Teacher knowledge experiment: Testing mechanisms underlying the formation of preservice elementary school teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge concerning fractions and fractional arithmetic.

Abstract

Pedagogical content knowledge forms the core of teachers’ professional knowledge; it refers to knowledge about making subject matter accessible to students. Thus, the formation of pedagogical content knowledge constitutes a crucial issue for educational research and practice. We investigated the contributions of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge to the formation of pedagogical content knowledge about fractions and fractional arithmetic in 6th grade mathematics in a between-participants study with 100 German preservice teachers. The three experimental and two control groups received 7 hr of intervention spread out over two days. We assessed participants’ pedagogical content knowledge before intervention, between the two days, after intervention, as well as at 6-week follow-up. The control groups exclusively received instruction on either pedagogical knowledge or pedagogical content knowledge; each of the experimental groups embodied a specific hypothesis about the formation of pedagogical content knowledge. Providing support for a mechanism of amalgamation, a combination of instruction on content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge produced small but statistically significant growth in pedagogical content knowledge. Similarly, instruction on content knowledge exclusively was sufficient to cause small but statistically significant growth in pedagogical content knowledge. Prior instruction on content knowledge did not facilitate learning from instruction on pedagogical content knowledge. Nevertheless, direct instruction on pedagogical content knowledge caused medium and statistically significant growth in pedagogical content knowledge.

Teachers' knowledge about language constructs related to literacy skills and student achievement in low socio‐economic status schools

“…Recently, there have been discussions on the issues of how teacher certification type (traditional vs. alternative certification), teaching experience, and self‐perception of their knowledge may or may not affect teacher satisfaction and teacher quality (Holzberger, Philipp, & Kunter, ; Thomas, ; Tröbst et al, ), and perhaps these factors can be predictive of teacher knowledge. Also, according to Chall (), starting at Grade 4, the focus of literacy instruction may switch from basic literacy skills to comprehension strategies, and literacy teachers at these grades may need to focus on more comprehension‐based knowledge and skills during teaching.…”

Preliminary Evidence on Measurement Characteristics for the Foundational Assessment of Competencies for Teaching Performance Tasks

“…For example, CKT scores for contrasting groups (including prospective teachers, practicing teachers, and nonteachers) have been compared to support claims that CKT is a form of professional knowledge (Hill et al, 2007; Iaconangelo et al, 2020; Kleickmann et al, 2013; Krauss et al, 2008; Phelps, 2005, 2009; Phelps et al, 2019). Assessments of CKT have been used to study and evaluate professional development to show that CKT assessments are sensitive to professional learning opportunities (Goldschmidt & Phelps, 2010; Hill & Ball, 2004; Liu & Phelps, 2019; Phelps et al, 2016; Tröbst et al, 2018; van Driel et al, 1998).…”

PRAXIS® Content Knowledge for Teaching: Initial Reliability and Validity Results for Elementary Reading Language Arts and Mathematics

“…Many of these CKT assessments have been used in studies to evaluate validity arguments that focus on the nature, development, and role of teacher content knowledge. This new generation of CKT assessments has successfully been used for multiple research purposes, including comparing the knowledge of contrasting groups (including prospective teachers, practicing teachers, and nonteachers) with the goal of supporting the claim that CKT is a form of professional knowledge (Hill et al, 2007; Iaconangelo et al, 2017; Kleickmann et al, 2013; Krauss et al, 2008; Phelps, 2005, 2009; Phelps et al, 2019); studying and evaluating professional development and teacher learning to show that CKT assessments are sensitive to professional learning opportunities (Goldschmidt & Phelps, 2010; Hill & Ball, 2004; Phelps et al, 2016; Tröbst et al, 2018; van Driel et al, 1998); examining differences among types of content knowledge to show that CKT includes a complex of knowledge types (Copur‐Gencturk et al, 2018; Hill et al, 2004; Mikeska et al, 2018; Phelps, 2009; Phelps & Schilling, 2004); and investigating how content knowledge contributes to both teaching quality and student learning outcomes to support the argument that CKT provides evidence directly associated with teacher quality (Baumert et al, 2010; Carlisle et al, 2009; Correnti & Phelps, 2010; Hill et al, 2005; Hill et al, 2008; Kersting et al, 2012; Phelps et al, 2012).…”