Access to this full-text is provided by Taylor & Francis.
Content available from Cogent Education
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
TEACHER EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT | RESEARCH ARTICLE
EFL teachers’pedagogical beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge,
and instructional material use: a scale development and validation
Nurul Fitriyah Almunawaroh
a
, Chuzaimah Dahlan Diem
b
and J
anos Stekl
acs
c
a
Doctoral School of Education, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary;
b
Department of Language and Arts, Faculty of
Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sriwijaya, Palembang, Indonesia;
c
Doctoral School of Education, University of
P
ecs, P
ecs, Hungary
ABSTRACT
Teachers’pedagogical beliefs (PB) and knowledge base of teaching play a prominent
role in determining their instructional practices, including instructional material use
(MU). Instructional materials provide students with information and facilitate learning,
allowing meaningful learning. However, teachers’MU likely affects the effectiveness of
their teaching, and the decision on their MU relies on their PB and their knowledge
base of teaching, which includes pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowledge
(CK), and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Although some studies have investi-
gated how teachers’PCK affects their pedagogical beliefs, studies, which investigate
the interrelationship between teachers’PB, PCK, and MU, are absent. Consequently,
there is yet an instrument that measures the interplay of these essential factors in
English language teaching (ELT). Therefore, this study aimed to adapt and validate the
EFL teachers’PB, PCK, and MU. Two hundred sixty in-service secondary school English
teachers in Indonesia participated in the study. The validated version of EFL teachers’
PB, PCK, and MU (EFLT-PBPCKMU) had six factors and 25 items measuring teachers’
PB, PCK, and MU using the 5-point Likert scale. The EFLT-BPCKMU scale had satisfac-
tory psychometric characteristics and model fits, as demonstrated by exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis results.
IMPACT STATEMENT
The scale of EFL teachers’pedagogical beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge, and
instructional material use measures the effect of pedagogical beliefs and pedagogical
content knowledge of EFL teachers on their material use approach. The scale can be
adapted to measure teachers’material use approach in another field so that stake-
holders can plan future directions for teachers’development programs particularly on
material use, to maximize the effects of the materials on students’learning and know-
ledge acquisition. Furthermore, the development and adaptation processes provide
researchers with a framework for developing or adapting a reliable and valid scale
based on psychometric analyses.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 12 February 2024
Revised 10 May 2024
Accepted 2 July 2024
KEYWORDS
EFL teachers; instrument
validation; material use;
pedagogical beliefs;
pedagogical content
knowledge
REVIEWING EDITOR
Toby Greany, University of
Nottingham School of
Education, United Kingdom
SUBJECTS
Classroom Practice;
Secondary Education;
Teachers & Teacher
Education
1. Introduction
The national standard principles of the Indonesian secondary curriculum emphasize students as the cen-
tral focus of the learning process, with teachers acting as facilitators to enhance learning activities
(Kemendikbud, 2013). The principle adopts constructivist beliefs, focusing on creating a stimulating, chal-
lenging, and individually adapted learning environment that supports students’knowledge construction
(OECD, 2009). However, studies show that Indonesian teachers have both transmissive and constructivist
beliefs (Armin & Siregar, 2021; Inayati & Emaliana, 2017), indicating that their teaching practices do not
CONTACT Nurul Fitriyah Almunawaroh nurulfitriyahalm@gmail.com Doctoral School of Education, University of Szeged, Szeged,
Hungary; Reading Fluency and Comprehension Research Group, MTA-PTE, Hungary. Vit
ez utca 13-15, Szeged, 6722, Hungary
Reading Fluency and Comprehension Research Group, MTA-PTE, Hungary.
This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2386652)
ß2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been
published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
COGENT EDUCATION
2024, VOL. 11, NO. 1, 2379696
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2379696
fully meet the national standard. Therefore, investigating factors influencing teachers’instructional prac-
tices is crucial to meeting the national standard.
Teachers’instructional practice, mainly how they teach materials, significantly impacts students’learn-
ing, motivation (Masuhara, 2022), and teachers’professional development (Shawer, 2010). Teachers’
approaches to how they teach materials fall into transmissive (fidelity) and constructivist (adaptation and
enactment) approaches (C¸eliker-Ercan & C¸ubukc¸u, 2023; Masuhara, 2022; Shawer, 2010). The fidelity
approach refers to teachers’adherence to curriculum materials; in contrast, adaptation and enactment
approaches refer to material modifications made to meet students’needs (Masuhara, 2022; Shawer, 2010).
It is argued that adaptation and enactment approaches to curriculum materials are ways to meet a specific
group’s needs since teachers who adapt or make their materials have more control to meet student needs
and achieve educational goals (Bell & Gower, 2011; Harwood, 2010). Conversely, close adherence to cur-
riculum materials makes a teacher a passive knowledge transmitter who follows preconceived objectives
and content, which cannot suffice students’differences, affecting their learning motivation (Masuhara,
2022; Shawer, 2010). However, their MU decision is influenced by their professional competence, which
includes PK, CK, PCK, and PB (Bl€
omeke & Delaney, 2012). Teachers’PB functioning as a filter to their instruc-
tional practices directs them to use and implement a transmissive approach, constructivist approach, or
both approaches in their teaching practices (Habte et al., 2021;L
}
orincz, 2023; Tran-Thanh, 2021). Therefore,
teachers with constructivist beliefs may implement student-centered curricula (Ertmer et al., 2012), direct-
ing them to adapt or develop instructional materials (Shawer, 2010); in contrast, teachers with transmissive
beliefs may follow the curriculum materials without any modifications. Nevertheless, their pedagogical
beliefs may be congruent or not congruent with their practices depending on factors such as teaching
environment, knowledge about students, pedagogical knowledge, and content knowledge acquired dur-
ing pre-service training (Gao & Cui, 2024; Habte et al., 2021; Tan & Matsuda, 2020). Hence, teachers CK, PK,
and PB likely predict how teachers use instructional materials.
