644956

research-article2016
JTEXXX10.1177/0022487116644956Journal of Teacher EducationKnig et al.

Article

Journal of Teacher Education

Teachers Professional Knowledge

2016, Vol. 67(4) 320337
2016 American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education
for Teaching English as a Foreign Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Language: Assessing the Outcomes DOI: 10.1177/0022487116644956

jte.sagepub.com

of Teacher Education

Johannes Knig1, Sandra Lammerding1, Gnter Nold2,

Andreas Rohde1, Sarah Strau1, and Sarantis Tachtsoglou1

Abstract
Despite an increasing research interest in subject-specific teacher knowledge, the scientific understanding regarding
teachers professional knowledge for teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) is very limited. This study therefore
applies standardized tests to directly assess content knowledge (CK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and general
pedagogical knowledge (GPK) of preservice teachers for TEFL in Germany from different programs and stages during initial
teacher education (during their masters studies at university and at the end of their induction phase). Structural analysis
provides evidence that teacher knowledge with respect to TEFL is a multidimensional construct and PCK is closely related to
both CK and GPK. Test scores vary across preservice teachers from different programs and stages, which adequately reflects
differences in the learning opportunities they had during teacher education.

Keywords
teacher education preparation, teacher knowledge, assessment, English as a foreign language, pedagogical content knowledge

