Advertisement

FIRST COMES THE THEORY, THEN THE PRACTICE? ON THE ACQUISITION OF GENERAL PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE DURING INITIAL TEACHER EDUCATION

  • Johannes KönigEmail author
Article

ABSTRACT

Teacher education systems worldwide are confronted with the essential question of how to foster both future teachers’ theoretical and practical knowledge and to adequately enable future teachers to connect their theoretical and practical knowledge for teaching. This article investigates how future teachers acquire general pedagogical knowledge (GPK) as a central component of teacher knowledge during initial teacher education, exemplified by pre-service teachers in Germany, where initial teacher education is divided into a first phase with a heavy focus on theoretical, academic study, and a second phase where future teachers learn how to apply their theoretical knowledge in the classroom. Data from teacher knowledge studies Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics and Längsschnittliche Erhebung pädagogischer Kompetenzen von Lehramtsstudierenden/Longitudinal Survey of Student Teachers’ Pedagogical Competencies are used to compare future teachers’ GPK at different teacher education stages (the beginning, after 2 years, and end of training). Findings show the more advanced future teachers are in the course of their initial teacher education, the better they perform in the test measuring GPK. When analyzing subscales of the test measuring cognitive dimensions of GPK, as would be expected declarative-conceptual knowledge (measured by cognitive dimensions “recall” and “understand/analyze”) was gained predominantly during the theoretical study (first phase), whereas future teachers who had additionally passed through the practical second phase performed much better on the practical knowledge test subscale (measured by the cognitive dimension “generate”). Research findings are discussed with regard to the development of teacher expertise during initial teacher education, and recommendations for future policy directions with respect to teacher education are given.

