Journal of Education for Teaching

International research and pedagogy

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20

Structuring the lesson: an empirical investigation

of pre-service teacher decision-making during the
planning of a demonstration lesson

Matthias Krepf & Johannes König

To cite this article: Matthias Krepf & Johannes König (15 Dec 2022): Structuring the
lesson: an empirical investigation of pre-service teacher decision-making during
the planning of a demonstration lesson, Journal of Education for Teaching, DOI:
10.1080/02607476.2022.2151877

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2022.2151877

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa View supplementary material

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 15 Dec 2022. Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2449 View related articles

View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjet20
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING
https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2022.2151877

Structuring the lesson: an empirical investigation of

pre-service teacher decision-making during the planning of
a demonstration lesson
Matthias Krepf and Johannes König
Department of Education and Social Sciences, Empirical School Research, University of Cologne, Cologne,
Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Lesson planning is a challenge for teachers. However, the measure­ Received 6 January 2020
ment and modelling of teachers’ competence to plan lessons has Accepted 5 October 2022
received little attention. Especially, the question of which aspects KEYWORDS
are of central importance remains largely unresolved. The study Assessment; lesson structure
aims to measure the challenge of structuring a lesson as an aspect planning; competence;
of the situation-specific ability of lesson planning competence. To induction; teacher education
this end, we developed a standardised method for analysing writ­
ten plans of demonstration lessons during induction. Using appro­
priate indicators, the situation-specific planning perception,
interpretation, and decision-making of pre-service teachers is
reconstructed. The sample consisted of 211 written lesson plans
of 106 pre-service teachers from the PlanvoLL project. The lesson
plans were evaluated through content analysis. The generated
codings were then quantified and analysed with Item-Response-
Theory (IRT) scaling. Results show that structuring can be reliably
measured. Measurements of perceived competence increased dur­
ing induction. This study contributes to the development of
a meaningful empirical model of how the process of lesson struc­
turing can be measured as a competence construct and to research
on the measurement of planning competence among pre-service
teachers.

Introduction
Teachers are required to plan their lessons to initiate and effectively support the learning of
their students (Shavelson 1983). When planning a lesson, teachers must anticipate the
organisational process of teaching, adapt the pace of learning to the needs of students and
ensure smooth transitions between teaching activities (Doyle 2006). We refer to these specific
requirements as the structuring of the lesson, because structuring is a central feature of
effective teaching (Seidel and Shavelson 2007). The research literature suggests that at least
two different facets of the meaning of structuring can be distinguished (Doenau 1987):

CONTACT Matthias Krepf matthias.krepf@uni-koeln.de

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2022.2151877.
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med­
ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article
has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 M. KREPF AND J. KÖNIG

(1) First, content structuring is essential. To support students in building a well-

organised knowledge base, it is necessary to break down the entire learning
process into content related sub-processes so that the desired level of complexity
is feasible for students (Muijs and Reynolds 2011). These sub-processes in turn must
be connected (Rosenshine and Stevens 1986).
(2) Second, to maintain the flow of lessons, a procedural/organisational structuring of
lessons involves phasing the lesson, marking transitions, and articulating the
behaviours that are expected during transitions. (Doyle 2006).

Despite its importance to student learning, the theoretical literature on lesson planning
and structuring is increasingly outdated and empirical research in this field is rare. There
are few empirical studies on how teachers plan their lessons (König et al. 2020). Most of
them deal with the thought processes of teachers (Clark and Peterson 1986; Bromme
1981). Additionally, there are hardly any empirical studies on the modelling and measure­
ment of planning competence (Cochran-Smith and Villegas 2016).
Within the last few years, projects have emerged that focus on modelling and standardised
assessment of teachers’ planning competence. Representative projects are PlanvoLL (Planning
Competence of Teachers, (König, Buchholtz, and Dohmen 2015) and PlanvoLL-D (The Role of
Professional Knowledge of Pre-Service German Teachers in their Lesson Planning,, König et al.
2020a, 2020b). Both projects focused mainly on the pedagogical adaptivity of lesson planning
and investigated in how far concrete tasks for the planned lesson fit the cognitive and
motivational prerequisites of a learning group and the concrete tasks for the planned lesson
(including differentiation of tasks) (König et al. 2020b).
This study focuses on the planning competencies that pre-service teachers must
achieve to plan lessons that effectively structure the teaching process. We analysed
written plans of demonstration lessons and reconstructed how pre-service teachers use
structuring measures. Teachers are required to take action so that the teaching-learning
processes run smoothly with sufficient time-on-task (Doyle 2006). Measures to ensure
sufficient time-on-task are (1) the planning of lessons and (2) structuring of teaching
processes (Lipowsky 2015).
We capture the structuring process using two dimensions. The factual dimension
registers how an individual lesson is contextualised into the teaching unit. The procedural
dimension refers to a clear, recognisable structuring of the lesson into phases and
sections, allowing the teacher proper sequencing of a coherent course of lessons with
minimal interruptions (Doyle 2006).
The sample consisted of German pre-service teachers’ lesson plans collected on two
occasions during teacher induction (first and last written lesson plan). We examine
whether structuring as an aspect of planning competence can be reliably measured and
whether a change in planning competence can be identified between the beginning and
end of teacher training (pre-post measurement).