Owing to teachers’professional competence covering their PCK and PB, and these two components
influence their instructional practices, including how they use instructional materials, it is substantial to
have empirical evidence that shows the interrelationships among these components. Pajares (1992)
points out that it is essential to investigate the relationships between teacher beliefs, teacher practices,
teacher knowledge, and student outcomes. Tomlinson (2022) also suggests investigating how teachers
use material in their teaching practice and finding factors that influence their practices. Even though
there have been several studies investigating the relationship between teachers’pedagogical beliefs and
TPACK (Wu et al., 2022) and teachers’beliefs and materials fidelity (Pourhaji et al., 2023), teachers’beliefs
and practices (Gao & Cui, 2024; Habte et al., 2021;L
}
orincz, 2023), studies investigating interrelationships
among PB, PCK, and MU for ESL/EFL are overlooked. Accordingly, there is a need to develop a new
instrument that can collect data on the interplay of teachers’PB, PCK, and instructional MU. Therefore,
the objectives of this study are twofold: 1) Develop an instrument to collect data on interrelationships
among teachers’PB, PCK, and MU by adapting the available teachers’PB, PCK, and MU questionnaires,
and 2) evaluate the validity and reliability of the developed instrument by using data collected from
English teachers at higher level of secondary school in Indonesia. The validated questionnaire may
provide insights into the interplay between teachers’PB and their PCK on their instructional MU and
provide implications for EFL teachers’professional development programs.
2. Literature review
2.1. The concept of the interrelationship between teachers’PB, PCK, and MU
Bl€
omeke and Delaney (2012) classify teachers’professional competence into cognitive abilities and affect-
ive-motivational characteristics, which include general PK, CK, and PCK, as well as professional beliefs about
teaching and learning and the subject content that determine their instructional practices, including how
they use instructional materials (Shulman, 1986,1987). Furthermore, Tran-Thanh (2021) found that teach-
ers’pedagogical competence and beliefs affected their pedagogical practices. PCK involves the interactions
of CK and pedagogical strategies in teachers’minds and teachers’understanding about learning difficulties
that affect how they teach materials (Shulman, 1987), thereby promoting students understanding (Hartati
2 N. F. ALMUNAWAROH ET AL.
et al., 2019). The traditional view of teachers’pedagogical beliefs is centralized to knowledge transmitters,
where the teacher’s central role is transferring the knowledge; in contrast, the constructivist approach to
teachers’pedagogical beliefs focuses on the learner’s active construction of knowledge. Teachers who hold
traditional beliefs may use instructional materials based on curriculum and focus on the traditional
approach to teaching; those who hold constructivist beliefs tend to enact student-centered curricula
(Ertmer et al., 2012), directing them to adapt or even develop instructional materials (Shawer, 2010).
Instructional materials have significant roles in assisting teachers and students in language learning
(Cunningsworth, 1995; Osikomaiya, 2020; Sun, 2010) as they provide exposure to the language, as a means
of information, as a stimulus for other activities, and as a means of teacher education (Mishan & Timmis,
2015). Therefore, teachers’PB and PCK may determine how they use instructional materials. Figure 1 shows
the concept of the interrelationship between teachers’PB, PCK, and MU.
2.2. Teachers pedagogical beliefs
Teachers’PB refers to specific teaching strategies and the appropriate theoretical drive underlying
teacher actions (Schutz et al.,2020). These beliefs are formed and developed through information
acquired through interactions (Schutz et al., 2020), which later likely influence one’s thinking and deci-
sion-making (Bandura, 1997). Concerning teachers’beliefs, their actions and decision-making regarding
instruction and practice depend on their beliefs (Schutz et al., 2020).
Provided teachers’PB have significant roles in teachers’instructional practices, many studies have
investigated the relationships among teachers’PB and their Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK), focusing on two types of PB: learner-centered PB and teacher-centered PB. Wu
et al. (2022) found that teachers with strong learner-centered and teacher-centered PB have better confi-
dence in implementing their TPACK. Other studies investigated the effect of teachers’professional devel-
opment programs on teachers’PB development and change. Lim and Chan (2007) attempted to shift
pre-service teachers’traditional PB (teacher-centered) to constructivist beliefs (learner-centered) by pro-
viding pre-service teachers with a microlesson series experience. Although their beliefs remain the same,
the microlessons enhance their confidence in designing multimedia-based learning and extend their
knowledge of technology utilization to facilitate and enhance teaching and learning processes.
In contrast, teachers’PB changed from traditional to constructivist after experiencing project-based
learning, which provided supportive policy and long-term experience at the institutional level (Nxasana
et al., 2023). Previous studies on teachers’PB focused on how their PB influences their TPACK implemen-
tation and the effect of teachers’professional development programs on teachers’PB change and devel-
opment. However, an investigation on how PCK and their PB can influence teachers’instructional
materials use is overlooked.
Figure 1. The concept of the interrelationship between teachers’PB, PCK, and MU. Adapted from Bl€
omeke and Delaney
(2012), Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018), and Shulman (1986,1987).
COGENT EDUCATION 3
2.3. Materials use in language classroom
Studies on MU investigate how teachers and students use instructional materials in the classroom and
the factors affecting teachers’actions. Instructional MU refers to “the ways that teachers and students
actually employ, interact with, and engage with materials within classroom contexts”(Guerrettaz et al.,
2022, p. 547). Shawer (2010) classifies teachers’MU into curriculum-transmitter, curriculum-developer,
and curriculum-maker based on teachers’approach to curriculum materials. The curriculum approach is
central to curriculum knowledge, change, and teachers’roles. According to the curriculum-transmission
approach (fidelity), the role of the teacher is as a knowledge transmitter who follows pre-determined
objectives, contents, and activities, resulting in superficial learning (Shawer, 2010). Teachers who follow
this approach use materials closely related to what is in the curriculum, such as what is in a textbook or
a teacher’s guide. In contrast to curriculum fidelity, curriculum-development approach (adaptation), users
make modifications to curriculum materials to fit classroom context (Shawer, 2010) by adding or delet-
ing texts or activities, replacing, reordering the sequences, modifying or supplementing activities
(Masuhara, 2022). Teachers who implement a curriculum-making approach (enactment) construct their
materials based on their students’needs and teachers’teaching experiences.
It is argued that teachers’approach to curriculum influences how they use the materials, resulting in
the quality of students’learning and motivation and teachers’professional development (Shawer, 2010).
A close adherence to curriculum materials makes a teacher a passive knowledge transmitter who follows
preconceived objectives and content, which cannot suffice students’individual differences, affecting
their learning motivation. Conversely, teachers who adapt curriculum materials or make their materials
have more control to satisfy students’needs and achieve educational goals, which likely positively
affects students’motivation and learning (Masuhara, 2022). Furthermore, Harwood (2010) asserts that
material adaptation is prominent since pre-prepared materials fail to fulfil students’needs. Therefore,
adapting and supplementing materials are ways to meet a specific group’s needs (Bell & Gower, 2011).
