See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/376170252

Measuring pre-service teachers' decision-making in classroom management:

A video-based assessment approach

Article in Teaching and Teacher Education · January 2024

DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2023.104426

CITATIONS READS

0 56

4 authors, including:

Charlotte Kramer Kai Kaspar

University of Cologne University of Cologne
17 PUBLICATIONS 299 CITATIONS 123 PUBLICATIONS 2,152 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Johannes König
University of Cologne
216 PUBLICATIONS 6,682 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jonas Weyers on 02 December 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104426

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Research paper

Measuring pre-service teachers’ decision-making in classroom

management: A video-based assessment approach
Jonas Weyers a, *, Charlotte Kramer a, Kai Kaspar b, Johannes König a
a
University of Cologne, Gronewaldstraße 2a, 50931, Köln, Germany
b
University of Cologne, Herbert-Lewin-Str. 10, 50931, Köln, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study presents a video-based test instrument entitled CME-Decide that focuses on pre-service teachers’
Classroom management decision-making skills as part of their Classroom Management Expertise. A sample of 284 pre-service teachers
Teacher expertise viewed 12 short video clips of instructional practice and indicated after each how they would behave in this
Teacher noticing
situation. Correlation and regression analyses revealed that the CME-Decide test was associated with perception/
Decision-making
interpretation skills in classroom management, general pedagogical knowledge, teaching enthusiasm, and
Test
Video clips school-based learning opportunities but not with university-based learning opportunities in general pedagogy.
These findings suggest that the CME-Decide test is appropriate for assessing pre-service teachers’ competence
development.

1. Introduction
Current research increasingly emphasizes a set of so-called “situa­
tion-specific skills”—namely, perception, interpretation, and decision-
making in the context of instructional practice—as a crucial part of
teacher competence (Blömeke, Gustafsson, & Shavelson, 2015; Kaiser,
Busse, Hoth, König, & Blömeke, 2015; Krauss et al., 2020). This theo­
retical bundle of three skills has inspired the development of
performance-oriented testing in the field of teacher competence
research (e.g., Kaiser et al., 2015), but also draws on concepts and
findings from research on teacher expertise (see König et al., 2022).
Researchers have invested considerable effort in developing video-
based test instruments to capture teachers’ situation-specific skills and
to provide a measure of competence that more accurately captures
teachers’ classroom behavior than traditional paper-and-pencil tests
(Jamil, Sabol, Hamre, & Pianta, 2015; Kersting, 2008; Seidel & Stürmer,
2014). For such video-based assessments, teachers usually view class­
room video clips and answer test questions related to the video material.
With the expansion of school-based learning opportunities within uni­
versity teacher education programs across several countries worldwide
(e.g., Christiansen & Erixon, 2021), video-based assessments are already
being used to capture pre-service teachers’ situation-specific skills as a
learning outcome (Mertens & Gräsel, 2018; Stürmer, Seidel, & Schäfer,
2013; Wiens, Hessberg, LoCasale-Crouch, & DeCoster, 2013).
The importance of considering situation-specific skills is particularly
evident regarding teachers’ ability to manage their classrooms. This
ability is regarded as a central aspect of teacher competence, and several
video-based instruments have been developed to assess perception and
interpretation with respect to classroom management (Gold & Hol­
odynski, 2017; Jamil et al., 2015; König, 2015). Regarding
decision-making in classroom management, several studies have
focused on differences between expertise groups (Stahnke & Blömeke,
2021; Wolff, Jarodzka, & Boshuizen, 2017; Wolff, van den Bogert, Jar­
odzka, & Boshuizen, 2015), on promoting decision-making through
specific interventions (e.g., Demiraslan Çevik & Andre, 2014), and on
qualitative analyses of teachers’ responses to classroom disruptions
(Kasperski & Yariv, 2022; Lampert, Burnett, Comber, Ferguson, &
Barnes, 2020). However, studies that include high-quality standardized
testing of decision-making skills in classroom management are lacking
(initial approaches can be found in Gippert, Hörter, Junker, &

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jonas.weyers@uni-koeln.de (J. Weyers).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104426
Received 7 May 2023; Received in revised form 14 October 2023; Accepted 20 November 2023
0742-051X/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
J. Weyers et al.
Holodynski, 2022; see below).
This paper focuses on the concept of Classroom Management
Expertise (CME), which can be seen as a specific conceptualization of
teachers’ situation-specific skills in the area of classroom management.
The CME concept is based on findings from expertise research and has
been used as the basis for the video-based measurement of competence
(see König, 2015; König et al., 2021).1 Focusing on pre-service teachers’
decision-making skills as part of their CME, we present a newly devel­
oped video-based test instrument entitled ‘CME-Decide.’ The partic­
ipants—a sample comprising secondary and vocational school
pre-service teachers—viewed 12 short video clips and were asked to
assume the teacher’s perspective and indicate how they would behave
immediately after each observed situation. The purpose of this study is
to examine the reliability of this instrument and to provide empirical
evidence for the validity of intended test score interpretations by
demonstrating plausible empirical associations with other relevant
variables in university teacher education.
2. Theoretical framework and state of research
As a general theoretical framework, we draw on Blömeke et al.’s
(2015) competence model, in which competence is viewed as a con­
tinuum that ranges from dispositions (i.e., characteristics of a person),
including cognition (e.g., professional knowledge) and
affect–motivation (e.g., teachers’ motivational orientation), to observ­
able behavior (e.g., teaching quality). Furthermore, the model includes
three situation-specific skills (perception, interpretation, and
decision-making), which refer to the cognitive processes in specific job
situations (e.g., during instruction) and which are conceptualized as a
link between disposition and performance.
Drawing on Blömeke et al.’s (2015) model, Fig. 1 illustrates the
analytical model that underpins the test development and validation
process for CME-Decide.2 For the conceptualization of
situations-specific skills, we highlight the concept of CME and explore
empirical association with pre-service teachers’ competence disposi­
tions, that is, general pedagogical knowledge (GPK) for cognition and
teaching enthusiasm for affect–motivation. Furthermore, following
commonly used models (e.g., Kaiser & König, 2019; Kunter, Kleick­
mann, Klusmann, & Richter, 2013), the analytical model assumes that
(pre-service) teachers use opportunity to learn (OTL) to acquire pro­
fessional competence.
In the following, we shall focus first on situation-specific skills in the
area of classroom management, with particular attention to decision-
making skills as part of CME (König, 2015), and provide an overview
of existing instruments. As the basis for our validation strategy, we also
highlight the links between situation-specific skills and other key vari­
ables in teacher education—namely, cognition, affect–motivation, and
OTL.
1
The term competence is not used consistently, but primarily refers to
malleable skills and characteristics that enable individuals to cope with specific
professional demands (e.g., Baumert & Kunter, 2013). Research on teacher
competence draws on findings from research on teacher expertise (e.g., Ber­
liner, 1992), which also refers to skills in a professional context but has focused
primarily on the characteristics of highly experienced teachers compared to
novices. We situate this work within research on teacher competence. However,
to highlight the connections with expertise research and to ensure consistency
with previous work, we use the term Classroom Management Expertise with
regard to our conceptualization of situation-specific skills.
2
While Blömeke et al. (2015) list perception and interpretation separately,
the present study used a test instrument that measures these skills together.
Therefore, perception and interpretation were combined for the analytical
model (Fig. 1).
2
Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104426
2.1. Situation-specific skills regarding classroom management
Classroom management is broadly defined as “the actions teachers
take to create an environment that supports and facilitates both aca­
demic and social-emotional learning” (Evertson & Weinstein, 2006, p.
4). In this sense, classroom management involves the implementation of
various strategies, such as establishing rules and routines, monitoring
students’ activities, and dealing with disruptive behavior (Doyle, 2006).
Knowledge about classroom management is considered to be part of
teachers’ GPK (König, 2014; Voss, Kunter, & Baumert, 2011), and suc­
cessful classroom management has been shown to predict both student
achievement (Hattie, 2012; Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1993) and stu­
dent motivation (Kunter, Baumert, & Köller, 2007). However, many
pre-service teachers do not feel adequately prepared for the demands of
classroom management (Jones, 2006; Maulana, Helms-Lorenz, & van de
Grift, 2016).
Drawing on teacher expertise research (Berliner, 1992; Carter,
Cushing, Sabers, Stein, & Berliner, 1988), we conceptualize teachers’
situation-specific skills in the area of classroom management as CME
(König, 2015). Three cognitive demands associated with CME are
conceptualized as indicators of expertise (König, 2015): (1) “accuracy of
perception”—that is, teachers’ capacity to identify, categorize, and
recall meaningful instructional details; (2) “holistic perception,” which
denotes teachers’ ability to reconstruct the context of classroom events
within a lesson, thereby anticipating the lesson’s further course; (3)
“interpretation/justification of action,” which concerns teachers’
reasoning about the function of classroom events. CME is closely linked
to the situation-specific skills outlined by Blömeke et al. (2015), with the
first two cognitive demands belonging to perception and the third
cognitive demand representing interpretation. In addition, there are
clear parallels between CME and the construct of teacher noticing.
Research on teacher noticing, also referred to as professional vision,
addresses the specialized ways in which teachers perceive, interpret, and
respond to instructional events (Choy & Dindyal, 2020; König et al.,
2022), and also relates teachers’ cognitive processes to dimensions of
instructional quality, including classroom management (Gold & Hol­
odynski, 2017; Seidel & Stürmer, 2014).3
The effectiveness of classroom management is highly dependent on
how the teacher decides to respond (or not respond) to student behavior
(Doyle, 2006). Moreover, teachers’ decision-making may also serve as a
valid indicator of expertise. Experienced teachers are assumed to have
more elaborate mental representations of teaching situations—so-called
“scripts”—enhancing the accessibility of routinized responses (Borko,
Roberts, & Shavelson, 2008; Borko & Shavelson, 1990). Empirical evi­
dence also suggests that experienced teachers generate more alternative
actions than novices when reflecting on videotaped classroom man­
agement events (Stahnke & Blömeke, 2021; Wolff et al., 2015, 2017).
Therefore, we extend the CME framework to include “interactive deci­
sion-making” (Borko & Shavelson, 1990), focusing on the decisions that
the teachers make as they interact with their students during the course
of the lesson. This is to be distinguished from, for example, decisions that
teachers make in the course of lesson planning (Borko & Shavelson,
1990). Following Shavelson and Stern’s (1981) model of teachers’
interactive decision-making, teaching is primarily conceptualized as the
performance of routines—that is, “recurring activities that become
established within a particular classroom as predictable sequences or
‘scripts’ for teacher and student behavior” (Doyle, 1979, p. 61). The
teacher delivers instruction in accordance with a mentally represented
lesson plan, thereby monitoring student activities. When an
3
Overall, research on situation-specific skills is characterized by different
terminologies for similar constructs (for example, noticing or professional
vision). In the following, we use “situation-specific skills” as an umbrella term.
When referring to individual studies, we use the terminology suggested there
(for example, professional vision of classroom management).
J. Weyers et al.
Fig. 1. Analytical model used in the present study.
instructional event, such as disruptive behavior, exceeds the threshold of
what the teacher deems acceptable, the teacher may respond by
considering and initiating a routine (e.g., calling for quiet and attention)
or—if no suitable routine is available—by generating a spontaneous
response prior to reinitiating the teaching routine.
2.2. Measurement of situation-specific skills
Several test instruments have been developed to measure situation-
specific skills in a standardized way, commonly combining video clips
of teaching practice with writing prompts or closed item formats
(Weyers, König, Santagata, Scheiner, & Kaiser, 2023). However, few
instruments developed to date have focused primarily on classroom
management. Assessing professional vision of classroom management,
Gold and Holodynski (2017) used a video-based measure to capture
(pre-service) teachers’ ability to describe and interpret instructional
events. Similarly, König’s (2015) video-based assessment of CME fo­
cuses on perception and interpretation (hereafter, the CME-PI test). The
Video Assessment of Interactions and Learning (VAIL; Jamil et al., 2015;
Wiens et al., 2013) examines teachers’ skills to identify effective
teacher–student interactions in video clips, including a separate subscale
to address “classroom organization.”
In terms of decision-making, Gold and Holodynski’s (2015) situa­
tional judgment test captures teachers’ strategic knowledge in classroom
management. For this test, teachers read short descriptions of instruc­
tional situations and then evaluate the effectiveness of several possible
responses using rating scales. However, the test takers are not required
to actually formulate responses themselves. In Gippert et al.’s (2022)
study, pre-service teachers watched a 4.5-min video clip and were asked
(among other things) to generate at least one alternative action.
3
Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104426
Although this approach appears promising, the generation of alternative
courses of action does not refer exclusively to interactive
decision-making but also intersects with reflection on teaching.
2.3. Associated variables in university teacher education
Developing an assessment of interactive decision-making requires a
careful validation process in which validity is understood as “the degree
to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores
for proposed uses of tests” (American Educational Research Association;
American Psychological Association; National Council on Measurement
in Education, 2014, p. 11). Regarding video-based measures of
pre-service teachers’ competence, plausible correlations between test
scores and other relevant variables within teacher education offer a key
source of validity evidence (e.g., Stürmer, Könings, & Seidel, 2015;
Wiens et al., 2013). For CME-Decide, we first address the relationship
between decision-making, further situation-specific skills (i.e., percep­
tion and interpretation) and other aspects of competence, i.e., cognition
and affect–motivation (see Fig. 1, middle columns). Second, conceptu­
alizing situation-specific skills as a learning outcome of teacher educa­
tion, we focus on the association between situation-specific skills and
learning opportunities (see Fig. 1, left column). Demonstrating associ­
ations between test scores and learning opportunities is a central part of
the validation strategy. If test scores covary with the use of learning
opportunities, this can be taken as evidence that the test allows for valid
inferences about learning processes in the context of university teacher
education. This is particularly important to use the test for the purpose
of evaluating interventions.
J. Weyers et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104426