Theoretical background
Lesson planning is challenging for teachers because it involves a systematic decision-
making process (Zahorik 1970), sometimes also called a problem-solving process (Bromme
1981), with the aim of optimally organising teaching actions for a unit or a single lesson.
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING 3

The selection of content and the conception of learning activities have been identified as
central aspects of teachers’ planning process (Shavelson and Borko 1979).
During lesson planning, teachers have to consider a multitude of factors which are not
always easily reconcilable (Clark and Peterson 1986). Research has shown that pre-service
teachers have difficulties planning lessons (Calderhead 1996). For example, they lack both
a broad knowledge base necessary for planning and the flexibility to react appropriately
to the unexpected. While experienced teachers take a holistic approach to teaching, pre-
service teachers often see teaching as a chronological sequence of partially connected
events.
Westermann (1991) demonstrated that novices tend to orient themselves towards
specific teaching objectives for the development of structured teaching. Experts, by
contrast, attach great importance to looking at the pupils’ point of view and orienting
their planning towards their specific (learning) needs. The latter is closely linked to the
structuring of teaching content because the content to be learned is usually too complex
for students.
The subdivision of the learning process into sub-processes is a hierarchical organisa­
tion of planning at different times (Yinger 1980). The planning of a lesson occurs within
a larger context and is one component of a larger system of interrelated learning content
(Shavelson 1987). One aim of this contextualisation is to enable students to gradually build
their knowledge in a structured way (Muijs and Reynolds 2011). The outcome of a lesson
should build on the results of previous lessons, supporting cumulative knowledge
growth. Knowledge, skills, and understanding are usually not created in parts or in
isolation, instead they develop gradually through the experience of several individual
lessons that comprise a unit of learning. Such units usually take one to four weeks (Borich
2004).
When planning a unit, teachers first determine the subject-matter content, learning
relevant material, and formulate learning objectives. Thereby, teachers use their knowl­
edge of the discipline (Shulman 1987). Additionally, teachers need topic-specific profes­
sional knowledge (TSPK, Gess-Newsome 2015) to prepare a specific topic and the content
to be learned accordingly. Teachers having this knowledge are familiar with the topic,
know which media representations or examples facilitate the understanding of the topic
and can estimate which prior knowledge the students need to acquire the specific
content. Shulman calls this process ‘transformation’ (Shulman 1987, 16). Transformation
is a systematic process carried out by teachers to adequately prepare content for students.
This includes individual lessons planning by matching both content and methods used to
teach that content.
These planning decisions occur at various times (at the beginning of the year, before
a unit, etc.) and influence the subsequent planning of individual lessons (Sardo-Brown
1988). In addition to the contextualisation of a lesson, the individual lesson must be
planned (Yinger 1980). Therefore, the teacher must select the content and objectives to
be learned, considering the requirements of individual students (Shulman 1987). To do so,
the teacher must know the students’ level of knowledge and integrate their needs into his
planning process (Berliner 2004). The teacher must additionally consider how the content
to be learned will be developed within the context of the classroom.
Expert teachers have a mental plan (Borko and Livingston 1989), which entails the
deliberate design of a lesson plan based on experience. Leinhardt and Greeno (1986) call
4 M. KREPF AND J. KÖNIG

it schemata (or an agenda). However, pre-service teachers often have problems selecting
and structuring their teaching. Since pre-service teachers have not yet developed mental
schemata of the teaching process, it is advisable to draw up a plan to support and record
individual steps. This articulation scheme is a central element of lesson planning (which
occurs mostly in tabular form and chronological order) and reflects the teaching-learning
process (Plöger 2008).

Research question
The specific design of our study focuses on the structuring of a lesson. Since the planning
of lessons depends on the context of the lesson to be planned (Mutton, Hagger, and Burn
2011), we do not use standardised tests to measure teacher knowledge relating to lesson
planning. Instead, our goal is to measure lesson planning as it is relates to the specific
situation of planning a lesson. Therefore, we apply a standardised method for analysing
written plans of demonstration lessons using appropriate indicators (content analysis
criteria) to reconstruct and quantify pre-service teachers’ situation-specific planning
perception, interpretation, and decision-making.
The aim is to elucidate the method by which structuring is implemented as a central
feature of classroom management in the planning of teaching. To measure planning
competence under the aspect of structuring, we created two subscales (contextualisation
and phasing), which we consider to be essential for structuring the teaching content. In
addition to the content-related recording of structuring, we focus on how the different
degrees of planning decisions are made explicit. Therefore, we also address the question
of whether different degrees of explication can be distinguished (naming, reasoning,
linking). We specify this overarching research question by the following research ques­
tions (RQ):

(1) RQ 1: Can structuring as an aspect of planning competence be reliably measured

and mapped on a continuum within the framework of IRT scaling? Is it a one- or
two-dimensional construct?
(2) RQ 2: Can the three requirement levels (naming, reasoning, linking) be mapped by
means of an analysis at the item level?
(3) RQ 3: Is it possible to map an increase in planning competence during induction
using two time points? Which degrees of explication (naming, reasoning, linking)
change during induction and are therefore a prominent aspect of pre-service
teachers’ competence development?

Method
Context of the study
The German teacher training system has a consecutive structure. During the initial phase,
pre-service teachers undergo theoretical education at a university where they achieve
a Bachelor and a Masters degree. This is followed by 1.5 years of induction in which they
work at a school and attend courses in general and subject-related pedagogy. The second
phase is completed with a state examination, consisting of a practical component with at
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING 5

least two lessons in two different subjects. During induction, pre-service teachers have to
plan and carry out demonstration lessons (up to six for each subject) that are assessed by
teacher educators. The analyses of this article examines the first and last plans of these
demonstration lessons.