Teachers’decision to follow or adapt the curriculum materials depends on their teaching experience
(Idowu, 2010), knowledge about students, class size, knowledge about the curriculum, instructional strat-
egies (Chen et al., 2020), teachers’beliefs (Masuhara, 2022) and school authorities (Masuhara, 2022).
However, Shawer (2010) claims that institutional control, experience, and gender do not affect teachers’
approach to curriculum materials. Therefore, this present study seeks to find empirical evidence on the
influences of teachers’PB and PCK on their MU as their beliefs act as filters to their classroom practice
decisions (Cephe & Yalcin, 2015), and their PCK expertise may also influence how they use the materials.
2.4. Teachers’pedagogical content knowledge
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) refers to “subject matter knowledge for teaching,”which is the
way teachers formulate and represent a subject that is apprehensible to students (Shulman, 1986, p. 6).
This knowledge involves the interactions of content knowledge and pedagogical strategies in teachers’
minds and teachers’understanding of learning difficulties that affect how they teach materials (Shulman,
1987).
Studies on PCK investigated its relationships with teachers’instructional practices, including technol-
ogy integration, instructional materials design, and teachers’professional development. PCK is strongly
associated with teachers’instructional planning activities, especially knowledge about students’intellec-
tual engagement and technology integration standards (Harris & Hofer, 2011). In terms of teachers PCK
and TPACK development, instructional materials design activities, like training and experiences, are the
determinant factors that affect the development of this knowledge (Erg€
ulec¸ et al., 2022; Harris & Hofer,
2011; Pompea & Walker, 2017). Owing to the influence of PCK in teachers’instructional practices, we
assume that PCK also influences teachers’decisions on how they use materials.
2.5. Instruments for measuring teachers’PB, PCK, and MU
Studies investigating teachers’PB mostly utilize qualitative approaches to measure teachers’PB change
or development through interview, observation, and document analysis (see, for example, Chen et al.,
4 N. F. ALMUNAWAROH ET AL.
2021; Ertmer et al., 2012). Nevertheless, some researchers have made attempts to examine the relation-
ships between teachers’PB, technology use, and TPACK (Lai et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2017).
The teachers’PB scale in Liu et al. (2017) study comprises two factors (constructivist PB and transmis-
sive PB), with five items for each. A total number of two hundred and two EFL teachers rated the items
on a five-point Likert scale, which resulted in a good internal consistency reliability for their constructiv-
ist PB (.820) and transmissive PB (.871) factors. Similarly, the Lai et al. (2022) study classified teachers’PB
into educator-oriented identity belief factor with three items and constructivist conception of teaching
factor with seven items. Responses from 280 EFL teachers on the items measured using a 6-point Likert
scale showed that educator-oriented identity belief (.920) and constructivist conception of teaching
(.940) have high internal consistency reliability values. The teachers’PB scale in Wu et al. (2022) study
consists of two factors (learner-centered pedagogy and teacher-centered pedagogy) with eight items.
Responses from 211 secondary school teachers on the items using 7-point Likert scale showed that the
items had high factor loadings ranging from 0.73 - 0.94.
Schmidt et al. (2009) developed a TPACK assessment tool for pre-service teachers’knowledge of
teaching and technology, which consists of 8 factors. Each factor (technology knowledge, content know-
ledge, pedagogy knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, technological pedagogical content know-
ledge, technological content knowledge (literacy), and technological pedagogical content knowledge has
good internal consistency, which is 0.86, 0.83, 0.87, 0.87, 0.93, 0.86, 0.89 respectively. However, reporting
the internal consistency reliability of each scale is insufficient for reporting the adapted instruments’reli-
ability and validity. For the current study, we only adapted factors related to PCK.
MU studies assess how and why teachers use their instructional materials in their classrooms on the
basis of interviews and document analysis. Shawer (2010), for example, interviewed 10 EFL college teach-
ers on how they use curriculum materials. The results showed that the teachers’use of curriculum mate-
rials falls into three categories: curriculum developers, curriculum makers, and curriculum transmitters
identified from each excerpt provided by the teachers. Based on these results, we developed a teachers’
MU questionnaire comprising two factors: curriculum developers with five items and curriculum-makers
with four items. The items were developed based on the excerpts identified in Shawer’s study, as inter-
view results may serve as a source for developing questionnaire items (Jayachandran et al., 2023).
The following research questions guided the validation and the development of the EFLT-PBPCKMU:
1. What is the factor structure of the EFLT-PBPCKMU?
2. Is the EFLT-PBPCKMU a psychometrically reliable and valid instrument for teachers’PB, PCK, and MU?
3. Method
3.1. Adaptation of the instrument
EFLT-PBPCKMU adaptation is based on the concepts and theories of PCK (Schmidt et al., 2009), teachers’
PB (Wu et al., 2022), and MU (Shawer, 2010). Initially, factors and items in each questionnaire were reviewed
to ensure the instruments fit the current study context, which focuses on reading in English language
teaching and learning. The irrelevant items and factors were removed, for example, items related to con-
tent other than literacy (social studies, mathematics, and science). Meanwhile, for the teachers’PB ques-
tionnaire, we included all the items under two factors, which were learner-centered pedagogy and
teacher-centered pedagogy. For the material use questionnaire, the factors were curriculum developers
and curriculum makers. The adaptation of the instruments yields to the finalized factors and items.
The adapted PCK questionnaire has two factors: content knowledge (CK) with three items and peda-
gogical knowledge (PK) with seven items. Teachers’PB questionnaire has two factors: teacher-centered
pedagogy and learner-centered pedagogy, with four items for each factor. The materials use question-
naire encompasses curriculum developers (n ¼5) and curriculum makers (n ¼4).
After reviewing each questionnaire, we constructed our teachers’EFLT-PBPCKMU into five parts:
instruction, PCK questions, teachers’PB questions, MU questions, and demographic questions that
include gender, age range, teaching experience, and educational background. Finally, before distributing
the questionnaire, two experts evaluated the content validity of the instruments. The questionnaire
COGENT EDUCATION 5
items were adapted from reliable and valid scales; therefore, two experts are considered enough to
check if the content fits the intended goals and to identify language-related problems. If the question-
naire items were constructed by domain experts or adapted from a literature review of an existing
questionnaire, the content validity is satisfied (Sauro & Lewis, 2016). Table 1 presents the teachers’EFLT-
PBPCKMU factors, items, and references.