2.3.1. Situation-specific skills, cognition, and affect–motivation
Teachers’ situation-specific skills have been conceptualized as
closely interrelated (Jacobs, Lamb, & Philipp, 2010; Kaiser et al., 2015).
Focusing on mathematics teaching, Bastian, Kaiser, Meyer, Schwarz,
and König (2022) identified medium to strong latent correlations be­
tween decision-making and perception (r = .462) as well as between
decision-making and interpretation (r = .815).
Situation-specific skills are further assumed to be based on profes­
sional knowledge (Blömeke et al., 2015; Kaiser et al., 2015; Seidel &
Stürmer, 2014). Accordingly, previous studies have repeatedly demon­
strated associations between video-based measures and (paper-­
and-pencil) knowledge testing (Kersting, Givvin, Sotelo, & Stigler, 2010;
König, Blömeke, et al., 2014; Meschede, Fiebranz, Möller, & Steffensky,
2017). Focusing on CME, König’s (2015) CME-PI test showed a positive
correlation with GPK (r = .47). Similarly, Gold and Holodynski (2017)’s
professional vision of classroom management test was positively corre­
lated with strategic knowledge of classroom management (r = .42).
Following Blömeke et al. (2015), situation-specific skills have also
been regarded as connected to affect–motivation. In the present study,
we focus on teacher enthusiasm, defined as “an affective, person-specific
characteristic that reflects the subjective experience of enjoyment,
excitement, and pleasure, and that is manifested in certain behaviors in
the classroom” (Kunter, Frenzel, Nagy, Baumert, & Pekrun, 2011, p.
290). Thus, teacher enthusiasm can be seen as a trait-like, dispositional
characteristic that varies between teachers but also shows
situation-specific (i.e., state-like) variance components (e.g., Gaspard &
Lauermann, 2021). Although the association between affect–motivation
and situation-specific skills has been studied rarely, there are theoretical
and empirical arguments suggesting a positive relationship—especially
for the domain of classroom management. For example, König (2015)
reported negative correlations between CME-PI and teacher burnout
scales. Kunter (2013) demonstrated that teachers who reported greater
general enthusiasm for teaching exhibited more effective classroom
management. Moreover, teacher enthusiasm is closely related to teacher
emotions, which condition teachers’ instructional behavior, including
classroom management strategies, whereby positive emotions (e.g.,
enjoyment) promote the availability of alternative actions (Fredrickson,
2001; Frenzel, 2014). Overall, we expect that teachers’ decision-making
skills in classroom management will be positively related to enthusiasm.
2.3.2. Opportunity to learn
According to the educational concept of learning opportunities in
teacher education (Floden, 2002; Schmidt, Cogan, & Houang, 2011),
(pre-service) teachers’ acquisition of competence is substantially influ­
enced by their use of OTL. OTLs, broadly defined as experiences aimed at
achieving specific learning outcomes (Tatto et al., 2012), are created
and implemented by teacher education institutions and policy makers to
organize (prospective) teachers’ learning processes (Schmidt et al.,
2008). Two types of OTL applied in teacher education may be distin­
guished: university OTLs (e.g., lectures) and in-school OTLs (e.g., guided
teaching during school practicum) (Flores, 2016).
Few studies have investigated the relationship between OTL and
situation-specific skills. Measures of professional vision have been
shown to be associated with the number of pedagogical courses that pre-
service teachers have completed (Stürmer et al., 2015) and their
subject-specific study focus (Todorova, Sunder, Steffensky, & Möller,
2017). Studies have also demonstrated that participation in school in­
ternships (i.e., in-school OTL) supports the development of
situation-specific skills (Mertens & Gräsel, 2018; Stürmer et al., 2013;
Weber, Gold, Prilop, & Kleinknecht, 2018). However, some studies have
detected no positive effects of in-school OTL (Gippert et al., 2022;
Todorova et al., 2017; Wiens et al., 2013), suggesting that further
research is necessary.
3. Context of the study and research questions
The CME-Decide has been designed to assess pre-service teachers’
decision-making skills in the context of classroom management for
research and evaluation purposes. In addition to evaluating this in­
strument’s reliability, this study aims to provide validity evidence for
two aspects of test score interpretations: first, test scores should be
interpretable as indicative of pre-service teachers’ decision-making
skills in classroom management as part of their professional compe­
tence. Second, test scores should be interpretable as a learning outcome
of university teacher education. Three research questions structure the
study, as follows.
RQ1. Does CME-Decide provide a reliable measure of decision-making
skills in classroom management (1a) that is distinguishable from a
video-based measure of perception/interpretation skills (1b)?
We assumed that the CME-Decide test would show sufficient reli­
ability as a one-dimensional measure, which is a prerequisite for further
analyses. Consistent with previous research suggesting the separability
of perception, interpretation, and decision-making measures (e.g., Bas­
tian et al., 2022; Gippert et al., 2022), we hypothesized that the
CME-Decide test, focusing on decision-making, and the CME-PI test
(König, 2015), focusing on perception/interpretation, would provide
empirically separable measures, suggesting that two distinct constructs
are being addressed. In line with the concept of situation-specific skills
as closely interrelated processes, we expected a moderate to high
correlation.
RQ2. To what extent does CME-Decide correlate with measures
regarding teachers’ cognition (2a), that is, GPK assessed by means of a
paper-and-pencil test, and regarding teachers’ affect–motivation (2b),
that is, self-reported teaching enthusiasm?
We anticipated a positive correlation between CME-Decide and GPK
assessed using a paper-and-pencil test, in accordance with findings
based on the CME-PI test. Given the heterogeneity of previous studies’
results, no specific effect size was assumed. Furthermore, we hypothe­
sized a positive correlation between CME-Decide and self-reported
teaching enthusiasm. Again, no effect size was specified in light of the
lack of previous findings and theoretical reference points.
RQ3. To what extent does the CME-Decide test relate to self-reported
university OTL (3a) and in-school OTL (3b)?
We hypothesized that both university and in-school OTLs reported
by pre-service teachers would be positively associated with the CME-
Decide test scores; however, we expected small effect sizes, in line
with existing findings. Moreover, the association between OTL and test
scores is highly dependent on the sample’s characteristics—for example,
the variance of OTL and test scores. Therefore, the available data were
used to compare the effects of university and in-school OTLs on the CME-
Decide test, the CME-PI test, and the GPK test using comparable samples.
This approach also allows us to contextualize the effects with respect to
the CME-Decide, identifying possible weaknesses but also the added
value of the instrument compared to two established instruments.
4. Method
4.1. Sample and data collection
The sample used is part of a larger survey at the University of Co­
logne (project: Zukunftsstrategie Lehrer*innenbildung [Future Strategy for
Teacher Education]), in which selected cohorts of pre-service teachers
are surveyed annually throughout their studies. The survey focused on
pre-service teachers’ knowledge, skills, and beliefs in addition to pro­
gram features. Owing to time constraints, the CME instruments were
only presented to those participants who were not studying German or
mathematics as a subject. Pre-service teachers who studied German or
mathematics were given subject-specific knowledge tests instead, which