Sample
To answer the research questions, we reconstructed planning decisions from the written
lesson plans of pre-service teachers. Since these are demonstration lessons, pre-service
teachers are asked to explicitly describe what should happen during a lesson. The
PlanvoLL project (König, Buchholtz, and Dohmen 2015) consisted of data that was derived
from plans developed by 106 pre-service teachers from the federal state of Berlin. All
teachers (apart from one) provided two lesson plans each (211 written lesson plans).
The sample consisted of 64% female and 36% male pre-service teachers. At the
beginning of the induction phase, 10% of the subjects were 25 years or younger, 62%
were between 26 and 30 years old, 18% were between 31 and 35, and 10% were 36 years
or older. Grade point average of participants ranged from 1.0 to 3.7 (M = 2.3; SD = 0.6) and
final university grade from 1.0 to 3.6 (M = 2.0; SD = 0.6). 29% were teachers at primary
schools, 11% were teachers at combined primary and secondary schools, and 60% were
high school teachers. The range of written demonstration lesson plans included 19
subjects for grades 1 to 13.

Instrument
We developed two scales to capture the structuring of lesson plans: contextualisation and
phasing. Both scales are subdivided and hierarchically structured. The structure consists of
the degree of explication for the planning decisions made. This means that the lowest level
(naming) captures whether the relevant information is named or described. The middle
level (reasoning) is used to examine whether the decisions made are reasoned. The highest
level (linking) reflects whether the individual decisions made are related to each other.
The following section outlines the category system used in the analysis. Table S1 shows
the categories for the subscale ‘contextualisation’ and consists of 8 categories (see
Supplement Table S1). The categories for the ‘contextualisation’ scale describe the con­
tent that links the individual lesson with the unit. Indicators of reasoning include the
name of a unit title as well as explanations of what has been accomplished by students at
a certain point within the unit (i.e. which content has been covered). At least two ideas
must be articulated; namely, how the unit is structured and what function a specific lesson
has in the context of the unit. Furthermore, a didactic analysis is required (Klafki 1995).
Such an analysis should include a didactic interpretation, justification, and structuring of
the lesson content. The following questions should be answered as part of this analysis: 1)
What is the content of the lesson? and 2) What significance does the content have for the
student? While the didactic analysis mainly focuses on the justification of the content, the
methodical planning analyses ‘how’ corresponding facts and content can be conveyed to
students. In this sense, ‘how’ refers primarily to the naming, reasoning, and (at best) the
linking of methodical decisions.
6 M. KREPF AND J. KÖNIG

The phasing scale comprises five main categories divided into 15 subcategories (see
Supplement Table S2). At the lowest level (naming, S1), the written lesson plans must
include a progress articulation scheme. Category S2 is focused on the phase structure of
the lesson. Dividing the lesson into phases has the effect of creating meaningful sections
within a lesson. The process structure therefore has both factual and temporal meaning
(Plöger 2008). We have adopted a 4-phase structure consisting of the following
sequence: 1) an introduction (S2_Phase 1), 2) working on the topic (S2_Phase 2), 3) checking
results and providing feedback (S2_Phase 3), and 4) application/transfer (S2_Phase 4).
The next level (reasoning, category S3) indicates whether the teaching function was
described or reasoned for the individual phases (Rosenshine and Stevens 1986).
At the highest level (linking), the individual phases should be related to each other.
Due to the difficulties associated with managing transitions (Arlin 1979; Doyle 2006),
concrete information on how individual activities (or phases) are linked should be evident
in the lesson plans. We have concentrated on simple transitions. For example, how the
transition from the introduction (social form: plenum) to the working on the topic phase
(social form: group work) is addressed in a lesson plan. The focus should be on the change
in social form (e.g. Are certain rules that apply to group work repeated?) and/or the
instructional approach (e.g. formulation of the work assignment, anticipation of possible
problems in understanding). This can occur either in the formulated lesson plan (S4) and/
or in the articulation scheme (S5).

Data analysis
Lesson plan coding was conducted using a content analysis method based on deductively
formed categories (Mayring 2014). Two trained raters independently coded the written
lesson plans. A 1 or 0 was given to indicate whether each criterion was met or not. A 9 was
given if the written plans did not contain sufficient information on the analysis criterion.
The written lesson plans were examined regarding the established categories (see
Supplement Table S3 for examples). Approximately 15% of the lesson plans and asso­
ciated coding results were compared to verify (intercoder) reliability (Fleiss and Cohen
1973). Intercoder reliability was good (κ > .75).
Data were scaled using ‘concurrent calibration’ (von Davier, Carstensen, and von
Davier2006). This approach allows longitudinal test subjects (i.e. persons for whom two
measurements are available) representing two cases in a scaling file (one ‘real’ and one
‘virtual’), thereby increasing the power of estimation (Bond and Fox 2007). The first
measurement included 106 lesson plans, the second 105. Using the total number of 211
cases enabled IRT scaling (Bond and Fox 2007)
The coding was carried out with dichotomous items, so a 1-PL Rasch model (Item-
Response-Theory) was used (Rasch 1960). A 2-PL model was not applied, since it may
overfit the data for small samples. The ConQuest scaling software (Wu, Adams, and Wilson
1997) assigns a difficulty parameter to each item based on its solution rate and an ability
parameter to each subject according to the demonstrated performance, using
a maximum likelihood procedure.
Furthermore, ConQuest provides information on scale reliability and the global quality
of the investigated models. The (multidimensional) EAP (expected a posteriori) reliability
determined can be interpreted like Cronbach's Alpha (Rost 2004). Beside the EAP being
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING 7

