TEACHERS PEDAGOGICAL AND CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

IN DEVELOPING DAILY LESSON PLAN

Anita Primus, Sairah Husin, Naldo Janius & Zainudin Hassan
Faculty of Education
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

ABSTRACT : This research is to understand teachers pedagogical content

knowledge in developing daily lesson plan by determining teachers level of
knowledge, ability in applying the knowledge, issues hindering the application and
proposals for improvement. This is in line with changes made to the English
language programs which indicated the government high expectation on its effective
implementation. The research involved 113 English language teachers from 18
secondary schools in the District of Kulai. The research was done quantitatively and
qualitatively, using questionnaires and interviews as instruments for collecting data.
Quantitatively data were analysed using
Statistical Packages of the Social
Sciences (SPSS) and open coding method to analyse qualitative data. The findings
showed that the respondents are knowledgeable in both especially content knowledge
but differ in their application. The application of their pedagogical knowledge is very
limited as compared to content knowledge due to lacking of in-depth comprehension,
school common practices, time constraint and the introduction of new English
language programs which require the application of current pedagogy methods and
approaches. Content wise, the findings showed that the teachers have no significant
issues because they have annual lesson plan as reference and guidance. The findings
also showed that to have an effective English language lesson, teachers are to be
assisted continuously for the betterment of their professional development.
Keywords : application, pedagogical content knowledge, daily lesson plan,
continuous professional development
ABSTRAK : Kajian ini adalah untuk memahami pengetahuan kandungan dan
pedagogi guru dalam membangunkan rancangan pelajaran harian dengan mengkaji
tahap pengetahuan, keupayaan dalam mengaplikasi pengetahuan tersebut, isu-isu
yang menghalang pengaplikasiannya dan cadangan penambahbaikan. Ini adalah
selaras dengan ekspektasi yang tinggi oleh kerajaan terhadap keberkesanan
program-program baharu Bahasa Inggeris. Kajian ini telah melibatkan 113guru-guru
Bahasa Inggeris dari 18 buah sekolah menengah di daerah Kulai. Kajian ini telah
dilakukan secara kuantitatif dan kualitatif, menggunakan borang soal selidik dan
temubual sebagai instrumen untuk mengumpul data. Data kuantitatif telah dianalisis
dengan menggunakan "Statistical pakej of the sosial Sciences" (SPSS) manakala data
kualitatif secara pengekodan terbuka. Melalui dapatan kajian didapati bahawa
responden mempunyai kedua-dua ilmu kandungan dan pedagogi tetapi tahap
pengaplikasian yang berbeza. Pengaplikasian pengetahuan pedagogi adalah sangat
terhad disebabkan kefahaman yang kurang mendalam, kekangan masa, amalan biasa
sekolah dan pengenalan program-program Bahasa Inggeris baharu yang memerlukan
penggunaan pendekatan dan kaedah-kaedah pedagogi semasa. Responden tidak
mempunyai isu signifikan berkaitan pengaplikasian pengetahuan kandungan kerana
mereka mempunyai rancangan pengajaran tahunan sebagai rujukan. Hasil kajian
menunjukkan untuk pembelajaran Bahasa Inggeris yang berkesan guru-guru perlu
sentiasa dibantu dalam penambahbaikan pembangunan profesional mereka.
Kata kunci : aplikasi, pengetahuan pedagogi dan kandungan, rancangan
pengajaran harian, pembangunan profesional yang berterusan