4
J. Weyers et al.
were evaluated for other research projects. At the University of Cologne,
it is mandatory for primary school teachers and special education
teachers to study either mathematics or German. As such, these pre-
service teachers could not be included in the sample. Consequently,
the sample was limited to vocational and secondary school pre-service
teachers. Data from two cohorts, each with two measurement time
points, i.e., 2019 and 2020, were included: a bachelor’s cohort, which
was in the 2nd bachelor’s semester in 2019 and in the 4th bachelor’s
semester in 2020; a master’s cohort, which was in the 2nd master’s se­
mester in 2019 and in the 4th master’s semester in 2020. The standard
period of study is 6 semesters for the bachelor’s program and 4 semesters
for the master’s program.
Participants were contacted via their student e-mail addresses and
provided with a link to the survey, which was administered online using
EFS Survey software (TIVIAN XI GmbH) and which took about 1.5 h to
complete. In order to obtain the largest possible sample, participation
was possible for about six months (April to September, i.e., the entire
summer semester). Participants could choose when and where to com­
plete the online survey. Data collection and processing were performed
in line with the General Data Protection Regulation.
Participants were included in the analysis reported below if they
provided valid values for at least half of the CME-Decide test items. The
final sample comprised 134 participants for 2019 and 150 participants
for 2020. Table 1 details the descriptive sample statistics. Because both
cohorts were invited to participate in 2019 and 2020, in principle, all
pre-service teachers could have participated at both time points. How­
ever, only n = 62 individuals provided data for both measurement time
points, and the data were analyzed cross-sectionally.
To assess representativeness, this sample was compared with the
study’s target population (see Table 2). We defined the target population
as those pre-service secondary and vocational teachers who were
enrolled at the University of Cologne as part of one of the two cohorts
studied. For this purpose, data pertaining to the distribution of different
teacher education programs as well as the sample’s gender distribution
were provided by the university administration. Although some statis­
tically significant differences emerged for the 2019 sample (gender for
bachelor’s students, teacher education program for master’s students),
the sample appears to be generally comparable to the study population.
However, selection effects based on other characteristics cannot be ruled
out (e.g., increased willingness to participate among high-achieving
students; subject-specific selection). Therefore, the inferential statisti­
cal analyses should be interpreted with caution.
Participants first completed a general survey with questions about
learning opportunities, enthusiasm for teaching, and GPK, and then the
specific survey about CME (first perception/interpretation, then
decision-making). To avoid survey overload, the survey questions were
adapted to the cohort’s characteristics and study phase. Consequently,
the questions about teaching enthusiasm, which focused on teachers’
experience during instruction, were administered only to the master’s
cohort in 2020 (n = 52). For this cohort, a sufficient level of practical
experience may be assumed, as the cohort would typically have
completed the long-term teaching practicum by that time. Of the 52
respondents, 49 indicated that they had already completed their long-
term practicum (currently in practicum: one person; not yet in prac­
ticum: one person; no answer: one person).
4.2. Measures
4.2.1. Classroom Management Expertise: perception/interpretation
To assess perception and interpretation regarding classroom man­
agement, we implemented the CME-PI test, which has been successfully
used in previous studies (König, 2015; König et al., 2021). The instru­
ment comprises four video clips that portray authentic instructional
practice and include typical classroom management situations focusing
on (1) management of transitions, (2) management of instructional time,
(3) management of student behavior, and (4) management of
5
Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104426
instructional feedback. The participants were informed that they would
be shown four videos of teaching situations and that they would be
required to answer questions about the teaching that they had observed
after each video. The participants were permitted to view each video
only once, and the videos were presented in randomized order. The test
took approximately 20 min to complete.
After each video clip, multiple choice and open response questions
were used to capture the participants’ perception and interpretation
skills. The open response items were coded based on a coding manual
including 48 coding categories. Interrater agreement between two raters
was investigated based on 30 questionnaires (about 10% of all ques­
tionnaires). Cohen’s Kappa was calculated for each of the 48 dichoto­
mous coding categories, yielding good results (Mκ = .867; SDκ = .146).
After aggregating the coding categories (see König, 2015), the final
scoring included 24 dichotomous items (multiple choice: 5 items; open
response: 19 items), with 14 items targeting accuracy of perception, six
items focusing on holistic perception, and four items addressing inter­
pretation (for item examples, see Fig. 2). Consistent with previous
research that used this instrument, all 24 items were aggregated into one
mean score.4
CME-PI data were available for 283 participants. A one-dimensional
IRT scaling analysis indicated acceptable reliability (weighted likeli­
hood estimation [WLE] reliability = .626; expected a posteriori/plau­
sible values [EAP/PV] reliability = .634), with all items showing good
item discrimination (>.20). Weighted mean squares (WMNSQ) were in
the recommended range (0.75–1.30; Bond, Yan, & Heene, 2020).
4.2.2. Classroom Management Expertise: decision-making
The CME-Decide test was implemented to address decision-making
in classroom management. As part of the test development, 17 instruc­
tional videos were initially selected from databases and own classroom
videography. To ensure that the teaching situations were sufficiently
authentic, particularly the teaching disruptions shown, only video re­
cordings of authentic teaching practice were considered as opposed to
scripted video vignettes. In a pilot survey, 12 pre-service teachers and 18
in-service teachers indicated how they would respond as teachers in the
scenarios that they viewed and further rated the image and sound
quality, the videos’ lengths, and the level of difficulty for each video.
Based on this survey, 12 videos lasting 9–58 s were selected for the final
test version.
For the present study, the pre-service teachers were advised in
advance that they would be shown short videos and that they would be
required to indicate how they would respond as teachers immediately
after the situations they observed. The participants were prompted to
respond immediately without giving considerable thought to their re­
sponses. At the beginning of each video, a black screen showing the
video source was presented for 5 s followed by a still image of the
ensuing instructional practice for a further 5 s, offering the participants
an overview of the teaching situation before the instructional sequence
began. Participants could view each video only once and were presented
with the same writing prompt after each video: “As a teacher, how
would you act now (following the sequence you saw)?“. The videos were
presented in randomized order, and all participants were given the op­
portunity to view all videos and answer the questions. Due to technical
problems and/or other unknown reasons, some participants did not
respond to all video clips. Missing values were kept as missing values in
further analyses (and not recoded as incorrect). Scaling and averaging
were performed using the available data. However, the proportion of
valid responses was high, as the final sample responded to an average of
11.67 videos (SD = 0.86; Min = 7; Max = 12). The CME-Decide test took
approximately 20 min to complete.
4
For all test instruments, mean scores were calculated by dividing the
number of points obtained by the number of items completed by each indi­
vidual participant.
J. Weyers et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104426

Table 1
Sample statistics.
Measurement time point n nBachelor nMaster Gender Age Study semester Average grade Teacher education
(female) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) program (%)

Ba Ma Ba Ma Ba Ma Ba Ma I II III

2019 134 93 (69 %) 41 (31 %) 78 % 74 % 22 (7) 26 (3) 2 (− ) 8 (− ) 2.2 (0.62) 2.3 (0.52) 29 60 11
2020 150 98 (65 %) 52 (35 %) 70 % 75 % 24 (5) 27 (3) 4 (− ) 10 (− ) 2.3 (0.63) 2.2 (0.50) 22 64 14
Total 284 191 (67 %) 93 (33 %) 74 % 74 % 23 (6) 26 (3) 3 (1) 9 (1) 2.3 (0.63) 2.2 (0.51) 25 62 13

Note. Average grade: average grade in final secondary school examinations (lower values indicate better performance); the study semester for the master’s cohort was
determined by adding the master’s semester plus six semesters (i.e., the typical time required to complete a preceding bachelor’s degree); I: non-academic track (lower
secondary school); II: academic track (lower and upper secondary school); III: vocational school.

Table 2
Comparison of population and sample statistics for teacher education program and gender.
2019 Bachelor Master

Population Sample χ2 (p) Population Sample χ2 (p)

Teacher education program
Non-academic track 25% 28% 0.37 (.82) 21% 32% 6.56 (.04)
Academic track 67% 66% 68% 47%
Vocational school 8% 7% 12% 21%
Gender
Female 61% 78% 8.42 (<.01) 63% 74% 1.74 (.19)
Male 39% 22% 37% 26%
N/n (response rate) 1151 93 (8%) 505 41 (8%)
2020 Bachelor Master
Population Sample χ2 (p) Population Sample χ2 (p)
Teacher education program
Non-academic track 24% 24% 2.83 (.24) 21% 19% 0.81 (.67)
Academic track 67% 63% 68% 65%
Vocational school 8% 13% 11% 15%
Gender
Female 61% 70% 3.51 (.06) 63% 75% 3.22 (.07)
Male 39% 30% 37% 25%
N/n (response rate) 945 98 (10%) 481 52 (11%)

Note. The population includes all pre-service secondary and vocational teachers who were enrolled at the University of Cologne as part of one of the two cohorts
studied.