There has been a growing interest in conducting research on
teacher knowledge in recent decades. Following the influen-
tial work by Shulman (1986, 1987), researchers have been
building on the differentiation, put forward in the analysis of
teacher knowledge, between content knowledge (CK), peda-
gogical content knowledge (PCK), and general pedagogical
knowledge (GPK). They assume that such knowledge can be
identified and contributes to the effective teaching of stu-
dents and their learning outcomes. Recent empirical educa-
tional research has started to assess teacher knowledge
directly and provides evidence that subject-specific knowl-
edge and skills on the part of teachers are decisive factors
with respect to the achievement of their students (e.g.,
Baumert etal., 2010; Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005; Sadler,
Sonnert, Coyle, Cook-Smith, & Miller, 2013). Teacher edu-
cation effectiveness research has established the importance
of measuring teacher knowledge as an outcome at various
stages of teacher education (Blmeke, Felbrich, Mller,
Kaiser, & Lehmann, 2008).
The studies that actually test teacher knowledge mainly
focus on teachers of mathematics (Ball, Thames, & Phelps,
2008; Baumert etal., 2010; Hill etal., 2005; Schmidt etal.,
2007; Tatto etal., 2012), thus enriching our understanding
regarding mathematics as a core school subject worldwide
(Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development
[OECD], 2014). However, it remains an open question if
such new insights are relevant to other subjects. Among
those, teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) has
aroused particular attention, not least due to the fact that
English as a lingua franca (House, 2003; Jenkins, 2013) is
the most influential language worldwide (Weber, 1997) and
the most commonly studied foreign language at European
schools (Eurostat, 2012). At the same time, TEFL is distinct
from the teaching of other subjects for various reasons (Borg,
2006; Burns, Freeman, & Edwards, 2015; Canagarajah,
2013; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008) and, therefore,
requires both a specific teacher knowledge base and specific
learning opportunities during teacher education (Freeman,
2002; Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Tarone & Allwright, 2005).
Against this background, this article proposes a conceptu-
alization and operationalization of the professional knowl-
edge of future middle school teachers for TEFL, whom we
directly assessed using tests developed by our research
group. Our investigation will be exemplified by data from
preservice teachers in Germany as a sample country in which
1
University of Cologne, Germany
2
Technical University of Dortmund, Germany
Corresponding Author:
Johannes Knig, Empirical School Research, University of Cologne,
Gronewaldstr. 2, 50931 Cologne, Germany.
Email: johannes.koenig@uni-koeln.de
Knig et al. 321
English, as well as German and Mathematics, belongs to the
three core subjects taught at school. We first examine con-
struct validity by looking at the structure of cognitive mea-
sures, namely, CK, PCK, and GPK, and extend this to include
language proficiency as a distinct characteristic of foreign
language teachers (Borg, 2006). Second, we examine cur-
ricular validity by comparing such measures with specific
learning opportunities during initial teacher education. The
overall aim of this article is to contribute to a more precise
outline of professional teacher knowledge for TEFL and its
relation to teacher education, which has been identified as a
research gap (Nold, 2013; Tarone & Allwright, 2005).
Research on Teachers Professional
Knowledge
Differentiation of Teacher Knowledge Into CK,
PCK, and GPK
That teacher knowledge makes a significant contribution to
effective teaching and student learning is broadly accepted
(Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2007; Gitomer & Zisk,
2015; Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Munby, Russell, &
Martin, 2001; Woolfolk Hoy, Davis, & Pape, 2006). Research
on teacher expertise underlines the importance of teachers
professional knowledge for the successful mastering of tasks
that are typical of their profession (e.g., Berliner, 2001, 2004;
Bromme, 1992). The most frequently cited heuristic to clas-
sify components of teachers professional knowledge was
provided by Shulman (1987). His classification has highly
affected the definition of teacher knowledge categories, and
todays research into teacher knowledge relies on it.
Especially when testing teachers, researchers tend to distin-
guish between CK, PCK, and GPK (see, for example,
Baumert etal., 2010; Tatto etal., 2012).
CK is the knowledge of the specific subject and
related to the content teachers are required to teach.
CK is shaped by academic disciplines underlying the
subject (Freeman, 2002). For example, in the com-
parative Teacher Education and Development Study
in Mathematics (TEDS-M), mathematical CK com-
prised the following content areas: number, geometry,
algebra, and data (Tatto, Schwille, & Senk, 2008).1
GPK is the knowledge which is not subject-matter
related. According to Shulman (1987), GPK involves
those broad principles and strategies of classroom
management and organization that appear to tran-
scend subject matter as well as knowledge about
learners and learning, assessment, and educational
contexts and purposes (p. 8). General pedagogy as a
scientific term still needs clarification and seems to be
influenced by cultural perspectives (Hopmann &
Riquarts, 1995). However, a systematic review
recently conducted by the OECD has shown that a
common aim across current research studies investi-
gating teachers GPK empirically is to account for
content related to three broader fields: knowledge of
instructional process (e.g., teaching methods, class-
room management), student learning (e.g., individual
dispositions of students and their learning processes),
and assessment (e.g., diagnosing principles and evalu-
ation procedures; Knig, 2014).
PCK includes subject-specific knowledge for the pur-
pose of teaching. According to Shulman (1987), it
serves as the category most likely to distinguish the
understanding of the content specialist from that of
the pedagogue (p. 8). PCK has been defined by vari-
ous research groups for the domain of mathematics
predominantly. For example, the review proposed by
Bukova-Gzel (2010) provides a helpful heuristic that
summarizes previous work, such as that of Shulman
(1987), Grossman (1990), and Schoenfeld (1998).
According to her framework, PCK comprises teacher
knowledge of curriculum, knowledge of learners, and
the knowledge of teaching strategies and multiple rep-
resentations. Such a differentiation with respect to
PCK has been accounted for in conceptual frame-
works of empirical studies that operationalized PCK
to test teachers. For example, in the German study
Cognitive Activation in the Classroom (COACTIV),
three aspects of PCK were defined: knowledge of
mathematical tasks, knowledge of student misconcep-
tions and difficulties, and knowledge of mathematic-
specific instructional strategies (Krauss etal., 2008).
Similarly, in TEDS-M, PCK of future primary and
secondary school teachers of mathematics was defined
as the knowledge about the teaching and learning of
mathematics as well as curricular knowledge
(Blmeke & Delaney, 2012; Tatto etal., 2008).
Although researchers have worked on the knowledge catego-
ries provided by Shulman (1987), especially on PCK (e.g.,
Depaepe, Verschaffel, & Kelchtermans, 2013), it remains an
open question how these cognitive elements are interrelated.
PCK may be seen as the result of teachers transforming and
applying their CK and GPK to a new subject-specific knowl-
edge categoryin keeping with Shulmans (1987) notion of
PCK as that special amalgam of content and pedagogy (p.
8). Integrating the elements of GPK and subject-related
knowledge is typical with respect to the nature of teachers
professional knowledge (Grossman & Richert, 1988). This
allows us to assume that PCK is a more central knowledge
category and CK as well as GPK serve as foundations.
Such theoretical distinctions have been pointed out, but
empirical educational research has not provided clear
answers with respect to the differentiations proposed.
Considering existing studies in mathematics such as
Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching (MKT; Hill etal.,
2005), TEDS-M, and COACTIV, their findings either show
322 Journal of Teacher Education 67(4)
that CK and PCK are very highly intercorrelated (Blmeke,
Houang, & Suhl, 2011; Krauss etal., 2008), or even suggest
that CK and PCK could be merged into one knowledge cat-
egory (Hill etal., 2005). None of these analyses have sys-
tematically accounted for the significance of GPK.
Therefore, they leave open the question of whether teachers
PCK draws on both CK and GPK. Generally, GPK has been
identified as a neglected category of teacher knowledge in
empirical research (Atjonen, Korkeakoski, & Mehtlinen,
2011; Tatto etal., 2008).
Distinctive Characteristics of TEFL
Although empirical educational research on teacher knowl-
edge exemplified by studies on teaching mathematics has led
to remarkable progress, the question of how such new
insights can be transferred to other subjects remains largely
unanswered. In the case of TEFL, various reasons exist why
findings from empirical educational research on mathemat-
ics teacher knowledge cannot be generalized for this subject.
Instead, the necessity of a domain-specific investigation is
recommended.
Evidence has been provided showing that TEFL is distinct
from teaching other subjects (Borg, 2006). In particular, the
unity of content and medium in foreign language teaching
has been highlighted as a feature through which it differs
from domains such as science or mathematics (Canagarajah,
2013; Freeman, 2002; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008;
Watzke, 2007). Nowadays, in the communicative foreign
language classroom, there is frequently no clear distinction
to be made between language as subject matter and as a tool
in communication. However, in the context of Germany, the
focus on content, that is, on cultural and intercultural topics,
becomes quite prominent at more advanced levels. As a
result of this change in emphasis, TEFL at the more advanced
stages is clearly based on the academic disciplines of literary
and cultural studies as well as linguistics, which means it is
partly comparable with mathematics.
In contrast to TEFL, content in mathematics is clearly
discipline-based throughout, which allows the teacher to
focus on the content of his or her subject. In the TEFL class-
room, the situation is more complicated as the teacher is sup-
posed to use the language as content and medium of his or
her instruction to support the foreign language acquisition
process, especially at the beginning stages. Then the teacher
is required to pay attention to the linguistic forms produced
by the students and at the same time to process the content of
the students utterances (Tarone & Allwright, 2005).
Moreover, the emphasis on form and content varies in differ-
ent classroom situations.
In contrast, mathematics or science teachers can rely on the
language skills that their students have already acquired else-
where and concentrate on teaching a topic of the discipline
such as explaining and exercising a mathematical operation or
solving a mathematical problem. However, language across
the curriculum may also have an impact on mathematics
teaching, although it will not change the major focus on the
discipline.
As a consequence, in a study like TEDS-M, the conceptu-
alization of subject-specific teacher knowledge was closely
aligned to such disciplinary topics (Dhrmann, Kaiser, &
Blmeke, 2012). Such a conceptualization developed for
teaching mathematics is not suitable for English language
teaching as in a lot of situations disciplinary topics do not
provide the English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher with
the content he or she is going to deal with in the classroom in
a one-to-one relationship.
Besides the unity of content and medium, there are even
more differences to be acknowledged when comparing sub-
jects like mathematics and foreign language teaching. As
oral production plays a central role (Borg, 2006), language
teaching is determined by a curriculum that takes into
account both oral and written competencies and heavily
relies on specific teaching methods and strategies that sup-
port oral communication (communicative language teaching
[CLT]; for example, Spada, 2007; Watzke, 2007). An EFL
teachers knowledge base is limited when he or she lacks
appropriate communication skills, but at the same time, the
sole command of the target language will not suffice to pro-
vide high quality learning opportunities to students (e.g., a
native speaker of English will not automatically constitute a
professional EFL teacher in the context of a school in
Germany).