Introduction
Malaysia education system has been going through changes and
improvements. The changes and improvements are done in ensuring the best and
relevant education is provided in accordance to the needs of globalization and at the
same time preserving the Malaysians characteristics (Malaysia Education Blue Print
2006-2010) . To be able to compete globally the importance of English language has
always been the priority of the Ministry of Education.
Many programs and policies have been introduced and implemented in the
education system. For example in 2003, the government has introduced policies on
the use of English language in the teaching and learning of science and Mathematics
(PPSMI). On 25 January 2010, a basic education circular No. 2/2010 has been
issued on the policy of 'to uphold the Malay language and strengthening the English
language (MBMMBI) which has gradually replaced PPSMI. Since 2013, with the
implementation of Malaysia Education Plan (PPPM) 2013-2025, the importance of
English language has again been emphasized clearly by the government under one of
the pupils aspirations. It stated that pupils should be bilingually competent that is in
Malay language and English language by the end of their school years.
In ensuring the success of the education plan, among the changes made were,
commencing from 2014 Pentaksiran Tingkatan 3, (PT3) was introduced to replace
Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR) which revised and upgraded the way how
English language is to be taught and examined. Apart from that, under the same
plan, the implementation of programs like Oral Proficiency in English for Secondary
School (OPS English) and English Literacy for primary schools had actually
demanded teachers to have specific pedagogical and content knowledge.
Hence this research was to understand English language teachers
pedagogical and content knowledge level of competency and ability in developing
daily lesson plan. In line with the English language education development a good
planning together with quality and performance of teaching skills is significant in
ensuring a success lesson (Richard, 2011; Bolke, 2011; Moseley, 2002). According
to Malaysia Education Circular vol. 3/1999, developing and implementing daily
lessons plan is a teachers responsibility. The quality and success of a lesson is in the
hand of a teacher (Fredriksson, 2004). A systematic and well planned lesson plan,
coupled with proper teaching method and technic should be able to guide, promote
and motivate pupils to learn ( Mok Soon Sang, 2004; Burden, 2003; Guskey,
1994).
However in Kulai District, through reports, meetings and observation made in
2014, it was found out that the development of daily lesson plan among the
secondary schools English language teachers is an issue to be seriously discussed.
The teachers as evidenced by the score given in Standard 4 of the Malaysia
Education Standard Quality observation instrument have yet to achieve score 6
which is the highest score in the instrument. This is an area worth to be researched
because indirectly it indicates that not only teachers were unable to develop daily
lesson plan based on the English Language Scheme of Work (2002) but also failed
to show the best method and approach in delivering the lesson. Teachers must
execute the teaching and learning process according to the determined learning areas
such as the intrapersonal, interpersonal and aesthetic which involve the skills of
reading, writing and speaking. To put that into implementation, teachers should have
the proper pedagogical and content knowledge in preparing the lesson. As described
by Shulman (1987) the 7 components of knowledge bases for the teaching profession
which include pedagogical and content knowledge should be mastered by teachers.

Questions on why the teachers were unable to develop a proper and effective
daily lesson plan despite being English language graduate teachers is an issue that
need to be understood. Findings made by Kizlik (2014) which is also the issue
among the English language secondary schools in Kulai, is teachers tendency to
ignore or forget to imply their pedagogical and content knowledge while developing
their lesson plane.
Darling-Hammond (1991) cited several studies demonstrating that teachers admitted
to the teaching profession through alternative programs (e.g., emergency licensure,
private schools, and out of content assignments) had difficulty with pedagogical
content knowledge and curriculum development. To connect the studies into local
situation, English language teachers in Kulai secondary schools are combinations of
product from Kursus Perguruan Lepasan Ijazah or KPLI (teaching course for
graduates) which undergone teaching training in teaching institutes for a year or less
and teachers teaching English language based on immersion short courses.
Other than reasons on professional issues, past studies have also found that
the profession of teaching is a career with high work pressure. Cooper (1995), Hart
et al., (1995) and Mokhtar (1998), stated that teachers' pressure can be defined as
feeling uncomfortable, negative emotions such as anger, anxiety, stress and
frustration would result in teachers failure to adopt to the educational development
changes (Zainab, 2008). Support and role of school administrators are also an area to
be discussed. In Kulai District secondary schools out of 18 schools there were only 3
administrators who are English language option. Indirectly it is an indication on how
support is given to the teachers and treatment being done to their lesson.
Based on the background and problems statements mentioned above the
research on teachers pedagogical and content knowledge in developing daily lesson
plan studied the aspects of teachers pedagogical and content knowledge
competency, ability in applying the knowledge, issues that may hinder the
application and assistance to be given to teachers in areas where the knowledge could
be properly and rightly applied in developing daily lesson plan.
METHODS
For the purpose of gathering in-depth information on teachers pedagogical
and content knowledge in developing daily lesson plan the researcher decided to use
both research designs quantitative and qualitative. This is because proper usage of
method would ensure that the data collected could be gathered in the most effective
way (Mohd Majid, 2004). For both methods, the researcher used the technique of
purposive sampling which aimed at samples with specific considerations and
determination (Azizi Yahaya, et al., 2006; Given, 2008; Merriam, 1998; Patton,
2002; Wikipedia, 2009).
Quantitatively, questionnaires were used and for qualitative design, the
researcher used case study method, by exploring teachers answers and statements
through interviews as the research instruments. Research instruments are tools for
measuring, observing or documenting data and are identified before the researcher
collects the data (Cresswell, 2012). Before the actual research took place, a pilot test
on both methods was done. By the pilot test it could give advance warning about
where the main research project could fail, where research protocols may not be
followed, or whether proposed methods or instruments are inappropriate or too
complicated. It was also to ensure that the researcher was ready for the major
study" (Polit et al., 2001: 467) and as the pre-testing or 'trying out' of a particular
research instrument (Baker 1994: 182-3).