based on a structural and testable model, the advantage of EAP for multidimensional
models is that the accuracy of ability estimates (and thus the reliability) is increased by
having the latent variables correlated with each other. This means that the reliability of
a subtest for one latent variable is higher when all subtests are included. Consequently,
reliability increases when including more items, even if they come from different subtests.
However, the EAP reliability heavily depends on the model to fit well. Alpha makes no
assumptions about the dimensionality (or any other feature; based on CTT) of the test.
Values from .7 are considered acceptable (Rost 2004).
The deviation index (deviance, Wu and Wilson 2006) compares the global fit of the
investigated models and gives information on which of the models gives a better fit to the
data (degree of goodness fit). A lower deviance thereby indicates a better fit. To find
evidence of dimensionality in the data, a one-dimensional, two-dimensional (both sub­
scales ‘contextualisation’ and ‘phasing’), and a three-dimensional (explication levels ‘nam­
ing’, ‘reasoning’, and ‘linking’) IRT scaling analysis were conducted. Moreover, the
goodness of fit (Chi-Square-difference-test) of the different models was examined to
determine which model fit the data better.
To check the differences between the degrees of explication, we used a single factor
analysis of variance (ANOVA), applied a t-test for dependent samples and calculated the
effect size for the differences between measurement point one (first plan) and two (last
plan) (RQ3). Finally, we used ability estimates from three-dimensional IRT scaling to
indicate the three degrees of explication in the written plans. We used the means of
item parameter estimates (Figure 2) to create a capability overview at both times.

Results
Research question 1
A one-dimensional scaling was performed using the concurrent calibration approach.
Reliability was acceptable for the overall scale (EAP-reliability = .76; Theta-Variance = .99).
Table 1 presents item statistics. Some items are used frequently (naming of the phases),
while others are rarely found (linking of individual phases).
Items with an estimate of less than 0 are classified as ‘too easy’ because many people
have ‘solved’ this item (solution rate). The weighted mean squares (WMNSQ) (from .8 to 1.2,
e.g. see Adams and Wu 2002) as well as the t-values (> −1.96 and <1.96, see Bond and Fox
2007) are all within the recommended ranges. Negative t-values indicate little variation in
response patterns. This could be interpreted as an indication that there is a ‘minimal
consensus’ about the requirements for lesson plans.
The discrimination indices are within the acceptable range (>.30). Interestingly, some
discrimination indices are quite low. There could be two reasons for this: First, these are
items at the lowest level (naming) which are used by almost all pre-service teachers.
Second, these are items at a higher level of difficulty (linking), so that relatively few pre-
service teachers fulfill this item.
Next, we compared the one-dimensional to a two-dimensional modelling. Table 2
shows the results of the correlational analysis. Significant correlations were found regard­
ing the total score to be achieved (T1 + T2) and the two subscales, which indicated
a homogeneous construct. Correlations were also calculated regarding the two
8 M. KREPF AND J. KÖNIG

Table 1. Item statistics from one-dimensional IRT scaling analysis.

Weighted Fit
Facility
(as
Explanation Item a %) Estimate MNSQ CI t Discrimination
There are references in the lesson plan to the C1 94.8 −3.3 1.04 (0.49, 0.2 .23
unit. 1.51)
In the lesson plan, a distinction is made C2 31.9 .9 1.08 (0.87, 1.2 .31
according to the content focus of the lesson. 1.13)
The overall theme of the unit is broken down C3 25.7 1.3 1.08 (0.85, 1.0 .30
into sub-aspects. 1.15)
The lesson content will be described and C4 22.9 1.5 .095 (0.83, −0.6 .44
explained in detail. 1.17)
In the lesson plan, the lesson is related to the C5 30.0 1.0 1.07 (0.86, 1.0 .31
unit and describes the relevance of the lesson 1.14)
theme (content) for the complete unit.
In the lesson plan, there is a detailed planning of C6a 65.2 −.8 0.91 (0.86, −1.3 .57
the lessons with reference to the content 1.14)
focus: The written plan contains a didactic C6b 63.3 −.6 0.93 (0.87, −1.0 .54
analysis (C6a), descriptions of the methodical 1.13)
planning (C6b) and a description of the C6c 65.7 −.8 1.09 (0.86, 1.2 .39
learning objectives (C6c). 1.14)
An articulation scheme is available in the lesson S1 92.9 −2.9 1.03 (0.58, 0.2 .21
plan. 1.42)
The articulation scheme shows the phases of the S2_P1 96.7 −3.8 0.93 (0.32, −0.1 .37
lesson. At least a 4-phase structure is evident: 1.68)
(1) Introduction (P1), (2) Working on the topic S2_P2 89.0 −2.5 0.99 (0.68, −0.0 .36
(P2), (3) Checking results and Providing 1.32)
feedback (P3), application/transfer (P4). S2_P3 91.0 −2.7 0.97 (0.64, −0.1 .35
1.36)
S2_P4 32.4 .9 1.14 (0.87, 2.1 .27
1.13)
The phases are described following their didactic S3_P1 81.0 −1.7 0.88 (0.79, −1.1 .55
function: (1) Introduction (P1), (2) Working on 1.21)
the topic (P2), (3) Checking results and S3_P2 65.2 −.7 0.90 (0.86, −1.5 .58
Providing feedback (P3), application/transfer 1.14)
(P4). S3_P3 68.6 −.9 0.92 (0.85, −1.0 .56
1.15)
S3_P4 21.9 1.5 0.94 (0.82, −0.6 .47
1.18)
The corresponding transitions are described in S4_P1P2 17.6 1.8 0.98 (0.79, −0.1 .41
the lesson plan. It is made explicit how the 1.21)
individual phases are linked with each other. S4_P2P3 18.6 1.8 0.99 (0.80, −0.1 .40
The individual transitions from first to second 1.20)
phase (P1P2), from second to third phase S4_P3P4 6.2 3.1 0.94 (0.54, −0.2 .35
(P2P3) and from third to fourth phase (P3P4). 1.46)
The corresponding transitions are described in S5_P1P2 22.4 1.5 1.05 (0.83, 0.6 .32
the articulation scheme. It is made explicit 1.17)
how the individual phases are linked with S5_P2P3 19.5 1.7 1.08 (0.80, 0.8 .25
each other. The individual transitions from 1.20)
first to second phase (P1P2), from second to S5_P3P4 2.9 3.9* 0.97 (0.26, 0.0 .21
third phase (P2P3) and from third to fourth 1.74)
phase (P3P4).