Language teachers are also required to develop a high
level of language awareness, language learning awareness,
and of intercultural competencies (cf. the national standards
of education for foreign languages in Germany, http://www.
kmk.org) to diagnose their students strengths and weak-
nesses in the acquisition and learning process and to encour-
age and develop competencies in the whole range of culture-,
media-, and text-related objectives of the EFL curriculum.
Furthermore, EFL teachers also have to be experts in the
methodology of language teaching and learning. They need
specific competencies to create stimulating communicative
learning environments and opportunities for developing con-
tent-related skills. These teacher competencies and strategies
have a different quality from those teaching strategies in a
subject like mathematics (Borg, 2006). Authenticity of the
interaction between students and teachers, the social situa-
tions in the classroom, and the tasks chosen for learning play
a major role in foreign language teaching (Gilmore, 2007).
Whereas domains of science or mathematics are charac-
terized by paradigmatic knowledge, English is an area that is
largely defined by narrative ways of knowledge, which has
implications for conceptualizing the teachers PCK in this
subject (Grossman & Shulman, 1994). For example, incor-
rect learner output in TEFL might be more acceptable than in
mathematics, especially when the teacher intends to encour-
age the learners to use the foreign language for the purpose
of communication (Borg, 2006). The EFL teacher can judge
Knig et al. 323
the role of language errors adequately provided he or she is
familiar with theories of second language acquisition, a lin-
guistic field of study.
However, hardly any research exists that has investigated
such distinctiveness with regard to the knowledge of EFL
teachers (Nold, 2013; Tarone & Allwright, 2005).
Prior Empirical Research on Teachers Knowledge
for TEFL
Empirical educational research on teachers professional
knowledge for TEFL is rare (e.g., Akbari & Tajik, 2009;
Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Gatbonton, 1999; Karimi, 2011).
Qualitative studies have phenomenologically explored the
domain-specific challenges that EFL teachers have to master
during teaching, while quantitative studies have used proxies
for EFL teacher knowledge. Systematic empirical educa-
tional research studies with an intensive scholarly focus
using tests directly assessing CK, PCK, and GPK for TEFL
virtually do not exist to our knowledge.
For example, Borg (2006) empirically investigated the
definition of foreign language teachers distinctiveness to get
an understanding of foreign language teaching relative to
other subjects. Data were elicited orally and through a range
of written tasks. Taking into account various perspectives
with respect to practice and future language teachers in dif-
ferent contexts, Borg (2006) identified five major themes:
the nature of the subject (i.e., language is more dynamic than
other subjects and has more practical relevance in real life),
the content of teaching (i.e., besides grammar, vocabulary,
the four language skills, issues such as culture, communica-
tion, and learning skills are important referring to the unity of
medium and content), teaching methodology (i.e., emphasiz-
ing the diversity of teaching methods and the significance of
creating contexts for communication and maximizing stu-
dent involvement), teacherlearner relationships (i.e., how
they are linked to communication and themes of personal
relevance), and non-native issues (i.e., operation through the
foreign language in class, where the teacher is compared
with native speakers of the foreign language).
Other empirical studies have tried to go beyond self-
reports. Gatbonton (1999, 2008) and Mullock (2006) ana-
lyzed the challenges EFL teachers face during teaching to
understand practical action in the classroom. As their find-
ings show, subject-specific decisions of EFL teachers are
mainly related to language management and knowledge
of students. Language management means to pay explicit
attention to language items (and skills) and to provide
opportunities for comprehensible input and output
(Mullock, 2006, p. 56). It is related to how a teacher pres-
ents content to students and how he or she interacts with
students, also depending on how the lesson was planned.
Decisions related to the knowledge of students help the
teacher to make their teaching appropriate to the learning
of their students.
Tests assessing teacher knowledge for TEFL directly have
been developed for purposes of teacher licensure and certifi-
cation (e.g., Cambridge Teaching Language Assessment,
2015; Educational Testing Service [ETS], 2014). As they
were not available for our basic research on teacher knowl-
edge, our research group started to develop specific tests to
measure the three major teacher knowledge categories of
CK, PCK, and GPK. In our study, we will draw on such a
conceptualization of teacher professional knowledge and
outline its operationalization in the Method section.
Teacher Knowledge and Teacher
Education
Testing Teacher Knowledge as an Outcome of
Initial Teacher Education
Debates on the definition of what preservice teachers during
and at the end of their training have to know and be able to
do highlight the need for clarifying what we mean by teach-
ers professional knowledge (Darling-Hammond &
Bransford, 2007; Gitomer & Zisk, 2015). Discussions about
the reform of teacher education have more often been domi-
nated by evaluative rather than evidence-based statements
(Ball etal., 2008; Knig & Blmeke, 2013). Although they
may provide promising hypotheses, without empirical test-
ing they have their limits in the process of improving teacher
education (Larcher & Oelkers, 2004).
This has been recognized and addressed by several stud-
ies as systematic reviews outline (e.g., Blmeke & Delaney,
2012; Knig, 2014). One prominent example is the compara-
tive study, TEDS-M, which served as the first large-scale
assessment of future teachers of mathematics that worked
with representative samples from 17 countries worldwide
and assessed teacher knowledge directly (Tatto etal., 2012).
Such knowledge measures provide detailed insight into the
outcomes of initial teacher education, its strengths, and
weaknesses (Galluzo & Craig, 1990). They are considered to
be more proximal when compared with teacher certificates
(Baumert & Kunter, 2013).
Learning Opportunities
Initial teacher education programs aim at preparing students
to become well-qualified teachers. Among other goals that
might be pursued, such programs intend to support preser-
vice teachers acquisition of professional knowledge for
teaching. Thus, subject-related and pedagogical learning
opportunities are provided by teacher education institutions
(Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Feiman-Nemser, 2001;
Grossman, 1990; Schmidt etal., 2007).
Some of the studies comparing the outcomes of teacher
education also examine the relationship between teacher edu-
cation programs, learning opportunities, and the professional
knowledge acquired (e.g., Groschedl, Harms, Kleickmann,
324 Journal of Teacher Education 67(4)
& Glowinski, 2015; Kleickmann etal., 2013; Knig, 2013;
Tatto etal., 2012). This enables researchers to account for the
process of teacher education and relate it to its outcomes.
According to TEDS-M, a teacher education program can be
defined as a specific pathway that exists within an institution
. . . that requires students to undertake a set of subjects and
experiences, and leads to the award of a credential on comple-
tion (Tatto etal., 2008, p. 24). Learning opportunities avail-
able to preservice teachers are usually related to questions of
how they are structured and what content is covered during
initial teacher education. Among other purposes, they serve to
explain possible differences in knowledge test scores and as
an indicator of curricular variation (Floden, 2002; McDonnell,
1995).
TEDS-M data, for example, provided evidence of differ-
ences in types of topics and courses covered when compar-
ing the United States with outperforming countries (Schmidt,
Cogan, & Houang, 2011). With regard to the GPK of future
primary school teachers in Germany, multilevel modeling
revealed significant positive effects with respect to the num-
ber of topics studied in general pedagogy and mathematics
pedagogythat is, the more learning opportunities a future
teacher had had during his or her teacher education, the bet-
ter he or she did on the TEDS-M testan advantage of pri-
mary teacher education programs that focus just on the
primary sector compared with combined primary and lower
secondary programs (Blmeke & Knig, 2011). Other stud-
ies have accounted for such differences as well. For example,
based on data from the COACTIV project, structural differ-
ences between lower preservice teachers and lower/upper
secondary teachers of mathematics and between different
stages during their initial teacher education have been found
(Kleickmann etal., 2013). The present study aims at continu-
ing such an investigation into the field and relates it to pre-
service teachers for TEFL.
The Study: Teachers Professional
Knowledge for TEFL in Germany
Context of Study
When compared at an international level, it is important to
note that Germany is a country with a specific teacher educa-
tion structure as it offers teacher education programs that are
spread over two phases; a theoretical one and a practical one
(Knig & Blmeke, 2013). These phases are offered by two
completely different institutions. As both phases provide dif-
ferent learning opportunities, comparing the outcomes of
each phase is of great interest in our study:
Theoretical Phase: Future teachers begin their prepa-
ration in one of the German universities with pro-
grams that emphasize academic, theoretical study.
This comprises the study of two teaching subjects
including subject-related teaching methodologies; the
study of general pedagogy, which includes the study
of areas such as educational theory and psychology;
and short practical components related to the study of
general pedagogy as well as the teaching subjects. The
bachelor usually takes 3 years of studying. Future
teachers will then study for 2 more years and finish
university with a masters degree.
Practical Phase: The completion of the masters cer-
tificate is the general requirement for entry into the
second phase of initial teacher education. It takes 1.5
years, serves as induction, and aims at the practical
transfer of theoretical knowledge. Preparation is pro-
vided in special, generally small, institutions operated
by state governments. Future teachers must work part-
time at schools and attend courses in general peda-
gogy and subject-related pedagogy, whereas the study
of the teaching subject content is not part of the sec-
ond phase any more. The second phase ends with the
state examination consisting of a practical part includ-
ing at least two lessons taught in two different subjects
and an oral examination. Future teachers are assessed
by teacher educators whose courses they have to
attend during the second phase and they are mentored
by one or two teachers at school.
Preservice teachers pursuing a career for middle schools are
classified either as lower secondary (Grades 5-10) or lower/
upper secondary teachers (Grades 5-12). The latter group
becomes qualified to teach in the academic school track
(Gymnasium), whereas lower secondary teachers only qual-
ify for teaching at lower secondary schools (Hauptschule,
Realschule, or corresponding school types2). As a conse-
quence, teacher education programs differ in the number of
courses and length of study, that is, a longer duration for
lower/upper secondary teaching (Knig & Blmeke, 2013).
Lower/upper secondary teachers are significantly better paid
than lower secondary teachers (OECD, 2011).
Both characteristics, the differentiation in terms of a theo-
retical and a practical context of initial teacher education and
the differentiation of programs for middle school teachers,
provide an outstanding opportunity to compare preservice
teachers performance on teacher knowledge tests
(Kleickmann etal., 2013). Therefore, the context of our
study is highly suited to examining how different contexts
and opportunities with respect to ways of learning, for exam-
ple, courses at university and during induction, contribute to
learning on the part of prospective foreign language teachers
(Tarone & Allwright, 2005), that is, their acquisition of pro-
fessional knowledge. While courses in the academic setting
often aim primarily at the acquisition of theoretical knowl-
edge, practical learning opportunities at school give future
teachers the chance to connect their knowledge to practical
situations in the classroom. Such learning opportunities sup-
port preservice teachers in progressing from the stage of
teacher novices to advanced beginners (Berliner, 2001,
Knig et al. 325