Fig. 2. Sample items from the CME-PI test, focusing on a) accuracy of perception, b) holistic perception, and c) interpretation.

Table 3 presents an overview of the videos, which encompassed
instructional practice covering different school types and grades as well
as teachers with varying experience levels. The instrument was origi­
nally developed to capture decision-making across teachers in all types
of schools. As such, the videos include teaching situations from primary
and secondary schools, although the present sample does not include
primary school teachers. Each video depicted a teaching situation
wherein the teacher could decide to proceed with instruction as plan­
ned—for example, by continuing the classroom dialogue—or to inter­
rupt the lesson’s flow to deal with disturbance to ensure that the planned
activities would be successful. The videos addressed various issues
relating to classroom management (see Table 3, last column).
A coding manual that included literature-based response criteria for
each video was developed to score the written answers. These response

6
J. Weyers et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104426

Table 3 Table 3 (continued )

Overview of the videos included in the CME-Decide. Video Dura- School Grade Description Issues in
Video Dura- School Grade Description Issues in tion type classroom
tion type classroom management
management
begins talking. The
1 17 s Sec. 7 The sequence occurs Goal clarity, teacher stops moving
(non- at the beginning of disruptive and looks at the
ac.) the lesson. The behavior student.
teacher writes the 7 33 s Prim. 4 The students sit at Rules and
lesson’s topic on the their tables, talking to routines
blackboard and each other. The
begins saying, “Our teacher first gives an
topic of this lesson acoustic signal and
…“, while the then places herself in
students converse front of the class
with one another and showing a card and
do not attend to the using gestures to
teacher or communicate that the
blackboard. students should all
2 27 s Sec. 7 The teacher has Managing stand up. Most
(non- written a text on the momentum, students do not react
ac.) blackboard that the group focus to this instruction.
students are asked to 8 25 s Prim. 4 In a plenary phase, Managing
copy. One student is the students sit at transitions,
unable to identify a tables in groups, Clarity of
word on the while the teacher instruction
blackboard and asks explains that for the
the teacher “What’s next working phase,
written there?“. The they will change
teacher goes to the places as soon as she
student. gives an acoustical
3 9s Sec. 7 The teacher has Time signal. She then
(non- finished writing the management, names three groups of
ac.) text on the group focus students (lions, bees,
blackboard and says: and mice) and assigns
“I hear some one table to each
whispering. Who has group.
not yet finished 9 33 s Sec. 5 In a plenary phase, Clarity of
copying the text? (ac.) the teacher sits at the instruction
Who still needs one or teacher’s desk and
2 min?” Two students clarifies the next steps
raise their hands. for the following
4 28 s Prim. 1–4 The video depicts a Rules and phase, in which the
classroom during the routines students will conduct
working phase. Two an experiment. He
students leave their says that the safety
places to ask the instructions will be
teacher for help. The discussed later but
teacher asks, “What is that he first wants the
our rule when we students to explain
have a question?” The the next steps. A
students answer, “We student chosen by the
raise our hands”. teacher begins
5 11 s Prim. 4 The teacher stands in Clarity of reading the safety
front of the class instruction instructions.
explaining the next 10 58 s Sec. 5 In a plenary phase, Group focus
steps. She says, “In a (ac.) the teacher and the
moment, I will ask students sit in a circle.
everyone to take out a One student explains
pencil”. While the a subject-related issue
teacher wishes to using an example. As
continue instruction, the student’s turn is
the students begin comparably long, the
searching for pencils other students in the
in their school bags. circle begin moving
6 23 s Prim. 4 During a plenary Disruptive in their seats.
phase, the students sit behavior 11 17 s Prim. – The students are Disruptive
quietly in a circle. The sitting at group tables behavior
teacher announces during classroom
that she will give a dialogue. Suddenly,
worksheet to one one student
student and that she complains that his
will now prepare the neighbor is making
partitions for the next fun of him. The two
step. While she moves students begin
toward the partitions, arguing loudly while
another student the rest of the class
remains quiet.
(continued on next page)

7
J. Weyers et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104426

Table 3 (continued ) (“assessment”). Fig. 3 illustrates item examples.

Video Dura- School Grade Description Issues in GPK test data were available for 227 participants, who provided
tion type classroom valid values for at least half of the items administered. Owing to the
management small number of items within each area, which led to unacceptable re­
12 25 s Sec. 5 The students work at Managing liabilities in some cases, a one-dimensional measure of GPK was speci­
(ac.) group tables. As they transitions fied using the mean score. After items with low item discrimination
are talking to one (<.10) were removed, the test comprised 50 dichotomous items. IRT
another, the
scaling analysis revealed acceptable reliability (WLE reliability = .730;
classroom is
comparably noisy. EAP/PV reliability = .587) with sufficient item discrimination (>.10)
The teacher is moving and WMNSQ in the recommended range.
in the middle of the
classroom and begins 4.2.4. Teaching enthusiasm
talking to the plenary,
beginning “So …“.
Teaching enthusiasm was assessed using a scale developed by Bau­
mert et al. (2008) comprising three statements rated on four-point Likert
Note. Sec. = secondary school, Prim. = primary school, non-ac. = non-academic scales (1 = fully incorrect to 4 = fully correct). The items were originally
track (i.e., vocationally oriented schools that do not qualify students for uni­
constructed to assess teachers’ subject-specific enthusiasm in mathe­
versity studies), ac. = academic track (i.e., schools that prepare and qualify
matics and were reformulated with a general focus on teaching (e.g., “In
students for university studies).
my classes, I try to inspire the students”). The scale’s reliability was good
(Cronbach’s α = .736, M = 3.36, SD = 0.50).
criteria had been validated and adjusted as necessary based on an expert
survey of 12 teachers, who had an average of 20.73 years of teaching
4.2.5. Opportunity to learn
experience (SD = 13.34). Given that multiple correct reactions were
Table 4 presents the OTL measures implemented, including sample
possible for most videos, the final coding manual included 21 coding
items, descriptive statistics, and reliability. University OTL in general
categories. For example, regarding video 10 (see Table 3), one category
pedagogy was assessed using a scale developed by König, Ligtvoet,
focused on completing the student’s turn (e.g., “I would thank the stu­
Klemenz, and Rothland (2017). Each item referred to a specific item of
dent for his detailed answer including the example and then carry on
learning content, and participants indicated whether it had been
with instruction”); a second category addressed the activation of the
covered during their teacher training (yes/no). The content represented
entire group (e.g., “I would try to integrate the entire group into the
central topics within German university teacher training.
dialogue and not only focus on one single student”).
In-school OTL was assessed using two operationalizations. First, an
Each coding category was implemented as dichotomous (0 = the
instrument developed by König, Tachtsoglou, Darge, and Lünnemann
answer does not match the category, 1 = the answer matches the cate­
(2014) was applied, focusing on four central activities during teaching
gory). A double-blind coding was conducted by two independent raters
practicum: lesson planning, teaching, linking theories to situations, and
for 60 questionnaires (about 20% of all questionnaires). Cohen’s Kappa
reflecting on practice. Each area included several items that referred to
was calculated for each of the 21 dichotomous coding categories, indi­
specific activities (e.g., formulating learning goals), for which partici­
cating good interrater reliability (Mκ = .930, SDκ = .075). Preliminary
pants indicated whether they had engaged in this activity during
analyses revealed strong dependencies among categories within one
teaching practicum (yes/no).
video, as, for example, participants tended to write only one out of two
Second, a measure of invested learning time during teaching prac­
responses categorized. To avoid testlet effects, the coding categories
ticum that had been developed in a previous project (König, Tachtso­
were combined into a single dichotomous scoring category per video.
glou, et al., 2014) was implemented. Four activities were addressed:
For example, for video 10, the scoring item was 1 if the answer matched
observing instruction, supporting/co-teaching, teaching with guidance,
at least one of the two coding categories. Only for video 11 were the two
and teaching alone (i.e., teaching without being guided by an experi­
coding categories—(1) disrupting the dispute (immediate response) and
enced teacher). For each of the four activities, the participants indicated
(2) settling the dispute after class (delayed response)—sufficiently in­
how many hours they had invested using a rating scale (0: “0 h”, 1:
dependent to justify the inclusion of both categories in the score.
“1–10 h”, 2: “11–20 h”, 3: “21–31 h”, 4: “31–50 h”, 5: “51–100 h”, 6:
Consequently, the final CME-Decide scoring included 13 dichotomous
“more than 100 h”).
items, which were aggregated into a mean score.
4.3. Data analysis
4.2.3. General pedagogical knowledge
For GPK, a paper-and-pencil test that was originally developed for
Regarding RQ1, CME-Decide’s reliability was estimated by speci­
the international comparative study TEDS-M was implemented (König &
fying a one-dimensional Rasch model using the software ConQuest (Wu,
Blömeke, 2010). Owing to data collection constraints, a short form was
Adams, & Wilson, 1997), additionally accounting for internal consis­
applied using a rotated design based on two equivalent test booklets
tency as indicated by Cronbach’s α. To investigate the empirical asso­
randomly assigned to the participants. It took approximately 15 min to
ciation between the CME-Decide and CME-PI tests, first, a
complete one booklet. While 36 items were included in both test
one-dimensional Rasch model was estimated, with both measures
booklets, 11 items were included in only one of the booklets. Across both
specified as based on a single latent variable. Second, a two-dimensional
test booklets, the test contained 58 test items (30 multiple choice items
Rasch model was estimated by differentiating two latent varia­
and 28 open response items). Trained raters coded the open-ended re­
bles—perception/interpretation and decision-making. The two scaling
sponses on the basis of an established coding manual.
models were compared, accounting for reliability, theta variance, model
Previous studies have indicated the reliability of the short version of
deviance, and the sample size-adjusted Bayesian information criterion
the GPK test (e.g., Brühwiler, Hollenstein, Affolter, Biedermann, & Oser,
(BIC).
2017; Gerhard, Jäger-Biela, & König, 2023; König, Blömeke, Paine,
The relationship between CME-Decide and other competence mea­
Schmidt, & Hsieh, 2011). Four areas of GPK were addressed: (1) dealing
sures (RQ2)—GPK and teaching enthusiasm—was investigated using
with heterogeneous learning groups (“adaptivity”), (2) preparing,
Pearson correlation. The effects of university and in-school OTLs (RQ3)
structuring and evaluating lessons (“structure”), (3) organizing class­
were examined based on multiple regression models using Mplus
rooms and motivating students (“classroom management/motivation”),
(Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2006). This procedure allowed estimation of
and (4) assessing and evaluating students’ learning and ability
the effects of OTL while controlling for the participants’ individual