Estimate – Item parameter values, MNSQ – Mean Square (range .8–1.2), CI – confidence interval, t-value – value for
significance test (range >-1.96 – < 1.96), discrimination – item-total-correlation (>.30), facility – solution rate in %.
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING 9

Table 2. Correlation of the total scores (TS) and subscales.

TS TSC S_T1 SC_T1 S_T2 SC_T2
TSC .64**
TSP .86** .28**
SC_T1 .75**
SP_T1 .86** .28**
SC_T2 .65**
SP_T2 .84** .13
TS – Total Score, TSC – Total Score Contextualisation, TSP – Total Score Phasing, S_T1 – Score to T1, S_T2 – Score
to T2, SC_T1 – Score Contextualisation for T1, SC_T2 – Score Contextualisation for T2, SP_T1 – Score Phasing for
T1, SP_T2 – Score Phasing for T2.
**p <.01.

Table 3. Findings from IRT-scaling analysis on content dimensions.

Chi-Square Chi-Square
Factorial structure (deviance) Estimated parameters difference
1-dimensional 4249.12 24 88.14
2-dimensional 4160.98 26 (df = 2)
p < .001

measuring points (T1: first lesson plan; T2: second lesson plan). The intercorrelation for T1
was .28, which is significant at the p = .01 level. No significant intercorrelation to T2 (.13)
was found.
The high, significant correlations at both measurement points and the low intercorre­
lations of the two subscales suggest that these are separate constructs. However, both
make an important contribution to the overall construct. To check this assumption, we
performed two-dimensional scaling in the virtual cases approach. The reliabilities and
variance for the two subscales are in an acceptable range (Subscale Contextualisation:
EAP-reliability = .66; Theta-Variance = 1.49; Subscale Phasing: EAP-reliability = .75; Theta-
Variance = 1.79). The increase in variance can be explained with the scaling via the
approach of virtual cases, as both measurement points are scaled together.
A (significant) change in planning competence under the aspect of structuring results in
an increase in variance value.
Table 3 presents the results of the Chi-square test. The deviance of the two-
dimensional model is lower than the one-dimensional model. Furthermore, the difference
between the two deviance values was significant for df = 2, implying that the two-
dimensional model provided a better fit.

Research question 2
The results in Table 1 have shown that the items have different difficulty parameters
(Estimates). We therefore verified whether these different levels of difficulty correspond to
the degrees of explication described by the category system used here. For scaling, we
use the approach of virtual cases (see above) and performed a three-dimensional scaling.
The reliabilities of the three degrees of explication were found to be within an
appropriate range (Subscale Naming: EAP-reliability = .61; Theta-Variance = .87; Subscale
10 M. KREPF AND J. KÖNIG

Table 4. Findings from IRT-scaling analysis on degree of explication dimensions.

Chi-Square Chi-Square
Factorial structure (deviance) Estimated parameters difference
1-dimensional 4257.31 24 40.91
3-dimensional 4216.40 29 (df = 5)
p < .001

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

Figure 1. Item threshold parameters (circles) and means (rectangle) from three-dimensional IRT-
scaling, categorised according to the lesson planning competencies of naming (left), reasoning
(middle), and linking (right).

Reasoning: EAP-reliability = .73; Theta-Variance = 1.96; Subscale Linking: EAP-reliability

= .68; Theta-Variance = 1.18).
We then compared the deviance of the one-dimensional scaling model with that of the
three-dimensional model that assumes the three degrees of explication as latent cap­
ability variables. The difference between the two deviance values (40.91) was significant
for df = 5, implying a better fit of the three-dimensional model (see Table 4).
Figure 1 shows the distribution of item threshold parameters from three-dimensional
IRT scaling, with each item indicated by a circle. The distribution of items was split
according to the three degrees of explication (i.e. naming, reasoning, and linking). The
rectangles are the specific means of item parameter estimates of the degrees of explica­
tion (naming M = −1.9, SD = 1.97, SE = .74, reasoning M = .29, SD = 1.34, SE = .51, linking M
= 1.29, SD = 1.7, SE = .57). The results suggest that there are different levels of explication.
Using a single factor analysis of variance (ANOVA), the overall mean difference between
the three degrees of explication was found to be significant (p = .005). A post hoc test
(Bonferroni) indicates a significant difference (p = .005) between naming and linking.
Although there was no significant difference between reasoning and linking, the results
indicate that there are differences in the explication of planning decisions. While naming
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING 11

Table 5. Pre-Service teachers’ scores at pre- and post-tests.

Pre-test Post-test
(first lesson plan) (last lesson plan) Effect size
Group M SD SE M SD SE t df p r Cohen’s d
TS 10.01 3.46 .34 12.46 3.01 .29 −5.77 103 <.001 .11 .76
SC 3.36 1.86 .18 4.61 1.63 .16 −5.31 103 <.001 .05 .72
SP 6.65 2.42 .24 7.85 2.32 .23 −4.2 103 <.001 .25** .51
SN 5.12 1.1 .11 5.45 .97 .1 −2.41 103 .02 .06 .32
SR 2.45 1.6 .16 3.23 1.31 .13 −4.39 103 <.001 .22* .53
SL 2.44 1.8 .17 3.77 1.68 .16 −6.19 103 <.001 .20* .76
TS – Total Score, SC –Score Contextualisation, SP –Score Phasing, SN –Score Naming, SR –Score Reasoning, SL –Score
Linking, ** p < .01., * p < .05.

and reasoning seem to be a standard procedure undertaken by pre-service teachers in

their planning, the linking of individual steps appears to be uncommon.