Quantitative Method; Questionnaires

Questionnaires were used in this research to find information on among
others, beliefs, feelings and needs which would enhance the accuracy and truth of
feedback received from the respondents (Mohd Majid Konting, 2004). A total of 113
English language teachers from 18 secondary schools in the District of Kulai have
answered the research questionnaires. The respondents were not labelled.
The questionnaires contained 38 items and divided into five sections; A, B,
C, D and E. Likert Scale of five options was used for the purpose of analysing the
questionnaires. All data were analysed by percentage (%) based on the frequency
scale of item chose by respondents using the Statistical Package Social Science
(SPSS) in order to determine the mean, frequency and the percentage of each item.
Qualitative Method; Interview
The interviews were conducted to collect more in-depth data. Although
interview is time consuming, it has impressive advantages (Shaughnessy,
Zachmeister and Zechmester, 2003), because it had opened up broader concepts
towards understanding teachers pedagogical and content knowledge in developing
daily lesson plan and had helped the researcher to gather large amount of information
on the topic which was not covered by the questionnaires.
3 respondents, 2 males and a female were selected from the same school so
that focused and in-depth responses could be gathered because answers or responses
would be referring to the same environment. The female respondent has been
teaching for more than 8 years and the other two more than 2 and 5 years
respectively. All of them are graduate teachers. The respondents were labelled as R1,
R2 and R3.
8 semi-structured interview questions were used as according to Merriem
(2002), semi-structured question in interview is flexible in nature and would enable
respondents to explain their statements to researcher. Sub questions were asked in
situations where participants response to the initial questions did not cover certain
topics of interest (Gay & Airasian, 2006). All respondents were asked identical
questions, in the same sequence, but the researcher probed inductively on key
responses.
To analyse data gathered from the interviews open coding or Constant
comparative method (CCM) as suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) was
used. Coding can simply be referred to the means by which the data are broken
down, conceptualised and put back to gather in a new ways (Strauss and Corbin,
1990). It is the process of segmenting and labelling text to form descriptions and
broad themes in the data (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Cresswell, 2012; & Dey, 2004).
Data gathered from both methods would not only define a new prospect but
also would assist in triangulating the questionnaires in answering 4 research
questions;
i.
ii.

What are the level of teachers pedagogical and content

knowledge?
Do the teachers know what and how to apply their
pedagogical and content knowledge while developing
daily lesson plan?

iii.

What are the issues involves in the application of their

pedagogical and content knowledge in the development
of daily lesson plan?
iv. How would the teachers be assisted to maximise their pedagogical and
content knowledge in developing a daily lesson plan?

RESULTS

Questionnaires Data Analysis

Section A; Respondents Background
Gender
Table 4.1: Distribution Of Respondents Background According To Gender
Gender
Number
Male
38
Female
75
Total
113

Percentage
33.63
66.37
100%

Age
Table 4.2 : Distribution Of Respondents Age
Respondents Age
25-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
Above 46

Number
48
40
15
5
5

Percentage
42.48
35.40
13.27
4.42
4.42

Table 4.3 : Distribution Of Respondents Education Qualification.

Education Qualification
Number
Certificate in Teaching
1
Diploma In Education
14
Bachelor In Education
75
Master In Education
6
Diploma In Education/KPLI
17

Percentage
0.88
12.39
66.37
5.31
15.04

Educational Qualification

Teaching Experience
Table 4.4 : Distribution Of Respondents Teaching Experience
Teaching Experience
1 5 years
6 10 years
11 15 years
More than 15 years

Number
50
40
14
9

Percentage
44.25
35.40
12.39
7.96

Section B
Table 4.5 : Pedagogical And Content Knowledge Competency
Mean Average
No
Item
(Total Number of Respondents)
NC
LC
FC
C
1
Syllabus Knowledge of Subject Taught
0.88
12.39
28.32
(1)
(14)
(32)
2
Content Knowledge of Subject Taught
4.42
35.40
(5)
(40)
3
Methods of Teaching
0.88
10.62
62.83
(1)
(12)
(71)
4
Approach of Teaching
0.88
10.62
63.72
(1)
(12)
(72)
5
Style of teaching
0.88
8.85
65.49
(1)
(10)
(74)
6
Daily Lesson Plan Format
4.42
44.25
(5)
(50)