3.2. Context and participants
The national standard principles of the Indonesian secondary curriculum put the students as the central
of the learning process, which aims to provide active and meaningful learning experiences
(Kemendikbud, 2013), thereby situating the roles of teachers as learning facilitators who are responsible
for enhancing learning activities. This principle adopts constructivist beliefs, which are "associated with
more frequent use of practices that aim at creating and stimulating, challenging and individually
adapted learning environment supportive of students’construction of knowledge" (TALIS, 2009, p. 118).
Despite the standard national principles of adopting a constructivist approach to the educational system
in Indonesia, studies on teachers’pedagogical beliefs revealed that teachers in Indonesia have both
transmission and constructivist beliefs for their teaching (Armin & Siregar, 2021; Inayati & Emaliana,
2017). Teachers’teaching approach is likely affected by their pedagogical beliefs (transmissive or con-
structivist beliefs, or both) and their PCK, which are applied in their instructional MU.
Two hundred sixty-seven in-service secondary school English teachers in Indonesia completed the
online questionnaire between July 19 and October 14, 2023, by responding to statements on a 5-point
Table 1. The adapted EFLT-PBPCKMU scales and items.
Scales and Items References
PCK Adapted from
Schmidt et al. (2009)Content Knowledge:
1. I have sufficient knowledge about reading comprehension in English.
2. I can comprehend English texts with ease.
3. I have various ways and strategies for developing my understanding of texts written in
English.
Pedagogical Knowledge:
4. I know how to assess student performance in a classroom.
5. I can adapt my teaching based-upon what students currently understand or do not
understand.
6. I can adapt my teaching style to different learners.
7. I can assess students learning in multiple ways.
8. I can use a wide range of teaching approaches in a classroom setting.
9. I am familiar with students’common understandings and misconceptions.
10. I know how to organize and maintain classroom management.
Teachers’Pedagogical Beliefs Adapted from
Wu et al. (2022)Learner-Centered Pedagogy:
11. A good teacher should help students to think actively to build knowledge.
12. A teacher should greatly encourage students to explore, discuss, and express their
opinions.
13. Effective teaching should encourage students to engage in more discussion and practice.
14. Teaching should be flexible to meet the needs of students’individual differences and
learning processes.
Teacher-Centered Pedagogy:
15. Learning is mainly through repetitive practice and drills.
16. A teacher should have full control over students’learning.
17. The main task of teachers is to transmit knowledge to students.
18. Authoritarian teaching (a teacher who has total control of the classroom) is the best
practice in a class.
Instructional Material Use Adapted from
Shawer (2010)Curriculum Developers:
19. I develop the content of the textbook by adding material from other sources.
20. I use some parts of the textbook and add other activities and/or materials to suit my
students’needs.
21. I skip some parts of the textbook that are not necessary.
22. I create new activities that are different from those available in the textbook.
Curriculum-makers:
23. I design my teaching program and write my materials based on needs analysis.
24. I select the topics in consultation with my students.
25. I arrange the topics based on my students’prior knowledge.
26. I change the focus of the course based on how the students reacted, what did not work,
and what was successful.
6 N. F. ALMUNAWAROH ET AL.
Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree”to “strongly agree”, and “never”to “always”that best
describes their situation. The introduction part of the questionnaire provided information on participa-
tion consent so that the teachers were aware that they gave their consent to participate in the study by
completing the questionnaire. We did not include incomplete responses, thereby leaving 260 samples
included in the analysis. Table 2 presents the demographic information of the samples.
3.3. Data analysis
The study used Mplus 8 Edition and IBM SPSS Statistics Version 25 for data analysis. The exploratory fac-
tor analysis (EFA) was used to generate potential factors for MU, while the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test
assessed sampling adequacy (Shrestha, 2021). The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) evaluated model fit
using multiple indices, including the chi-square test (v2), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), goodness-of-fit index
(GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized
root mean square residual (SRMR) (Alavi et al., 2020; Hooper et al., 2008; Hu & Bentler, 1999).
KMO values equal to or larger than 0.6 are acceptable for performing factor analysis, values between
0.7 and 0.79 are middling, and values equal to or larger than 0.8 indicate adequate sampling (Shrestha,
2021). The chi-square test is prominent in determining the overall model fit, in which values near zero
indicate a good model fit (Hooper et al., 2008). A CFI value equal to and greater than 0.90 indicates an
acceptable good fit of a model, and a value equal to or greater than 0.95 indicates a good fit model
(Hooper et al., 2008; Hu & Bentler, 1999). TLI values equal to or greater than 0.90 are considered good,
and values greater than 0.95 indicate a very good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). GFI value is acceptable at
0.90 (Hooper et al., 2008). RMSEA cut-off points between 0.05 and 0.10 are a fair fit (Hooper et al., 2008).
SRMR cut-off points equal to 0.08 are considered acceptable fit, and a good fit value is below 0.05
(Hooper et al., 2008).
Cronbach’s alpha was utilized to test the internal consistency reliability of each factor of the instruments
through the SPSS 25 application. Cronbach’s alpha values equal to or greater than 0.70 are considered
acceptable (Cohen et al., 2018). The convergent validity, which is useful “to measure the level of correl-
ation of multiple indicators of the same construct (Shrestha, 2021), was also measured by using Composite
Reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). An AVE value of more than or equal to 0.5 indicates
convergent validity, while an acceptable value of CR is between 0.6 and 0.7 (Shrestha, 2021).
4. Results
4.1. Content validity results
Two experts on English language teaching evaluated the EFLT-BPCKMU scale in terms of the language
accuracy and item relatedness to the intended goals. The experts’comments and suggestions were used
to revise the scale, as presented in Table 3.
Table 2. The demographic information of the samples.
Demographic Information
Sample (n¼260)
n Percentage
Gender:
Male 68 26.3
Female 189 73
Age range:
<30 27 10.4
31-40 82 31.7
41-50 15 5.8
50 þ133 51.4
Teaching experience:
<5 years 29 11.2
5-10 years 47 18.1
>10 years 181 69.9
Educational background:
Bachelor 157 60.6
Master 98 37.8
PhD/Dr 2 0.8
COGENT EDUCATION 7
The experts’comments and suggestions were used to revise the EFLT-BPCKMU scale. Revisions related
to language accuracy were made in the instruction part, particularly related to participants’consent,
where the language was simplified. The other language-related problem was on the item about teach-
ers’PB, which was revised into “Authoritarian teaching (a teacher who has total control of the classroom)
is the best practice in a class.”The experts suggested clarifying the content knowledge required for
teachers and the types of reading texts. Therefore, “read”was replaced with “comprehension”to clarify
the content knowledge necessary for the teachers. The types of texts that explains the PCK construct
were provided in the instruction part.