KEY WORDS

assessment general pedagogical knowledge opportunities to learn pre-service teachers procedural knowledge teacher education teacher expertise 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, R. & Wu, M. (Eds.). (2002). PISA 2000 technical report. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/19/33688233.pdf. Accessed 24 April 2013.
  2. Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skills. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  4. Baer, M., Dörr, G., Fraefel, U., Kocher, M., Küster, O., Larcher, S., . . .Wyss, C. (2007). Werden angehende Lehrpersonen durch das Studium kompetenter? [Do future teachers acquire competencies through studying?] Unterrichtswissenschaft, 35(1), 15–47.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H. & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baumert, J. & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften [Keyword: Professional competence of teachers]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9(4), 469–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 463–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berliner, D. C. (2004). Describing the behavior and documenting the accomplishments of expert teachers. Bulletin of Science Technology Society, 24(3), 200–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bond, T. G. & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch Model. Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Bromme, R. (1992). Der Lehrer als Experte: zur Psychologie des professionellen Wissens [The teacher as expert: The psychology of professional knowledge]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.Google Scholar
  11. Bromme, R. (1997). Kompetenzen, Funktionen und unterrichtliches Handeln des Lehrers [Skills, functions, and curricular activities of the teacher]. In F. E. Weinert (Ed.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie: Psychologie des Unterrichts und der Schule [Encyclopedia of psychology: Psychology of teaching and the school], vol. 3 (pp. 177–212). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  12. Bromme, R. (2001). Teacher expertise. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 15459–15465). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clift, R. T. & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education. The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 309–424). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Dann, H.-D. (2000). Lehrerkognitionen und Handlungsentscheidungen. [Teacher cognition and action decisions]. In M. K. W. Schweer (Ed.), Psychologie der Lehrer- Schüler-Interaktion [Psychology of teacher–student-interaction] (pp. 79–108). Opladen: Leske and Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20, 3–56.Google Scholar
  16. Gerstenmaier, J. & Mandl, H. (2000). Wissensanwendung im Handlungskontext: Die Bedeutung intentionaler und funktionaler Perspektiven für den Zusammenhang von Wissen und Handeln. [Applications of knowledge in the context of performance: The meaning of intentional and functional perspectives for the correlation of knowledge and performance]. In H. Mandl & J. Gerstenmaier (Eds.), Die Kluft zwischen Wissen und Handeln. Empirische und theoretische Lösungsansätze [The gap between knowledge and performance. Empirical and theoretical approaches] (pp. 289–322). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  17. Good, T. L. & Brophy, J. E. (2007). Looking in classrooms. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  18. Grossman, P. L. (1992). Why models matter: An alternate view on professional growth in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grossman, P. L. & Richert, A. E. (1988). Unacknowledged knowledge growth: A re-examination of the effects of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gruber, H. & Rehrl, M. (2005). Praktikum statt Theorie? Eine Analyse relevanten Wissens zum Aufbau pädagogischer Handlungskompetenz. [Practicum instead of theory? Analysis relevant knowledge for the acquisition of pedagogical performance] Forschungsbericht 15 des Instituts für Pädagogik, Universität Regensburg.Google Scholar
  21. Hascher, T. (2006). Veränderungen im Praktikum–Veränderungen durch das Praktikum. Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Wirkung von schulpraktischen Studien in der Lehrerbildung [Change in practicum–change by practicum. Empirical investigation on the effectiveness of in-school opportunities to learn in teacher training]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 51(Beiheft), 130–148.Google Scholar
  22. Hatano, G. & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. W. Stevenson, H. Azuma & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan: A series of books in psychology (pp. 262–272). New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  23. Helmke, A. (2003). Unterrichtsqualität erfassen, bewerten, verbessern [Understand, evaluate, and improve teacher quality]. Seelze, Germany: Kallmeyer.Google Scholar
  24. Jonsson, A. & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klafki, W. (1985). Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik. Beiträge zur kritisch-konstruktiven Didaktik [New studies to education theory and didactics: Contributions to the critical constructional didactics]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.Google Scholar
  27. Klieme, E., Avenarius, H., Blum, W., Döbrich, P., Gruber, H., Prenzel, M., Reiss, K., Riquarts, K., Rost, J., Tenorth, H.-E. & Vollmer, H. J. (Eds.). (2003). Zur Entwicklung nationaler Bildungsstandards. Eine Expertise. [On the development of national standards. An expertise]. Bildungsforschung. Bd. 1. Bonn: Verlag.Google Scholar
  28. Kolbe, F.-U. & Combe, A. (2004). Lehrerbildung [Teacher education]. In W. Helsper & J. Böhme (Eds.), Handbuch der Schulforschung [Handbook of school research] (pp. 853–877). Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2009). Pädagogisches Wissen von angehenden Lehrkräften: Erfassung und Struktur von Ergebnissen der fachübergreifenden Lehrerausbildung [Pedagogic knowledge of prospective teachers: Acquisition and structure of the results of cross-disciplinary teacher education]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 12(3), 499–527.Google Scholar
  30. König, J. (2010). Lehrerprofessionalität – Konzepte und Ergebnisse der internationalen und deutschen Forschung am Beispiel fachübergreifender, pädagogischer Kompetenzen. [Teacher Professionalism - Concepts and Findings of International and German Research exemplified with Pedagogical Competencies.] In J. König & B. Hofmann (Eds.), Professionalität von Lehrkräften – Was sollen Lehrkräfte im Lese- und Schreibunterricht wissen und können? (pp. 40–105). [Teacher Professionalism - What Should Teachers should Know and Be Able to for Teaching Reading and Writing?] Berlin: DGLS.Google Scholar
  31. König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2010a). Messung des pädagogischen Wissens: Theoretischer Rahmen und Teststruktur [Measurement of educational knowledge: Theoretical framework and test structure]. In S. Blömeke, G. Kaiser, & R. Lehmann (Eds.), TEDS-M 2008 – Professionelle Kompetenz und Lerngelegenheiten angehender Primarstufenlehrkräfte im internationalen Vergleich [Professional competence and learning opportunities of prospective primary school teachers in an international comparison] (pp. 253–273). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  32. König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2010b). Pädagogisches Wissen angehender Primarstufenlehrkräfte im internationalen Vergleich [Pedagogic knowledge of prospective primary school teachers in an international comparison]. In S. Blömeke, G. Kaiser, & R. Lehmann (Eds.), TEDS-M 2008 – Professionelle Kompetenz und Lerngelegenheiten angehender Primarstufenlehrkräfte im internationalen Vergleich [Professional competence and learning opportunities of prospective primary school teachers in an international comparison] (pp. 275–296). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  33. König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2010c). Pädagogisches Unterrichtswissen (PUW) [General Pedagogical Knowledge for Teaching]. In Dokumentation der Kurzfassung des TEDS-M-Testinstruments zur Kompetenzmessung in der ersten Phase der Lehrerausbildung [Documentation of the short version of the TEDS-M-Test instrument for competence assessment in the first phase of teacher training]. Berlin, Germany: Humboldt University of Berlin.Google Scholar
