Definitions and Theoretical Foundations

Abstract

Switching the emphasis from researching to teaching has accelerated the reformation of higher education. This switch is directly reflected in the establishment of the Center for Teaching and Learning in universities worldwide and has gradually become standardized and mature for faculty professional development.

Switching the emphasis from researching to teaching has accelerated the reformation of higher education. This switch is directly reflected in the establishment of the Center for Teaching and Learning in universities worldwide and has gradually become standardized and mature for faculty professional development. Teaching competencies have become essential in professional development in higher education. Boyer (1990) brought in the concept of “scholarship of teaching,” which included teaching competencies as part of the research. Faculty members must include teaching in their research projects, investigate teaching theories, and develop into specialists and scholars who analyze, enhance, and examine teaching.

This chapter first defined related concepts of teaching competency development, including teaching competencies (Sect. 2.1.1), digital teaching competencies (Sect. 2.1.2), and components of teaching competencies (Sect. 2.1.3). Then, the chapter reviews theoretical foundations of teaching competency development, including teachers’ knowledge structure (Sect. 2.2.1), TPACK framework (Sect. 2.2.2), personal practical knowledge (Sect. 2.2.3), scholarship for teaching (Sect. 2.2.4), theories of teacher learning (Sect. 2.2.5), teaching expertise in higher education (Sect. 2.2.6), and teaching competency development model (Sect. 2.2.7).

2.1 Definitions

2.1.1 Teaching Competencies

Although there is no universal definition of teaching competency, many research studies have been conducted on what defines teaching competency is and what it entails (Gu, 1986).

From the psychological perspective, teaching competencies are a set of psychological features that teachers use to achieve teaching goals and engage in teaching activities smoothly. They consist of both general competencies and particular competencies (Gu, 1986). General competencies refer to the cognitive ability usually shown in teaching activities while specific competencies refer to teachers’ specialized knowledge to engage teaching activities.

From the pedagogical perspective, teaching competencies come from the actual teaching process and combine teachers’ teaching behaviors and abilities at the skill level. Pedagogical teaching competencies emphasize the effective use of different teaching skills at different teaching stages such as instructional design, teaching organization and implementation, reflection, and evaluation. Streifer (1987) believed those teacher competencies included effectively planning and implementing instructional plans, using appropriate instructional techniques, evaluating students, demonstrating knowledge, and meeting professional responsibilities.

From the sociological perspective, teaching competencies emphasize the interaction between teachers and students and social relationships. It believes that teaching competencies allow teachers to inspire students’ learning interests and encourage students’ engagement and participation in the teaching and learning process (Wang, 2010). It emphasizes teachers’ arousal and interest in students’ self-stimulation and the improvement of self-learning ability.

Teaching competencies are utilized as performance evaluation standards by some international organizations. For instance, the International Board of Standards for Training, Performance, and Instruction (IBSTPI) believes that teaching competencies are the knowledge, skills, and abilities that professionals require in their roles, whereas standards refer to a pre-defined level of quality or attainment of those competencies. Competencies and standards are critical factors in advancing professionals in this field (Martin & Ritzhaupt, 2020). Unlike ability and skills, teaching competencies compromise the dynamic changes of social contexts in teaching and emphasize “problem solving in real situation” and “practice in action” (Kiffer & Tchibozo, 2013). Teaching competencies support “effectively” and “successfully” teaching content and emphasize more on the high-quality teaching outcomes (Kiffer & Tchibozo, 2013).

There is no doubt that teaching competencies are intensely situational. There are also differences between traditional teaching competencies and digital teaching competencies. The development of information and communication technology (ICT) resulted in substantial changes to the classroom environment, necessitating the addition of new teaching competencies to support situated and online learning. Queiroz (2003) listed several new competencies for teachers in the information age, especially for teaching online:

…to be able to use technology; to have skills to design and implement courses (depending on the applications to be used); to moderate, organize and archive asynchronous discussions; to establish ground rules, guide, and animate synchronous discussions; to integrate different teaching and learning styles to the course; to interact actively with students and give them constant feedback; to make students aware of cultural differences among members of a group, of Internet ethics and netiquettes, among others. (p. 3)

Therefore, teaching competencies in the information age should fully consider the influence of information technology on the change of teaching responsibility and teaching competencies as well as student learning process and outcomes.

2.1.2 Digital Teaching Competencies

In the information age, the teaching competencies of university teachers is a derivative notion based on the connotation of teaching ability. There are two key trends in the global reform of higher education today: the first is the pursuit of excellent undergraduate instruction, and the second is the effect of educational information technology on the educational and teaching process. Correspondingly, the current understanding of digital teaching competencies in higher education should be more result-oriented and process-oriented to construct its connotation. It emphasizes on the ICT-facilitated teaching competencies because of the integration of information technology and subject teaching.

The relationship between information technology and digital teaching competency development in higher education is reflected in two aspects. Information-based teaching ability is an integral part of teaching competencies, and information technology is the solution, method, and environment for improving teaching competencies. First, with the widespread application of various information technologies in teaching, digital teaching competencies have become an increasingly important part of teaching competencies in higher education. Improving digital teaching competencies in higher education involves setting up a long-term vision of technology integration, reflecting on current practice, mastering updated teaching pedagogies, understanding the impact of theory on practice, and cultivating teachers’ learning community. Second, information technology is the solution to effectively and efficiently improving the teaching competencies in higher education. The application of information technology to enhance teacher teaching competence has the following advantages: (a) personalized online learning platform is more conducive for teachers to carry out personalized learning and reflection based on personal needs; (b) online communication tools realize the decoupling of time and space, which made the mutual learning and evaluation among teachers easier; (c) digital resources are helpful for universities to accumulate resources for the development of teacher teaching competence; (d) teachers’ online learning data mining and learning analytics are beneficial to teacher development management and decision-making; and (e) the learning community in a networked environment encourages the cooperation among teachers, experts, and peers.

Regarding teaching competencies and ICT-facilitated teaching competencies, there are two main viewpoints. The first viewpoint is the addition method. In addition to the general understanding of teaching competencies, ICT-facilitated teaching competencies have been added in the information age such as basic ICT ability, ICT-facilitated teaching design, teaching implementation, concept/ethics, etc. The second viewpoint is that of integration, which examines the relationship and interaction between information technology and other parts of the teaching process rather than analyzing information technology as a separate element. As a result, the general teaching competencies are turned into ICT-facilitated teaching competencies. At present, the integration viewpoint has gained increasing attention because teaching is a systematic process, and the role of technology is far from being played alone. It must be integrated with several elements of the teaching process to help each component of teaching and corresponding teaching activities be more effective. Similarly, the teaching competence that teachers should have is the ability to integrate information technology with subject content and teaching methods to effectively promote students’ learning ability.

Therefore, we tend to integrate the process perspective of pedagogy. It is the result of perspective of teaching competence and the integrated perspective of technology application. It defines digital teaching competencies in higher education as teachers having the ability to use subject content to design teaching activities, use teaching skills to complete teaching tasks, and use information technology to promote learning and achieve the university's goals of effective teaching and high-quality talent training. Digital teaching competencies emphasize (a) the analysis abilities of learners, teaching design, resource construction, teaching implementation, learning evaluation, and technology application; and (b) the transformation abilities of “teaching content—teaching method—information technology.“ Its connotation is the ICT-facilitated teaching competencies of university teachers, and it is the “upgrade iteration” of traditional teaching competencies in the information age.

