beliefs and knowledge for pre-ser-
vice teachers’ technology integration during teaching practice: An extended theory of planned behavior.
Computers in the Schools, 40(2), 107–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2022.2124752
9. Anderson J. C., & Gerbing D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recom-
mended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.
10. Butler, S. M., & McMunn, N. D. (2006). A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Assessment: Understanding
and Using Assessment to Improve Student Learning. Jossey-Bass, An Imprint of Wiley. 10475 Cross-
point Blvd, Indianapolis, IN 46256.
11. Brookhart S. M. (2010). How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom. ASCD.
12. Stiggins R. J. (1991). Assessment literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(7), 534–539.
13. Cheng K. K., Thacker B. A., Cardenas R. L., & Crouch C. (2004). Using an online homework system
enhances students’ learning of physics concepts in an introductory physics course. American journal of
physics, 72(11), 1447–1453.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 19 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

14. Hill K., & McNamara T. (2012). Developing a comprehensive, empirically based research framework for
classroom-based assessment. Language testing, 29(3), 395–420.
15. Inbar-Lourie O., & Donitsa-Schmidt S. (2009). Exploring classroom assessment practices: The case of
teachers of English as a foreign language. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16
(2), 185–204.
16. Rhodes N. C., Rosenbusch M. H., & Thompson L. (1996). Foreign languages: Instruments, techniques,
and standards. In Handbook of classroom assessment (pp. 381–415). Academic Press.
17. Qu W., & Zhang C. (2013). The Analysis of Summative Assessment and Formative Assessment and
Their Roles in College English Assessment System. Journal Of Language Teaching & Research, 4(2).
18. Ananda S., & Rabinowitz S. (2000). The High Stakes of HIGH-STAKES Testing. Policy Brief.
19. Hawes Z., Nosworthy N., Archibald L., & Ansari D. (2019). Kindergarten children’s symbolic number
comparison skills relates to 1st grade mathematics achievement: Evidence from a two-minute paper-
and-pencil test. Learning and Instruction, 59, 21–33.
20. Windschitl M. (1999). The challenges of sustaining a constructivist classroom culture. Phi Delta Kap-
pan, 80(10), 751.
21. Saeed M., Tahir H., & Latif I. (2018). Teachers’ Perceptions about the Use of Classroom Assessment
Techniques in Elementary and Secondary Schools. Bulletin of Education and Research, 40(1), 115–130.
22. Black P., & Wiliam D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in education: Princi-
ples, policy & practice, 25(6), 551–575.
23. Stiggins R. (2010). Essential formative assessment competencies for teachers and school leaders. In
Handbook of formative Assessment (pp. 233–250). Routledge.
24. Clark I. (2010). Formative assessment: ‘There is nothing so practical as a good theory’. Australian Jour-
nal of Education, 54(3), 341–352.
25. Johannesen M. (2013). The role of virtual learning environments in a primary school context: An analy-
sis of inscription of assessment practices. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 302–313.
26. Lipnevich A. A., McCallen L. N., Miles K. P., & Smith J. K. (2014). Mind the gap! Students’ use of exem-
plars and detailed rubrics as formative assessment. Instructional Science, 42(4), 539–559.
27. Van der Kleij F. M., Vermeulen J. A., Schildkamp K., & Eggen T. J. (2015). Integrating data-based deci-
sion making, assessment for learning and diagnostic testing in formative assessment. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(3), 324–343.
28. Dixson D. D., & Worrell F. C. (2016). Formative and summative assessment in the classroom. Theory
into practice, 55(2), 153–159.
29. Buyukkarci K. (2014). Assessment beliefs and practices of language teachers in primary education.
International Journal of instruction, 7(1).
30. Allen J., Gregory A., Mikami A., Lun J., Hamre B., & Pianta R. (2013). Observations of effective
teacher–student interactions in secondary school classrooms: Predicting student achievement with the
classroom assessment scoring system—secondary. School psychology review, 42(1), 76–98. PMID:
28931966
31. Puad L. M. A. Z., & Ashton K. (2021). Teachers’ views on classroom-based assessment: an exploratory
study at an Islamic boarding school in Indonesia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 41(2), 253–265.
32. Almusharraf N., & Engemann J. (2020). Postsecondary instructors’ perspectives on teaching English
as a Foreign Language by means of a multimodal digital literacy approach. International Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(18), 86–107.
33. Harris L. R., & Brown G. T. (2009). The complexity of teachers’ conceptions of assessment: Tensions
between the needs of schools and students. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,
16(3), 365–381.
34. Santos I. T. R., Barreto D. A. B., & Soares C. V. C. O. (2020). Formative Assessment in the classroom:
the dialogue between teachers and students. Journal of Research and Knowledge Spreading, 1(1),
e11483.
35. Baghoussi M. (2021). Teacher-centered approach prevalence in Algerian secondary-school EFL clas-
ses: The case of English Teachers and learners in Mostaganem district. Arab World English Journal
(AWEJ) Volume, 12.
36. Mohamad Marzaini A. F., & Yusoff S. B. M. (2022). Assessing CEFR-Readiness Test in Malaysian ESL
Classroom: An Insight from English Language Teachers in Pulau Pinang. Asian Journal of Assessment
in Teaching and Learning, 12(1), 1–9.
37. Da-Hong L., Hong-Yan L., Wei L., Guo J. J., & En-Zhong L. (2020). Application of flipped classroom
based on the Rain Classroom in the teaching of computer-aided landscape design. Computer Applica-
tions in Engineering Education, 28(2), 357–366.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 20 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

38. Shulman L. S. (1986). Those who understand: A conception of teacher knowledge. American Educator,
10(1).
39. König J., Blömeke S., Paine L., Schmidt W. H., & Hsieh F. J. (2011). General pedagogical knowledge of
future middle school teachers: On the complex ecology of teacher education in the United States, Ger-
many, and Taiwan. Journal of teacher education, 62(2), 188–201.
40. Ma’rufi, Budayasa I. K., & Juniati D. (2018). Pedagogical content knowledge: teacher’s knowledge of
students in learning mathematics on the limit of function subject. Journal of Physics: Conference Series,
954(1), 012002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/954/1/012002
41. Gess-Newsome J., Cardenas S., Austin B., Carlson J., Gardner A., Stuhlsatz M., Wilson C. (2011).
Impact of educative materials and transformative professional development on teachers’ PCK, practice,
and student achievement. (Paper set presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching, Orlando, FL).
42. Gess-Newsome J., Taylor J. A., Carlson J., Gardner A. L., Wilson C. D., & Stuhlsatz M. A. (2019).
Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement. International Journal of
Science Education, 41(7), 944–963.
43. Park S., & Oliver J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge
(PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in science Educa-
tion, 38(3), 261–284.
44. Mat Yusoff S., Leng C. H., Razak R. A., & Marzaini A. F. M. (2023). Towards Successful Assessment
Practice: Examining Secondary School Teachers’ conceptions of assessment. JuKu: Jurnal Kurikulum
& Pengajaran Asia Pasifik, 11(1), 1–7.
45. Mat Yusoff S., Leng C. H., Razak R. A., & Marzaini A. F. (2022). Determining Conceptions of Assess-
ment among In-Service Secondary School Teachers. International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences, 12(12), 686–698.
46. Minor E. C., Desimone L., Lee J. C., & Hochberg E. D. (2016). Insights on how to shape teacher learn-
ing policy: The role of teacher content knowledge in explaining differential effects of professional devel-
opment. Education Policy Analysis Archives/Archivos Analı́ticos de Polı́ticas Educativas, 24, 1–34.
47. Liontou M. (2021). Conceptions of Assessment as an Integral Part of Language Learning: A Case
Study of Finnish and Chinese University Students. Languages, 6(4), 202.
48. Jung Youn S. (2023). Test design and validity evidence of interactive speaking assessment in the era of
emerging technologies. Language Testing, 40(1), 54–60.
49. Phothongsunan S. (2020). Teachers’ conceptions of the CLT approach in English language education.
Journal of Educational and Social Research, 10(4), 121–127.
50. Savić, V. (2020). Towards a Context-Sensitive Theory of Practice in Primary English Language Teach-
ing Through Theme-Based Instruction in Serbia. In Contemporary Foundations for Teaching English as
an Additional Language (pp. 77–88). Routledge.
51. Borko H., & Putnam R. T. (1996). Learning to teach.
52. Mohamad Marzaini A. F., Sharil W. N. E. H., Supramaniam K., & Yusoff S. M. (2023). Evaluating Teach-
ers’ Assessment Literacy in Enacting Cefr-Aligned Classroom-Based Assessment in Malaysian Sec-
ondary Schools ESL Classroom. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education
and Development, 12(1), 661–675.
53. Dadvand B., & Behzadpoor F. (2020). Pedagogical knowledge in English language teaching: A lifelong-
learning, complex-system perspective. London Review of Education.
54. Kind V., & Chan K. K. (2019). Resolving the amalgam: connecting pedagogical content knowledge, con-
tent knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 41(7), 964–978.
55. Nind M. (2020). A new application for the concept of pedagogical content knowledge: teaching
advanced social science research methods. Oxford Review of Education, 46(2), 185–201.
56. F Mudin V. (2019). An Investigation into English Teachers’ Understandings and Practices of Formative
Assessment in the Malaysian Primary ESL Classroom: Three Case Studies (Doctoral dissertation, Uni-
versity of East Anglia).
57. Abeywickrama P. (2021). Classroom Assessment Practices In An L2 Oral Skills Class. European Jour-
nal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 10(1), 45–61.
58. Ducar C. (2022). SHL Teacher Development and Critical Language Awareness: From Engaño to
Understanding. Languages, 7(3), 182.
59. Singleton R. A., & Straits B. C. (2012). Survey interviewing. The SAGE handbook of interview research:
The complexity of the craft, 77–98.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 21 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