2004). We expect findings from such comparisons will sup-

port the recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of the
current teacher education programs that contributed to this
study.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

In this article, we focus on two major research questions:
Research Question 1: How are different cognitive mea-
sures to describe the professional teacher knowledge for
TEFL related to each other?
Figure 1. One-dimensional (left side) and multidimensional
(right side) modeling of teachers professional knowledge for
TEFL.
Note. TEFL = Teaching English as a foreign language; CK = content
knowledge; PCK = pedagogical content knowledge; GPK = general
pedagogical knowledge.

This involves examining the structure of teacher knowl-

Shulmans (1987) conceptual understanding of PCK as that
edge, namely, the three cognitive measures of CK, PCK,
special amalgam of content and pedagogy (p. 8), we hypoth-
and GPK, which are controlled for language proficiency as
esize that PCK is highly intercorrelated with both CK and
a distinct characteristic of foreign language teachers (Borg,
GPK, whereas the correlation between CK and GPK is sig-
2006).
nificantly lower, taking into account that CK and GPK are
more distant to each other. However, we do not expect differ-
Research Question 2: How are preservice teachers test
ences in the degree of correlations of CK and GPK with
scores related to their learning opportunities?
PCK, assuming CK and GPK are equally important resources
for a teachers PCK.
Here we ask for mean differences in the test scores among
Regarding the second major question, we generally expect
different groups of preservice teachers from different pro-
different teacher knowledge categories to be shaped by learn-
grams and at different stages during their initial teacher edu-
ing opportunities in different ways. Preservice teachers dur-
cation career. The overall aim of this article is to contribute
ing induction attend additional courses in content-related
to a more precise categorization of professional teacher
pedagogy and general pedagogy, but they are not required to
knowledge for TEFL and its relation to teacher education,
acquire further CK in structured learning environments.
which has been identified as a research gap (Nold, 2013;
Therefore, we assume significant mean differences in the
Tarone & Allwright, 2005).
PCK test and the GPK test according to phase (i.e., preser-
Regarding the first major question, we generally expect
vice teachers at university vs. preservice teachers during
that the three knowledge categories of CK, PCK, and GPK
induction), but we do not expect preservice teachers during
can be distinguished empirically based on the assumption
induction to outperform preservice teachers at university,
that teachers professional knowledge is a multidimensional
neither in the CK test nor in language proficiency. Moreover,
construct (Baumert & Kunter, 2013; Fenstermacher, 1994).
we assume there will be differences that reflect the nature of
In dealing with this question, we carry out confirmatory fac-
the teacher education programs. Preservice teachers pursu-
tor analyses (CFAs). Depicting results from CFAs is an
ing a lower secondary teaching career have less subject-spe-
essential premise for the further description of teacher
cific learning opportunities during initial teacher education
knowledge test scores and is, therefore, looked at closely.
than their peers pursuing the lower/upper secondary teaching
CFA should provide evidence that teacher knowledge is not
career path. The latter group qualifies for subject specializa-
homogeneous but organized according to knowledge cate-
tion to be able to teach not only in lower secondary, but also
gories as proposed by Shulman (1987). An alternative would
upper secondary schools and to match the high expectations
be that teacher knowledge is homogeneous or one-dimen-
of the academic school track in Germany. This should result
sional. For example, research on teacher expertise has sug-
in higher subject-specific test scores for the latter group.
gested that knowledge categories are highly interwoven
among experts (Munby etal., 2001). Technically speaking,
this would imply a CFA with only one latent variable speci- Method
fied by all test items. Such a model is represented in Figure
1 (left side). Figure 1 (right side), by contrast, illustrates the Sampling Design
CFA with three latent variables representing the three To analyze differences between preservice teacher groups at
knowledge categories. In the following, several model fit distinct stages of their initial teacher education, we sampled
indices are used to compare the two models and to examine preservice teachers in the first phase during their masters
which is superior. studies at university, and in the second phase during their
Moreover, we assume significant differences in the degree induction phase in Germany. This allows us to examine and
of correlations between CK, PCK, and GPK. In keeping with compare the cognitive outcomes of each phase. We focused
326 Journal of Teacher Education 67(4)
Table 1. Sample Characteristics.
Preservice teachers at university (masters
students)
Lower secondary Lower/upper secondary
35 181
% %
Gender (female) 91.4 78.5
M (SD) M (SD)
Age 24.4 (3.4) 24.5 (2.5)
GPA 2.75 (.43) 2.05 (.52)
LP 66 (16) 77 (13)
Note. GPA = grade point average (ranges from 1 to 4 in Germany with 1 indicating highest level); LP = language proficiency (Cambridge Placement Test).
on teacher education in Germanys federal state of North
Rhine-Westphalia as the region not only with the largest
number of students and inservice teachers in Germany but
also as a region that covered between 20% and 25% of all
students and inservice teachers in Germany in 2013
(Kultusministerkonferenz [KMK], 2015).
Preservice teachers during induction and in their last year of
training. In keeping with the international sampling design
criteria of TEDS-M (Tatto etal., 2008), our second phase
target population was defined as preservice teachers in
their final year of training before they were eligible to
become practicing teachers of EFL in lower secondary
schools. A teacher education program was identified as
preparing lower secondary (in the following also labeled
as middle school) teachers if the license included Grade 8
as the common denominator of education Level 2 in the
International Standard Classification of Education
(lower secondary or basic education, Cycle 2; United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,
1997). In Germanys region of North Rhine-Westphalia,
the sample of middle school EFL teachers consists of
future teachers attending a teacher education program that
would qualify them as lower secondary teachers only
(allowing them to teach from Grade 5 through 10) and as
lower and upper secondary teachers (allowing them to
teach from Grade 5 through 12). Random samples were
drawn from this target population in the region of North
Rhine-Westphalia. The sample was stratified according to
type of program (i.e., the grade/class span that the license
includes) and administrative unit of the region. During
summer 2015, 228 preservice EFL middle school teachers
were surveyed, representing the regions population of 544
preservice teachers (see Table 1, for details).3 The response
rate on the institutional level was 100%, the response rate
on the individual level was 78%, thus fulfilling quality
requirements as known from TEDS-M.
Preservice teachers during induction (last year of
training)
Lower secondary Lower/upper secondary
78 150
% %
79.5 73.2
M (SD) M (SD)
29.4 (4.4) 28.6 (2.8)
2.69 (.57) 2.23 (.56)
68 (21) 81 (13)
Preservice teachers during their masters studies at univer-
sity. Our first phase target population was defined as pre-
service teachers during their masters studies at the 12
universities providing teacher education in Germanys
region of North Rhine-Westphalia. For reasons of compa-
rability, we selected the same teacher types as we did for
our second phase sample, that is, we sampled those pursu-
ing lower secondary teaching only and lower/upper sec-
ondary teachers. All universities were selected (institutional
sample). Then EFL masters courses for lower and lower/
upper secondary teachers within universities were identi-
fied and all masters students were surveyed (see Table 1,
for details). The response rate on the institutional level was
92% due to non-participation of one university. The
response rate on the individual level cannot be computed
as student/teacher statistics were not available. However,
as all students of a universitys course participated in the
study, we did not expect any bias from individual self-
selection at that end.
Tests of CK, PCK, GPK, and language proficiency. To assess the
knowledge base of preservice EFL teachers, several paper-
and-pencil tests were applied (see, for sample items, Table
A1 in the appendix). The CK test for TEFL of preservice
middle school teachers comprises 54 items that measure
knowledge of American and British literature and linguistics.
It was developed by our research group in a previous study
(Roters, Nold, Haudeck, Keler, & Stancel-Pitak, 2011) in
which evidence for curricular validity and reliability of the
test was provided.
CK as subject-specific knowledge in EFL teacher educa-
tion in Germany is also determined by academic disciplines,
similar to mathematics. The respective disciplines are, on
one hand, the study of English literature and culture and, on
the other hand, English linguistics. However, contrary to
mathematics, these disciplines do not provide the future
EFL teacher with the content they are going to deal with in
Knig et al. 327
the classroom in a one-to-one relationship. Rather, they are
the academic foundation for the EFL teacher to become a
cultural expert in English and to develop the competences of
an intercultural speaker, not a native speaker (Pachler &
Paran, 2013). Also, CK in this sense is definitely different
from concepts that equate content with the professional
knowledge and command of the foreign language (Freeman
& Johnson, 1998).
The GPK test is related to generic dimensions of teaching
quality and, therefore, measures knowledge allowing teach-
ers to prepare, structure, and evaluate lessons (structure),
to motivate and support students, as well as manage the
classroom (motivation/classroom management), to deal
with heterogeneous learning groups in the classroom (adap-
tivity), and to assess students (assessment). It was devel-
oped in the context of TEDS-M, which provided evidence
for curricular validity, as well as reliability of the test (Knig,
Blmeke, Paine, Schmidt, & Hsieh, 2011).4 Due to time con-
straints in the present study, we used a shorter version with
40 items only (for a more detailed description of the test, see,
for example, Knig, 2014; Knig etal., 2011).5 Language
proficiency was tested online using the Cambridge Placement
Test (Cambridge English Language Assessment).
The PCK test was developed in the present study, continu-
ing prior work by our research group (Jansing, Haudeck,
Keler, Nold, & Stancel-Pitak, 2013). Several pilot studies
and expert reviews were conducted to develop the final set of
33 test items. We propose a test design matrix that includes
three content dimensions: knowledge of curriculum, teach-
ing strategies, and students, thus following the triad of cur-
riculum, teaching, and learning (see, for example,
Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden, 2007).
Knowledge of curriculum comprises knowledge,
with particular grasp of the materials and programs
that serve as tools of the trade for teachers (Shulman,
1987, p. 7). It is decisive that teachers align their
teaching to the curricular goals of a specific school
grade and track. We draw on the issue that preservice
EFL teachers at the end of their training should be
aware of the elements of the EFL curriculum such as
basic definitions, concepts, and purposes. They should
be able to transform their subject knowledge into
tasks that aim to promote pupil learning of the sub-
ject (Edwards & Ogden, 1998, p. 744). For example,
they should be able to recall the six levels of profi-