2.1.3 Components of Teaching Competencies

In view of the inconsistent understanding and definition of teaching ability, the starting point of research on teaching competency’s structure is also different. The composition and structure of the teaching competencies of primary and secondary school teachers are relatively mature, which has significance for the teaching competency structure of teachers in colleges and universities.

The Components of Teaching Competencies in K-12. Based on the relatively stable personal characteristics or psychological characteristics of teachers, teaching competencies. These may include thinking and planning ability, introduction ability, questioning ability, inquiry ability, encouragement ability, and learning ability; cognitive ability, design ability, teaching ability, organization ability, and social skills (Meng, 1990); and at the same time, the intellectual foundation necessary of teaching competencies (Shen & Wang, 2000).

If considering teachers’ responsibilities, teaching competencies may also include the capacity to transit knowledge, plan teaching tasks, apply interpersonal ability (Simpson, 1966), monitor teaching, teach cognitive and operation ability (Shen et al., 2000), conduct instructional design, implement instruction, and reflect on teaching behaviors (Lu & Hong, 2009). According to Chen and He (1988), teaching competencies can be divided into teaching abilities and teaching management abilities. Teaching abilities include selecting instructional resources, developing teaching materials, and communication skills, whereas teaching management abilities include organizing classroom activities, encouraging personalized learning, and diagnosing and reflecting on the teaching experience.

Teaching activities are an important perspective and foundation for assessing teaching competencies. According to the process of teachers’ participation in teaching activities, Lu and Hong (2009) divided teaching competencies into three parts: instructional design, implementation, and evaluation and reflection. Each part involves many elements such as content, students, media and tools, learning environment, and more. Therefore, it can be refined into the abilities such as teaching content analysis, communication, teaching planning, selecting teaching methods, organizing class activities, managing students, customizing learning, teaching diagnosis and feedback, and test proposition and evaluation (An, 2007).

The teaching competencies standards presented in IBSTPI 2004 combined the above preceding viewpoints and described competency as “a knowledge, skill, or attitude that enables one to effectively perform the activities in teaching” (p. 26). It divides competencies into two categories: professional foundation and teaching management. The professional foundation includes composite components of teachers’ psychological traits, intellectual foundation, subject knowledge, and values and attitudes. Teaching management encompasses parts from four different aspects of professional foundations, planning and analysis, design and development, and implementation and management.

The teaching competency structure varies as the shift from a teacher-centered approach to a learner-centered approach occurs over time. The researchers believe that teaching ability in research-based learning scenarios should include innovative teaching design, guiding students to learn, foresight, new knowledge acquisition, rational thinking, application of information, creative reflection, cooperative teaching, comprehensive management, comprehensive evaluation, and other abilities. Essential components of teacher teaching abilities include effectively promoting learning, strengthening teacher-student interaction, stimulating students’ inherent desire for knowledge, satisfying learners’ needs and diversity, stimulating students’ awareness of problems, and guiding learners’ autonomous learning. “How to teach better” and “how to encourage students to learn better” should be two equally significant aspects of primary and secondary school teachers’ teaching ability.

The Components of Teaching Competencies in Higher Education. According to Streifer (1987), teaching competencies in higher education should be divided into five categories: teaching planning, teaching skills, assessing, and evaluating, professional knowledge, and responsibilities. Simpson and Smith (1993) believed that teaching competencies were divided into six categories: academic skills, planning skills, management skills, presentation and communication skills, assessment and feedback skills, and interpersonal skills. Fink (2003) thought that teaching competencies in higher education were divided into four categories: professional knowledge, curriculum design, communication skills, and teaching implementation and management. Chu (2007) believed that teaching cognitive ability, instructional design ability, teaching operation ability, and teaching monitoring ability should be included in the faculty’s teaching competencies. Teaching competencies have distinct emphases from the perspectives of pedagogy and psychology. It comprises instructional design, teaching management, and teaching research when seen from a pedagogical standpoint. From a psychological standpoint, it contains teaching cognitive capacity, teaching operational ability, and teaching monitoring ability. If viewed from a sociological perspective, it includes the ability to promote collective participation, interaction, and harmonious relationships in the class. This participation requires the ability to respond appropriately to individual students both inside and outside the classroom, arouse students’ interest and stimulate their involvement in learning, continue self-education, and the practical ability to adapt to social changes such as internationalization and informatization. Molenaar et al. (2009) proposed a structured way of thinking about teaching competencies including competence base, organizational level, and teaching domain. Knowledge, skills, and attitudes are included in the competency-based dimension; the corporate level includes macro-level leadership, meso-level coordination, and micro-teaching capabilities. The teaching domain dimensions include development, organization, implementation, guidance, evaluation, and evaluation.

Based on the preceding discussions, higher education teaching competencies can be divided into four categories: basic professional competencies, micro/course-level competencies, meso/curriculum level competencies, and macro/general competencies. It can be further divided into sub-dimensions from the pedagogy dimension, as shown in Fig. 2.1. Every category can be further subdivided, especially micro/course level competencies, which include the most abundant parts.

Fig. 2.1

Components of teaching competencies in higher education

As discussed above, although many similarities and overlaps between K-12 and higher education teaching competencies exist, there are differences. They both emphasize the components of a teaching system and teaching process such as instructional design, teaching implementation, evaluation and reflection, presentation and communication, and teaching methodology and technology integration. However, K-12 and higher education are quite different in the mission, educational goals, and individual students. There are also many differences in the composition of teaching competencies. Higher education focuses more on professional knowledge, medium-level curriculum, and macro-level professional vision and literacy while K-12 focuses more on micro-course teaching.

The components of teaching competencies reflect different teaching philosophies. People who emphasize “teaching” pay more attention to the content, methodology, and other elements in the teaching system. They focus more on teachers’ own activities, such as creating a course syllabus, selecting appropriate teaching methodologies, and flexibly using teaching media. People who emphasize “learning” pay more attention to the status and importance of students in the teaching activity system. They focus more on the elements revolving around student development, learning motivation, engagement, learning needs, diversity, and more.

According to the relevant literature on the teaching competency research, pedagogy, and psychology researchers (Christ & Potter, 1998), teaching media is an important element in the teaching system, and it interacts with elements such as content, teachers, and students to affect the teaching process and effect. However, current understanding of information technology is limited to teaching media, teaching aid design, and teaching tools. There are comprehensive changes brought by information technology as a new learning environment to the learning process and learning methods. Therefore, teaching competencies in the information age should increase and expand the corresponding content such as media application ability or information technology application ability. Researchers and practitioners (Joy & Carcia, 2000) in the field of educational technology tend to examine the impact of information technology on various elements of the teaching process from a systems theory perspective, as well as the interaction between various elements in the teaching process in a digital learning environment. Correspondingly, there are corresponding changes in each component of the teacher's teaching competency structure, resulting in new content and requirements.

2.2 Theoretical Foundations

Theoretical foundations discussed below provide lens through which to understand and value how to integrate scholarship into the practice of teaching competencies in higher education, including teacher’s knowledge structure, TPACK framework, teacher’s practical knowledge, scholarship for teaching, theories of teacher learning, teaching expertise in higher education, and the teaching competency development model.

2.2.1 Teachers’ Knowledge Structure

If teaching is regarded as a profession, it first requires teachers to have specialized knowledge and skills. Teachers should learn what to teach and how to teach them effectively. Then, finding out what kind of knowledge and skills a teacher should have is next It is mainly deepened along two trajectories: one is the teacher’s knowledge structure framework represented by Shulman (1987) and based on the content orientation of teachers’ knowledge, and the other is founded on teachers’ professional and practical knowledge.

Shulman's Categories of the Knowledge Base and Its Development.

Shulman is one of many researchers who attempted to use various frameworks and models to investigate the necessary knowledge to teach efficiently. Shulman (1987) presented seven categories to organize a teacher's knowledge in his knowledge structure framework.

• (1) Subject matter knowledge is the domain knowledge and content of the subject taught.

• (2) General pedagogical knowledge refers to general principles and strategies for classroom organization and management beyond specific disciplines.

• (3) Curriculum knowledge refers to the mastery of teaching materials and plans as teachers’ “professional tools.”

• (4) Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) refers to the organic integration of the subject content taught and the principles of pedagogy to organize, express, and adjust specific topics and styles to suit learners. Different interests and abilities and understanding of how to teach are a fusion of subject content knowledge and educational expertise.

• (5) Knowledge of learners and their characteristics, and knowledge about educational objects.

• (6) Knowledge of context (or background), including the operation of classes or groups, school district management and finances, community, and cultural characteristics.

• (7) Knowledge of other curricula is about knowing the aims, objectives, values, and philosophical and historical origins of education.

Among the seven categories listed above, PCK is a significant innovation from Shulman. Many other scholars consider PCK the most critical component and the “core of teachers’ knowledge” in the category of teachers’ knowledge. It distinguishes the teaching knowledge group from other subjects and reflects the relationship between subject knowledge and specific content. One of the most critical distinctions between subject matter experts and teachers is the integration of pedagogy and content. PCK bridges the gap between content and pedagogy in the classroom.

Many scholars have added to the concept of subject pedagogy since then. For instance, Cochran et al. (1993) modified Shulman's categories and proposed Pedagogical Content Knowing (PCKg). In PCKg, they defined four categories: knowledge of the subject matter, knowledge of pedagogy, students, and knowledge of environmental contexts. Magnusson and others also identified and described the five aspects of PCK: science curriculum, student understanding of specific science topics, assessment, instructional strategies for teaching science, and orientations toward science teaching.

Functional-oriented Teacher Knowledge Structure. Teacher knowledge can be structured based on the functions. From the perspective of the function of teacher knowledge, Xin (1999) and Lin classified teacher knowledge into four categories: subject-involved knowledge, cultural knowledge, conditional knowledge, and practical knowledge. Subject-involved knowledge refers to the specific subject knowledge that teachers possess such as language knowledge, mathematics knowledge, and mechanical knowledge. In Shulman’s (1987) framework, this category of knowledge is the same as subject matter knowledge. Teachers’ best knowledge structure comes from the subject they are teaching, but this is not the only factor influencing students’ learning performance. Cultural knowledge is also helpful in assisting students with their learning. Teachers’ extensive cultural knowledge and the breadth and depth of their cultural knowledge have a direct impact on students’ overall development. Conditional knowledge refers to teachers’ pedagogical and psychological knowledge, which concreate into three aspects: knowledge of students’ physical and mental development, teaching and learning knowledge, and student performance evaluation. Practical knowledge refers to any related situational knowledge in a classroom during teaching practices. It is the result of years of teaching experience. Teachers’ teaching is situational. Teachers’ knowledge in these situations comes from personal education and teaching practice, and it is empirical. This knowledge is expressed in individual languages and contains a wealth of details.

Practice-oriented Knowledge Structure. Chen (2003) divided teachers’ knowledge into two categories: theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge. Theoretical knowledge includes subject content, subject teaching methods, curriculum, pedagogy, psychology, and general culture. Practical knowledge provides educational beliefs, self-knowledge, interpersonal understanding, situational knowledge, strategic knowledge, critical reflection knowledge, and more. Theoretical knowledge is typically explicit and shared between teachers and professional theorists. It is expressible and straightforward to understand. Practical knowledge is difficult to comprehend because it is concealed, unsystematic, and silent. However, both are necessary and sufficient conditions for teachers’ teaching competency development, and they complement and influence each other. Chen (2003) believed that practical knowledge was more important than theoretical knowledge in that it was in a dominant position and played a significant role in teaching.

The Composite Structure of Teacher Knowledge. Teachers’ knowledge should be organized in a hierarchical and multi-layered manner. Ye et al. (2001) believed teachers’ knowledge is divided into three layers. The primary layer includes the basic knowledge of contemporary science and humanities and a solid foundation of instrumental disciplines, and proficient use of skills and technics. The second layer, with specialized knowledge and skills in one or two fields, is the basic knowledge for teachers to be competent in teaching work. Teachers should have a broad and deep understanding of their disciplines’ basic knowledge and skills and master relevant skills and principles. The third layer consists of education subject knowledge that aids teachers in comprehending educational objects, educational and teaching activities, and research skills. Pre-service teachers should strengthen their knowledge and skills in understanding learners, developing their teaching philosophy, designing teaching activities, implementing classroom management strategies, incorporating educational technology into teaching and learning, and conducting academic research.

Gilbert et al. (1987) created a four-level taxonomy to classify teaching knowledge. The first level of their taxonomy is knowledge of the school as an institution, including knowledge of educational history, philosophy of education, professional ethics, public policy, school legislation, and school organization. The second level is the student’s knowledge, which includes knowledge of multicultural education, socioeconomic considerations, instructional psychology, learning theories, and human development. The third level is teaching knowledge, which provides curriculum development, teaching methodologies, educational technology, assessment and evaluation, and learning styles. The fourth level is knowledge of decision-making, also known as knowledge of clinical application, which includes understanding interpersonal interactions, educational management, evaluation, and forming models.

SECI-Knowledge Transformation Framework. Knowledge is classified into tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. This distinction also applies to the teachers’ professional knowledge owned by a teacher, who could gain rich tacit knowledge from experiences and practice. Japanese scholars Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) proposed a knowledge conceptual model called SECI (Socialization; Externalization; Combination; Internalization) to describe the rigorous and efficient process of generating, transforming, and recreating knowledge in an organization. Socialization is a process of sharing knowledge, including observation, imitation, and practice through apprenticeship. Externalization is the process of making tacit knowledge explicit, wherein knowledge is crystallized and is thus able to be shared by others, becoming the basis of new knowledge. Combination involves organizing and integrating knowledge, whereby different types of explicit knowledge are merged (for example, in building prototypes). Internalization involves the receiving and application of knowledge by an individual, enclosed by learning-by-doing. This theory has been widely used in teaching competency development in explaining the knowledge generation and development of teaching competencies.

Four Modes of Knowledge Transformation. Socialization (tacit to tacit) refers to the process of knowledge socialization. In this process, people can generate tacit knowledge such as shared mental models and skillsets by sharing experiences. For example, when working with masters, apprentices can learn skills through observation, imitation, and practice.

• Externalization (tacit to explicit) refers to how people articulate tacit knowledge into clear knowledge.

• Combination (explicit to explicit) describes the connection of knowledge. People combine evident expertise into a more systematic, detailed knowledge system and connect related knowledge through sorting, classification, summarization, and reflection.

• Internalization (explicit to tacit) is the process by which people embody clear knowledge and build their abilities through practice. Practice is the best way to understand internalizing.

This knowledge transformation is a process of “spiral” evolution. The four modes of change complement each other and together develop knowledge to a new level. New knowledge is created in the process of knowledge transformation. For example, community knowledge can be generated during the socialization process, conceptual understanding can be generated during externalization, systematic knowledge can be generated in the combination process, and procedural knowledge can be generated in internalization.

BA: Knowledge Transfer Place. Nonaka and Konno (1998) proposed that the transformation of knowledge is inseparable from the “knowledge transfer place (ba).” The concept of “ba” was first used to describe the shared social interaction spaces between people. The “place” in the SECI model refers to the shared space required for knowledge creation. The four transformation modes require different Ba. The socialization of knowledge is carried out in the “Originating ba.” Individuals communicate with each other based on mutual trust to reveal their feelings, emotions, experiences, and mentality. This is the starting point in the process of knowledge creation. The real-time interaction between individuals is significant for tacit knowledge transformation. The externalization of knowledge requires a “dialoguing ba” of knowledge necessary to form groups of people with expert knowledge and abilities and then interact to adhere to the principle of openness. During the interaction, people would transfer tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge and, at the same time, reflect on and analyze their ideas. The combination of learning occurs in the “systemizing ba” of knowledge, or the connection and systematization of explicit knowledge promoted based on media such as language, writing, conferences, databases, and the Internet. The internalization of learning occurs in the “exercising ba.” Through practice, knowledge subjects digest their explicit knowledge and internalize it into their feelings, experiences, and experiences. The knowledge generated by each ba is eventually shared and becomes the community’s knowledge assets, such as conceptual knowledge, and systematic knowledge. The knowledge asset becomes the resource for the organization to create new value, which helps the process of knowledge transformation.

From the SECI model, the professional development of the teacher community is a process of mutual transformation between explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge and between theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge. The teacher community is developed based on the accumulation of community knowledge assets. The teacher community achieves the goal of knowledge innovation and continuous learning in different bas: action-experience in originating ba, problem-dialogue in dialoguing ba, problem-reflection in systemizing ba, and new action-experience in exercising ba.

The SECI model has been widely used in teacher professional development research. For example, the SECI model analyzes the knowledge innovation cycle of expert and novice teachers in the teacher community. This research may shed useful light on the ways in which teacher community functions, the design of the knowledge place (ba), and the functions of information technology. Zhong (2008) proposed the sequence of teachers’ teaching practice activities and teachers’ knowledge development may be offered in a 4D cycle: (1) “designing” (instructional design) based on the knowledge of teaching materials, (2) “doing” (teaching practice) based on implicit instructional knowledge, (3) “discussing dialogue” based on explicit knowledge, and (4) “documenting” based on the understanding of classroom events and student learning trajectories. The 4D cycle is the process of cooperative construction of teachers’ “practical knowledge.” At the same time, teachers’ knowledge creation is only achieved by solving complex teaching problems in the school setting, which is also a process of action research.

2.2.2 TPACK Framework

Koehler and Mishra (2005) proposed the TPACK (Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge) theoretical framework, which explained the technical knowledge required by teachers. It studies how to develop this knowledge needed through design-based activities in authentic contexts.

The TPACK framework is built on Shulman’s pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). It integrates technological expertise into the subject-teaching framework while also interacting with subject content and pedagogy. The TPACK framework addresses seven essential components. First, three knowledge elements that include subject content, pedagogy, and technology work together. We should pay attention to not only these three elements simultaneously during the teaching process, but also the complex interaction between these three elements, which results in four types of new knowledge: Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Among them, TPACK is the one that creatively blends technology, pedagogy, and subject content and goes beyond. TPACK is the highest form of teachers’ knowledge structure (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

TPACK framework first presents an integrated perspective. There are three levels of integration. First, it highlights pedagogical knowledge, technological knowledge, and content knowledge as critical integration components. Second, it emphasizes that to help teachers use technology to improve student learning, these three knowledge domains should not be separated, but should form a whole total PACKage (Thompson & Mishra, 2007). Third, TPACK is an entire development process, which consists of four core elements (Niess, 2005): (1) a holistic view of integrating technology to teach a specific subject, (2) knowledge of the subject’s curriculum and course materials that integrate technology and learning, (3) knowledge of students using technology to understand and reflect about learning, and (4) knowledge of instructional strategies and presentations for using technology to teach specific topics.

TPACK also highlights the interdependence of the three fundamental components. According to Bull et al. (2007), the “threefold frame” could be formed in “multiple ways” (p. 131). For example, one could look at Pedagogy and how it interacts with the technology and content. We could also examine Content and “how technology and pedagogy can be best utilized to develop student understanding of core content ideas” (p. 131); Or, we could look at the interaction between the efficacy (or limitation) of one particular technology and the content and pedagogy within the same subject. Furthermore, there are priorities among interactions in developing teachers’ practical knowledge. Richardson (2009), for example, discovered that the relationship between technology and pedagogy took primacy. In a Chinese language classroom case study, Huseh (2008) also revealed that content knowledge dominated interaction over technological and pedagogical expertise. However, teachers also considered technical and pedagogical knowledge at the same time.

In addition, TPACK can be used as a paradigm for knowledge transformation. Cox and Graham (2009) discussed how the teacher's TPACK structure was technically mysterious. When a new technology was widely accepted, the teacher's technological knowledge transformed into pedagogical or content knowledge. This transformation caused the TPACK structure to vanish, only to be re-established when another new or newer technology appeared (Cox & Graham, 2009). TPACK, the pedagogical and technological idea related to the knowledge base for instructors to utilize technology to educate, should thus be seen as a direction rather than a set knowledge base (Bowers & Stephen, 2011).

TPACK framework significantly affects education and digital teaching competency development. It is a theoretical achievement based on the perspective of knowledge structure to examine teachers’ information-based teaching ability and the culmination of contemporary teachers’ knowledge classification research. Two main applications of TPACK framework lie in evaluating teachers’ digital teaching competencies and teachers’ TPACK development strategies and approaches.

First, TPACK offers a conceptual analysis viewpoint. It examines all components of teachers’ professional knowledge, which provides a direct theoretical basis for evaluating teachers’ teaching competencies based on the elements involved in technology integration. At present, many well-developed TPACK evaluation scales have been designed for reference. Simultaneously, numerous studies have broadened evaluation methodologies, such as measuring teachers’ actual performance on different design tasks, concept maps, card sorting, and drawing works to investigate teachers’ inner beliefs and knowledge inclinations.

Second, TPACK is used to integrate technology with teaching. It aids in analyzing the law of teachers’ training and development in the integration of technology and education, the design of complementary strategies to promote the development of teachers’ TPACK, and the exploration of effective development approaches. For example, Koehler et al. (2007) adopted the “learning by design” approach to help teachers create a contextual awareness of technology. Angeli and Valanides (2009) developed a technology mapping (TM) methodology for developing teachers’ ICT-PACK and pre-service teachers’ TPACK created through micro-teaching. Focusing on TPACK in teachers’ practice has become the direction of current research. Numerous factors in the teaching practice situation affect the level and development of teachers’ TPACK, and teachers face many challenges in practice.

2.2.3 Personal Practical Knowledge

Since the 1980s, teachers as reflectors and practitioners of teaching practices have emphasized teacher education. Teachers’ knowledge or so-called practical knowledge becomes the core of teachers’ professional quality (Clandinin & Connelly, 1987). Practical knowledge is a type of situational knowledge that dominates teachers’ thoughts and behaviors and plays a role in their daily teaching. It is the teacher's knowledge in the teaching situation, the teacher's knowledge of problem-solving in the classroom, and the “clinical” teacher's knowledge. Focusing on teachers’ practical knowledge reflects the knowledge transformation in teaching competency development (Van Driel et al., 2001).

The Concept of Personal Practical Knowledge. Connelly and Clandinin (1997) proposed the notion of a teacher's private practice knowledge and viewed the teacher as a knowledgeable and cognitive individual. They stressed the importance of experience in a teacher's knowledge. They believed knowledge was not objective nor learned and inherited by teachers independently of teachers. Teachers’ knowledge comes from personal experience, which is how teachers’ practical knowledge is oriented. Teachers’ practical knowledge is embedded into their work practice, as well as in their previous experience and current physical and mental actions, and in their future teaching plans and activities. Local knowledge, case knowledge, situated knowledge, and personal knowledge are all related notions that emphasize the same concept of teachers’ intimate practical knowledge from different viewpoints.

Categories of Teachers’ Practical Knowledge. Chen (2003) categorized teachers’ practical knowledge into six groups.

• (1) Teachers’ educational beliefs include their understanding of the goal of education, the education that students should obtain, the qualifications of good education, education implementation and evaluation, and teaching from a professional perspective.

• (2) Teachers’ self-awareness encompasses self-concept, self-evaluation, self-teaching efficacy, self-regulation awareness, and more. Mainly represented as whether teachers recognize their characteristics and teaching styles, moderately develop their strengths while avoiding weaknesses, and quickly learn from mistakes and adjust their attitudes and behaviors.

• (3) Teachers’ interpersonal skills includes perception and understanding of students, enthusiasm (willingness to help students), and passion (thirst for knowledge, desire to seek answers and explain to others, whether to use this passion to infect students).

• (4) Teachers’ situational knowledge. Primarily reflected in the teacher's teaching wit, a behavioral inclination of swift judgment, and rapid decision-making that depends on the teacher's sensitivity to the situation, quick thinking, cognitive flexibility, and student perception.

• (5) Teachers’ strategic knowledge refers to teachers’ demonstration of theoretical knowledge in teaching activities. It includes an understanding of subject content, subject teaching methodologies, and pedagogical theories, as well as the ability to integrate knowledge from these fields into teaching, apply strategies in the classroom, proper selection and arrangement of course content and teaching methods, integrate technology and teaching methods, and use assessment and evaluation of students’ performance.

• (6) Teachers’ critical thinking abilities are represented in their daily “conscious” actions in three aspects: reflection on practice, reflection in practice, and reflection for practice.

Teachers’ educational beliefs play the central role in teachers’ practical knowledge, and they have the most significant impact on teachers’ behavior and are more difficult to change. At the same time, all knowledge contents are interconnected and mutually influenced. For instance, the deepening of teachers’ critical reflective knowledge is conducive to renewing educational beliefs. The growth of teachers’ interpersonal knowledge is conducive to the enrichment and automation of teachers’ situational knowledge.

The Characteristics of Teachers’ Practical Knowledge. The first characteristic of teachers’ practical knowledge is experience, which comes from the teacher’s own teaching practice. Elbaz (1981) proposed the concept of teachers’ “practical knowledge” (p. 46). They divided the content of practical knowledge into five categories: (1) knowledge of the subject matter, which is the subject content; (2) knowledge of curriculum, which is about how to organize and plan teaching content and learning; (3) knowledge of instruction, which includes classroom routines, teaching management, and student’s learning needs; (4) knowledge about the self, which is about the teaching individuals, such as personality, age, attitude, value, belief, and goals; and (5) knowledge about the milieu of schooling, which includes schools’ structure and the community around. Those categories of knowledge are intertwined, and much of the practical knowledge is not recognized by teachers but reflected through teachers’ behaviors and beliefs.

Scholars who focus on the situational characteristics of teachers’ practical knowledge are also prevalent. From the standpoint of learning theory in psychology, Lave and Wenger (1991) proposed that social practice was a method to develop personal practical knowledge, emphasizing the situational nature of personal knowledge. They believed that the learner's knowledge was composed of both propositional and situational knowledge acquired through social practice and specific settings. Brown et al. (1989) emphasized that knowledge was the outcome of individuals’ activities and social and physical situations. Knowledge application is not only limited by its laws, but also by specific cultures, activities, and conditions. As knowledge is applied to new problems, it evolves in content (Brown et al., 1989).

2.2.4 Scholarship for Teaching

The neglect of teaching and the decline of quality student learning have become important issues in higher education. Such problems have resulted in increased attention by the government, society, and scholars. In this context, American Scholar Boyer (1990) wrote the book Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. He proposed the idea of “scholarship of teaching” based on his deep understanding of the meaning of teaching in higher education. Advocated by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, the “scholarship of teaching” initiative has had a worldwide impact on teaching competencies in higher education.

In this book, Boyer (1990) pointed out that “…We believe the time has come to move beyond the tired old ‘teaching versus research debate and give the familiar and honorable term ‘scholarship’ a broader, more capacious meaning, one that brings legitimacy to the full scope of academic work” (p. 16). He explained that besides engaging with academic research, a scholar should also look for connections among questions, build bridges between theory and practice, and convey their knowledge to students. Furthermore, he classified a faculty’s work into four separated and overlapping functions of “…the scholarship of discovery; the scholarship of integration; the scholarship of application; and the scholarship of teaching” (p. 16).

In his book, Boyer (1990) pointed out that “scholarship” was no longer a term dedicated to “scientific discovery” or academic research that happened at the university. The activity of teaching in a university was also considered “scholarship” because a faculty’s work would be fruitful only if others understood it. In this way, Boyer (1990) positioned the meaning and value of teaching in higher education from a higher level, reversing the long-standing traditional view of university teaching. By eliminating the binary opposition between research and teaching, he was trying to reconstruct the concept of scholarship, thus emphasizing the importance of teaching and drawing people's attention to the teaching activity in university.

Late in 2004, Lee Shulman, the eighth president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, further elaborated and developed the meaning of scholarship in college teaching in his book Teaching as Community Property. He believed that scholarship of teaching expressly referred to the systematic study of teaching and learning issues, which had the following characteristics: (a) be open to criticism and evaluation, and (b) use a form that allows others to construct and reflect on the results. These characteristics build a teaching community to share ideas with other academic community members, thus leading to the meaning of teaching scholarship.

Traditionally, university teaching is a private activity, and teachers often maintain a kind of “teaching isolation.” This “teaching isolation” makes teaching not receive the deserved attention in universities. The way to break this “teaching isolation” is to make the teaching visible and public through artifacts that others can judge, evaluate, and easily construct. Specifically, we can use a variety of formats to document teaching activities and outcomes such as recording the teaching process in the classroom or building teaching portfolios to allow peer review. In addition, teachers can summarize and share their experiences during teaching innovation and communicate with their peers.

At the same time, Shulman (2004) believed that treating teaching as a form of scholarship required to view teaching as an activity and discovery process. Like other forms of scholarship, teaching is an outcome that manifests itself over a long process. Teaching becomes scholarship when teachers make their work public, be open to peer evaluation and critique, and communicate with other members of their professional community to strengthen their work. All different kinds of scholarship share these characteristics.

Regarding how universities could create an environment for the scholarship of teaching, Shulman (2004) admitted that the emergence of university teaching and academic culture would not be achieved overnight. He emphasized the need to change how future teachers were trained, to increase the scrutiny of teaching ability during the hiring process, to create a unit to support the growth of the scholarship of teaching, and most importantly, offer teachers a proper and respectable place in a research university.

The theory of “scholarship of teaching” profoundly reveals that the dissemination of knowledge within a discipline has the same academic value as its production and application. Universities should emphasize best practices in teaching as student learning is the focus. A university teacher should conduct research on teaching that enhances best practices. To advance knowledge dissemination to academic research means moving away from teaching techniques and methods to a research level where teachers focus on problem discovery and problem-solving. Teachers emphasize the following activities: collecting data to evaluate teaching, iteratively improving teaching methods, continually reflecting on the teaching activity, making teaching artifacts visible and easy to exchange, extracting general teaching rules, and developing a new understanding of teaching.

2.2.5 Theories of Teachers Learning

Regarding teaching competency development, the terms “teacher training,” “teacher education,” and similar words spring to mind. These are all vital approaches for teachers to grow professionally. In fact, “teacher learning” is also a form of teaching competency development, but it has a different notion and meaning than “teacher training” and “teacher education.“ Teacher learning is classified into two categories: active learning and passive learning. Teacher training and teacher education are more associated with passive learning, whereas teacher learning promotes active learning by teachers and based on constructivist learning theory, resulting in a shift in teacher education’s fundamental paradigm. Teachers actively develop personal, situational knowledge from their own experience and educational and teaching practice rather than passively receiving experiences from other academic experts.

Case-based Situational Learning Theory. Situational learning theory is a popular topic in contemporary learning theories. It combines both social constructivism and anthropological perspectives. According to the constructivist view of learning, learning is not about acquiring cognitive symbols, but about participating in real-world activities. Advanced learning is the ability to transfer new, complex, and poorly structured knowledge to new situations flexibly. This process requires the creation of context at various times via multiple methods to support the visit and recognition of the same materials from various perspectives (Spiro, 1988).

Situational learning theory state that learning is the process of social collaboration and the essence of learning is the gradual transition from marginal participation to core participation in the community of practice. The core concepts of this theory include situation-based action, legitimate marginal participation, practice field and practice community, cognitive apprenticeship, and more (Li, 2006). Brown et al. (1989) argued that knowledge was contextual and part of activities, backgrounds, and cultural products. Learning knowledge, thinking, and context are closely interlinked. Knowledge and action are mutually dependent; knowledge is delivered within a certain context, and it develops further through behavior. Therefore, researchers discovered the effective situational learning method of cognitive apprenticeship, whereby novice teachers are allowed to observe and imitate the behaviors and operations of skilled people and experts. Novice teachers can gradually master the tools to develop and utilize real situations to learn in-depth and acquire relevant skills in the given field (Brown et al., 1989).

As a result, successful teacher learning necessitates situational learning in the context of vivid examples. Different people can blend their own unique experiences, comprehend them to varying degrees and perspectives, and as a result, establish a variety of educational concepts and teaching methods. It bridges the gap between expert theoretical discourse and teacher practice. Teacher training should be linked with the actual situation of the school and teachers themselves, producing varied scenarios and directing them with cases. Teaching films, real teaching cases, and self-designed teaching cases are the three most common techniques to generate a case-based setting for teachers.

Learning Community for Teachers’ Collaborative Learning. According to social constructivism, learning is the social negotiation of knowledge, and the learning process is a cooperative and communicative activity. Teachers’ cooperative groups are reciprocal learning resources in a learning community. Hu (2005) summarized three types of cooperative learning for teachers based on the learning community for teachers in the primary education in China: (1) guided cooperative learning, which refers to the guidance from teaching-research staff, subject experts, and university experts to teachers such as mentoring and teaching partners; (2) showcase-based cooperative learning such as open courses, teaching achievement presentations, reading clubs, and other types of sharing-based learning; and (3) research-based cooperative learning such as teaching salons, seminars, and project research. Different types of learning communities exist. They can be offline learning organizations with teaching and research groups at their core or virtual learning teams such as blog groups; they can also be problem-solving, reading club-based, or subject-based or subject-based research. To summarize, the learning community is more practical than rigid. It is not disorganized or disjointed. It, in contrast, necessitates a set of norms and institutional safeguards.

Based on the importance of teachers’ practical knowledge and influenced by situational learning theory, teachers’ cooperative learning is further defined as “participation in the community of practice,” and the community of practice has become a prominent concept. According to Lave and Wenger (1991), a Community of Practice refers to people who gather to achieve individual and group goals by sharing a common concern, a set of difficulties, or a common interest. They gain knowledge and experience over time due to their ongoing contacts in pursuit of common goals. Compared to standard formal organizations, communities of practice have three required components (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The first required component is the domain that includes a shared area of interest, competence, and commitment that sets them apart from the competition. Members initially identify with the shared environment, then invest time and experience in developing a shared sense of identity. The second required component is the community, or a social framework that encourages people to communicate and share their idea. This platform’s development is based on mutual respect and trust, and it promotes idea exchange, exposing ignorance, challenging challenges, and patiently listening. The third required component is the practice, in which community members adhere to a common set of methods and standards to set a foundation for their activities, communication, problem-solving, practical operation, and critical communication. This effective practice is a group effort that organizes pertinent knowledge and norms to benefit the practitioner.

A community is more than just a group of people working together on the same project. The duration of the mission or the size of the group is not a mitigating factor. The key is to engage with society and offer students a meaningful role or mission through community of practice (Wenger, 1999).

In the past, attending lectures was seen to be the primary method of education for teachers. In fact, teachers’ learning in practical situations has a more substantial impact on teachers’ concepts and behaviors. Situational learning is a major way and model of training teachers (Li, 2022). Teachers observe and imitate other teachers in daily teaching practice, face and solve various problems, interact with experts and colleagues, and continuously expand new knowledge and methods. The learning principle behind it fits well with the main points of situational learning theory, so in recent years, situational learning theory has been widely introduced into the professional development of teachers (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

Community of Practice has lately become a trend. Various forms of teacher learning organizations have emerged such as discussion groups for regular teaching and research, reading clubs, online webinars, and cooperative practice research. The common feature of these organizations is to provide teachers with practice-based cognitive sharing opportunities. Based on the general theory of “learning community,” “community of practice” emphasizes the role of practice and teaching situations on teachers’ learning, highlights learning in action, and reinforces the mutual transformation of different types of teachers’ knowledge and the “exercising ba (practice field)” on which they depend.

Reflective Practice Theory. The constructivist paradigm emphasizes the importance of “introspection” or “reflection” in teacher education and argues that reflection is an important form of professional development for teachers as it may increase teachers’ instructional engagement and professional development. Teachers’ reflective actions play a larger role in the difference in teaching competencies between experienced and inexperienced teachers. Reflective teaching has also become a modern benchmark for identifying exceptional educators (Xiong, 1999).

In his book, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Schon (1983) carefully studied two types of reflection. One type is a reflection for action, in which teaching can take place before or after class in the form of preparation and reflecting on classroom teaching. The second type is a reflection in action, which occurs during the teaching process. Teachers change their education in response to observations of phenomena or difficulties in the classroom, implying that teachers are always on the lookout for and solving problems in the school. Schon emphasized more on the “reflection in action” and believed that its outcomes were more significant for developing practical knowledge.

Based on Schon’s (1983) dichotomy, Griffiths and Tann (1992) developed five reflection dimensions: rapid reflection, revision, retrospective, research, and theoretical reconstruction. While other studies fault teachers for always trying to stay at the brief review and revision level, they claimed that the most practical consideration was hypothetical reconstruction and reconstruction.

Osterman and Kottkamp (1993) split teacher reflection into four parts: concrete experience, observation and analysis, abstract reconceptualization, and active experimentation. Teachers actively reflect on and improve their teaching during this learning cycle. Handal and Lauvas (1987) thought that teachers’ reflective practice could be divided into three levels or processes: (1) regular teaching actions, which were evident and easy to observe; (2) planning and reflection, which included pre-teaching thinking and preparation, as well as post-teaching reflection; and (3) ethical thinking of teaching practice, which was a continuous reflection on teaching ethics such as whether it helped to promote the equality and justice for all students.

The most common reflection format is to write reflective articles on their teaching such as examining teaching cases, keeping teaching logs, and such. It enables teachers to assess their comprehension of educational and teaching principles, and how these concepts affected their problem-solving abilities. Micro-teaching is also a good way for teachers to reflect on and analyze their teaching.

Valli (1993) concluded that there were five reflection models. A technical reflection required teachers to assess their teaching practices against external benchmarks such as the expert-developed norms and standards formulated. The reflection-in and on-action allowed teachers to reflect based on their particular teaching scenarios, values, beliefs, classroom, and students’ circumstances. Adeliberative reflection emphasized that instructional decisions were based on balancing multiple sources of knowledge such as research, experience, and suggestions from other teachers. Teachers consider a wide range of pedagogical issues such as students, curriculum, teaching strategies, and classroom organization and principles. Personalistic reflection was concerned with the voice of teachers, personal growth, and professional development issues. It emphasized students’ personal development rather than academic performance. Critical reflection encouraged teachers to become reformers and social actors. Teachers who engage in critical reflection are more likely to adapt their teaching techniques and school structures to minimize social injustice and inequality and listen to the perspectives of marginalized people. These types of reflection models provide new possibilities for teacher education.

Action Research. Research starting from the problems teachers face in the classroom is crucial to help teachers grow. The goal of action research is to help teachers reflect on their teaching behavior and improve their teaching by solving problems in the classroom. Action research is teachers’ reflective exploration of the basic education and teaching situation. Its primary goal is to answer specific work-related issues. It stresses the integration of research and teaching activities, in which teachers’ study, think, attempt, and try to solve problems. According to Kemmis and McTaggart (1988), action research was self-reflection research undertaken by teachers and other educational practitioners. It encouraged teachers to reflect critically on their practice.

Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) adopted Lewin’s action research and believed action research was a spiral development process, with four interrelated and interdependent links in each spiral development circle. The method first includes a plan, which starts with a need and an assumption to address a problem, with the premise being a synthesis of the action researchers’ (teachers’) understanding of the situation and the information, theories, methodologies, and techniques they possess that are also helpful for problem-solving. The next involves an action, which entails putting the plan into action or acting in accordance with the goals and objectives. In their research, action researchers gained a better grasp of specific situations and allowed other researchers and participants to monitor and review their work. The next step is to investigate, which entails looking into the process, outcomes, background, and personality traits of researchers and encouraging the use of a variety of successful technical tools and methodologies. The last step is reflection, which synthesizes the numerous feelings experienced during the plan’s formation and implementation. Meditation also helps describe the cycle’s process and outcomes, evaluate and explain phenomena and reasons, point out gaps between goals and results, and develop basic assumptions and plans for the following steps.

It should be noted that not every teacher can conduct action research. Teachers need to have a theoretical foundation, and at the same time, they should be able to keenly discover the problems existing in their own teaching. In addition, some teachers may conduct a comprehensive action research with the help of their mentors or colleagues.

Evaluation Theory. How can the teachers’ learning outcomes be evaluated to give positive feedback? There are three sorts of evaluation methods. The first is authenticity evaluation, which occurs in real-life circumstances, and is procedural and diagnostic (Wiggins, 1998). The goal of evaluation is to support teachers’ ongoing development rather than to identify advantages and disadvantages. The second is to emphasize comprehensive evaluation. Unlike traditional evaluation, it does not consist of a single written examination, but instead encourages a diversity of methodologies and approaches for evaluation. At the same time, two crucial indications of formative and summative evaluation (Angelo & Cross, 1993) should be supplied. Participatory evaluation is the third option. Teachers must grasp the process and foundations of teaching assessment and receive timely and appropriate feedback to support their active learning. Teachers and students should be encouraged to participate in the participatory evaluation such as negotiating evaluation standards, methods, and processes, and undertaking self-evaluation or mutual evaluation.

2.2.6 Teaching Expertise in Higher Education

Expertise refers to “expert knowledge or skill in a particular subject, activity or job.” There are individuals who have distinguished themselves from the ordinary person in their specialty in every discipline. Examples include medical experts, chess masters, and physics experts. In teaching, these people are often referred to as “expert teachers.” Research on teaching expertise can help us better understand the characteristics of expert teachers’ knowledge and skill and the acquisition and development of such knowledge. In addition, research on teaching expertise can provide practical insights for teacher education, support the assessment of successful teaching, and provide materials for teacher education curriculum design. At the same time, research on teaching expertise can encourage novice teachers to acquire new knowledge and new skills through the experts’ guidance and thus helps the novice teachers to understand the complex nature of teaching (Tsui, 2003).

The Knowledge Base of Expert Teachers. Turner-Bisset (1999) expanded Shulman’s (1987) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) by adding general pedagogical knowledge, knowledge/models of teaching, learning of learners, knowledge of self, understanding of educational contexts, knowledge of educational ends, purposes, and values. In summary, Turner-Bisset’s teachers’ knowledge base inherited most of the components in the teacher's knowledge structure proposed by Shulman. Turner-Bisset added two more types of knowledge: models of teaching and theoretical expertise and self-cognition knowledge. The addition helped demonstrate that expert teachers could have more superior knowledge of instructional methods and maintain self-reflection and cognition.

Characteristics of Teaching Expertise. Different from the paradigm of knowledge classification, Bond et al. (2000) identified 13 features of teachers’ teaching expertise from the perspective of teacher behavior as follows:

• 1. Use of knowledge.

• 2. A large amount of subject pedagogical knowledge, including a profound representation of subject knowledge.

• 3. Good problem-solving strategies.

• 4. Set and adjust goals for different students and have better improvisation skills.

• 5. Make better decisions.

• 6. Propose more challenging goals.

• 7. Create a better classroom atmosphere.

• 8. Greater insight into classroom practice and better ability to interpret information cues provided by students.

• 9. Greater sensitivity to the situation.

• 10. Better monitoring of student learning and more appropriate feedback to students.

• 11. Test the plausibility of assumptions more often.

• 12. More respect for students.

• 13. Demonstrate a higher passion for teaching.

Acquisition and Development of Teaching Expertise. Teacher teaching development aims to help novice teachers grow into expert teachers as soon as possible. The question is how to attain teaching expertise.

Theory of Practice. Manross and Templeton (1997) believed that expert teachers were not born but made through practical exercises. Teaching expertise is gained through experience, practice, and knowledge. The acquisition of teachers’ teaching expertise does not put too much emphasis on deliberate training. The method of intentional training is more used in the addition of internship teachers’ expertise. Teachers’ teaching practice and accumulation of teaching experience can be regarded as the process of training.

Manross and Templeton (1997) recommended acquiring teaching expertise by developing planning skills and insights, focusing on individual students, developing teaching strategies, and using reflective practices. When developing planning skills, teachers should regularly refer to excellent lesson plans and effective strategies from other peers and reflect on reviewing and improving the classroom. When developing insights, teachers should pay attention to students’ behavior, classroom situations, and teaching behavior. Wisdom is not easy to set, but it can be practiced. For paying attention to individual students, teachers should practice paying attention to 1–2 students at the beginning to analyze and understand their behavior. With more practice, teachers can gradually pay attention to more students. Teaching strategies should be developed by seeking new teaching methods and teaching theories with the help of other teachers’ teaching cases, professional books, and periodicals. In terms of classroom reflection, teachers need to make a certain amount of deliberate effort. They should actively communicate and interact with other teachers, observe their classrooms, and promptly review and reflect on their teaching after class.

Theory of Situational Training. Teachers often complain that learning outside the classroom does not make sense because it is separated from daily teaching practice. Teachers’ practical knowledge is situational and empirical. The development of teachers’ teaching experience needs to be completed in actual teaching situations (Flick & Lederman, 2001). The result of teaching expertise also happens in the process of an authentic teaching setting. In view of the importance of situational factors on the development of teacher teaching competencies, situational training theory has been greatly discussed.

Situational training theory can be roughly divided into practical situation acquisition and reflective situation acquisition. We have discussed valuable situation acquisition in the previous section. Thoughtful situation acquisition is also a meaningful way to promote professional development. These two viewpoints are not opposites but have different emphases. Teachers’ teaching expertise is often achieved through both practice and reflection at the same time.

Schon (1987) pointed out that the proposed reflective practice also emphasized reflection in the process of training. According to Schon, teachers are reflective practitioners. Considerations in practice include six methods: recognition of the problem, recognition of the incongruent factors, reconstruction of the problem, proposing new solutions, testing new solutions in action, and evaluating results.

2.2.7 Teaching Competency Development Model

The process of teaching competency development is a process of growing from a novice teacher to an expert teacher. Studies of expertise in chess, physics, mathematics, music, history, and more have proven that it takes at least 10 years of work experience for a novice in any professional field to become an expert (Robertson, 2001). In this process, he/she has experienced different stages of development with different characteristics. Representative theories include the following people.

Glaser's Three Phases of Monitoring and Support. The shift from relying on external support to depending on internal tracking is known as expertise. Based on this assumption, Glaser (1996) provided a three-stage professional internalization development hypothesis, ranging from external support to intermediate transition and internal monitoring. During the external support phase, novices must rely on the external environment’s framework to learn the basic skills they require, and beginners are impacted by their devotion, enthusiasm, and practitioners and other significant figures in the area of their mentors and parents. Social learning and organizational training are particularly crucial at this stage. As the novice progresses to the intermediate transition stage, they begin to utilize less “scaffolding” and gradually becomes an apprentice, requiring more supervision and training. As apprentices, they can concentrate on learning self-monitoring and self-regulation skills and summarizing a set of behavioral standards. Apprentices have gradually turned into experts in the final stage of internal monitoring and have begun to regulate their learning environment and undertake purposeful training to adjust their status. They begin to receive the feedback they require and select a training difficulty level appropriate for their developmental stage (Fuller & Brown, 1975).

Berliner's Five-Stage Development Theory. Berliner (1994) identified five levels of teacher development: novice level, advanced beginner level, competent level, proficient level, and expert level. He believed that all teachers began from the novice level. They progressed to the advanced beginner level after 2–3 years of accumulating knowledge and experience, and then advanced to the competent level after another 1–2 years of teaching practice and professional training. This was the overarching goal of teacher teaching development. Some teachers may progressively become proficient over the next year, while some continue to develop and become an expert over time. Teachers have various personalities at different levels too. For example, novice teachers are usually cautious, stereotyped, and rigid; advanced beginner teachers have more insight; and competent teachers are more reasonable and have a far higher feeling of drive and responsibility. Only a tiny percentage of teachers progress to the proficient stage, where they approach cognitive automation in their teaching abilities and develop teaching intuition. Only a few teachers can achieve the expert level, and those who do will be fundamentally distinct from others. Expert teachers are irrational when dealing with problems, and they do things quickly, rarely need analysis or thought, and can complete instruction solely via experience.

Fuller and Brown's Three-stage Model of Teacher Development. According to the varied objects that teachers pay attention to at different phases, Fuller and Brown (1975) divided teacher teaching development into three stages. During the survival stage, most of the teachers are trainees and novices. They prioritize on job survival and adaptability. They devote a significant amount of time to topics other than teachings, such as dealing with interpersonal relationships and family ties. Their professional development is still severely limited. In the situational stage, teachers start to pay attention to their students’ grades while also paying close attention to their classroom teaching content and effect. Their teaching skill has been developed and improved. The final stage is the student stage. Teachers begin to pay attention to students’ unique peculiarities and explore how to teach them by those differences. Teachers’ teaching skills have been fully established at this point.

Deliberate training is required to grow teachers’ knowledge and skills, but it is also vital to train in the environment, which requires teachers to engage in active reflection. Teachers need a specific amount of time to gain expertise, which can be separated into distinct stages. Each step's different qualities and laws must be grasped to promote it from one location to the next as quickly as possible through teacher training, teaching practice, and teaching reflection. The methods and consequences are still being debated.

In summary, the review of the theoretical foundations of teaching competency development revealed that no single theory or model can guide the design of developing teaching competencies in higher education since learning has adopted many educational paradigms. Based on the theoretical foundations discussed in this chapter, we proposed a standards framework of teaching competencies in higher education in next chapter with the aim of taking full advantage of current scholarship of teaching competencies. We believe that taking multiple perspectives rather than a single theoretical approach, is essential for designing effective training programs for teaching competency development because the broad range of design features requires a broad theoretical foundation.