4.2. EFA results
Two hundred sixty responses were randomly split for MU EFA analyses using the principal component
analysis and the Promax rotation with Kaiser normalization. One item (I skip some parts of the textbook
that are not necessary) was deleted due to a low loading (0.304) below 0.50. The second round of EFA
identified two factors (maker and developer) with eigenvalues greater than one, explaining 60.63% of
the variance, as presented in Table 4.
The MU final items were seven items with two factors. The first factor includes items MU6, MU7, and
MU8 about Material Maker. The second factor consists of items MU1, MU2, MU4, and MU5 about
Material Developer. The factor matric after removing the low-loading item is presented in Table 5.
4.3. CFA results
Performing multiple indices to assess model fit is prominent in addition to the chi-square test of CFA
(Alavi et al., 2020). The KMO of PCK, PB, and MU was 0.897, 0.779, and 0.792, respectively, adequate for
factor analysis. The results of the CFA showed a good model fit for teachers’PCK scales (chi-square ¼
Table 3. Experts’comments and suggestions on the EFLT-BPCKMU scale.
Parts Items Comments and suggestions
Instruction Participants’consent to participate in the
survey
Simplifying the language use into “Thank you agreeing to fill in this
questionnaire. Your answer will be coded and used confidentially.”
PCK item I have sufficient knowledge about reading
English texts.
I can read English texts with ease.
Clarify the knowledge required for reading.
Clarify what types of reading texts.
Teachers’
PB item
A teacher who has total control of the
classroom is the best way to teach
Language-related error: “A teacher is not a way to teach.”
MU item I create new activities that are different
from those available in the textbooks
“Two ways of supplementing textbooks: borrow tasks/activities from
other sources or develop new tasks based on authentic materials.”
Table 4. Variance explained by identified factors of teachers’MU.
Factor
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadings Rotation sums of
squared loadings
Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative % Total
1 3.134 44.764 44.764 3.134 44.764 44.764 2.734
2 1.111 15.866 60.630 15.866 60.630 2.436
3 0.702 10.028 70.659 1.111
Table 5. Factor matric after removing the low-loading item of MU.
Factors Items
Factors
12
Material Developer I develop the content of the textbook by adding material from other sources .875
I use some parts of the textbook and add other activities and/or materials
to suit my students’needs
.649
I create new activities that are different from those available in the textbook .742
I design my teaching program and write my materials based on a need analysis .751
Material Maker I select the topics in consultation with my students .800
I arrange the topics based on my students’prior knowledge .817
I change the focus of the course based on how the students reacted,
what did not work, and what was successful
.758
8 N. F. ALMUNAWAROH ET AL.
60.453; df ¼34; p <0.01; CFI ¼0.958; TLI ¼0.945; RMESA ¼0.064; and SRMR ¼0.047). The results of
the CFA with model modification indices (LCP2 with LCP1) (Field, 2013) showed a good model fit for
teachers’PB scale (chi-square ¼32.100; df ¼18; p <0.05; CFI ¼0.975; TLI ¼0.960; RMESA ¼0.063, and
SRMR ¼0.067). MU analysis results showed a good model fit (chi-square ¼23.120; df ¼13; p >0.05; CFI
¼0.953; TLI ¼0.924; RMESA ¼0.079, and SRMR ¼0.047). However, the chi-square values of the three
scales did not show a model fit because the chi-square is sensitive to sample size (West et al., 2012).
However, the multiple indices results confirm a good model-data fit for PCK, PB, and MU scales (Hooper
et al., 2008). Multiple fit indices of chi-square, RMSEA, CFI, and SRMSR can provide “a more holistic view
of goodness of fit”(Alavi et al., 2020, p. 2210). All the factors and the items had significant factor load-
ings above 0.40 for PCK and PB and above 0.50 for MU, as presented in Figures 1–4.
4.4. Reliability
The Cronbach’s alpha values of teachers’PCK (a¼0.865), CK (a¼0.690) and PK (a¼0.848), PB (a¼
0.704), learner-centered pedagogy (LCP) (a¼0.876), teacher-centered Pedagogy (TCP) (a¼0.641), MU
(a¼0.797), developer (a¼0.695), and maker (a¼0.699) were acceptable. The final EFLT-PBPCKMU
had six factors with 25 total items, measuring teachers’PCK, PB, and MU. The factors are CK, PK, LCP,
TCP, material developer, and material maker, as presented in Table 6.
4.5. Discriminant validity
We also calculate the convergent validity by using the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of EFLT-
PBPCKMU. The AVE value of PCK was 0.45 <0.50, and the composite reliability (CR) of PCK was
0.89 >0.60, meaning that convergent validity had been established (Hair et al., 2014). The AVE value of
each factor CK and PK was 0.43 and 0.46, respectively. The CR of CK and PK were 0.69 and 0.85, respect-
ively. The AVE value of teachers’PB was 0.46 <0.50; the CR was 0.87 >0.60, confirming the instrument’s
Figure 2. Standardized factor loading of the PCK questionnaire.
COGENT EDUCATION 9
Figure 3. Standardized factor loading of PB questionnaire.
Figure 4. Standardized factor loading of material use questionnaire.
10 N. F. ALMUNAWAROH ET AL.
convergent validity. The AVE for each factor, LCP and TCP, was 0.60 and 0.33, respectively, and the CR of
LCP was 0.85 and of TCP was 0.64. The AVE value of MU was 0.41 <0.50; the CR value was 0.83 >0.60.