8
J. Weyers et al.
Fig. 3. Sample items from the TEDS-M GPK test, focusing on (a) motivation, and (b) structure.
characteristics, including average grade in final school examinations,
age, gender, and teacher education program. Given that OTL measures
typically show high intercorrelations, a separate model was specified for
each measure (see König et al., 2017). For each regression model pre­
dicting the CME-Decide scores, two equivalent models with CME-PI and
GPK as criterion were specified. Thus, we could compare the effects of
OTL on CME-Decide with the effects of OTL on two established
competence measures. For the regression models, the sample structur­
e—two cohorts at two measurement times—was considered by speci­
fying the study semester as a stratification variable (option “type =
complex” in Mplus).5
In cross-sectional analyses with the full sample (i.e., correlations
with knowledge, CME-PI, and learning opportunity effects), 62 in­
dividuals who participated twice are included twice in the analysis. This
could bias the results. We have therefore replicated the central analyses
on the CME-Decide test, excluding second participations, and report
discrepancies in the text.
5 targeting one latent variable. However, reliability estimates were still
After removing for each instrument those cases that had completed less than
50% of the items, the proportions of missing values were low for CME-Decide
(2.5%) and CME-PI (7.8%). Owing to the rotated design, the proportion of
missing values was higher for the GPK test (22.0%).Regarding the predictor
variables, no additional information for any predictor was available for 31 cases
(10.9%). Regarding the remaining cases, the proportion of missing values was
acceptable for OTL in general pedagogy (7.6%), in-school OTL (9.9 %), and
invested time (7.9 %). Cases without valid values on one or more predictors
were excluded from the respective regression models.
9
Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104426
5. Results
5.1. RQ1: Reliability analysis and decision-making as part of CME
The reliability analysis revealed that CME-Decide had comparably
low reliability (α = .512, WLE reliability = .459, EAP/PV reliability =
.501). Item discrimination was sufficient for all items, and WMNSQ were
in the recommended range. Table 5 presents an overview of IRT scaling
models for the three proficiency tests, including CME-Decide. Reliability
was thus lower than recommended by widely used rules of thumb.
However, as reliability represents the proportion of “true” variance, at
least 50% of the variance was explained by the underlying construct. As
all items also showed positive item discrimination, we consider this
sufficient to explore further analyses, although reliability must be dis­
cussed critically.
Based on IRT scaling, a one-dimensional model—CME as one uni­
dimensional latent ability—was compared to a two-dimensional mod­
el—CME-PI versus CME-Decide (see Table 6). The one-dimensional
model showed good reliability in light of the higher number of items
acceptable for the two-dimensional model, except for the CME-Decide
measure’s WLE reliability. Regarding model fit, the deviance was
lower for the two-dimensional model, suggesting that this model fitted
the data better than the one-dimensional model. The difference in model
fit was statistically significant. By contrast, the BIC, accounting for the
number of parameters estimated, was in favor of the more parsimonious
one-dimensional model. The latent correlation between perception/
J. Weyers et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104426

Table 4 distinct. In line with our expectations, GPK showed significant, but small
Overview of OTL measures. correlations with both CME-PI and CME-Decide. This can be seen as an
Scale Sample item nvalid nitems M α encouraging finding, as knowledge and decision-making were associ­
cases (SD) ated to a similar extent as knowledge and a more established measure of
Opportunity to learn—General pedagogy perception/interpretation. The effects remained stable when second
Adaptivity Individual instructional 239 11 .39 .809 participations were excluded from analyses.
support (.28) Teaching enthusiasm showed a significant correlation of medium
Structure Teaching methods 239 9 .62 .882 height with CME-Decide. This finding corresponds to our assumption
(.34)
Classroom Classroom rules 237 8 .36 .838
that decision-making, which is closely related to teachers’ instructional
management/ (.32) behavior, relates to enthusiasm. Since enthusiasm was not significantly
Motivation correlated with either knowledge or CME-PI, the effect may be specific
Assessment Diagnostics of learning 239 9 .44 .945 to decision-making rather than generally linking performance on
processes (.40)
pedagogy-related tests to positive emotions.
Total (OTL – 241 37 .45 .939
Pedagogy) (.27)

In-school opportunity to learn 5.3. RQ3: Effects of OTL in university teacher education
Lesson planning I have formulated 234 12 .44 .911
learning goals aligned (.33)
The manifest correlations between competence measures, control
with the curriculum. variables, and OTL measures are detailed in Supplementary Material A
Teaching I have checked 234 32 .45 .950 (Tables A1 and A2). The CME-Decide measure was significantly corre­
attendance. (.30) lated with the study semester (r = .121), with more advanced semesters
Linking theories I have observed teaching 229 11 .39 .872
associated with better decision-making skills. Moreover, moderate to
to situations methods that I have (.31)
learned at my university/ high correlations emerged between study semester and OTL scales. In
teacher training college light of our aim to capture decision-making as a function of OTL across
course. university teacher education, the study semester was not included in the
Reflecting on I have drawn conclusions 229 11 .35 .870 regression models; as such, the regression coefficient estimated for the
practice for future teaching. (.31)
OTL scales represents the effect of OTL across all study semesters. For
Learning time Median Category each model, an equivalent model including the study semester is re­
Observing instruction (hours) – 235 5 51–100 h ported in Supplementary Material A (Tables A3 to A5), corresponding to
Supporting/Co-Teaching (hours) – 239 2 11–20 h the effect of OTL within a semester.
Teaching with guidance (hours) 233 1 1–10 h
–
Regarding the control variables (teacher education program, gender,
Teaching alone (hours) – 234 0 0h
age, and average grade), pre-service teachers in the academic track
Note. Means represent the relative frequency of content or experiences reported significantly outperformed their counterparts in the non-academic and
by participants; nvalid cases indicates the number of cases for which sufficient data vocational track for both video-based CME instruments. Consistent with
were available with respect to this variable.

Table 7
interpretation and decision-making was high (r = .813). In sum, these Bivariate Pearson’s correlations of competence measures.
results are partly ambiguous but also provide evidence in favor of the
Variables CME-Decide CME-PI GPK
two-dimensional model reflecting two interrelated—but
distinguishable—abilities. CME-Decide r –
(n)
CME-PI r .445*** –
5.2. RQ2: Associations with other competence measures (n) (283)
GPK r .214** .206** –
(n) (227) (226)
Table 7 presents Pearson’s correlations between the different Teaching enthusiasm r .339** .178 .081
competence measures. A moderate manifest correlation was observed (n) (52) (52) (50)
between the CME-PI and CME-Decide tests, which was consistent with
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Correlations are based on mean scores.
our expectations, highlighting that the two measures are empirically

Table 5
Reliability analysis of proficiency tests.
Measure nItems M (SD) α WLE reliability EAP/PV reliability Theta variance WMNSQ (min–max) Item discrimination (mean; min–max)

CME-Decide 13 .39 (.17) .512 .459 .501 .419 0.95–1.04 .38; .24–.47
CME-PI 24 .51 (.15) .709 .626 .634 .480 0.94–1.07 .34; .21–.49
GPK 50 .52 (.13) – .730 .587 .417 0.87–1.12 .31; .12–.53

Note. For the GPK test, a rotation design based on two test booklets was implemented to reduce testing time. Consequently, Cronbach’s α is not reported for GPK.

Table 6
Comparison of IRT models.
Model BIC Deviance Para meters Likelihood ratio test WLE reliability EAP/PV reliability Variance

CME 10952.22 10737.42 38 .713 .716 0.412

CME-PI vs. CME-Decide 10955.59 10729.49 40 ΔDeviance = 7.92 df = 2 PI .626 PI .691 PI 0.480
p < .05 D .459 D .638 D 0.431

Note. BIC: Bayesian information criterion; Deviance: − 2log (likelihood ratio); ΔDeviance: χ2-distributed test statistic; CME = Classroom Management Expertise as one
latent variable; CME-PI & CME-Decide = Classroom Management Expertise modeled as two latent variables perception/interpretation (PI) and decision-making
(Decide). For the likelihood ratio test, the two-dimensional model shows better fit.