  34. König, J., Blömeke, 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.Google Scholar
  35. König, J. (2012). Zum Einfluss der Schulpraxis im Lehramtsstudium auf den Erwerb von pädagogischem Wissen: Spielen erste Unterrichtsversuche eine Rolle? [On the Influence of School Practice in Teacher Education Effecting the Acquisition of Pedgogical Knowledge: Does Initial Teaching Matter?] In T. Hascher & G. H. Neuweg (Eds.), Forschung zur (Wirksamkeit der) LehrerInnenbildung (pp. 143-159). [Research on (the Effectiveness of) Teacher Education. Wien: LIT-Verlag.Google Scholar
  36. König, J., & Seifert, A. (Eds.). (2012). Lehramtsstudierende erwerben pädagogisches Professionswissen. Ergebnisse der Längsschnittstudie LEK zur Wirksamkeit der erziehungswissenschaftlichen Lehrerausbildung. [Student Teachers Acquire Professional Pedagogical Knowledge. Findings from Longitudinal Study LEK on the Effectiveness of General Pedagogy in Teacher Education.] Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  37. König, J., Kaiser, G., & Felbrich, A. (2012). Zum Zusammenhang von Wissen und Überzeugungen am Ende der Lehrerausbildung: Spiegelt sich pädagogisches Wissen in den Kompetenzselbsteinschätzungen angehender Lehrkräfte? [Is Pedagogical Knowledge Reflected in the Competence-Related Self-Assessments of Future Teachers? On the inter-relation between knowledge and beliefs after completing teacher education.] Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 58(4), 476–491.Google Scholar
  38. König, J. & Blömeke, S. (in press). Preparing Teachers of Mathematics in Germany. In J. Schwille, L. Ingvarson & R. Holdgreve-Resendez (eds.), TEDS-M Encyclopaedia. A Guide to Teacher Education Context, Structure and Quality Assurance in the Seventeen TEDS-M Countries.Google Scholar
  39. Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S. & Neubrand, M. (Eds.). (2011). Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften: Ergebnisse des Forschungsprogramms COACTIV [Professional competence of teachers: Finding from COACTIV]. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  40. Larcher, S. & Oelkers, J. (2004). Deutsche Lehrerbildung im internationalen Vergleich [German teacher education: An international comparison]. In S. Blömeke, P. Reinhold, G. Tulodziecki & J. Wildt (Eds.), Handbuch Lehrerausbildung [Handbook of teacher training] (pp. 128–150). Bad Heilbrunn, Germany: Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
  41. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. McDonald, J. P. (1992). Teaching: Making sense of an uncertain craft. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  44. Messner, R. (2004). Leitlinien einer phasenübergreifenden Lehrerbildung [Guidelines of phases-overarching teacher education]. Seminar Themenheft Lehrerbildung und Schule, 4, 9–27.Google Scholar
  45. Oser, F. & Oelkers, J. (Eds.). (2001). Die Wirksamkeit der Lehrerbildungssysteme [The effectiveness of teacher education systems]. Chur, Switzerland: Ruegger.Google Scholar
  46. Putnam, R. T. & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schmidt, W. H., Tatto, M. T., Bankov, K., Blömeke, S., Cedillo, T., Cogan, L., Han, S.- I., Houang, R., Hsieh, F.-J., Paine, L., Santillan, M. N. & Schwille, J. (2007). The preparation gap: Teacher education for middle school mathematics in six countries—mathematics teaching in the 21st century (MT21). East Lansing. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://usteds.msu.edu/related_research.asp.
  49. Schulte, K. (2008). Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen in der Lehrerbildung–Zur Struktur und dem Zusammenhang von Lehrer-Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen, Pädagogischem Professionswissen und Persönlichkeitseigenschaften bei Lehramtsstudierenden und Lehrkräften [Self-efficacy in teacher education—on the structure and the relation of teacher self-efficacy, pedagogical knowledge, and personality traits of pre-service and in-service teachers]. University of Göttingen. Retrieved from: http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/diss/2008/schulte/schulte.pdf.
  50. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Research, 57, 1–22.Google Scholar
  52. Slavin, R. E. (1994). Quality, appropriateness, incentive, and time: A model of instructional effectiveness. International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Ingvarson, L., Peck, R. & Rowley, G. (2008). Teacher education and development study in mathematics (TEDS-M): Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics. Conceptual framework. East Lansing: Teacher Education and Development International Study Center, College of Education, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  54. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G., Peck, R., Bankov, K., Rodriguez, M. & Reckase, M. (2012). Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics in 17 countries. Findings from the IEA teacher education and development study in mathematics (TEDS-M). Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Electronic_versions/IEA_TEDS-M.pdf.
  55. Terhart, E. (1993). Pädagogisches Wissen. Überlegungen zu seiner Vielfalt, Funktion und sprachlichen Form am Beispiel des Lehrerwissens [Pedagogical knowledge. On its diversity, function, and linguistic form exemplified by teacher knowledge]. In J. Oelkers & H.-E. Tenorth (Eds.), Pädagogisches Wissen [Pedagogical knowledge] (pp. 129–141). Weinheim/Basel: Beltz.Google Scholar
  56. Terhart, E. (2003). Lehrerbildung nach PISA. Welche Konsequenzen kann man aus den aktuellen Leistungsvergleichsstudien für die Lehrerbildung ziehen? [Teacher education after PISA. Which consequences can one draw from current comparative assessments for teacher education?]. In H. Merkens (Ed.), Lehrerbildung in der Diskussion [Discussing teacher education]. Schriften der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaften (pp. 167–177). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  57. Tulodziecki, G., Herzig, B. & Blömeke, S. (2004). Gestaltung von Unterricht. Eine Einführung in die Didaktik [Design of instruction: An introduction to teaching]. Bad Heilbrunn, Germany: Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
  58. von Davier, A. A., Carstensen, C. H. & von Davier, M. (2006). Linking competencies in horizontal, vertical, and longitudinal settings and measuring growth. In J. Hartig, E. Klieme & D. Leutner (Eds.), Assessment of competencies in educational contexts (pp. 53–80). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  59. Weinert, F. E. (2001). A concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D. S. Rychen & L. H. Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45–65). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  60. Wilson, S. M. & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–210.Google Scholar
  61. Wilson, S.M., Floden, R. & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  62. Wright, B. D., Linacre, M., Gustafsson, J.-E. & Martin-Loff, P. (1994). Reasonable mean square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8, 370.Google Scholar
  63. Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J. & Wilson, M. R. (1997). ConQuest: Multi-aspect test software [computer program]. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Empirical School ResearchUniversity of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations