1

In recent decades, educational research has provided compelling evidence that the quality
of the learning opportunities created by teachers affects students’ learning and motivation
(Hattie, 2009; McCaffrey, Lockwood, Koretz, Louis, & Hamilton, 2004). Particular interest has
been directed toward teachers’ knowledge of subject matter: their content knowledge (CK) and
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Both types of knowledge have been shown to affect
teachers’ instructional practice as well as student learning in the domain of mathematics
(Baumert et al., 2010; Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005).

In the 1980s, Shulman identified research on the content specific characteristics of

teachers and of instruction as the “missing paradigm” of research on learning and instruction
(Shulman, 1986, 1987). Stimulated by Shulman’s ideas, a growing body of teacher research has
since addressed teacher knowledge of subject matter (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Woolfolk
Hoy, Davis, & Pape, 2006), focusing on two main constructs: CK and PCK (Ball et al., 2008;
Borko & Putnam, 1996; Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1987). Although the definitions of these
constructs vary across research groups (Hill et al., 2005; Krauss, Brunner, et al., 2008; Park &
Oliver, 2008), there seems to be consensus on some crucial aspects

CK represents teachers’ understanding of the subject matter taught. According to

Shulman (1986), “[t]he teacher need not only understand that something is so, the teacher must
further understand why it is so” (p. 9). Thus, the emphasis is on a deep understanding of the
subject matter taught at school. Consequently, teachers’ CK differs from the academic research
knowledge generated at institutes of higher education as well as from mathematical everyday
knowledge that adults retain after leaving school (Krauss, Brunner, et al., 2008).

Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) was first introduced by Shulman in 1986, and
described as the synthesis of teachers’ subject matter knowledge with their pedagogical
knowledge. PCK is the integration between content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge of
the teachers in delivering a subject matter in accordance to the ability and interest of learners [1].
However, some studies identified the PCK is the knowledge of content subject matter (CK),
pedagogical knowledge (PK), and knowledge of learners. Thus, the PCK attends to lead teacher
in solving student’s misconceptions about the subject that they learn.

PCK is the knowledge needed to make subject matter accessible to students (Shulman,
1986). Literature on PCK identified two core facets of that knowledge: knowledge of students’

1
 2

subject-specific conceptions and misconceptions as well as knowledge of subject-specific

teaching strategies and representations (see also Ball et al., 2008; Borko & Putnam, 1996; Park &
Oliver, 2008).

Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) has been a significant topic to be discussed in the
teaching quality since decades. Shulman (2004) bold that PCK is a combination between a
specific subject of subject matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge that is important for
teachers to be possessed. These two domains are integrated. Subject matter knowledge or known
as content knowledge (CK) is the knowledge of the specific topic, which teacher requires
teaching it. For example, English teacher should have the ability of understanding on English
materials and capable of delivering it to her/his students. This domain becomes a prerequisite
knowledge in PCK Concept. Another domain is pedagogical knowledge (PK). Shulman (2004)
stated that PK involves the teaching principals and strategies that are applied in the classroom
management and organization. Furthermore, the PK also includes teacher’s knowledge of
students learning, assessment and education purposes.

Despite the clear theoretical distinction between CK and PCK, findings on their empirical
separability are mixed. Hill, Schilling, and Ball (2004) found that elementary teachers’ CK and
PCK in mathematics are merged in a single body of knowledge that they termed mathematical
knowledge for teaching (MKT). Other studies found that CK and PCK represent two correlated
but separable and unique dimensions (Krauss, Brunner, et al., 2008; Phelps & Schilling, 2004).
Krauss, Brunner, et al. (2008) concluded that the latent structure of subject-matter knowledge
might vary between different teacher populations. There is some consensus and some
preliminary evidence for the notion that CK might be a prerequisite for PCK development.

The knowledge of teaching content is deeply rooted in the daily work of teachers
(Opasola, 2009). However, it is not the opposite of theoretical knowledge. It includes theories
learned during teachers’ preparation and the experience gained from ongoing school education
activities (Nkuuhe, 1995). The development of knowledge of teaching content is influenced by
factors related to the teacher's personal background and work environment. PCK is deeply rooted
in the experience and assets of students, their families and communities (Prosser, &Trigwell,
1999; Raheem, 2010). It is considered as a mixture of content and pedagogy. It is uniquely
constructed by teachers and is, therefore, a “special” form of educator's expertise and

2
 3

understanding. PCK is also called ‘process knowledge’. It contains comprehensive knowledge of

the wisdom that teachers have accumulated in teaching practice. The four elements i.e.
education, students, subjects and courses are considered by the teachers while considering PCK.
It needs to be addressed in the context of a diverse approach to teaching (Chou, 2008).

Shulman (1986) who was the pioneer of introducing this term states that the concept of
PCK is not new in the field of education. He was interested in expanding and improving the
knowledge of teaching and teachers’ preparation. He views that the content of the curriculum
ignores the pedagogical practices of the teachers. Furthermore, education only emphasizes CK
while he believes that the development of general teaching skills is not enough to prepare for
content teachers. In his view, the key to distinguish the basis of teaching knowledge lies in the
intersection of content and pedagogy (Shulman, 1986; Iyewarun, 1989). Shulman also throws
light on the purpose of PCK lies in interpretation and transformation of the subject knowledge by
the teacher in the context of promoting students’ learning. The key elements of PCK mentioned
by Shulman (1986) are as under. 1. General teaching knowledge (or teaching strategy). 2. Topic
representation knowledge (CK) 3. Understand the theme of the student and the meaning of
learning and teaching related to a specific In order to achieve what he calls teaching-based
knowledge, he includes other elements such as course knowledge, educational background
knowledge and knowledge of educational purposes (Shulman, 1987). Singh and Rana (2004) and
Abuseji (2007) suggested that if a teacher wants to be effective in classroom he/she needs to be
more than subject-oriented. He/she has to be more concerned about the pupil rather than to be
only good at the subject. It is certain that if one tries wholeheartedly and consciously, one can
become quite effective and accomplish wonders in the class.

Friedrichsen (2008) views that PCK is an exclusive form of knowledge that directed by
the teacher educators as well as researchers about what type of knowledge is required for
effective teaching. As mentioned earlier, Shulman (1986) maintained out that teachers should
have specific knowledge about the subject matter, program related content through the
introduction of the concept of Pedagogical Knowledge in the area of teacher education. He
continues PCK is the unique knowledge that needs to transform the knowledge required for
teaching. Moreover, it is also required to express subject knowledge which is a unique
component of teaching learning process. In addition, Magnusson et al. (1999) unambiguously

3
 4

adopted Shulman’s point of view and commented that PCK is a transformation of several forms
of teaching knowledge (including subject knowledge). It also symbolizes the specific areas
required for teacher’s knowledge. In contrast, Masters (2010) argues that PCK and CK cannot be
clearly discernible as components of knowledge. Cochran et al. (1993) also agreed and stated
that teachers' General Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) evolved over time because the
teachers became aware of the needs of students with the passage of time and experience. Veal
and MaKinster (2001) referred to another level of knowledge that contributed to the development
of teachers' PCK. It ranges from the lowest general PCK to PCK for specific topics and also
from the domain-specific PCK to PCK for specific topics.

In a very broad sense, competencies can be defined as ‘‘context specific dispositions

which are acquired and which are needed to cope successfully with domain-specific situations
and tasks’’ (Blo¨meke, Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, Kuhn, & Fege, 2013, p. 3). In a very specific
sense, competencies can be formulated as concrete learning outcomes (European Commission,
2014; Kennedy, Hyland, & Ryan, 2009). Hence, the degrees of abstraction in the definitions of
competence vary from very broad to very specific and there is no consensus of an appropriate
degree of abstraction. Concerning the definition of competence for evaluation purposes, the
evaluation standards and specifically the utility standard provide a framework for deciding on the
degree of abstraction (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 2011). The
utility standard means that evaluations’ results should meet the information needs of the intended
users. Intended users in the context of competence-based teaching are specific to the particular
higher education institutions but typically the following are identified: vice rectorate for study
affairs, senate, curricular commission, quality management department, teachers, instructors, and
students. Taking the utility standard into consideration for these intended users means that
competencies should not be formulated on a very high degree of abstraction because the results
might not lead to concrete actions for improvement. However, competencies should not be
formulated on a very low degree of abstraction either as this can lead to a high amount of
detailed results likely to overwhelm intended users and also violate the feasibility standards of
evaluation. Hence, the first quality criterion in defining competencies is that competencies
should be formulated on a medium degree of abstraction (see also Mulder, Gulikers, Biemans, &
Wesselink, 2009). For the readers’ understanding, Table 1 provides an example of different
degrees of abstraction in the context of tertiary teacher education. A further quality criterion in

4
 5

the definition of competence is the specification of the components which together form
competence. Such components could be knowledge (e.g. declarative, procedural, or conditional
knowledge), skills, strategies, attitudes, etc. Components that should be included vary between
different definitions of competence (Weinert, 1999). However, many definitions imply at least
two components: knowledge and skill (Koeppen, Hartig, Klieme, & Leutner, 2008; Organisation
for Economic Co-operation & Development, 2014). Hence, a competence model for higher
education that is as simple as possible should at least contain the distinction between knowledge
and skills. This also has a practical implication for the evaluation use. Since the development of
higher education toward competence-orientation in teaching, skills (such as practical skills in
scientific writing) – next to knowledge – have been put center stage. Hence, it might be useful
for the users of evaluation to know whether skills are also fostered. To sum up, when it comes to
the evaluation of competence-based teaching in higher education institutions, we argue for
considering two quality criteria in defining competencies: (1) define competencies specific to the
field of study but on a more abstract level than learning outcomes and (2) differentiate between
the components of knowledge and skill

References

Abuseji, F. A. (2007). Student and teacher-related variables as determinants of secondary school

students’ academic achievement in chemistry. Journal Pendidikan, 32, 3–18. Alex
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?
Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389-407. doi:10.1177/0022487108324554.
Blo¨meke, S., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Kuhn, C., & Fege, J. (2013). Modeling and measuring
competencies in higher education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook
of educational psychology (pp. 673-708). Washington, DC: Macmillan
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., & Tsai, Y.M. (2010). Teachers’
mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American
Educational Research Journal,47, 133-180. doi:10.3102/0002831209345157.

5
 6

Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative
model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 263- 272.
Chou, Y. C. (2008). Exploring the reflection of teachers’ beliefs about reading theories and strategies on
their classroom practices. Feng Chia Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 16, 183-216.
European Commission (2014). The Bologna process and the European higher education area. Retrieved
from http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/higher-education/ bologna-process_en.htm Accessed
04.11.14
Friedrichsen, P. J., Abell, S. K., Pareja, E. M., Brown, P. L., Lankford, D. M., & Volkmann, M. J. (2009).
Does teaching experience matter? Examining biology teachers’ prior knowledge for teaching in
an alternative certification program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 357–383.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher. Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
London, England: Routledge.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on
student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371- 406.
doi:10.3102/00028312042002371.
Iyewarun, S. A. (1989). The Teaching of social studies. Ilorin: Owoye Press & Book Industries (Nig) Ltd.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (2011). The program evaluation standards (3 rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Kennedy, D., Hyland, A., & Ryan, N. (2009). Learning outcomes and competencies. In D. Kennedy, A.
Hyland, N. Ryan, V. Gehmlich, & A. Balissa (Eds.), Using Learning Outcomes: Best of the
Bologna Handbook (Vol. 33, pp. 59–76). Berl: Raabe
Koeppen, K., Hartig, J., Klieme, E., & Leutner, D. (2008). Current issues in competence modelling and
assessment. Journal of Psychology, 216, 61–73. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1027/0044-3409.216.2.61
Krauss, S., Brunner, M., Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Neubrand, J., & Jordan, A. (2008).
Pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 716-725. doi:10.1037/0022- 0663.100.3.716.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content
knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining
pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Masters, G. (2010). Teaching and Learning School Improvement Framework. Australian Council for
Educational Research (ACER).
McCaffrey, D., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D., Louis, T. A., & Hamilton, L. (2004). Models for value

6
 7

-added modeling of teacher effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1), 67-
101.
Mulder, M., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H., & Wesselink, R. (2009). The new competence concept in higher
education: Error or enrichment. Journal of European Industrial Training, 33, 755–770.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090590910993616.
Nkuuhe J. (1995). Instructional Media. In: Matiru, Anna & Ruth (ed.). Teach Your Best: A Handbook for
University Lecturers (pp. 223-260). German Foundation for International Development.
Opasola, A. J. (2009). Influence of school variables on junior secondary school students’ performance in
social studies in Afijio, Oyo State, Nigeria (Unpublished M. Ed. Thesis). University of Ilorin,
Ilorin.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2014). Education Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/education/ Accessed 04.11.14.
Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher
education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
Raheem, M. J. (2010). Relationship between teachers’ characteristics and senior secondary school
economics students’ performance in Ilorin, Nigeria (Unpublished B. Sc. (Ed) Research Project).
University of Ilorin, Ilorin.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,
15(2), 4-14. doi:10.3102/ 0013189X015002004. 30.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Singh, R. P. & Rana, G. (2004). Teaching Strategies. New Dehli: APH Publishing Corporation.
Weinert, E. F. (1999). Concepts of competence. Contribution within the OECD project definition and
selection of competencies: Theoretical and conceptual foundations (DeSeCo). Munich: Max
Planck Institute for Psychological Research.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., Davis, H., &Pape, S. J. (2006). Teacher knowledge and beliefs. In P. A. Alexander &
P.H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 715-737). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.