VC
58.41
(66)
60.18
(68)
25.66
(29)
24.78
(28)
24.78
(28)
51.33
(58)

Mean
SD
4.44
0.74
4.56
0.58
4.13
0.62
4.12
0.61
4.14
0.60
4.47
0.58

6
7

Daily Lesson Plan Writing Model

-

Content Knowledge of Current English

Language Curriculum Programs

0.88
(1)

10.62
(12)
7.96
(9)

59.29
(67)
62.83
(71)

30.09
(34)
28.32
(32)

4.19
0.61
4.19
0.61

Section C
Table 4.6 Pedagogical Knowledge
N
o
1

Item

Mean Average
(Total Number of Respondents)
SD
-

D
-

6.19
(7)
5.32
(6)
4.42
(5)
0.88
(1)

I know what is meant by pedagogical

knowledge
I know all the teaching styles

I know all the teaching approaches

I know all the teaching methods

I am able to apply my pedagogical

knowledge every time when developing
my daily lesson plan
I am able to indicate all the teaching
styles in my daily lesson plan
I am able to indicate all the teaching
approaches in my daily lesson plan
I am able to indicate all the teaching
methods in my daily lesson plan
I am able to plan appropriate learning
tasks based on my students
competency
I would refer to my reflection before
developing my next daily lesson plan

1.77
(2)

5
6
7
8
9
10

2.65
(3)
0.88
(1)
-

4.42
(5)

Mean
SD

NS
6.19
(7)
16.81
(19)
19.47
(22)
23.89
(27)
17.70
(20)

A
51.33
(58)
65.49
(74)
57.52
(65)
63.72
(72)
67.26
(76)

SA
42.48
(48)
11.50
(13)
17.70
(20)
7.90
(9)
12.39
(14)

4.36
0.60
3.82
0.71
3.88
0.76
3.75
0.66
3.88
0.70

19.47
(22)
22.12
(25)
12.39
(14)
2.65
(3)

64.60
(73)
65.49
(74)
73.45
(83)
75.22
(85)

13.27
(15)
11.50
(13)
14.16
(16)
22.12
(25)

3.88
0.65
3.88
0.60
4.02
0.52
4.19
0.46

25.66
(29)

53.98
(61)

15.93
(18)

3.81
0.75

Section D
Table 4.7 Content Knowledge
No.

Item

I have sufficient knowledge on the

English language syllabus
I have sufficient knowledge on the
content of the English language subject
I know what to teach based on the
content of the English language subject
I know all the documents needed to be
referred to in developing daily lesson
plan
I refer to all the concerned documents
when developing my daily lesson plan
I develop my daily lesson plan based on
the content of the English language
subject
I am aware of the current English
language programs (for example SET
System and OPS-English)

2
3
4
5
6
7

Mean Average
(Total Number of Respondents)
SD
-

Mean
SD

D
3.54
(4)
1.77
(2)
0.88
(1)
-

NS
7.08
(8)
4.42
(5)
2.65
(3)
1.77
(2)

A
45.13
(51)
31.86
(36)
44.25
(50)
40.71
(46)

SA
44.25
(50)
61.95
(70)
52.21
(59)
57.52
(65)

4.30
0.75
4.54
0.67
4.48
0.60
4.56
0.53

3.54
(4)
-

54.87
(62)
53.10
(60)

41.59
(67)
46.90
(53)

4.38
0.56
4.47
0.50

15.04
(17)

55.75
(63)

29.20
(33)

4.14
4.14

7
8

I have sufficient content knowledge of

the programs to develop my daily
lesson plan

18.58
(21)

50.44
(57)

30.97
(35)