ciency provided by the Common European
Framework, analyze sample material with regard to
the concrete learning objectives that could be used
with such material, or point out the language material
typically needed for a specific age group when doing
a certain activity in class.
Knowledge of teaching strategies and representations
is related to the ways of representing and formulating
the subject that make it comprehensible to others
(Shulman, 1986, p. 9), which comprises explanations,
demonstrations, illustrations, or examples. In accor-
dance with Shulman and the heuristic provided by
Bukova-Gzel (2010), we expect preservice teachers
at the end of their training to know language learning
concepts and approaches and be able to apply instruc-
tional strategies to present content, as well as to use
appropriate activities in instruction. For example, they
should be capable of analyzing exercises from a work-
book and identifying the task type (e.g., gap-filling
exercise), as well as determining a specific approach
in foreign language learning from a short description
of a teaching situation (e.g., task-based learning).
Knowledge of students generally comprises those
conceptions and preconceptions that students of dif-
ferent ages and backgrounds bring with them to the
learning of those most frequently taught topics and
lessons (Shulman, 1986, p. 9). In the EFL classroom,
teachers are required to be aware of their students
language proficiency to align learning materials and
activities (Gatbonton, 1999), which has been
addressed as an issue of language awareness
(Andrews, 2001). Thus, we are of the opinion that the
need for language awareness requires preservice
teachers at the end of their training to have knowledge
of the students prior knowledge, the difficulties stu-
dents will face during learning, and typical student
errors. For example, they should be able to analyze a
students oral performance; identify specific errors;
and explain how they would address error correction
depending on the classroom situation.6
Due to time constraints, only the PCK and the GPK tests
were administered in the test sessions at university and
teacher training institutions. Then the survey was continued
online. Participants were invited via email to complete the
CK test and the Cambridge Placement Test (75% response
rate). Questionnaires were coded on the basis of coding man-
uals by trained raters. About 20% of all open response items
were coded by two raters independently. Average interrater
reliability was good (Cohens kappa for CK items M = .89,
SD = .16; PCK items M = .75, SD = .21; GPK items M = .78,
SD = .17). Agreement between the raters was obtained in col-
lective discussion if conformity was lacking.
Scaling and Data Analysis
Our scaling and data analysis comprised several steps. As a
first step, item response theory (IRT) scaling methods were
used to estimate CK, PCK, and GPK test scores for the pre-
service teachers using the Conquest software package (Wu,
Adams, & Wilson, 1997). We scaled each knowledge test
separately and proceeded as follows: First, we analyzed test
data from each of the two groups of preservice teachers
according to the one-dimensional Rasch model (one
328 Journal of Teacher Education 67(4)
Table 2. Reliabilities of the Knowledge Tests by Preservice
Teacher Group (Cronbachs ).
CK PCK
n One-dimensional
Preservice teachers 216 .78 .72
at university
(masters
students)
Preservice teachers 228 .83 .67
during induction
(last year of
training)
Note. CK = content knowledge; PCK = pedagogical content knowledge;
GPK = general pedagogical knowledge.
parameter model), separately examining the invariance of
the two item parameter sets derived from each scaling analy-
sis. As item parameter sets were sufficiently invariant
between the groups, as a second step we again used the one-
dimensional Rasch model in the analysis of all preservice
teachers (concurrent calibration), providing a larger number
of observations and, thus, effectively increasing the analyti-
cal power of the final scaling analysis (Bond & Fox, 2007).
The reliabilities of the CK, PCK, and GPK scales are accept-
able or good (see Table 2). In addition, we examined the
internal consistency of each scale by using Expected A
Posteriori estimation (De Ayala, Schafer, & Sava-Bolesta,
1995), which allows an unbiased description of population
parameters (Wu etal., 1997). These are also the estimates
used to present descriptive statistics for CK, PCK, and GPK
in the following.
Our second step in the test scaling analysis was related to
our first research question concerning structural analyses on
the dimensionality of teacher knowledge. To allow latent
variable modeling as outlined in Figure 1, item parceling
was applied and the resulting sum scores used as indicators.7
CK as a latent variable was measured by two sum scores,
one comprising all 27 items measuring CK of literature and
another one all 27 items measuring CK of linguistics. PCK
was measured with respect to three indicators, one for each
knowledge sub-area: knowledge of curriculum (11 items),
teaching strategies (10 items), and students (12 items). GPK
was measured in terms of four indicators, one for each sub-
area: adaptivity (12 items), structure (13 items), classroom
management/motivation (nine items), and assessment (six
items). With a total of nine indicators, two CFA models were
specified according to Figure 1. We evaluated the fit of each
model with the ratio of the chi-square deviance and the
degrees of freedom (2/df estimates <2 are regarded as a
very good, <3 as a good, and >3 as an inadequate fit), the
comparative fit index (CFI; CFI estimates .95 indicate a
very good, estimates .90 a good, and estimates <.90 as a
bad model fit, see Kline, 2005), and two global fit indices
(root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] and
Table 3. Model Fit Indices for the One-Dimensional and the
Multidimensional Model.
GPK Model 2/df (p) CFI RMSEA SRMR
4.801 (<.001) .831 .093 .069
Multidimensional 1.713 (.009) .973 .040 .038
.79
Note. 2/df (p) = relative chi-square and p value; CFI = comparative fit
index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR =
standardized root mean square residual.
.67
Table 4. Intercorrelations of CK, PCK, and GPK
(Multidimensional Model, Controlled for LP).
1 2 3
1. CK
2. PCK .69
3. GPK .40 .77
LP (control .52 .43 .24
variable)
Note. CK = content knowledge; PCK = pedagogical content knowledge;
GPK = general pedagogical knowledge; LP = language proficiency. All
intercorrelations are significant (p < .001).
standardized root mean square residual [SRMR]; both esti-
mates <.05 indicate a very good and estimates <.08 as a
good model fit; see Hu & Bentler, 1999). All analyses were
conducted in MPlus (Muthn & Muthn, 1998-2010), which
enables us to account for hierarchical data structure (i.e.,
preservice teachers clustered in courses and institutions)
through the complex type option and with missing data
through model-based imputation of data (full-information-
maximum-likelihood option).
Results
Empirical Findings on the Structure of
Professional Knowledge for TEFL
Our first research question concerns the structure of teacher
knowledge for TEFL. We examined whether the sum scores
covering the sub-areas of CK, PCK, and GPK would serve as
indicators of one general factor. This model was compared
with a model in which the CK, PCK, and GPK were speci-
fied as three latent variables by the relevant sum scores (see
Figure 1). In both models, we controlled for language profi-
ciency as the CK and the PCK tests were provided in English,
whereas GPK was assessed in German.
Table 3 contains information on the fit of each model. The
findings allow us to assume the hypothesized multidimen-
sionality rather than the one-dimensionality of preservice
middle school teachers knowledge. The relative chi-square
(i.e., the ratio of the chi-square deviance and the degrees of
freedom), the CFI, the RMSEA, and the SRMR are all very
good for the multidimensional model. For the one-dimen-
sional model, however, the relative chi-square is out of the
Knig et al. 329
Table 5. Test Scores of Preservice EFL Teachers by Teacher Education Program and Phase.
Teacher Teacher CK
education education
program phase n M SE
Lower University 35 452 12.8
Secondary Induction 78 427 13.1
Lower/upper University 181 539 7.0
Secondary Induction 150 535 8.9
Note. EFL = English as a foreign language; CK = content knowledge; PCK = pedagogical content knowledge; GPK = general pedagogical knowledge.
range of adequate fit (>.3) and the CFI is clearly below the
level indicating good fit (<.90).
High latent intercorrelations (>.65) are between PCK and
CK on the one side and PCK and GPK on the other side (see
Table 4). By contrast, medium size intercorrelation can be
found with respect to the relation between GPK and CK (.40).
To test for differences in degree of intercorrelation, we used
the significance test proposed by Meng, Rosenthal, and Rubin
(1992). As we had expected, the intercorrelation between CK
and PCK is significantly higher than the intercorrelation
between CK and GPK (z = 11.15, p < .001), and GPK is more
highly intercorrelated with PCK than with CK (z = 13.20, p <
.001). These differences may reflect the fact that CK and
GPK are more distant from each other, whereas PCK relies on
both knowledge of content and knowledge of pedagogy
(Shulman, 1987). Interestingly, and contrary to our expecta-
tions, PCK and GPK are intercorrelated more highly than
PCK and CK (z = 2.79, p < .01).
Descriptive Findings on the Professional
Knowledge for TEFL
The test scores presented here result from IRT-scaling analy-
sis, which was carried out separately for each test. To facili-
tate the reading, the mean of the preservice teachers during
induction was modified to 500 test points with a standard
deviation of 100 test points for each knowledge test, respec-
tively. The test scores of preservice teachers at university
were modified using the same formula. Table 5 shows the
means, standard errors of the means, and the standard devia-
tion for preservice teachers grouped by program and phase.
As expected, mean differences are found between preser-
vice teachers at different stages in their initial teacher education
in both the PCK test and in the GPK test. The more advanced
preservice teachers are, the better they perform on these tests.
Differences are larger in the GPK test (about one standard devi-
ation) than in the PCK test (about half a standard deviation). By
contrast, no significant differences can be found in the CK test.
CK and PCK data reveal that future lower/upper secondary
teachers significantly outperformed their peers who are pursu-
ing a lower secondary teaching career only.
In summarizing the findings, we specified a single
regression model in which indicators of learning
PCK GPK
SD M SE SD M SE SD
69 377 13.6 80 387 18.1 107
88 445 9.6 85 480 10.6 94
90 493 7.9 106 418 9.9 132
86 529 7.8 96 510 8.3 102
opportunities (phase, program) simultaneously predict the
three knowledge categories (latent variables). In this analy-
sis, we controlled for gender, age, and grade point average
to adjust for possible demographic and entry characteristics
of the sub-samples. Model fit is good, 2/df (p) = 2.31, p <
.001; CFI = .907; RMSEA = .062; SRMR = .055, and com-
putation is based on 422 cases (22 cases missing (<5%) on
x-variables).8 As findings from regression analysis show
(see Table 6), the specific teaching program as a predictor
matters for the subject-specific knowledge categories,
whereas phase as a predictor becomes significant only for
the PCK and GPK test scores. These findings show that the
specific learning opportunities are associated with the
teacher knowledge scores for two reasons. First, preservice
teachers during induction have extended learning opportu-
nities in the area of general pedagogy and content-related
pedagogy but not in content when compared with their
peers who are at an earlier stage in their initial teacher edu-
cation (i.e., in their masters studies at university). Second,
due to subject-specific specialization of teaching types,
lower/upper secondary candidates outperform their lower
secondary peers in subject-specific domains, namely, CK