60. Goggin, S. E. (2018) A qualitative study of the implementation formative assessment strategies in the
classroom (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/docview/2551278456?
pqorigsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true.
61. Chappuis, J., Stiggins, R. J., Chappuis, S., & Arter, J. (2012). Classroom assessment for student learn-
ing: Doing it right-using it well (p. 432). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
62. Lynn M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing research. PMID:
3640358
63. Hong Q. N., Pluye P., Fàbregues S., Bartlett G., Boardman F., Cargo M., et al. (2019). Improving the
content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study. Journal of clinical epide-
miology, 111, 49–59.
64. Hair J. F., Jr, Matthews L. M., Matthews R. L., & Sarstedt M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated
guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107–123.
65. Rigdon E. E., Sarstedt M., & Ringle C. M. (2017). On comparing results from CB-SEM and PLS-SEM:
Five perspectives and five recommendations. Marketing: ZFP–Journal of Research and Management,
39(3), 4–16.
66. Chin W. W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS quarterly,
vii–xvi.
67. Haenlein M., & Kaplan A. M. (2004). A beginner’s guide to partial least squares analysis. Understanding
statistics, 3(4), 283–297.
68. Wold H. (1974). Causal flows with latent variables: partings of the ways in the light of NIPALS modelling.
European economic review, 5(1), 67–86.
69. Sekaran U., & Bougie R. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. john wiley
& sons.
70. Byrne B. M. (2016). Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Pro-
gramming ( 3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
71. Ramayah T. J. F. H., Cheah J., Chuah F., Ting H., & Memon M. A. (2018). Partial least squares struc-
tural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using smartPLS 3.0. An updated guide and practical guide to statis-
tical analysis.
72. Franke G., & Sarstedt M. (2019). Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: a compari-
son of four procedures. Internet Research, 29(3), 430–447.
73. Diamantopoulos A., & Siguaw J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational
measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British journal of management, 17
(4), 263–282.
74. Rosseel Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of statistical soft-
ware, 48, 1–36.
75. Koh J. H. L., Chai C. S., & Tsai C. C. (2014). Demographic factors, TPACK constructs, and teachers’
perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(1),
185–196.
76. Luik P., Taimalu M., & Suviste R. (2018). Perceptions of technological, pedagogical and content knowl-
edge (TPACK) among pre-service teachers in Estonia. Education and Information Technologies, 23
(2), 741–755.
77. Schmidt D. A., Baran E., Thompson A. D., Mishra P., Koehler M. J., & Shin T. S. (2009). Technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) the development and validation of an assessment instrument
for preservice teachers. Journal of research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149.
78. Cronbach L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika, 16(3),
297–334.
79. Hair J. F., Anderson R. E., Babin B. J., & Black W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global per-
spective (Vol. 7).
80. Pallant J. (2013). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS ( 5th
ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
81. Hair J. F., Ringle C. M., & Sarstedt M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing the-
ory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.
82. Hair J. F., Risher J. J., Sarstedt M., & Ringle C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of
PLS-SEM. European business review, 31(1), 2–24.
83. Knock N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM. International Journal of E-Collaboration, 11(4),
1–10.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 22 / 23

PLOS ONE Evaluating Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

84. Ringle, C., Da Silva, D., & Bido, D. (2015). Structural equation modeling with the SmartPLS. Bido, D.,
da Silva, D., & Ringle, C. (2014). Structural Equation Modeling with the Smartpls. Brazilian Journal of
Marketing, 13(2).
85. Podsakoff N. P., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J. Y., & Podsakoff N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied
psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 PMID: 14516251
86. Bollen K. A., & Long J. S. (1992). Tests for structural equation models: introduction. Sociological Meth-
ods & Research, 21(2), 123–131.
87. Moh’d S. S., Uwamahoro J., Joachim N., & Orodho J. A. (2021). Assessing the Level of Secondary
Mathematics Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science
and Technology Education, 17(6).
88. Novak E., & Wisdom S. (2018). Effects of 3D printing project-based learning on preservice elementary
teachers’ science attitudes, science content knowledge, and anxiety about teaching science. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 27(5), 412–432.
89. Herman J., Osmundson E., Dai Y., Ringstaff C., & Timms M. (2015). Investigating the dynamics of for-
mative Assessment: Relationships between teacher knowledge, assessment practice and learning.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(3), 344–367.
90. Depaepe F., & König J. (2018). General pedagogical knowledge, self-efficacy and instructional practice:
Disentangling their relationship in pre-service teacher education. Teaching and teacher education, 69,
177–190.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293325 December 29, 2023 23 / 23