4.12
0.70

Section E
Table 4.8 : Issues On The Implementation Of Pedagogical Content Knowledge In Developing Daily Lesson
Plan
Mean Average (%)
No. Item
(Total Number of Respondents)
Mean
N
S
ST
O
VO
1
I am able to develop a proper daily
8.85
67.26
23.89
4.15
lesson plan for all my lessons
(10)
(76)
(270
0.55
2
My lesson plan is developed based on
19.47
73.45
7.08
3.88
the content to be taught
(22)
(83)
(8)
0.50
3
My lesson plan is developed based on
8.85
76.99
14.16
4.05
how I planned to teach the lesson
(10)
(87)
(16)
0.48
4
I have ample time to develop my daily
1.77
7.96
66.37
23.89
4.11
lesson plan
(2)
(9)
(75)
(27)
0.69
5
My lesson plan is developed every
1.77
14.16
69.03
15.04
3.96
time before I enter a class to teach.
(2)
(16)
(78)
(17)
0.67
6
I would develop my daily lesson plan
0.88
40.71
50.44
7.96
3.65
first before doing other duties
(1)
(46)
(57)
(9)
0.67
7
I develop my own daily lesson plan
0.88
9.73
38.94
46.02
4.42
3.43
based on my pedagogical and content
(1)
(11)
(44)
(52)
(5)
0.76
knowledge
8
I use samples of lesson plan from the
65.4
11.50
10.62
9.73
2.65
1.73
internet
(74)
(13)
(12)
(11)
(3)
1.15
9
I have colleagues who are
3.54
7.96
12.39
58.41
17.70
3.79
knowledgeable in the development of
(4)
(9)
(14)
(66)
(20)
0.95
daily lesson plan
10 My school emphasize on the proper
0.88
2.65
6.19
55.75
34.51
4.20
way of developing a daily lesson plan
(1)
(3)
(7)
(63)
(39)
0.75
11 I have been given enough trainings on
0.88
10.62
66.37
22.12
4.10
how to develop a daily lesson plan
(1)
(12)
(75)
(25)
0.60
12 My record book is checked by a non5.37
0.88
5.31
44.25
44.25
4.21
option administrator
(6)
(1)
(6)
(50)
(50)
0.99

Interview Data Analysis

This section concerns on the data related to interviews which were done to
further understand teachers pedagogical and content knowledge in developing daily
lesson plan. Based on 8 open ended questions as shown in table 4.8 below subtopics
were discussed supported with quotations from the gathered interview data. The
researcher employed the conditional relationship guide Scott (2004), to give focus in
the research by answering the what, where, how and who questions. After being
itemised and themed in the open coding analysis the researcher was able to identify 4
themes; knowledge factors, application and common practice, hindrances, and
support system.
Table 4.8 : Interview Questions
1 What do you understand by pedagogical and content knowledge?
2 Where did you first learn or know about the knowledge?
3 In developing your daily lesson plan, how do you apply your pedagogical and content knowledge? Why
4 Examples of pedagogical content and knowledge that you normally use?
5 When do you prepare your daily lesson plan? Why?
6 In your opinion how do pedagogical and content knowledge significant in developing daily lesson plan?
7 How do you consider your pedagogical and content knowledge in developing your daily lesson plan as
oppose to the current demand on English language?
8
In what situation would you be able to develop a good or complete daily lesson plan, with all the
pedagogic

8
and content knowledge included?

DISCUSSIONS
The discussion would try to answer the 4 research questions. The first one on
teachers level of pedagogical content knowledge, as shown in table 5.5, majority of
the respondents claimed to be very competent in content knowledge as oppose to
pedagogical knowledge which comprises of methods, approach and style of teaching.
Even though they are equally very competent in knowing the format of daily lesson
plan, not many are very competently knowledgeable in the model of daily lesson
plan.
The findings are in line with data from interview questions 1, 4 and 5 where
all 3 respondents were very confident and affirmative when answering questions on
content knowledge. They know how and what content knowledge to be put into
practice because it has been prepared or outlined in their annual scheme of work
which was prepared at the district level. Contrary to their pedagogical knowledge, no
respondent was either able to give a proper answer nor answer the question
confidently. Answers given were short and very general.
Section C of the questionnaires on pedagogical knowledge showed that
majority of the respondents agreed on knowing what is meant by pedagogical
knowledge and know all the teaching styles, approaches and methods as shown in
table 5.6. Section D on content knowledge as shown in table 5.7 showed that
majority respondents strongly agreed that they know all the documents needed to be
referred to in developing daily lesson plan. With reference to that, as discussed
earlier on, the document referred to is RPT. Not only that they refer to the
document, they also have sufficient knowledge and developed their daily lesson
plan based on it.
However, even though the number of respondents who are knowledgeable
in content is significant, there are respondents who do not sufficiently acquire
English language syllabus knowledge, content knowledge of the subject and do not
know how to teach based on the content knowledge. This is due to changes in text,
especially literature which intervened with their existing knowledge and would take
time before they can develop a proper plan. Other than that they agreed that they
need to update their knowledge based on the 21st Century Education as evidenced
by the data gathered from the third interview questions which asked the respondents
on how they consider their pedagogical and content knowledge in developing daily
lesson plan as oppose to the current demand on English language.
All 3 statements or scenario are anticipated as teachers practice their craft in
highly complex, dynamic classroom contexts that require them constantly to shift
and evolve their understanding (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986). Other than that
pedagogical content knowledge develops with teachers experience (Lee, 2011;
Abell, 2008; Davis et al., 2006). It is a cyclical process whereby teachers transform,
reflect and evaluate their practice and continue to learn as they develop their practice
and is fundamental for effective teaching (Magnusson et al., 1999).
In answering the second question on do teachers know what and how to
apply their pedagogical and content knowledge in the development of daily lesson
plan, as tabled in table 5.6, even though majority of the respondents claimed that
they know what is meant by pedagogical knowledge, when questions sought to see
the application of the knowledge in their daily lesson plan and whether they can
indicate the knowledge in writing, they are unsure as to whether they can do so
based on their students competency. According to Souza (2001), students