and PCK but not in the area of general pedagogy.
Discussion
The significance of teacher knowledge has been stressed in
a magnitude of research work (Gitomer & Zisk, 2015).
Recently, empirical educational researchers have launched
the direct assessment of teacher knowledge with an inten-
sive scholarly focus. Among other goals, they aim at con-
tributing to a more precise outline of professional teacher
knowledge and its relation to teacher education. This helps
to close research gaps, for example, when insight is pro-
vided into how initial teacher education programs support
the acquisition of teachers professional knowledge
(Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Tatto etal., 2012).
Whereas first evidence has been provided on the effective-
ness of teacher education in mathematics (Blmeke &
Delaney, 2012), the scientific understanding regarding
teachers professional knowledge for TEFL is insufficient.
The present study, therefore, applied standardized tests to
directly assess CK, PCK, and GPK of preservice teachers
330 Journal of Teacher Education 67(4)
Table 6. Regression Model Predicting CK, PCK, and GPK
Scores (Standardized Coefficients).
CK PCK GPK
Independent variables
Learning opportunities
Phase .14 .39*** .59***
Program .37*** .34*** .11
Control variables
Gender .12* .02 .01
Age .14 .07 .06
Grade point average .27*** .32*** .18**
R2 .34 .35 .32
Note. Phase coded as 0 = university and 1 = induction, Program coded
as 0 = lower secondary and 1 = lower and upper secondary. CK = content
knowledge; PCK = pedagogical content knowledge; GPK = general
pedagogical knowledge.
*p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed. ***p < .001, two-tailed.
for TEFL, and extended this to include an assessment of
their language proficiency. Structural analysis was con-
ducted to provide insight into the nature of teachers pro-
fessional knowledge for TEFL. Germany served as a
sample country in which the cognitive outcomes of the two
different teacher education phases (theoretical and practi-
cal) and the differentiation into program types were closely
examined. We, thus, aimed at providing evidence for the
construct and curricular validity of the tests applied to
describe teachers professional knowledge in the domain
of TEFL.
Structure of Teacher Knowledge for TEFL
Our first research question was related to the structure of
teacher knowledge for TEFL. Findings from CFA showed
that teacher knowledge for TEFL is a multidimensional
construct and PCK is closely related to both CK and GPK.
This strengthens specific assumptions discussed in the lit-
erature (Fenstermacher, 1994; Shulman, 1987). A three-
dimensional model specifying CK, PCK, and GPK as
latent variables fit the data significantly better than a one-
dimensional model with only one general ability estimate.
Our findings thus support a differentiation in terms of cor-
responding knowledge categories. Among them, PCK
attracted our attention. The relatively high correlations
allow us to assume that it relies heavily on the integration
of both CK and GPK. PCK requires preservice teachers to
draw upon their knowledge of their subject as well as their
knowledge of general pedagogical concepts and principles
for teaching. Shulmans notion of PCK being an amalgam
of both content and pedagogy, therefore, seems to be sup-
ported by our findings to a certain extent. Moreover the
correlation between PCK and CK is in accordance with
empirical studies in the area of mathematics that also
provided evidence that PCK is closely related to CK (Ball
etal., 2008; Blmeke etal., 2011; Krauss etal., 2008).
This can be interpreted at least from two perspectives. On
the one hand, we consider these findings from structural
analysis as relevant evidence for construct validity
(Borsboom, Mellenbergh, & van Heerden, 2004). On the
other hand, as the correlation between CK and PCK is
slightly lower (.65) than in the studies on mathematics
teacher knowledge (e.g., .78 in COACTIV, see Kleickmann
etal., 2013), this might mirror that EFL, compared with
mathematics, is not a disciplinary-based subject in the
same way. As outlined before, TEFL at the more advanced
stages is based on the academic disciplines of literary and
cultural studies as well as linguistics and thus partly com-
parable with mathematics. But in the communicative for-
eign language classroom, there is frequently no clear
distinction to be made between language as subject matter
and as a tool in communication, whereas content in math-
ematics is clearly discipline-based throughout.
In addition, our structural analysis provided insight
into the triple relation through the inclusion of GPK.
Interestingly, and contrary to our expectations, PCK and
GPK are even slightly more highly correlated than PCK
and CK. This can be interpreted in at least two ways: First,
when looking at different teacher knowledge categories, it
may not be sufficient to focus on subject-specific knowl-
edge only. Instead, GPK for teaching should also be
accounted for to obtain a more complete picture of the
teacher knowledge base. This highlights the importance of
not ignoring GPK as a relevant source in future PCK
research. Second, regarding the measurement of PCK and
GPK in our study, we are aware that both were conceptu-
alized in a task-based way, that is, closer to cognitive
dimensions of interactive decisions in the classroom
(Burns etal., 2015), whereas the CK measure was more
aligned to the academic disciplines of literature and lin-
guistics that serve as academic foundations of the EFL
teacher (Pachler & Paran, 2013). Although CK is usually
defined as being structurally related to academic disci-
plines (Freeman, 2002), such different ways of operation-
alization may also contribute to differences in the degree
of correlations.
Differences in Teacher Knowledge According to
Program and Phase
With our second research question, we intended to explain
the variation in teacher knowledge for TEFL in terms of
the different teacher education programs and training
stages of preservice teachers. Longitudinal data were not
available, so we analyzed statistical mean differences
among preservice teacher groups to explore how knowl-
edge might be acquired in the course of training. As
expected, test scores varied across preservice teachers
Knig et al. 331
from different programs and stages, adequately reflecting
differences in the learning opportunities they had during
teacher education. The differences remained the same
even when relevant teacher education entry variables,
such as grade point average of preservice teachers, were
controlled for.
Preservice teachers at a later stage (induction) outper-
formed those at an earlier stage at university. Differences
were restricted to PCK and GPK as the areas that are sup-
ported by structured learning opportunities during induc-
tion, whereas differences in CK were not significant.
Lower/secondary preservice teachers showed higher test
scores in subject-specific cognitive measures (i.e., CK and
PCK) when compared with lower secondary teachers,
whereas differences in GPK by program were not
significant.
With respect to differences according to phase, one
might argue that learning to practiceas heavily focused
on during inductionallows preservice teachers to connect
their PCK and GPK to the classroom context in which it is
used. This might enrich the training of teachers and support
their acquisition of professional knowledge. Moreover,
during induction preservice, teachers attend courses with
topics related to PCK and GPK, whereas CK is not part of
their structured learning environment. Finally, our PCK and
GPK tests assess knowledge in a task-based way, whereas
the test measuring CK is structured according to academic
disciplines (literature and linguistics) that are typical of the
learning environment at university rather than that of prac-
tical teacher training.
With regard to differences according to program, we sug-
gest that findings mirror the specialization in subject matter
as institutionalized by the programs. As the two programs
observed share the same number of learning opportunities in
general pedagogy, it is understandable that differences in
GPK were not significant. To sum up, test score differences
by phase and program as shown in our study are well aligned
to certain priorities laid down in the initial teacher education
curriculum. We consider this as evidence for the curricular
validity of the tests.
Against the background of these findings, one might
argue that in the future the tests applied in our study may be
used not only for basic research purposes, but also for the
purpose of evaluation. For example, very recently in
Germany, a prominent initiative to improve teacher educa-
tion at universities (Qualittsoffensive Lehrerbildung,
funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research,
http://www.qualitaetsoffensive-lehrerbildung.de) has been
launched, which might provide a future opportunity to apply
the tests. As that initiative supports innovative approaches
to fostering teacher knowledge and learning, the tests could
be used to inform about learning progress of student teach-
ers throughout their teacher preparation program. Regarding
the lower secondary teachers in our study, it seems that there
is a particular need to support their learning in TEFL as they
did not score very highly.
Limitations and Outlook for Future Research
Although our findings are promising, certain limitations
have, nonetheless, to be discussed. First, we used data from
one country only. Even if Germany serves as an appropriate
sample country whose teacher education system allows for
an examination of research questions relevant to other
countries and their teacher education systems as well, it
remains an open question how to generalize findings if
other countries and cultural contexts are involved. As the
assessment is in English, comparative analysis could
become a starting point for future research. The GPK test is
derived from TEDS-M and, thus, has already been success-
fully validated through expert reviews and used for com-
parative analyses in participating countries such as the
United States (Knig etal., 2011). Validity across countries
also exists for our measure of language proficiency as the
Cambridge Placement Test also serves as a tool in various
linguistic contexts.
Second, our study is limited as it does not provide a link
to instructional quality as rated by students, external observ-
ers, or the teachers themselves. Whereas findings from
another study show that the GPK measure is positively cor-
related with student ratings of instructional quality aspects
(Knig & Kramer, 2016), assuring prognostic validity of the
CK and PCK tests applied here will be a decisive challenge
for future research.
Finally, our approach is based on a cognitive perspective
of teacher knowledge. As discussed by Depaepe etal. (2013),
the danger of ignoring the situated perspective of teacher
knowledge exists, despite its importance in serving to aid our
understanding of what actually happens in the classroom
and what really matters in teaching (p. 23). Therefore, we
are aware that the tests applied in our study have their limita-
tion insofar as they indicate the cognitive dispositions of
teachers only. In keeping with current conceptions of teacher
competence (Blmeke, Gustafsson, & Shavelson, 2015),
such dispositions are relevant, but should be extended theo-
retically and empirically with respect to the situation-specific
skills of perception, interpretation, and decision-making to
adequately model proximal indicators for teacher perfor-
mance in class. Recent research accounts for this, for exam-
ple, by designing video analysis tasks to which teachers are
asked to respond (Kaiser, Busse, Hoth, Knig, & Blmeke,
2015). However, current innovative approaches in video-
cued testing are exemplified in the teaching of mathematics
(e.g., Kersting, 2008) or in general teaching (e.g., Knig &
Kramer, 2016; Seidel & Strmer, 2014). Applying such
approaches to TEFL will, therefore, be a starting point for
future research, which will further enrich our understanding
of teachers professional knowledge in that specific domain.
332 Journal of Teacher Education 67(4)