10
J. Weyers et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104426

previous research, there were effects of gender (better performance by
female students), and average grade (better performance by students
with higher grades) on GPK (e.g., König & Seifert, 2012). In addition,
older students showed higher GPK even when controlling for the study
semester, which may be due to extracurricular pedagogical experience.
5.3.1. OTL in general pedagogy
Table 8 presents multiple regression models, including university
OTL in general pedagogy. As expected, the four OTL scales significantly
predicted GPK with small to moderate effect sizes. Contrary to our hy­
pothesis, however, no OTL scale showed a significant effect for CME-
Decide and CME-PI. While the predictors explained a considerable
proportion of variance for GPK (around 30%), only a small proportion of
variance was explained for both video-based assessments.
5.3.2. In-school OTL
Regarding in-school OTL, operationalized as specific in-school ac­
tivities, small but significant effects were identified for lesson planning,
linking theories to situations, and reflecting on practice, predicting
decision-making skills (see Table 9). For perception/interpretation, no
significant effect was found for any in-school OTL scale, whereas all four
in-school OTL scales significantly predicted GPK with small effect sizes.
Regarding in-school OTL, operationalized as invested learning time
during school practicum, three activities significantly predicted
decision-making skills: observing instruction, supporting instruction,
and teaching with guidance (see Table 10). Perception/interpretation
was only predicted by observing instruction, while GPK was predicted
by supporting instruction and teaching with guidance. Effect sizes for all
models were small. Teaching alone was unrelated to any competence
measure.
When the second participations (n = 62) were removed from the
analysis, the effects of in-school OTL on the CME-Decide test became
slightly weaker and in some cases no longer significant. However, sig­
nificant effects still emerged for reflecting on practice and teaching with
guidance.
6.1. Reliability of measurement and separability of perception/
interpretation
Regarding RQ1, CME-Decide’s reliability was sufficient for subse­
quent analyses but remained comparably low. However, the teachers
surveyed had limited teaching experience, and thus the low reliability
may also be a result of the sample’s limited variance. Moreover, the
number items used to measure a comparatively heterogeneous construct
was small, which may have further negatively impacted the estimation
of reliability. We thus consider the reliability to be particularly
encouraging—also in view of CME-Decide’s innovative potential as
based on a writing prompt that is open compared to previous in­
struments. Neither a pre-specified interpretation of the classroom
practice shown (Bastian et al., 2022) nor a range of alternative actions
(Gold & Holodynski, 2015) was provided during testing. Adopting a
multitrait-multimethod approach, Müller and Gold (2023) reported that
the assessment of describing and interpreting skills was highly depen­
dent on the item format used (open writing prompts vs. rating scales),
suggesting that the task format significantly shapes the measurement of
situation-specific skills. The CME-Decide test may thus be promising in
providing a new analytical perspective on decision-making in classroom
management.
Based on IRT scaling analysis, the CME-Decide was closely connected
to perception and interpretation skills in classroom management. Model
fit indices showed ambiguous findings with respect to whether the one-
dimensional (CME) or two-dimensional model (perception/interpreta­
tion vs. decision-making) fitted the data better. This finding should be
interpreted cautiously as the model fit of the two-dimensional model is
affected by the low reliability of the CME-Decide test. By contrast, on the
manifest level, CME-Decide and CME-Perception/Interpretation were
only moderately correlated, suggesting that the measures represent two
interrelated but distinct constructs. This is in line with previous research
conceptualizing decision-making as based on the accurate perception
and interpretation of instructional practice (Jacobs et al., 2010; Kaiser
et al., 2015; Shavelson & Stern, 1981).

6. Discussion 6.2. Associations with knowledge and teaching enthusiasm

The study presents the CME-Decide test, which was developed to
assess pre-service teachers’ decision-making skills in classroom man­
agement as a learning outcome of university teacher education. Partic­
ipants watched short video clips and noted how they would respond as
teachers in the situations observed. The measure’s appropriateness was
investigated by examining its reliability as a separable facet of CME
(RQ1), its associations with GPK and teaching enthusiasm (RQ2), and
the effects of university and in-school OTLs (RQ3).
Regarding RQ2, a positive correlation was found between the CME-
Decide and GPK as measured by a paper-and-pencil test. However, the
effect size was small. Previous studies’ findings concerning professional
knowledge and video-based competence measures show considerable
heterogeneity in effect sizes (r = .29; König, Blömeke, et al., 2014; r =
0.42; Gold & Holodynski, 2017; r = 0.56; Meschede et al., 2017).
Exploring the relationship between CME-PI and GPK, König (2015) re­
ported a moderate correlation (r = .47). As Müller and Gold (2023) have
recently remarked, the association between professional knowledge and

Table 8
Multiple regression models for CME-Decide, CME-PI, and GPK regressed on university OTL.
CME-Decide CME-PI GPK

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12

Variable β β β β β β β β β β β β
Age .02 .03 .03 .02 .06 .07 .06 .07 .35*** .39*** .38*** .37***
Gender .00 − .01 .00 − .01 − .06 − .06 − .06 − .06 − .22*** − .25*** − .24*** − .24***
Average grade − .06 − .07 − .07 − .07 .00 .00 .00 − .01 − .15* − .17* − .17** − .17**
Programa
Non-academic − .23** − .22** − .22** − .24** − .21** − .21** − .21** − .19* − .06 − .04 − .05 − .10
Vocational − .16* − .16* − .15* − .16* − .04 − .03 − .04 − .03 − .05 − .03 − .02 − .03
OTL-GP
Adaptivity .07 .01 .30***
Structure .04 − .01 .20***
Classroom management .02 .00 .26***
Assessment .08 − .06 .26***
R2 .08 .08 .08 .08 .05 .05 .05 .05 .32 .27 .30 .29

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. M: model; β: standardized regression coefficients.
a
Teacher education program was accounted for using dummy variables; reference group is academic track.

11
J. Weyers et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104426

Table 9
Multiple regression models for CME-Decide, CME-PI, and GPK regressed on in-school OTL (OTL in general pedagogy included as control variable).
CME-Decide CME-PI GPK

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12

Variable β β β β β β β β β β β β
Age − .04 − .01 − .01 − .02 .05 .07 .08 .05 .25*** .29*** .30*** .30***
Gender − .01 − .02 .02 .01 − .07 − .08 − .09 − .08 − .21*** − .22*** − .18** − .20***
Average grade − .06 − .06 − .06 − .07 − .01 − .01 − .01 .00 − .14* − .15* − .13* − .15*
Programa
Non-academic − .25** − .25** − .22** − .25** − .23** − .22** − .24** − .25** − .10 − .10 − .07 − .09
Vocational − .14* − .16* − .14* − .17* − .03 − .03 − .04 − .05 − .03 − .04 − .03 − .06
OTL-GP − .02 .03 − .03 − .02 − .06 − .02 − .02 − .03 .18* .23** .18* .21**
In-school OTL
Planning .18* .08 .27***
Teaching .09 .02 .17*
Linking .17* − .04 .24**
Reflecting .23** .07 .21**
R2 .10 .09 .10 .13 .07 .06 .07 .08 .35 .33 .34 .37

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. M: model; β: standardized regression coefficients.
a
Teacher education program was accounted for using dummy variables; reference group is academic track.

Table 10
Multiple regression models for CME-Decide, CME-PI and GPK regressed on learning time during teaching practicum (OTL in general pedagogy included as control
variable).
CME-Decide CME-PI GPK

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12

Variable β β β β β β β β β β β β
Age .00 − .03 − .05 .00 .05 .04 .03 .07 .32*** .26*** .26*** .33***
Gender .00 .01 − .01 .01 − .06 − .07 − .08 − .08 − .22*** − .22*** − .23*** − .23***
Average grade − .05 − .07 − .05 − .08 .01 − .01 .00 − .02 − .13* − .16* − .13* − .15*
Programa
Non-academic − .24** − .25** − .27*** − .24** − .21** − .23** − .24** − .23** − .09 − .11 − .12 − .10
Vocational − .18** − .17* − .18** − .16* − .05 − .02 − .04 − .04 − .07 − .03 − .07 − .06
OTL-GP .01 − .01 − .02 .06 − .07 − .05 − .07 − .03 .27*** .21** .21** .30***
Learning time
Observing .17* .16* .12
Supporting .21** .09 .21**
Teaching (with guidance) .26** .12 .27***
Teaching (alone) .11 .02 .04
R2 .11 .11 .13 .10 .08 .07 .07 .07 .32 .34 .36 .31

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. M: model; β: standardized regression coefficients.
a
Teacher education program was accounted for using dummy variables; reference group is academic track.

situation-specific competence may be particularly dependent on the
type of knowledge assessed (e.g., procedural–conditional vs. declarative
knowledge), the item format used to measure situation-specific skills (e.
g., open prompts vs. rating scales), and the sample’s expertise level.
Assuming that teachers develop their situation-specific skills when
reflecting on instructional practice drawing on professional knowledge,
the association between knowledge and skills may be further consoli­
dated with increased practical experience. This assumption may be
supported by explorative analysis. In the present sample, the correla­
tions between both CME measures and GPK were lower for bachelor’s
students (n = 149; rCME-PI,GPK = .159, p = .054; rCME-D,GPK = .099, p =
.229) than for master’s students (n = 78; rCME-PI,GPK = .344, p < .01;
rCME-D,GPK = .334, p < .01).
For the subsample of pre-service teachers at the end of their master’s
program, a positive correlation was found between the CME-Decide test
and self-reported teaching enthusiasm, which is consistent with previous
findings on teaching enthusiasm predicting teachers’ classroom man­
agement performance (Kunter, 2013). This finding suggests that the link
between teachers’ affective–motivational disposition and
situation-specific skills warrants greater attention in future research.
Regarding teaching enthusiasm and decision-making, the constructs
may influence one another reciprocally. On the one hand, pre-service
teachers with elaborate decision-making skills pertaining to classroom
management may be more successful as teachers, fostering more
positive emotions in the classroom (Frenzel, 2014). On the other hand,
robust teaching enthusiasm may be regarded as a disposition that pro­
motes successful decision-making in the classroom (Fredrickson, 2001;
Frenzel, 2014; Kunter, 2013). The affective–motivational disposition
may also have directly affected the testing situation. Teachers with
higher enthusiasm levels may have experienced greater enjoyment
during testing, which may, in turn, have influenced their
decision-making favorably.
6.3. The effect of opportunity to learn
Regarding RQ3, the CME-Decide was predicted by in-school OTL,
including lesson planning, linking theories to situations, and reflecting
on practice as well as by time invested in observing instruction, sup­
porting instruction, and teaching with guidance. This is in line with
previous findings that school-based OTLs promote situation-specific
competence (Mertens & Gräsel, 2018; Stürmer et al., 2013; Weber
et al., 2018). The CME-Decide test was even slightly more strongly
associated with in-school OTLs than the more established CME-PI in­
strument, underscoring the added value of the CME-Decide test. The
pattern of effects suggests that theory-based analysis and reflection on
teaching promote the acquisition of competence rather than mere
teaching practice. Consequently, the effectiveness of in-school learning
opportunities may be enhanced by preparatory and accompanying