achievement in a lesson, relates on how a teacher plans his lesson in which it

depends largely on the knowledge base that the teacher uses in designing his plans
and, perhaps more important, on the instructional techniques he selects during the
lessons .
The above choice of answer, is in a way being agreed by respondents who
were interviewed. Questions 3 which asked the respondent on how and why they
apply their pedagogical and content knowledge in developing daily lesson plan,
revealed that they planed their lesson, based on content and activities, which were
mostly the same. They would only write the content in full but not the pedagogy.
Here, RPT or yearly scheme of work, seems to be a very important document for
the respondents because every time they develop their daily lesson plan, they
claimed that they would refer to their RPT. In developing their lesson plan, unlike
content knowledge, pedagogy, which refers to class activities would only be written
in general as their guideline. They never wrote their activities in full or
constructively. Reasons given because for them it is more to action rather than
writing.
To answer the third question, issues in developing daily lesson plan
pertaining to the application of pedagogical and content knowledge questionnaires
data showed that the biggest issue raised by the respondents is the checking of their
record book by English language non-option administrator. This is a very ironic
situation since the second highest score is on the emphasis made by schools on the
proper way of developing daily lesson plan. Even though the teachers are often
given trainings on daily lesson plan development, enforcement of the effectiveness
of the trainings is questionable since the one who is doing the checking is a nonoption administrator. Hence not only mistakes or improperness could not be
detected and remedied, teachers would assume that they are developing their daily
lesson plan correctly. Abell (2008) acknowledges that pedagogical and content
knowledge differs from one discipline to another. For example teaching English
language is different from teaching Chemistry. This implies that when an
administrator is checking on maters which relates to pedagogical and content
knowledge outside his area of expertise he must first need to develop knowledge on
the subject he is checking. Otherwise, record book which on normal practice is
handed over to the administrator for checking may be said as a mere routine check
regardless of the quality or value of the planning made. One of the interviewees,
R2 mentioned that as long as he wrote his record book he is safe because it is being
checked by a non-option administrator.
Other than that, issues on time constraint due to on non-academic duties and
responsibilities has actually limiting and hampering teachers ability and availability
in developing their lesson plan. From the questionnaires, it is found out that majority
teachers very often do not have ample time to develop their daily lesson plan before
entering a class to teach. As according to Daeng Ramli (1993) teachers are always
being burdened by unrelated duties.
The above finding is in accordance with responses in answering
questions 6 and 7. Apart from doing and implementing their duties and
responsibilities other non-academic duties and clerical work are deemed to be
equally important to be dealt with. This is in line with past research conducted
by Mohamad Fauzi (1991), who found many teachers often cannot perform the
task as teachers well due to burdened with external tasks. Not to mention the
number of teaching periods some teachers have attend to which has actually in
a way depriving them the time which they need to develop their daily lesson