Research question 3
The solution frequency for each of the items (apart from item S5_P2P3) increases during
the induction phase (see Supplement Table S4). Almost all increases are significant
(Wilcoxon test). Some items have very high solution frequencies. In a classical test, this
would be considered a ‘ceiling effect’; for our coding, one could speak of a consensus
regarding certain requirements for the written lesson plans.
Pre-service teachers increased significantly from the beginning of the induction phase
(Table 5). An increase in competence also reflected on the mean value differences and
effect sizes. The results show that there is an improvement in the skill of lesson structuring
during the induction phase of teacher training. Consequently, by the end of induction,
pre-service teachers are better able to explain their thoughts and thus better anticipate
what will happen in the classroom as reflected in their lesson planning.
To illustrate this increase, Figure 2 shows the distribution of degrees of explication at
each time point. Regarding the distribution of degrees of explication at the beginning and
the end of induction, pre-service teachers made progress with respect to naming, reason­
ing, and linking between T1 and T2 (Figure 2). These improvements were most evident in
the categories of reasoning and linking. At the beginning of the induction phase, about

First Lesson Plan Last Lesson Plan

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Naming Reasoning Linking

Figure 2. Distribution of degrees of explication at each time point (with 95% confidence interval).
12 M. KREPF AND J. KÖNIG

25% of lesson plans achieved the necessary level of reasoning and didactic decision-
making and about 10% of lesson plans showed evidence of linking. At the end of
induction, more than 40% of lesson plans demonstrated reasoning with respect to
decision-making and almost 30% showed evidence of linking of these decisions.
The observation that planning competence is increasing under the aspects of structur­
ing and the degree of explication is only a limited indication of the curricular validity of
the construct. For this reason, we used indicators for basic cognitive skills (grade point
average) and academic achievement (overall grade in Master of Education). Regarding
basic cognitive skills and academic success, only small negative correlations were found,
which are not statistically significant. We regard these results as a weak indication in the
sense of a discriminatory validity since they are different constructs.

Discussion
Main research findings
Although lesson planning is an essential part of teachers’ daily tasks, there are few
empirical studies on modelling and measuring lesson planning competence. Previous
empirical studies on the measurement of general pedagogical knowledge have mainly
used paper-pencil methods. They usually decontextualise knowledge without considering
specific situational requirements. This appears to be problematic, as lesson planning is
strongly context-dependent (John 2006). In contrast to such empirical studies, we did not
examine planning competence in a decontextualised way, but regarding the specific
situation of planning a concrete lesson under the aspect of structuring. Structuring was
conceptualised as a generic ability and modelled over two dimensions (subscale ‘con­
textualisation’ and subscale ‘phasing’). Research Question 1 related to the reliability and
construct validity of our approach. The results of our analysis indicate that it is possible to
measure the aspect of structuring as a latent ability variable in a manner that is both
reliable and valid.
Furthermore, the analysis provided evidence that two-dimensional modelling provides
a better fit than one-dimensional modelling. The analysis showed that there are three
different degrees of explication (naming, reasoning, linking), thereby providing support
for the idea that these can be mapped by means of an analysis at the item level (as per
RQ 2). Pre-service teachers’ planning competence improved in terms of structuring (RQ 3).
This indicates that the structuring of lessons (and lesson planning in general) are central
elements in the training of pre-service teachers during induction. It appears that by the
end of the induction phase, pre-service teachers are better able to explicate their
thoughts on lesson planning. Nevertheless, the existing literature suggests that the ability
of pre-service teachers to consider the context and anticipate the course of a lesson is still
under development during the induction stage (Chizhik and Chizhik 2018).
These findings show a substantial learning progress in lesson planning skills among
pre-service teachers during induction phase. Even though further research is needed to
examine the effectiveness of this phase of teacher training (König 2013), our findings
provide an important contribution to the investigation of induction as the second,
practical phase of initial teacher education in Germany.
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING 13

Limitations and directions for future research

From a methodological point of view, the concurrent calibration approach could be
criticised because the autocorrelations of the persons examined (i.e. their personal
abilities) are not accounted for due to the multiple use of persons (Hartig and
Kühnbach 2005). Therefore, a larger sample is required to create two independent scales
(T1 and T2) and to allow for more differentiated statements on the improvement in
planning competence (as it relates to structuring) that occurs during the induction phase.
To ensure the validity of the curriculum (in terms of content), experts in pre-service
teacher training must be asked whether the categorical system used in this analysis is
applicable to the context of pre-service teacher training. This would provide further
support for the analysis undertaken in this study.
Due to the lack of information regarding the educational context of pre-service
teachers, we cannot clarify what influence individual training seminars have on improving
lesson planning. To search for such influences, we have planned a study to investigate
which aspects of lesson planning are important to teacher educators and how they teach
these. This will allow us to relate the seminar-specific expectations to the pre-service
teachers’ planning performance that we have identified. Furthermore, it will contribute to
determining what influence seminars may have on the development of teaching
performance.
The category system developed suggests that planning competence can be mea­
sured under the aspect of structuring with the help of two subscales ‘contextualisa­
tion’ and ‘phasing’. From a content perspective, however, the questions arise as to
whether the two subscales together form one scale or whether they are separate
constructs that have an influence on planning competence. Moreover, it would be
important to know which other facets are relevant for planning competence. For
example, a teacher must also adapt the content to the needs of the students. König
et al. (2021) were able to show with their CODE-PLAN model (cognitive demands of
lesson planning) that six cognitive demands for lesson planning could be demon­
strated empirically: content transformation, task creation, adaption to student learning
dispositions, clarity of learning objectives, unit contextualisation, and phasing. The two
scales presented here were included as separate dimensions and further evidence for
their validity could be provided (König et al. 2021).
Even though we can predict much of a teachers behaviour knowing their written
plan (Shavelson 1987), further research is needed on how they put the plan into action.
As the teaching process is very complex and unpredictable (Calderhead 1996; Doyle
2006; König et al. 2021), the existence of a good plan does not guarantee that the lesson
is really structured according to the guidelines. Due to unexpected understanding
problems, it can happen as part of reflection-in-action that the pre-service teachers
deviate from their plan and an immature plan can possibly be compensated by good
ad-hoc explanatory aids (and vice versa). Therefore, future studies should apply the
aspect of structuring not only to the planning situation (reflection-on-action), but also
to the actual teaching process and what may happen as part of a teacher's reflection-in-
action. It is an interesting question whether the planned structuring measures also
contribute to smoother teaching. This would then also allow to examine the relation­
ship to teacher’s classroom management (Evertson and Weinstein 2006). Current
14 M. KREPF AND J. KÖNIG