The AVE value of the material developer was 0.38, and that of the material maker was 0.46, with CR val-
ues of each was 0.70 and 0.71, respectively. Even though the AVE values of the factors were below 0.50,
the CR values of all the factors were higher than 0.60, meaning that convergent validity had been estab-
lished (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
5. Discussions and implications
Numerous studies have examined the impact of teachers’PCK and their PB (Alghamdi, 2021; Diehm &
Hendricks, 2021) on their instructional practices. Therefore, some scales were constructed and evaluated
to assess the roles of teachers’PCK, TPACK, and PB on teachers’teaching practice in terms of language-
related assessment implementation (Wang et al., 2020), teaching approach (L}
orincz, 2023), and technol-
ogy application (Gao & Cui, 2024). However, research has yet to explore how PCK and PB may affect
teachers’MU. Instructional materials have significant roles in language learning (Osikomaiya, 2020; Sun,
2010). Instructional materials provide both teachers and students exposure and information about the
language (Karatepe & Civelek, 2021), as a stimulus for other activities, and a means of teacher education
(Mishan & Timmis, 2015). However, the effectiveness of the materials depends on teachers’approach to
how they use the materials, which affects students’learning and motivation (Shawer, 2010). Accordingly,
teachers’MU may positively impact teaching effectiveness, which may be influenced by their PB and
PCK. Therefore, this study addressed the gap between the theoretical conceptualization of the interrela-
tionships between teachers’PCK, PB, and MU and the construct of the EFLT-PBPCKMU scale.
EFLT-PBPCKMU development and validation aimed to measure the interrelationships between teach-
ers’PB, PCK, and material use. The validated EFLT-PBPCKMU had six factors with 25 total items. The fac-
tors are content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, learner-centered pedagogy, teacher-centered
pedagogy, material developer, and material maker. Results confirmed that the EFLT-PBPCKMU was a
valid and reliable instrument for assessing upper-secondary English teachers’PB, PCK, and material use
and measuring the interrelationships among the variables.
Table 6. The validated EFLT-PBPCKMU scale.
Factors Items
PCK Content Knowledge 1. I have sufficient knowledge about reading comprehension in English.
2. I can comprehend English texts with ease.
3. I have various ways and strategies for developing my understanding of texts written in
English.
Pedagogical Knowledge 4. I know how to assess student’s performance in a classroom.
5. I can adapt my teaching based on what students currently understand or do not understand.
6. I can adapt my teaching style to different learners.
7. I can assess student learning in multiple ways.
8. I can use a wide range of teaching approaches in a classroom setting.
9. I am familiar with students’common understandings and misconceptions.
10. I know how to organize and maintain classroom management.
PB Learner-centered Pedagogy 11. A good teacher should help students to think actively to build knowledge.
12. A teacher should greatly encourage students to explore, discuss, and express their opinions.
13. Effective teaching should encourage students to engage in more discussion and practice.
14. Teaching should be flexible to meet the needs of students’individual differences and
learning processes.
Teacher-centred Pedagogy 15. Learning is mainly through repetitive practice and drills.
16. A teacher should have full control over students’learning.
17. The main task of teachers is to transmit knowledge to students.
18. Authoritarian teaching (a teacher who has total control of the classroom) is the best practice
in a class.
MU Material Developer 19. I develop the content of the textbook by adding material from other sources.
20. I use some parts of the textbook and add other activities and/or materials to suit my
students’needs.
21. I create new activities that are different from those available in the textbook.
22. I design my teaching program and write my materials based on a need analysis.
Material Maker 23. I select topics in consultation with my students.
24. I arrange topics based on my students’prior knowledge.
25. I change the focus of the course based on how the students reacted, what did not work,
and what was successful.
COGENT EDUCATION 11
The EFA of the MU generated two factors: material developer and material maker. One item, "I skip
some parts of the textbook that are not necessary," was removed due to a low loading below 0.50.
Three out of four items were loaded in the material-maker factor, whereas four items were loaded in the
material-developer factor. The item "I design my teaching program and write my materials based on a
need analysis" was loaded in the material-developer factor instead of the maker factor. This result con-
tradicts Shawer’s findings (2010), in which he classified the process of designing teaching programs and
writing materials based on a need analysis into the material maker instead of the material developer.
This difference might happen because the teachers in the current study consider writing materials based
on their student’s needs as an act of developing or adapting their teaching materials (Azizah et al.,
2021).
The CFA of teachers’PCK and PB confirmed the previous factors of teachers’PCK (Schmidt et al.,
2009) and PB (Wu et al., 2022) scales were valid with modified items. Factors 1 and 2 about teachers’
PCK aimed to measure teachers’CK and PK. Multiple indices results confirmed that the instrument has a
good model fit, implying that the adapted instrument is valid for predicting EFL teachers’CK and PK.
These results are in accordance with the previous teachers’CK and PK development and validation
scales, where the multiple analysis results also showed that the instruments were valid and reliable for
assessing teachers’CK and PK (Schmidt et al., 2009). PCK involves the interactions of content knowledge
and pedagogical strategies in teachers’minds and teachers’understanding of learning difficulties that
affect how they teach materials (Shulman, 1987), promoting students understanding (Hartati et al.,
2019). Accordingly, these two factors would predict how teachers use instructional materials in their
classroom as their pedagogical competence (Tran-Thanh, 2021), their PK, including their instructional
strategies (Chen et al., 2020), influence their teaching practice (Shulman, 1986,1987).
PB scale had two prominent factors in determining teachers’teaching approach to their instructional
practices: learner-centered or teacher-centered. The results of multiple indices implied that the instru-
ment is eligible to determine teachers’teaching approaches. These results align with the results of Wu’s
study et al. (2022), which showed a model fit of the teachers’pedagogical beliefs instrument comprising
teacher-centered and learner-centered pedagogy. Since teachers’actions and decision-making regarding
instruction and practice depend on their beliefs (Schutz et al., 2020), including how they use instruc-
tional materials in their teaching (Masuhara, 2022), this instrument is useful to estimate teachers’ways
of using them. Finally, the adapted and validated EFLT-PBPCKMU had six factors and 25 items with good
reliability and validity evidence. The adapted and validated EFLT-PBPCKMU scale helps discover how
teachers use the materials in terms of adapting (curriculum-developer) or creating (curriculum-maker)
materials, which are predicted by their learner-centered or teacher-centered beliefs and their PK and CK.
6. Conclusion
The current study developed and validated the scale to measure the interrelationships between teachers’
PCK and PB on teachers’MU, which focused on examining the roles of internal factors such as teachers’
PB, PK, and CK on their MU approach in ELT. The final factor structure of the EFLT-PBPCKMU was six fac-
tors with 25 items. The factors are content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, learner-centered peda-
gogy, teacher-centered pedagogy, material developer, and material maker. The EFLT-PBPCKMU had a
good model fit and was psychometrically valid and reliable. Accordingly, the instrument can gauge data
on the interplay between PCK, PB, and teachers’MU. It provides implications for in-service teachers’
instructional practice and professional development programs, mainly related to their PCK, PB, and MU.