10

plan. Chei (1996) concluded in his research that huge number of classes for a
teacher to teach may hinder him from doing his job well. Another issue that
worth to be discussed is the rapid changes in the education system itself
especially concerning the teaching of English language. Data provided by the
interview done to the 3 respondents revealed that due to limited information
available, not enough exposure or trainings given, inconsistent and demanding
instruction has caused them to feel left out, awry and depressed.
Next, the system itself. Other than the changes and introduction of new
programs for the teaching of English language that caused teachers to be unable
to develop a well daily lesson plan the existing exam oriented system has
influenced the way teachers develop their lesson plan. As explained by all 3
respondents when answering question 3, for examination classes, they would
adhere to the needs of the exam causing their daily lesson plan to be very
specific and not many activities to be done.
Finally, this may not be an issue but in this era, it is surprising to find out
as evidenced by responses given to question 8 in section E, that majority (74) of
the respondents have never used samples of lesson plan which are abundance
from the internet. Why? Is a question to be answered in any future research.
The forth question to be answered is how teachers are to be assisted to be
better in developing daily lesson plan. Firstly, is the checking of the document
itself. Had it been checked by an option administrator any mistakes could have
been corrected and weaknesses might have been remedied at the very early
stage.
Secondly, based on answers given, teachers non-academic duties have to
be lessen. This is to enabling them to have more time to spend, on developing
well-planned lessons.
Thirdly, the teachers have to be provided with complete and correct
information on any latest changes in the English language syllabus or text and
directives on programs or the needs on reporting to the higher authority. This is
because, according to Mohd Razali and Abang Mat Ali (1998) among the causes
that caused teachers to be under pressure are due to fulfilling inconsistence
needs and directives of school administrators, the Department of education and
the Ministry of education.
Fourthly, the teachers also need to be provided with courses related to the
current education system. This is very significant as changes in the world of
education is very dynamic resulting in teachers training may no longer be
relevant to the contemporary classroom context (Sulaiman, 2003; Putnam,
2000). Furthermore curriculum implementation is highly dependent on teachers
pedagogical knowledge (Fuller, 1969).
Finally, teachers also need to be given access to constant support and
guidance. English language subject matters trainers, specialist teachers and
currently English language School Improvement Specialist Coach should be
made more available and move to schools or teachers who are in need of
assistance.
CONCLUSION
The secondary schools English language teachers in the district of Kulai
pedagogical and content knowledge and its application in developing daily
lesson plan, can be ranged between fair to good. Issues on why the application of

11

the knowledge could not be done accordingly should be resolved based on the
proposed solutions.
Taking into consideration the needs and demands on English language,
inevitably all concerned parties have to be united in promoting and ensuring
good practices for the betterment of teaching and education at large.

REFERENCES
Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty Years Later: Does pedagogical content knowledge
remain a useful idea? International Journal of Science Education, 30 (10),
1405-1416.
Azizi Yahaya, Shahrin Hashim, Jamaludin Ramli, Yusof Boon (2006), Abdul Rahim
Hamdan. Menguasai Penyelidikan Dalam Pendidikan. Kuala Lumpur: PTS
Publisher.
Baker, T.L. (1994), Doing Social research (2ndEdn.), New York: McGraw-Hill Inc
Ball, D.L. & Cohen, D.K. (1999). Developing Practice, Developing Practitioners:
Towards a Practice-based Theory of Professional Education. In L. DarlingHammond & G. Sykes(Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook
of policy and practice (pp. 332).San Francisco
Bohlke (2011) Creating Effective Language Lessons Jack C. Richards and David
Cambridge University Press 2011
Buku Panduan Latihan Mengajar Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris bil1. 2010.
Retrieved, September 15, 2014, from www.latihan mengajar.upsi.edu.my
Burden, P.R., & Byrd, D.M. (2003). Methods of effective teaching. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Chei, C.L.(1996).Tekanan Kerja di kalangan Guru-guru di sebuah Sekolah
Menengah Kerajaan dan Sebuah Sekolah Menengah Swasta. Tesis (B.Ed)
yang tidak diterbitkan, Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Creswell, J.W., (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among
five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousands Oak, CA : Sage.
Creswell, J.W., (2012). Educational Research: Planning Conducting and Evaluating
Qualitative and Research. Ohio: Merill Prentice Hall.
Daeng Ramli Akil (1993). Guru Tertekan Akibat Beban Tugas. Dewan Masyarakat.
Februari 1993. ms 55-56.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review
of State Policy Evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8,(1).
Retrieved October 17, 2014.
Retrieved September 15, 2014 from,
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/.

12

Darling-Hammond, L., D. J. Holtzman, S. J. Gatlin, and J. V. Heilig. (2005) . Does