12
J. Weyers et al.
courses—for example, video-based seminars that specifically promote
the application of theoretical knowledge to practical situations (Gold,
Pfirrmann, & Holodynski, 2021; Stürmer et al., 2013; Weber et al.,
2018).
By contrast, decision-making was not predicted by university OTL in
general pedagogy, which may suggest that classroom management
generally receives comparatively scant attention in university teacher
education in Germany (Helmke, 2022; König et al., 2017). As O’Neill
and Stephenson (2012) highlighted, pre-service teachers require suffi­
cient time during their coursework to become familiar with classroom
management concepts and to practice classroom management strate­
gies. This suggests not only that more learning opportunities are needed
but that learning opportunities that specifically address the link between
theory and practice (e.g., through practical exercises) are crucial.
Furthermore, focusing on the assessment of OTL, the operationali­
zation of university OTL as a list of pedagogical content areas may not
map learning processes that condition the acquisition of CME. This is
consistent with the finding that even the more established CME-PI test
was not associated with university OTL. Rather, this operationalization
appears to be more strongly linked to the acquisition of declarative
knowledge, in line with the finding that GPK was predicted by all uni­
versity OTL scales.
In conclusion, CME-Decide’s associations with in-school OTL and
invested time during school practicum suggest that the test values may
be validly interpreted as resulting from specific learning processes in
teacher education. CME-Decide may thus be implemented to investigate
the effects of specific courses or interventions designed to promote
CME—for example, using video-based learning environments (Gold
et al., 2021).
6.4. Limitations and directions for future research
This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged and
recognized as providing impetus for future research. First, CME-Decide’s
relatively low reliability suggests that a higher number of video clips and
test items may be useful. However, given that our sample included only
pre-service teachers—which should also be acknowledged as a limi­
tation—the low variance may have reduced the measure’s reliability.
Future studies should thus apply comparable decision-making measures
for in-service teachers. Expert–novice comparisons can provide evidence
that the test scores are validly interpretable as measures of professional
competence. Moreover, the extent to which measures of teachers’
decision-making predict classroom performance should be explored. A
previous study using CME-PI demonstrated that teachers’ test scores
predict both cognitive activation and student learning progress in
mathematics classrooms (König et al., 2021).
Regarding the effects of OTL, the effect sizes were small, with
considerable variance in CME-Decide test values remaining unex­
plained. Despite the test’s sensitivity to specific OTL effects, it is unclear
which factors within university teacher education are critical to devel­
oping decision-making skills. Developing and implementing more spe­
cific OTL measures—for example, measures focusing on representations
of practice, such as discussing video clips or text vignettes—will help
advance the field. Provided that classroom management learning op­
portunities are systematically implemented at the university level,
comprehensive measures that include more fine-grained queries
regarding learning content and assess pre-service teachers’ confidence
in using different classroom management approaches may also be
promising (e.g., O’Neill & Stephenson, 2012).
The study’s major limitations relate to the sample characteristics.
The analyses are based on a convenience sample and the response rate
was low. The sample’s resulting limited representativeness could bias
the results and limit the validity of inferential statistical conclusions. For
example, in assuming that high-achieving students are more likely to
participate (see Sax, Gilmartin, & Bryant, 2003), associations may be
masked due to limited variance or results may not be generalizable to
13
Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104426
other groups, including lower-achieving students. Moreover, the sample
did not include prospective primary school and special education
teachers, who are required to take a greater number of general pedagogy
courses and thus may have greater variance in their CME. Consequently,
further research should be conducted to determine the extent to which
the results can be generalized to these two groups. The results regarding
teaching enthusiasm are further limited to the sub-sample of advanced
master’s students and may thus be biased by this specific sub-sample’s
characteristics (e.g., recent participation in a long-term practicum,
including teaching practice guided and supported by mentor teachers).
The question of whether the associations shown may be replicated with
in-service teachers or students in earlier stages of study remains open.
Moreover, given that our findings are based on cross-sectional analyses
and considering that correlations do not imply causal effects, longitu­
dinal analyses, including at least two measurement time points, should
be performed to explore the mutual causal influences of OTL and
competence.
The CME-Decide test is based on a single open writing prompt, which
may reinforce testing consistency. However, the use of a single method
may impact the empirical results’ generalizability (Shadish, Cook, &
Campbell, 2002). Comparing the use of open and closed item formats
(see Müller & Gold, 2023)—for example, using situational judgment
methodology—would permit a better understanding of what
CME-Decide measures.
Bearing in mind these limitations, we conclude that CME-Decide
offers a promising measure of teachers’ decision-making. The test re­
quirements were conceptualized and designed to be as close as possible
to teachers’ actual behavior in the classroom, which can potentially
enhance ecological validity regarding studies on teacher competence.
Funding
This work was supported as part of a larger project called
Zukunftsstrategie Lehrer*innenbildung Köln (ZuS), which is part of the
Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung (Quality Initiative for Initial Teacher
Education), a joint initiative of the Federal Government and the Länder
aiming to improve the quality of teacher training. The programme is
funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant num­
ber 01JA1515 and 01JA1815). The authors are responsible for the
content of this publication.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The datasets used for analyses in this paper are not available.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104426.
References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association,
National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). In Standards for educational
and psychological testing. American educational research association. National Council
on Measurement in Education.
Bastian, A., Kaiser, G., Meyer, D., Schwarz, B., & König, J. (2022). Teacher noticing and
its growth toward expertise: An expert–novice comparison with pre-service and in-
service secondary mathematics teachers. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 110(2),
205–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10128-y
Baumert, J., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Dubberke, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., et al.
(2008). Professionswissen von Lehrkräften, kognitiv aktivierender Mathematikunterricht
J. Weyers et al.
und die Entwicklung von mathematischer Kompetenz (COACTIV): Dokumentation der
Erhebungsinstrumente [Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and
professional competence of teachers: Documentation of the survey instruments. Max-
Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung.
Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2013). The COACTIV model of teachers’ professional
competence. In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, &
M. Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional
competence of teachers (pp. 25–48). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-
5149-5_2.
Berliner, D. C. (1992). The nature of expertise in teaching. In F. K. Oser, A. Dick, & J.-
L. Patry (Eds.), Effective and responsible teaching: The new synthesis (pp. 227–248).
Jossey-Bass.
Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J.-E., & Shavelson, R. J. (2015). Beyond dichotomies:
Competence viewed as a continuum. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(1), 3–13. https://
doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000194
Bond, T. G., Yan, Z., & Heene, M. (2020). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental
measurement in the human sciences (4th ed.). Routledge.
Borko, H., Roberts, S. A., & Shavelson, R. (2008). Teachers’ decision making: From Alan
J. Bishop to today. In P. Clarkson, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Critical issues in mathematics
education (pp. 37–67). Springer.
Borko, H., & Shavelson, R. J. (1990). Teacher decision making. In B. F. Jones, & L. Idol
(Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 311–346). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Brühwiler, C., Hollenstein, L., Affolter, B., Biedermann, H., & Oser, F. (2017). Welches
Wissen ist unterrichtsrelevant? Prädiktive Validität dreier Messinstrumente zur
Erfassung des pädagogisch-psychologischen Wissens von Lehrpersonen: [What
knowledge is relevant to teaching? Predictive validity of three instruments for
measuring general pedagogical knowledge of teachers]. Zeitschrift für
Bildungsforschung, 7(3), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s35834-017-0196-1
Carter, K., Cushing, K., Sabers, D., Stein, P., & Berliner, D. (1988). Expert-novice
differences in perceiving and processing visual classroom information. Journal of
Teacher Education, 39(3), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718803900306
Choy, B. H., & Dindyal, J. (2020). Teacher noticing, mathematics. In M. A. Peters (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of teacher education (living). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
981-13-1179-6_241-1.
Christiansen, I. M., & Erixon, E.-L. (2021). Opportunities to learn mathematics pedagogy
and learning to teach mathematics in Swedish mathematics teacher education: A
survey of student experiences. European Journal of Teacher Education, 1–19. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.2019216
Demiraslan Çevik, Y., & Andre, T. (2014). Studying the impact of three different
instructional methods on preservice teachers’ decision-making. Research Papers in
Education, 29(1), 44–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2012.742923
Doyle, W. (1979). Chapter II: Making managerial decisions in classrooms. Teachers
College Record, 80(6), 42–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146817908000602
Doyle, W. (2006). Ecological approaches to classroom management. In C. M. Evertson, &
C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and
contemporary issues (pp. 97–125). Routledge.
Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of classroom management:
Research, practice, and contemporary issues. Routledge.
Floden, R. (2002). The measurement of opportunity to learn. In National Research
Council (Ed.), Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of education
achievement (pp. 231–266). National Academies Press.
Flores, M. A. (2016). Teacher education curriculum. In J. Loughran, & M. L. Hamilton
(Eds.), International handbook of teacher education (pp. 187–230). Springer. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0366-0_5.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The
broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3),
218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
Frenzel, A. C. (2014). Teacher emotions. In R. Pekrun, & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.),
Educational psychology handbook series. International handbook of emotions in education
(pp. 494–518). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Gaspard, H., & Lauermann, F. (2021). Emotionally and motivationally supportive
classrooms: A state-trait analysis of lesson- and classroom-specific variation in
teacher- and student-reported teacher enthusiasm and student engagement. Learning
and Instruction, 75, Article 101494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2021.101494