Appendix
Table A1. Item Examples From the CK, PCK, and GPK Tests.

Knowledge Correct solution/

category and sub- correct sample response
area Item example [explanation]
a
CK of literature Identify the author of the following passage, basing your decision on the style and B
content of the passage to make your decision.
. . . and all the queer little streets and the pink and blue and yellow houses and the
rosegardens and the jessamine and geraniums and cactuses and Gibraltar as a girl
here I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the
Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the
Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with
my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain
flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he
could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said
yes I will Yes.
Tick the right box.
A. Thomas Hardy
B. James Joyce
C. George Orwell
D. Charles Dickens
CK of linguisticsa Which clause types occur in the following sentence? B
Sue went to London and stayed there for a week.
Tick the right box.
A. Embedded clauses
B. Coordinated clauses
C. Subordinated clauses
D. Non-finite clauses
PCK of curriculuma Provide an example of a lexical item that shows that the term word is problematic Kitchen floor [any two-
when talking about vocabulary learning. word or multiword
Provide an example. lexical item]
PCK of teaching You as an English teacher get your students involved in collecting information on D
strategiesa tattoos today and in the pastwith a special focus on the role of tattoos among
the Maoris in New Zealand. The outcome of this collection will be a presentation
that will be displayed in your school. Which is the best label for this way of
teaching?
Tick the right box.
A. Suggestopedia
B. Communicative approach
C. Direct method
D. Task-based language learning
PCK of students Your students talk about their hobbies. One of them says, My favorite hobbies is Your favorite hobbies
football and music. are football and music,
You do not want to explicitly correct the student. However, you also want to give arent they? [corrective
him feedback on his incorrect use of the form (to be) as other students might feedback, recast]
not notice that particular mistake and simply copy it.
Provide an answer in direct speech addressed to the student.
GPK of motivationb Which of the following cases represents an example of intrinsic motivation, and Intrinsic motivation: C,
which represents an example of extrinsic motivation? Extrinsic motivation: A,
Check one box in each row. B, D, E
[Response categories: Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation]
A student learns before a test in mathematics, because he or she . . .
A. expects a reward for a good grade
B. wants to avoid the consequences of a bad grade.
C. is interested in problems of mathematics.
D. does not want to disappoint his or her parents.
E. wants to maintain his or her relative rank in the class.
(continued)
Knig et al. 333
Table A1. (continued)
Knowledge
category and sub-
area Item example
b
GPK of structuring Imagine you are helping a future teacher to evaluate her lesson because she has
never done this before.
To help her adequately analyze her lesson, what question would you ask?
Formulate 10 essential questions and write them down.
Note. CK = content Knowledge; PCK = pedagogical content knowledge; GPK = general pedagogical knowledge.
a
Item example derived from Roters, Nold, Haudeck, Keler, and Stancel-Pitak (2011); Jansing, Haudeck, Keler, Nold, and Stancel-Pitak, 2013.
b
Item example derived from Knig, Blmeke, Paine, Schmidt, and Hsieh (2011).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study
was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG, KO 3947/6-
1) and part of the project entitled Professionelle Kompetenz von
Englischlehrkrften (PKE): Fachdidaktisches Wissen angehender
Englischlehrkrfte - Konzeption, Messung, Validierung. The anal-
yses prepared for this paper and the views expressed are those of the
authors but do not necessarily reflect the views of the DFG.
Notes
1. Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics
(TEDS-M) was carried out under the supervision of the
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (IEA). As a comparative study of teacher educa-
tion and the first IEA study on tertiary education, TEDS-M was
the first international large-scale assessment of future teachers
that worked with representative samples from 17 countries
worldwide. The TEDS-M target population was mathemat-
ics teachers for elementary and middle schools in their final
year of teacher education. A central component of TEDS-M
was to measure the professional knowledge of future teachers.
See, for further information, the Special Issue in the Journal of
Teacher Education in 2011, Vol. 62, No. 2.
2. In Germany, depending on the federal state, various denota-
tions for lower secondary schools exist. These school types
have in common to serve as non-academic track when com-
pared against the Gymnasium and provide lower secondary
education. In North Rhine-Westphalia as the federal state of
our study, the following three school types exist: Hauptschule,
Realschule, and Gesamtschule.
3. The ratio of lower versus lower/upper secondary teachers is
adequately reflected in our sample. In the population, there
Correct solution/
correct sample response
[explanation]
1.Do your students have
prior knowledge about
the subject?
2. What are your
objectives?
3. Are the students
working individually or
in groups?
...
10. Have your students
gained the knowledge
from the lesson?
was a much larger number of lower/upper secondary teach-
ers (n = 445) than lower secondary teachers (n = 99). We thus
drew a random sample only for lower/upper secondary teach-
ers (n = 195) from which n = 150 were reached, whereas a cen-
sus was conducted for lower secondary teachers from which n
= 78 were reached.
4. In addition, prognostic validity of the general pedagogical
knowledge (GPK) test was provided in another study (Knig
& Kramer, 2016).
5. The selection of test items for the short version was based on
analyses of the original TEDS-M data, accounting for item
difficulties, content areas, and item format (a balanced set of
multiple-choice and open-ended items). The short form had
comparable psychometric properties to the full version in the
original TEDS-M data and was therefore used in the present
study. Short-version and full-version scores correlation is very
high (r = .90).
6. Both the GPK and the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)
tests therefore are structured in a task-based way rather than
directly aligned to academic disciplines (e.g., history of educa-
tion, educational psychology, for general pedagogy). In addi-
tion, three dimensions of cognitive processes describing the
cognitive demands on teachers when solving the test items
were defined in accordance with Anderson and Krathwohl
(2001): to retrieve information from long-term memory to pro-
vide a definition; to understand or analyze a concept, a specific
term, or a phenomenon outlined; and to generate strategies for
how they would solve a problem posed. In the present article,
however, our focus is on the content sub-areas of the tests.
7. According to sample size requirements for structural equation
modeling by Bentler and Chou (1987), at least five cases per
parameter to be estimated are needed. Thus with a total of 127
test items, but a total of 444 cases only, we therefore decided
to use item parceling (i.e., computing sums across multiple
items; Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002).
8. Alternatively, the same regression model with the integra-
tion of language proficiency (LP) as another control variable
(predictor) was computed. Due to a 75% response rate in our
334 Journal of Teacher Education 67(4)
online-survey and the specification of LP as x-variable, that
model is based only on 301 cases (i.e., 32% missing). As find-
ings do not lead to a different interpretation, we decided to
present the model based on >95% of all cases and without LP
as control variable.
References
Akbari, R., & Tajik, L. (2009). L2 Teachers pedagogic knowledge
base: A comparison between experienced and less experienced
practitioners. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(6),
52-73.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A tax-
onomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of
Blooms taxonomy of educational objectives. New York,
NY: Longman.
Andrews, S. (2001). The language awareness of the L2 teacher:
Its impact upon pedagogical practice. Language Awareness,
10(2), 75-90.
Atjonen, P., Korkeakoski, E., & Mehtlinen, J. (2011). Key peda-
gogical principles and their major obstacles as perceived by
comprehensive school teachers. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, 17(3), 273-288.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowl-
edge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher
Education, 59(5), 389-407.
Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2013). The effect of content knowledge
and pedagogical content knowledge on instructional quality
and student achievement. In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum,
U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive
activation in the mathematics classroom and professional com-
petence of teachersResults from the COACTIV Project (pp.
175-206). New York, NY: Springer.
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan,
A., . . . Tsai, Y. (2010). Teachers mathematical knowledge,
cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress.
American Educational Research Journal, 47, 133-180.
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural
modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16, 78-117.
Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert
teachers. International Journal of Educational Research,
35(5), 463-482.
Berliner, D. C. (2004). Describing the behavior and documenting
the accomplishments of expert teachers. Bulletin of Science,
Technology & Society, 24, 200-212.
Blmeke, S., & Delaney, S. (2012). Assessment of teacher knowl-
edge across countries: A review of the state of research. ZDM
Mathematics Education, 44(3), 223-247.
Blmeke, S., Felbrich, A., Mller, C., Kaiser, G., & Lehmann, R.
(2008). Effectiveness of teacher education. ZDM Mathematics
Education, 40(5), 719-734.
Blmeke, S., Gustafsson, J.-E., & Shavelson, R. (2015). Beyond
dichotomies: Competence viewed as a continuum. Zeitschrift
fr Psychologie, 223, 3-13.
Blmeke, S., Houang, R., & Suhl, U. (2011). TEDS-M: Diagnosing
teacher knowledge by applying multidimensional item
response theory and multi-group models. IERI Monograph
Series: Issues and Methodologies in Large-Scale Assessments,
4, 109-126.
Blmeke, S., & Knig, J. (2011). Zum Zusammenhang von
Ausbildungsformen, -inhalten und -methoden mit dem
erworbenen pdagogischen Professionswissen von
Grundschullehrkrften [On the relation between forms, con-
tent, and methods of teacher preparation programs and the
achieved pedagogical professional knowledge of elementary
school teachers]. Zeitschrift fr Grundschulforschung [Journal
of Research on Elementary Schools], 4(1), 33-46.
Bond, T., & Fox, C. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental
measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Borg, S. (2006). The distinctive characteristics of foreign language
teachers. Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 3-31.
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The
concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061-1071.
Bromme, R. (1992). Der Lehrer als Experte. Zur Psychologie des
professionellen Wissens [The teacher as expert: The psychol-
ogy of professional knowledge]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
Bukova-Gzel, E. (2010). An investigation of pre-service math-
ematics teachers pedagogical content knowledge, using solid
objects. Scientific Research and Essays, 5, 1872-1880.
Burns, A., Freeman, D., & Edwards, E. (2015). Theorizing and
studying the language-teaching mind: Mapping research on
language teacher cognition. The Modern Language Journal,
99(3), 585-601.
Cambridge Teaching Language Assessment. (2015). Cambridge
English teaching framework. Cambridge, UK: University of
Cambridge.
Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes
and cosmopolitan relations. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (2005). Studying teacher
education: The report of the AERA panel on research and
teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Baratz-Snowden, J. (2007). A good
teacher in every classroom: Preparing the highly qualified
teachers our children deserve. Educational Horizons, 85(2),
111-132.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2007). Preparing teachers
for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able
to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
De Ayala, R. J., Schafer, W. D., & Sava-Bolesta, M. (1995, April
18-22). An investigation of the standard errors of expected
a posteriori ability estimates. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association
(AERA), San Francisco, CA.
Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013).
Pedagogical content knowledge: A systematic review of the
way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics educa-
tional research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 12-25.
Dhrmann, M., Kaiser, G., & Blmeke, S. (2012). The conceptuali-
sation of mathematics competencies in the international teacher
education study TEDS-M. ZDM Mathematics Education, 44,
325-340.
Educational Testing Service. (2014). English to speakers of other
languages (The Praxis Studies Companion). Princeton, NJ:
Author.
Edwards, A., & Ogden, L. (1998). Constructing curriculum subject
knowledge in primary school teacher training. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 14(7), 735-747.
Knig et al. 335
Eurostat. (2012). Eurostat news release 144/2014. Luxembourg:
Eurostat Press Office.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing
a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. The Teachers