Teacher Preparation Matter? Evidence about Teacher Certification, Teach
for America and Teacher Effectiveness. AERA. Retrieved September 15,
2014,
from
www.ncate.org/documents/EdNews/StanfordTeacher
CertificationReport.pdf.
Datin Zainab Bee binti Ismail. (Pengetua) & Puan Norwani binti Abdullah (2008),
Laporan Kajian Tindakan Meningkatkan Penghantaran dan Penulisan Buku
Rekod Mengajar yang Berkualiti di kalangan Guru.guru, oleh SMK
Maxwell, Jalan Tun lsmail, Kuala Lumpur.
Froutan, K. (2009), Modern Methods of Teaching, Kabul Saeed Publication.
Retrieved
September
15,
2014,
from
http://www.ncteindia.org/publicnotice/NCFTE_2010.pdf
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E, & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Compentencies
for analysis and applications.
Glasser, B., G. and Strauss, A., L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory
Chicago: Aldine
Given, L. M. (2008). The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (Vol.
2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Guskey, T. R. (1994). Result-Oriented Professional Development
Kember, D. (2000). Misconceptions about the learning approaches, motivation and
study practices of Asian students. Higher Education, 40(1), 99-121.
Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia (2002). Sukatan Pelajaran Kurikulum Malaysia
Kizlik (2014), Competence and Performance in Language Teaching; Cambridge
University Press
Lee, Y. A. &Takahashi, A. (2011), Lesson Plans and the Contingency of Classroom
Interactions,
Malaysia Policy Statement on Education High Standard Quality (2001)
Malaysian Curriuclum Specification. (2003), Form 4 English Language Curriculum
Specifications, Malaysian Ministry of Education
Merriam, S.B (2002). Assessing and Evaluating Qualitative Researchin S. B.
Merriam and Associates: Qualitative Research in Practice, Example for
Discussiionans Analysis. California: Jossey-Bass
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1991). Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive
Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mohamad Razali dan Abang Ali (1999). Strategi Menangani Tekanan Di kalangan
Guru-guru Sekolah Menengah Zon A Di Bahagian Kuching/Samarahan,
Sarawak : Satu Tinjauan retrieved from Retrieved September 15, 2014 from
http://www.ipbl.edu.my/portal/penyelidikan/1998/98_Razali.pdf
Mohd Najib Abdul Ghafar (2006). Penyelidikan Pendidikan. Skudai, Johor:
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Mok Soon Sang (2004). Ilmu Pendidikan Untuk Kursus Perguruan lepas Ijazah
(KPLI). Kuala Lumpur: Kumpulan Budiman Sdn. Bhd
Mokhtar b. Ahmad (1998). Tekanan kerja di kalangan guru sekolah menengah:115
Satu kajian di Daerah Kulim Bandar Baharu, Kedah Darul Aman. Tesis
Sarjana Sains. Bintulu: Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
Nentl, N. & Zietlow, R. (2008), Using Bloom's Taxonomy to Teach Critical Thinking
Skills to Business Students, College & Undergraduate Libraries. Vol. 15: No.
1-2
Optimal Mix of Effective Practices. Journal of Staff Development,
Vol.14(Iss.4), pp.42-50.

13

Nielsen, H. D. (2003). Reforms to Teacher Education in Indonesia: Does More Mean

Better? In E. R. Beauchamp (Ed.), Comparative Education Reader. New
York:
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T. and Hungler, B.P. (2001),Essentials of Nursing Research:
Methods
Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum. (2008). Sukatan Pelajaran Kurikulum Bersepadu
Sekolah Menengah: Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.
Putnam, R.T. & Borko, H. (2000). What Do New Views of Knowledge And Program.
OISE Toronto and SUNY Buffalo on 15-27 May 1994. Publication &
Distributor Sdn. Bhd.
Richards, J. C. &Bohlke, D. (2011), Creating Effective Language Lessons, New
York: Cambridge University Press Sdn. Bhd.
Richards, J. C. &Bohlke, D. (2012), Creating Effective Language Lessons, New
York: Cambridge University Press Sdn. Bhd.
Scott, R.S., Kappelman, J. & Kelley, J. (1999). The paleoenvironment of
Sivapithecus parvada. Journal of Human Evolution 36, 245-274.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard University
Shulman, L.S. (2000). Domain Expertise And Pedagogical Knowledge. Harvard
Educational Review. Retrieved November 5, 2014 from people.ucsc.edu/ktellez/Shulman
Souza, David. 2001. How the brain learns: A classroom teachers guide. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Springer, Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J.G. (1986). The cognitive skill of
teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75-95.
Strauss, A., Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques, California: Sage Publication
Sulaiman, E. (2003). Modul Pengajaran Asas Pedagogi Jabatan Asas Pendidikan,
Fakulti Pendidikan. UTM: Cetak Ratu Sdn. Bhd. retrieved from
studentsrepo.um.edu.my/2328/2/BAB_1.pdf
Surat Pekeliling Ikhtisas Bil 3/1991 : Penyediaan Rekod Pengajaran dan
Pembelajaran
Wikipedia. (2009). Nonprobability sampling. Retrieved November 15, 2015, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprobability_sampling