The scale can measure the effects of teachers’PCK and PB on predicting teachers’MU approaches,
which is helpful to give directions for in-service teachers on how to use instructional materials effectively
by noticing their pedagogical beliefs and their instructional practices and enhancing their pedagogical
content knowledge. The development and validation of the EFLT-PBPCKMU scale allows for further
investigation of the interrelationships among PCK, PB, and MU, which contribute to the constructivist
theory of learning, particularly in terms of instructional material use approach and teachers’pedagogical
beliefs. However, this study is limited to the teachers’MU; further scale development and validation to
measure how students use instructional materials is also essential to discover how it affects learning and
material evaluation and development.
12 N. F. ALMUNAWAROH ET AL.
Acknowledgments
This study is funded by the Reading Fluency and Comprehension Research Group, MTA-PTE, Hungary. We also would
like to express our gratitude to the Doctoral School of Education, University of Szeged, Hungary, and the Tempus Public
Foundation, which supports the corresponding author degree through the Stipendium Hungaricum scholarship program.
Institutional Review Board statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review
Board (or Ethics Committee) of the Regional and Institutional Review Board of the Doctoral School of Education,
University of Szeged (Reference number: 3/2023, date of approval: 22 March 2023).
Informed consent statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Disclosure statement
“The authors declare no conflict of interest.”“The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection,
analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.”
Funding
This work was funded by the Research Programme for Public Education Development of the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences, Reading Fluency and Comprehension Research Group, MTA-PTE.
About the authors
Nurul Fitriyah Almunawaroh is a PhD student at the Doctoral School of Education, University of Szeged, Hungary.
Her research fields are teachers’beliefs, material use, ICT in ELT, and electronic material development for EFL. She is
also a member of the Reading Fluency and Comprehension Research Group, MTA-PTE, Hungary.
Chuzaimah Dahlan Diem is an emeritus professor at the Department of Language and Arts, Faculty of Teacher
Training and Education, Universitas Sriwijaya, Palembang, Indonesia. Her research fields are EYL, ICT in ELT, and
reading literacy. Her professional organization is TEFLIN (The Association for the Teaching of English as a Foreign
Language in Indonesia).
J
anos Stekl
acs is a full-time professor at the University of P
ecs, Hungary, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Institute of Education, Department of Educational Theory. He is a member of the council of the Doctoral School of
Education, the leader of the Educational Theory Doctoral Program, and a supervisor at the Doctoral School of
Education, University of Szeged. His research fields are reading literacy, reading fluency, functional literacy, and eye-
tracking examinations of teaching and learning processes.
ORCID
Nurul Fitriyah Almunawaroh http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6437-2477
Chuzaimah Dahlan Diem http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0216-0273
J
anos Stekl
acs http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0998-6278
Data availability statement
The data presented in this study are available on DOI: 10.17632/4m6g24y8vm.1
References
Alavi, M., Visentin, D. C., Thapa, D. K., Hunt, G. E., Watson, R., & Cleary, M. (2020). Chi-square for model fit in con-
firmatory factor analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing,76(9), 2209–2211. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14399
Alghamdi,A.(2021).TheimpactofEFLteachers’pedagogical beliefs and practices: Communicative language teaching in
a Saudi university context. English Language Teaching,14(12), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v14n12p171
COGENT EDUCATION 13
Armin, D. S., & Siregar, A. M. P. (2021). EFL teacher’s pedagogical beliefs in teaching at an Indonesian university.
Jurnal Tarbiyah,28(2), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.30829/tar.v28i2.1119
Azizah, N., Inderawati, R., & Vianty, M. (2021). Developing descriptive reading materials in EFL classes by utilizing the
local culture. Studies in English Language and Education,8(2), 596–621. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i2.18562
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H Freeman and Company.
Bell, J., & Gower, R. (2011). Writing course materials for the world: A great compromise. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.),
Materials development in language teaching (pp. 135–150). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
9781139042789.008
Bl€
omeke, S., & Delaney, S. (2012). Assessment of teacher knowledge across countries: A review of the state of
research. ZDM,44(3), 223–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0429-7
C¸eliker-Ercan, G., & C¸ubukc¸u, Z. (2023). Curriculum implementation approaches of secondary school English teachers:
A case study. Kastamonu E
gitim Dergisi,31(3), 347–366. https://doi.org/10.24106/KEFDERGI-2021-0006
Cephe, P. T., & Yalcin, C. G. (2015). Beliefs about foreign language learning: The effects of teacher beliefs on learner
beliefs. The Anthropologist,19(1), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2015.11891651
Chen, X., Shu, D., & Zhu, Y. (2021). Investigating in-service foreign language teachers’beliefs about using information
and communication technology. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,30(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40299-020-00514-0
Chen, B., Wei, B., & Wang, X. (2020). Examinig the factors that influence high school Chemistry teachers’use of cur-
riculum materials: From the teachers’perspective. Journal of Baltic Science Education,19(6), 893–907. https://doi.
org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.893907
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.
4324/9781315456539
Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Macmillan Education.
Diehm, E. A., & Hendricks, A. E. (2021). Teachers’content knowledge and pedagogical beliefs regarding the use of
African American English. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,52(1), 100–117. https://doi.org/10.
1044/2020_LSHSS-19-00101
Erg€
ulec¸, F., Eren, E., & Ersoy, M. (2022). Implementation of TPACK-based instructional design model in an emergency
remote course. Hacettepe University Journal of Education,37, 560–572. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2021073521
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology
integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education,59(2), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.com-
pedu.2012.02.001
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Ltd. Retrieved from https://
sadbhavnapublications.org/research-enrichment-material/2-Statistical-Books/Discovering-Statistics-Using-IBM-SPSS-
Statistics-4th-c2013-Andy-Field.pdf
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measure-
ment error. Journal of Marketing Research,18(1), 39–50. http://www.jstor.com/stable/3151312 https://doi.org/10.
2307/3151312
Gao, Y., & Cui, Y. (2024). English as a foreign language teachers’pedagogical beliefs about teacher roles and their
agentic actions amid and after COVID-19: A case study. RELC Journal,55(1), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/
00336882221074110
Guerrettaz, A. M., Mathieu, C. S., Lee, S., & Berwick, A. (2022). Materials use in language classrooms: A research
agenda. Language Teaching,55(4), 547–564. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000021
Habte, A., Bishaw, A., & Lechissa, M. (2021). Beyond policy narratives: Exploring the role of pedagogical beliefs in
classroom practices of secondary school Civics and Ethical Education teachers. Smart Learning Environments,8(26),
1–26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00171-w
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation mod-
eling (1st ed.). SAGE Publications Inc.
Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive
study of secondary teachers’curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education,43(3), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2011.10782570
Hartati, Y., Permanasari, A., Sopandi, W., & Mudzakir, A. (2019). Relationship between content knowledge and general
pedagogical knowledge on pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Physics: Conference Series,1157, 042045.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/4/042045
Harwood, N. (2010). Issues in materials development and design. In N. Harwood (Ed.), English language teaching
materials: Theory and practice (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit.
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods,6(1), 53–60. https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejbrm/art-
icle/view/1224
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). A cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10705519909540118
14 N. F. ALMUNAWAROH ET AL.
Idowu, O. O. (2010). Factors influencing the use of instructional materials by Agriculture teachers among public and
private secondary schools in Botswana. North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture,54(2), 37–41. https://
www.jstor.org/stable/nactajournal.54.2.37
Inayati, D., & Emaliana, I. (2017). The relationship among pre-service EFL teachers’beliefs about language learning,
pedagogical beliefs, and beliefs about ICT integration. Dinamika Ilmu,17(1), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.21093/di.
v17i1.638
Jayachandran, S., Biradavolu, M., & Cooper, J. (2023). Using machine learning and qualitative interviews to design a
five- question survey module for women’s agency. World Development,161, 106076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
worlddev.2022.106076
Karatepe, C¸., & Civelek, M. (2021). A case study on EFL teachers’views on material adaptation for teaching prag-
matics. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Aras¸tırmalarıDergisi,23(3), 894–910. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.953259
Kemendikbud. (2013). Peraturan menteri pendidikan dan kebudayaan republik Indonesia nomor 65 tahun 2013 tentang
standar proses pendidikan dasar dan menengah. Retrieved from https://luk.staff.ugm.ac.id/atur/bsnp/Permendikbud65-
2013SI.pdf
Lai, C., Wang, Q., & Huang, X. (2022). The differential interplay of TPACK, teacher beliefs, school culture and profes-
sional development with the nature of in-service EFL teachers’technology adoption. British Journal of Educational
Technology,53(5), 1389–1411. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13200
Lim, C. P., & Chan, B. C. (2007). Micro lessons in teacher education: Examining pre-service teachers’pedagogical
beliefs. Computers & Education,48(3), 474–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.03.005
Liu, H., Lin, C., & Zhang, D. (2017). Pedagogical beliefs and attitudes toward information and communication tech-
nology: A survey of teachers of English as a foreign language in China. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
30(8), 745–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1347572
L}
orincz, M. (2023). EFL student teachers’beliefs about language teaching approaches and instructional practices.
Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching,20(2), 167–192. https://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v20n22023/lorincz.pdf
https://doi.org/10.56040/mlrc2024
Masuhara, H. (2022). Approaches to materials adaptation. In J. Norton & H. Buchanan (Eds.), The Routledge handbook
of materials development for language teaching (pp. 277–289). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/b22783-24
Mishan, F., & Timmis, I. (2015). Materials development for TESOL. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. https://doi.org/10.
1093/elt/ccx062
Nxasana, S. E., Chen, J., Du, X., & Hasan, M. A. (2023). Teachers’pedagogical beliefs in a project-based learning
school in South Africa. Education Sciences,13(2), 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020140
OECD. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS.https://www.oecd.org/
education/school/43023606.pdf
Osikomaiya, O. (2020). Production and use of instructional materials for language teaching. African Journal for
Multidisciplinary Research Studies,2(1), 97–103. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3443980
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of
Educational Research,62(3), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307
Pompea, S. M., & Walker, C. E. (2017). The importance of pedagogical content knowledge in curriculum development for
illumination engineering [Paper presentation]. Conference Session. 14th Conference on Education and Training in
Optics and Photonics: ETOP 2017, 10452, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2270022
Pourhaji, M., Sadeghi, M., & Rezvani, F. (2023). Teachers’materials use in L2 classroom discourse: Interface between
stated and enacted beliefs about textbooks. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research,11(1), 157–177.
https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2023.121277
Sauro, J., & Lewis, J. R. (2016). Quantifying the user experience practical statistics for user research (2nd ed.). Elsevier
Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802308-2.00008-4
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Shin, T. (2009). Technological pedagogical con-
tent knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment for preservice teachers. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education,42(2), 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544
Schutz, P. A., Hong, J. Y., & Francis, D. C. (2020). Teachers’goals, beliefs, emotions, and identity development:
Investigating complexities in the profession (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429456008
Shawer, S. F. (2010). Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum-developers, curriculum-
makers and curriculum-transmitters. Teaching and Teacher Education,26(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.
2009.03.015
Shrestha, N. (2021). Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis. American Journal of Applied Mathematics and
Statistics,9(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajams-9-1-2
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,15(2), 4–14.
https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v23i3.11230
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundation of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review,57(1), 1–
23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Sun, Z. (2010). Language teaching materials and learner motivation. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,1(6),
889–892. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.1.6.889-892
COGENT EDUCATION 15
Tan, X., & Matsuda, P. K. (2020). Teacher beliefs and pedagogical practices of integrating multimodality into first-year
composition. Computers and Composition,58, 102614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102614
Tomlinson. (2022). B. The discipline of materials development. In J. Norton & H. Buchanan (Eds.), The routledge hand-
book of materials development for language teaching (pp. 3–16). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/b22783-2
Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (2018). The complete guide to the theory and practice of materials development for lan-
guage learning. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://lccn.loc.gov/2016058002
Tran-Thanh, V. (2021). “Why I don’t teach as I was trained”: Vietnamese early career ESOL teachers’experience of
reality shock. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,46(12), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2021v46n12.3
Wang, L., Lee, I., & Park, M. (2020). Chinese university EFL teachers’beliefs and practices of classroom writing assess-
ment. Studies in Educational Evaluation,66, 100890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100890
West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In R. H.
Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–231). The Guilford Press. https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/361861039_Handbook_of_Structural_Equation_Modeling/link/62c8959dcab7ba7426dbc797/down-
load?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19
Wu, Y.-T., Chai, C.-S., & Wang, L.-J. (2022). Exploring secondary school teachers’TPACK for video-based flipped learn-
ing: The role of pedagogical beliefs. Education and Information Technologies,27(6), 8793–8819. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10639-022-10977-x
16 N. F. ALMUNAWAROH ET AL.