approaches to classroom management are characterised by the fact that they focus on
forward-looking planning teacher behaviour. Our construct could be used to see in how
far a well-structured lesson has a positive influence on students’ learning. To check the
prognostic validity, it would be necessary to also evaluate the teacher’s execution of the
lesson plan.
The present paper is a further step to expand the research on pre-service teachers’
planning competence. Up to now, there are hardly any scientifically proven criteria for the
analysis and evaluation of written lesson plans. We therefore consider it an important task
of empirical teacher education research to present suitable procedures for the assessment
of written lesson plans. The instrument tested here has proven to be reliable and can be
used in the future to improve the evaluation of written lesson plans from a structuring
perspective.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany
[Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, BMBF, grant number 01PK15014A, 01PK15014B,
01PK15014C].

ORCID
Matthias Krepf http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2038-9303
Johannes König http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3374-9408

References
Adams, R., and M. Wu. 2002. PISA 2000 Technical Report. Paris: OECD.
Arlin, M. 1979. “Teacher Transitions Can Disrupt Time Flow in Classrooms.” American Educational
Research Journal 16 (1): 42–56. doi:10.3102/00028312016001042.
Berliner, D. 2004. “Describing the Behavior and Documenting the Accomplishments of Expert
Teachers.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 24: 200–212. doi:10.1177/0270467604265535.
Bond, T. G., and C. M. Fox. 2007. Applying the Rasch Model. Fundamental Measurement in the Human
Sciences. 2nd ed. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Borich, G. D. 2004. Effective Teaching Methods. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Borko, H., and C. Livingston. 1989. “Cognition and Improvisation: Differences in Mathematics
Instruction by Expert and Novice Teachers.” American Educational Research Journal 26:
473–498. doi:10.3102/00028312026004473.
Bromme, R. 1981. Das Denken von Lehrern bei der Unterrichtsvorbereitung: eine empirische
Untersuchung zu kognitiven Prozessen von Mathematiklehrern. Weinheim: Beltz.
Calderhead, J. 1996. “Teachers’ Beliefs and Knowledge.” In Handbook of Educational Psychology,
edited by D. Berliner and R.C. Calfee, 709–725. New York: Simon and Schuster, Macmillan.
Chizhik, E. W., and A. W. Chizhik. 2018. “Using Activity Theory to Examine How Teachers’ Lesson
Plans Meet Students’ Learning Needs.” The Teacher Educator 53 (1): 67–85. doi:10.1080/08878730.
2017.1296913.
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING 15