College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
Fenstermacher, G. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature
of knowledge in research on teaching. Review of Research in
Education, 20, 3-56.
Floden, R. (2002). The measurement of opportunity to learn. In A.
C. Porter & A. Gamoran (Eds.), Methodological advances in
cross-national surveys of educational achievement (pp. 231-
266). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowl-
edge and learning to teachA perspective from north American
educational research on Teacher education in English language
teaching. Language Teaching, 35(1), 1-13.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the
knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL
Quarterly, 32(3), 397-417.
Galluzo, G. R., & Craig, J. R. (1990). Evaluation of preservice
teacher education programs. In R. W. Housten (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teacher education (pp. 599-616). New York,
NY: Macmillan.
Gatbonton, E. (1999). Investigating experienced ESL teachers
pedagogical knowledge. The Modern Language Journal,
83(1), 35-50.
Gatbonton, E. (2008). Looking beyond ESL teachers classroom
behaviour: Novice and experienced teachers pedagogical
knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 161-182.
Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign
language learning. Language Teaching, 40(2), 97-118.
Gitomer, D. H., & Zisk, R. C. (2015). Knowing what teachers
know. Review of Research in Education, 39, 1-53.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowl-
edge and teacher education. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Grossman, P. L., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future:
Directions for research in teaching and teacher education.
American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184-205.
Grossman, P. L., & Richert, A. E. (1988). Unacknowledged knowl-
edge growth: A re-examination of the effects of teacher educa-
tion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 53-62.
Grossman, P. L., & Shulman, L. S. (1994). Knowing, believing, and
the teaching of English. In T. Shanahan (Ed.), Teachers think-
ing, teachers knowing: Reflections on literacy and language
education (pp. 3-22). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers
of English.
Groschedl, J., Harms, U., Kleickmann, T., & Glowinski, I. (2015).
Preservice biology teachers professional knowledge: Structure
and learning opportunities. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 26(3), 291-318.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers
mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement.
American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406.
Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (1995). Didaktik und/oder
Curriculum. Grundprobleme einer international verglei-
chenden Didaktik [Didactics and/or curriculum: Basic prob-
lems of an international-comparative didactics]. Weinheim,
Germany: Beltz.
House, J. (2003). English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilin-
gualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 556-578.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Jansing, B., Haudeck, H., Keler, J.-U., Nold, G., & Stancel-
Pitak, A. (2013). Professionelles Wissen im Studienverlauf:
Lehramt Englisch [Professional knowledge during teacher
preparation: teaching English]. In S. Blmeke, A. Bremerich-
Vos, G. Kaiser, G. Nold, H. Haudeck, J.-U. Keler, &
K. Schwippert (Eds.), Professionelle Kompetenzen im
Studienverlauf. Weitere Ergebnisse zur Deutsch-, Englisch-
und Mathematiklehrerausbildung aus TEDS-LT (pp. 77-106).
Mnster, Germany: Waxmann.
Jenkins, J. (2013). English as a Lingua Franca in the international
university (The politics of academic English language policy).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Kaiser, G., Busse, A., Hoth, J., Knig, J., & Blmeke, S. (2015).
About the complexities of video-based assessments: Theoretical
and methodological approaches to overcoming shortcomings
of research on teachers competence. International Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 369-387.
Karimi, M. N. (2011). Variations in EFL teachers pedagogical
knowledge base as a function of their teaching license status.
The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(3), 83-114.
Kersting, N. (2008). Using video clips of mathematics classroom
instruction as item prompts to measure teachers knowledge
of teaching mathematics. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 68, 845-861.
Kleickmann, T., Richter, D., Kunter, M., Elsner, J., Besser, M.,
Krauss, S., & Baumert, J. (2013). Teachers content knowledge
and pedagogical content knowledge the role of structural dif-
ferences in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,
64(1), 90-106.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structure equation
modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Knig, J. (2013). First comes the theory, then the practice? On
the acquisition of general pedagogical knowledge during ini-
tial teacher education. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 11(4), 999-1028.
Knig, J. (2014). Designing an international instrument to
assess teachers General Pedagogical Knowledge (GPK):
Review of studies, considerations, and recommendations.
Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and
Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/official-
documents/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=EDU/CERI/CD/
RD%282014%293/REV1&doclanguage=en
Knig, J., & Blmeke, S. (2013). Preparing teachers of math-
ematics in Germany. In J. Schwille, L. Ingvarson, & R.
Holdgreve-Resendez (Eds.), TEDS-M encyclopedia: A guide
to teacher education context, structure and quality assurance
in 17 countries. Findings from the IEA Teacher Education and
Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M) (pp. 100-115).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IEA.
Knig, J., Blmeke, S., Paine, L., Schmidt, B., & Hsieh, F.-J.
(2011). General pedagogical knowledge of future middle
school teachers. On the complex ecology of teacher education
in the United States, Germany, and Taiwan. Journal of Teacher
Education, 62(2), 188-201.
336 Journal of Teacher Education 67(4)
Knig, J., & Kramer, C. (2016). Teacher professional knowledge
and classroom management: On the relation of general peda-
gogical knowledge (GPK) and classroom management exper-
tise (CME). ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics
Education, 48(1), 139-151.
Krauss, S., Brunner, M., Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W.,
Neubrand, M., & Jordan, A. (2008). Pedagogical content
knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathemat-
ics teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3),
716-725.
Kultusministerkonferenz. (2015). Schler, Klassen, Lehrer
und Absolventen der Schulen 2004 bis 2013. Statistische
Verffentlichungen der Kultusministerkonferenz.
Dokumentation Nr. 2016 Januar 2015 [Standing Conference
of the (State) Ministers for Education and Cultural Affairs].
Bonn, Germany: Author.
Larcher, S., & Oelkers, J. (2004). Deutsche Lehrerbildung im
internationalen Vergleich [German teacher education: An
international comparison]. In S. Blmeke, P. Reinhold, G.
Tulodziecki, & J. Wildt (Eds.), Handbuch Lehrerbildung (pp.
128-150). Bad Heilbrunn, Germany: Klinkhardt.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and
applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K.
F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the ques-
tion, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9,
151-173.
McDonnell, L. M. (1995). Opportunity to learn as a research con-
cept and a policy instrument. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 17(3), 305-322.
Meng, X.-L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing cor-
related correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111,
172-175.
Mullock, B. (2006). The pedagogical knowledge base of four
TESOL teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 90,
48-66.
Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers knowl-
edge and how it develops. Handbook of Research on Teaching,
4, 877-904.
Muthn, L. K., & Muthn, B. O. (1998-2010). Mplus users guide
(6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Nold, G. (2013). Fremdsprachendidaktik [Foreign languages peda-
gogy]. In M. Byram & A. Hu (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia
of language teaching and learning (pp. 253-257). London,
England: Routledge.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
(2011). Education at a glance 2011. Paris, France: Author.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
(2014). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do.
Student performance in mathematics, reading, and science
(Vol. 1). Paris, France: Author.
Pachler, N., & Paran, A. (2013). Teacher education. In M.
Byram & A. Hu (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of language
teaching and learning (pp. 692-698). London, England:
Routledge.
Roters, B., Nold, G., Haudeck, H., Keler, J.-U., & Stancel-Pitak,
A. (2011). Professionelles Wissen von Studierenden des
Lehramts Englisch [Professional knowledge of student teach-
ers of English]. In S. Blmeke, A. Bremerich-Vos, H. Haudeck,
G. Kaiser, G. Nold, K. Schwippert, & H. Willenberg (Eds.),
Kompetenzen von Lehramtsstudierenden in gering strukturi-
erten Domnen: Erste Ergebnisse aus TEDS-LT (pp. 77-99).
Mnster, Germany: Waxmann.
Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Coyle, H. P., Cook-Smith, N., &
Miller, J. L. (2013). The influence of teachers knowledge
on student learning in middle school physical science class-
rooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5),
1020-1049.
Schmidt, W. H., Cogan, L., & Houang, R. (2011). The role of
opportunity to learn in teacher preparation: An international
context. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 138-153.
Schmidt, W. H., Tatto, M. T., Bankov, K., Blmeke, S., Cedillo,
T., Cogan, L., . . . Schwille, J. (2007). The preparation gap:
Teacher education for middle school mathematics in six
countriesMathematics teaching in the 21st century (MT21
Report). Retrieved from http://www.educ.msu.edu/content/
sites/usteds/documents/MT21Report.pdf
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Toward a theory of teaching-in-context.
Issues in Education, 4(1), 1-94.
Seidel, T., & Strmer, K. (2014). Modeling and measuring the struc-
ture of professional vision in preservice teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 51, 739-771.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth
in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations
of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1),
1-22.
Spada, N. (2007). Communicative language teaching. In J.
Cummins & C. Davions (Eds.), International handbook
of English language teaching (pp. 271-288). New York:
Springer.
Tarone, E., & Allwright, D. (2005). Language teacher-learning
and student language-learning: Shaping the knowledge base.
In D. J. Tedick (Ed.), Second language teacher education:
International perspectives (pp. 5-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., & Senk, S. L. (2008). Teacher
Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IEA.
Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S. L., Ingvarson, L., Rowley,
G., Peck, R., . . . Reckase, M. (2012). Policy, practice, and
readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics in 17
countries: Findings from the IEA teacher education and devel-
opment study in mathematics (TEDS-M). Retrieved from http://
www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Electronic_
versions/TEDS-M_International_Report.pdf
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
(1997). International standard classification of education.
Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/information/
nfsunesco/doc/isced_1997.htm
Watzke, J. L. (2007). Foreign language pedagogical knowledge:
Toward a developmental theory of beginning teacher practices.
The Modern Language Journal, 91, 63-82.
Weber, G. (1997, December). Top languages: The worlds 10 most
influential languages. Language Today, p. 2.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., Davis, H., & Pape, S. J. (2006). Teacher knowl-
edge and beliefs. Handbook of Educational Psychology, 2,
715-738.
Knig et al. 337
Wu, M., Adams, R. J., & Wilson, M. (1997). Multilevel item
response models: An approach to errors in variables regres-
sion. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22(1),
47-76.
Author Biographies
Johannes Knig is a full professor of empirical school research at
the University of Cologne, Germany. His current research includes
school research, teacher education research, teacher competencies,
teacher knowledge, and international comparisons.
Sandra Lammerding is a research assistant at the University of
Cologne, Germany. Her areas of research include learning opportu-
nities in teacher education programs, teacher competencies, and
media education.
Gnter Nold is a full professor (emeritus) of English: English as a
second language/English as a foreign language [ESL/EFL]
education and applied linguistics at the University TU Dortmund,
Germany. His research includes large-scale empirical EFL studies,
language testing, language awareness, learning strategies, and EFL
teaching and learning programs.
Andreas Rohde is a full professor of linguistics and second lan-
guage teaching at the University of Cologne, Germany. His research
includes various areas of second language acquisition as well as
bilingual preschool and school programs.
Sarah Strau is a research assistant at the University of Cologne,
Germany. Her areas of research include teacher competencies,
teachers motivational-affective characteristics, classroom manage-
ment, and peer education.
Sarantis Tachtsoglou is a research assistant at the University of
Cologne, Germany. His areas of research include teacher competen-
cies, teacher knowledge, learning opportunities in teacher education
programs, school research in the field of truancy, and marital stability.