Clark, C. M., and P. L. Peterson. 1986. “Teachers’ Thought Processes.” In Handbook of Research on
Teaching, edited by M. Wittrock, 255–296. New York: Macmillan.
Cochran-Smith, M., and A. M. Villegas. 2016. “Research on Teacher Preparation: Charting the
Landscape of a Sprawling Field.” In Handbook of Research on Teaching, edited by D. H. Gitomer
and C.A. Bells, 439–547. 5th ed. Washington, DC: AERA.
Doenau, S. J. 1987. “Structuring.” In The International Encyclopaedia of Teaching and Teacher
Education, edited by M. J. Dunkin, 398–407. New York: Pergamon Press.
Doyle, W. 2006. “Ecological Approaches to Classroom Management.” In Handbook of Classroom
Management: Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues, edited by C. M. Evertson and
C. S. Weinstein, 107–136. New York: Routledge.
Evertson, C. M., and C. S. Weinstein. 2006. “Classroom Management as a Field of Inquiry.” In
Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues, edited by
C. M. Evertson and C. S. Weinstein, 3–15. New York: Routledge.
Fleiss, J. L., and J. Cohen. 1973. “The Equivalence of Weighted Kappa and the Intraclass Correlation
Coefficient as Measures of Reliability.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 33: 613–619.
doi:10.1177/001316447303300309.
Gess-Newsome, J. 2015. “A Model of Teacher Professional Knowledge and Skill Including PCK:
Results of the Thinking from the PCK Summit.” In Re-Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge
in Science Education, edited by A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, and J. Loughran, 28–42. New York:
Routledge.
Hartig, J., and O. Kühnbach. 2005. “Schätzung von Veränderungen mit Plausible Values in mehrdi­
mensionalen Rasch-Modellen“.” In Veränderungsmessung und Längsschnittstudien in der
Erziehungswissenschaft, edited by A. Ittel and H. Merkens, 27–44. Wiesbaden: Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
John, P. D. 2006. “Lesson Planning and the Student Teacher: Re-thinking the Dominant Model.”
Journal of Curriculum Studies 38 (4): 483–498. doi:10.1080/00220270500363620.
Klafki, W. 1995. “Didactic Analysis as the Core of Preparation of Instruction.” Journal of Curriculum
Studies 27 (1): 13–30. doi:10.1080/0022027950270103.
König, J. 2013 ”First Comes the Theory, Then the Practice? On the Acquisition of General
Pedagogical Knowledge During Initial Teacher Education.” International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education 11: 999–1028. doi:10.1007/s10763-013-9420-1
König, J., B.-V. Albert, B. Christiane, F. Ilka, G. Nina König et al. 2020a ”Pre-Service Teachers’ Generic
and Subject-Specific Lesson-Planning Skills: On Learning Adaptive Teaching During Initial
Teacher Education.” European Journal of Teacher Education 43 (2). doi:10.1080/02619768.2019.
1679115
König, J., B.-V. Albert, B. Christiane, G. Nina König et al 2020b. ”General Pedagogical Knowledge,
Pedagogical Adaptivity in Written Lesson Plans, and Instructional Practice Among Preservice
Teachers.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 52 (6): 800–822. doi:10.1080/00220272.2020.1752804
König, J., B, Christiane, D, Dieter König, Buchholtz, and Dohmen. 2015 ”Analyse von schriftlichen
Unterrichtsplanungen: Empirische Befunde zur didaktischen Adaptivität als Aspekt der
Planungskompetenz Angehender Lehrkräfte.” Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 18 (2): 375–
404. doi:10.1007/s11618-015-0625-7
König, J., K. Matthias, B.-V., Albert, B. Christiane König et al. 2021 ”Meeting Cognitive Demands of
Lesson Planning: Introducing the CODE-PLAN Model to Describe and Analyze Teachers’ Planning
Competence.” The Teacher Educator 56 (4): 466–487. doi:10.1080/08878730.2021.1938324
Leinhardt, G., and J. Greeno. 1986. “The Cognitive Skill of Teaching.” Journal of Educational
Psychology 78 (2): 75–95. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.78.2.75.
Lipowsky, F. 2015. “Unterricht.” In Pädagogische Psychologie, edited by E. Wild and J. Möller, 69–105.
2nd ed. Berlin: Springer.
Mayring, P. 2014. Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software
Solution. Klagenfurt. Accessed 27 December 2021. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-
ssoar-395173
Muijs, D., and D. Reynolds. 2011. Effective Teaching: Evidence and Practice. 3rd ed. London: Sage.
16 M. KREPF AND J. KÖNIG

Mutton, T., H. Hagger, and K. Burn. 2011. “Learning to Plan, Planning to Learn: The Developing
Expertise of Beginning Teachers.” Teachers and Teaching 17 (4): 399–416. doi:10.1080/13540602.
2011.580516.
Plöger, W. 2008. Unterrichtsplanung: Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch für Studium und Seminar. Köln: Kölner
Studien Verlag.
Rasch, G. 1960. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Copenhagen:
Paedagogiske Institut.
Rosenshine, B., and R. Stevens. 1986. “Teaching Functions.” In Handbook of Research on Teaching,
edited by M. Wittrock, 376–391. New York: Macmillan.
Rost, J. 2004. Lehrbuch Testtheorie, Testkonstruktion. 2nd ed. Bern: Huber.
Sardo-Brown, D. 1988. “Twelve Middle-School Teachers’ Planning.” The Elementary School Journal
89 (1): 69–87. doi:10.1086/461563.
Seidel, T., and R. Shavelson. 2007. “Teaching Effectiveness Research in the Past Decade: The Role of
Theory and Research Design in Disentangling Meta-Analysis Results.” Review of Educational
Research 77: 454–499. doi:10.3102/0034654307310317.
Shavelson, R. J. 1983. “Review of Research on Teachers’ Pedagogical Judgments, Plans, and
Decisions.” The Elementary School Journal 83 (4): 392–413. doi:10.1086/461323.
Shavelson, R. J. 1987. “Planning.” In The International Encyclopaedia of Teaching and Teacher
Education, edited by M. J. Dunkin, 483–486. New York: Pergamon Press.
Shavelson, R. J., and H. Borko. 1979. “Research on Teachers’ Pedagogical Thoughts, Judgements,
Decisions and Behaviour.” Review of Educational Research 51 (4): 455–498. doi:10.3102/
00346543051004455.
Shulman, L. S. 1987. “Knowledge in Reaching: Foundations of the New Reform.” Harvard Educational
Review 57: 1–22. doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411.
von Davier, A. A., C. H. Carstensen, and M. von Davier. 2006. “Linking Competencies in Horizontal,
Vertical, and Longitudinal Settings and Measuring Growth.” In Assessment of Competencies in
Educational Contexts, edited by J. Hartig, E. Klieme, and D. Leutner, 53–80. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Westermann, D. A. 1991. “Expert and Novice Teacher Decision Making.” Journal of Teacher Education
42 (4): 292–305. doi:10.1177/002248719104200407.
Wu, M. L., R. J. Adams, and M. R. Wilson. 1997. conquest: Multi-Aspect Test Software [computer
Programme]. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Wu, M. L., and M. R. Wilson. 2006. “Modelling Mathematics Problem Solving Item Responses
a Multidimensional IRT Model.” Mathematics Education Research Journal 18 (2): 93–113. doi:10.
1007/BF03217438.
Yinger, R. J. 1980. “A Study of Teacher Planning.” The Elementary School Journal 80 (3): 107–127.
doi:10.1086/461181.
Zahorik, J. A. 1970. “The Effect of Planning on Teaching.” The Elementary School Journal 71 (3):
143–151. doi:10.1086/460625.