Gerhard, K., Jäger-Biela, D. J., & König, J. (2023). Opportunities to learn, technological
pedagogical knowledge, and personal factors of pre-service teachers: Understanding
the link between teacher education program characteristics and student teacher
learning outcomes in times of digitalization. Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft, 26,
653–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-023-01162-y. advance online
publication.
Gippert, C., Hörter, P., Junker, R., & Holodynski, M. (2022). Professional vision of
teaching as a focus-specific or focus-integrated skill: Conceptual considerations and
video-based assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117, Article 103797.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103797
Gold, B., & Holodynski, M. (2015). Development and construct validation of a situational
judgment test of strategic knowledge of classroom management in elementary
Schools. Educational Assessment, 20(3), 226–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10627197.2015.1062087
Gold, B., & Holodynski, M. (2017). Using digital video to measure the professional vision
of elementary classroom management: Test validation and methodological
challenges. Computers & Education, 107, 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2016.12.012
Gold, B., Pfirrmann, C., & Holodynski, M. (2021). Promoting professional vision of
classroom management through different analytic perspectives in video-based
14
Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104426
learning environments. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(4), 431–447. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022487120963681
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.
Helmke, A. (2022). Unterrichtsqualität und Professionalisierung: Diagnostik von Lehr-Lern-
Prozessen und evidenzbasierte Unterrichtsentwicklung [Instructional quality and
professionalization: diagnostics of teaching-learning processes and evidence-based
development of teaching]. Klett Kallmeyer.
Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s
mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2),
169–202. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.41.2.0169
Jamil, F. M., Sabol, T. J., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2015). Assessing teachers’ skills
in detecting and identifying effective interactions in the classroom. The Elementary
School Journal, 115(3), 407–432. https://doi.org/10.1086/680353
Jones, V. (2006). How do teachers learn to be effective classroom managers? In
C. M. Evertson, & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management:
Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 887–907). Routledge.
Kaiser, G., Busse, A., Hoth, J., König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2015). About the complexities of
video-based assessments: Theoretical and methodological approaches to overcoming
shortcomings of research on teachers’ competence. International Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-
9616-7
Kaiser, G., & König, J. (2019). Competence measurement in (mathematics) teacher
education and beyond: Implications for policy. Higher Education Policy, 32(4),
597–615. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-019-00139-z
Kasperski, R., & Yariv, E. (2022). Gut reaction or rational problem-solving? Teachers’
considerations when coping with classroom disruptions. Emotional & Behavioural
Difficulties, 27(2), 152–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2022.2125210
Kersting, N. B. (2008). Using video clips of mathematics classroom instruction as item
prompts to measure teachers’ knowledge of teaching mathematics. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 68(5), 845–861. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013164407313369
Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K. B., Sotelo, F. L., & Stigler, J. W. (2010). Teachers’ analyses of
classroom video predict student learning of mathematics: Further explorations of a
novel measure of teacher knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2),
172–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347875
König, J. (2014). Designing an international instrument to assess teachers’ general
pedagogical knowledge (GPK): Review of studies, considerations, and
recommendations. In Technical paper prepared for the OECD innovative teaching for
effective learning (ITEL) - phase II project: A survey to profile the pedagogical knowledge
in the teaching profession (ITEL teacher knowledge survey). OECD. https://one.oecd.
org/document/EDU/CERI/CD/RD(2014)3/REV1/en/pdf.
König, J. (2015). Measuring classroom management expertise (CME) of teachers: A
video-based assessment approach and statistical results. Cogent Education, 2(1),
Article 991178. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2014.991178
König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2010). Pädagogisches Unterrichtswissen (PUW): Dokumentation
der Kurzfassung des TEDS-M Testinstruments zur Kompetenzmessung in der ersten Phase
der Lehrerausbildung [General pedagogical knowledge: Documentation of the short version
of the TEDS-M test instrument for competence measurement in the first phase of teacher
education]. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität.
König, J., Blömeke, S., Jentsch, A., Schlesinger, L., née Nehls, C. F., Musekamp, F., et al.
(2021). The links between pedagogical competence, instructional quality, and
mathematics achievement in the lower secondary classroom. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 107(1), 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-10021-0
König, J., Blömeke, S., Klein, P., Suhl, U., Busse, A., & Kaiser, G. (2014). Is teachers’
general pedagogical knowledge a premise for noticing and interpreting classroom
situations? A video-based assessment approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38,
76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.004
König, J., Blömeke, S., Paine, L., Schmidt, W. H., & Hsieh, F.-J. (2011). General
pedagogical knowledge of future middle school teachers: On the complex ecology of
teacher education in the United States, Germany, and Taiwan. Journal of Teacher
Education, 62(2), 188–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110388664
König, J., Ligtvoet, R., Klemenz, S., & Rothland, M. (2017). Effects of opportunities to
learn in teacher preparation on future teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge:
Analyzing program characteristics and outcomes. Studies In Educational Evaluation,
53, 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.03.001
König, J., Santagata, R., Scheiner, T., Adleff, A.-K., Yang, X., & Kaiser, G. (2022). Teacher
noticing: A systematic literature review of conceptualizations, research designs, and
findings on learning to notice. Educational Research Review, 36, Article 100453.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100453
König, J., & Seifert, A. (Eds.). (2012). Lehramtsstudierende erwerben pädagogisches
Professionswissen: Ergebnisse der Längsschnittstudie LEK zur Wirksamkeit der
erziehungswissenschaftlichen Lehrerausbildung. Waxmann.
König, J., Tachtsoglou, S., Darge, K., & Lünnemann, M. (2014). Zur Nutzung von Praxis:
Modellierung und Validierung lernprozessbezogener Tätigkeiten von angehenden
Lehrkräften im Rahmen ihrer schulpraktischen Ausbildung [On the use of practice:
Modeling and validating future teachers’ learning process related activities during
in-school opportunities to learn]. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 4(1), 3–22. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s35834-013-0084-2
Krauss, S., Bruckmaier, G., Lindl, A., Hilbert, S., Binder, K., Steib, N., et al. (2020).
Competence as a continuum in the COACTIV study: The “cascade model”. ZDM-
Mathematics Education, 52(2), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-
01151-z
Kunter, M. (2013). Motivation as an aspect of professional competence: Research
findings on teacher enthusiasm. In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann,
S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and
J. Weyers et al.
professional competence of teachers (pp. 273–289). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-1-4614-5149-5_13.
Kunter, M., Baumert, J., & Köller, O. (2007). Effective classroom management and the
development of subject-related interest. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 494–509.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.002
Kunter, M., Frenzel, A., Nagy, G., Baumert, J., & Pekrun, R. (2011). Teacher enthusiasm:
Dimensionality and context specificity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4),
289–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.07.001
Kunter, M., Kleickmann, T., Klusmann, U., & Richter, D. (2013). The development of
teachers’ professional competence. In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann,
S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and
professional competence of teachers (pp. 63–78). Springer.
Lampert, J., Burnett, B., Comber, B., Ferguson, A., & Barnes, N. (2020). ‘It’s not about
punitive’: Exploring how early-career teachers in high-poverty schools respond to
critical incidents. Critical Studies in Education, 61(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17508487.2017.1385500
Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., & van de Grift, W. (2016). Validating a model of effective
teaching behaviour of pre-service teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 23(4), 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1211102.
Mertens, S., & Gräsel, C. (2018). Entwicklungsbereiche bildungswissenschaftlicher
Kompetenzen von Lehramtsstudierenden im Praxissemester [The development of
educational competences during long-term internships in teacher education].
Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 21(6), 1109–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11618-018-0825-z
Meschede, N., Fiebranz, A., Möller, K., & Steffensky, M. (2017). Teachers’ professional
vision, pedagogical content knowledge and beliefs: On its relation and differences
between pre-service and in-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66,
158–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.010
Müller, M. M., & Gold, B. (2023). Videobasierte Erfassung wissensbasierten Verarbeitens
als Teilprozess der professionellen Unterrichtswahrnehmung – Analyse eines
geschlossenen und offenen Verfahrens [Video-based measurements of knowledge-
based reasoning as a process of professional vision—analysis of a closed and open
task format]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 26(1), 7–29. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11618-022-01128-6
Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (1998–2006). MPlus (version 4.2) [Computer software]. Los
Angeles, CA.
O’Neill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2012). Does classroom management coursework influence
pre-service teachers’ perceived preparedness or confidence? Teaching and Teacher
Education, 28(8), 1131–1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.008
Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., & Bryant, A. N. (2003). Assessing response rates and
nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44(4),
409–432. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024232915870
Schmidt, W. H., Cogan, L., & Houang, R. (2011). The role of opportunity to learn in
teacher preparation: An international context. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2),
138–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110391987
Schmidt, W. H., Houang, R. T., Cogan, L., Blömeke, S., Tatto, M. T., Hsieh, F. J., et al.
(2008). Opportunity to learn in the preparation of mathematics teachers: Its
structure and how it varies across six countries. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 40(5),
735–747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0115-y
Seidel, T., & Stürmer, K. (2014). Modeling and measuring the structure of professional
vision in preservice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 51(4), 739–771.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214531321
15
View publication stats
Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104426
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-
experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts,
judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455–498.
Stahnke, R., & Blömeke, S. (2021). Novice and expert teachers’ situation-specific skills
regarding classroom management: What do they perceive, interpret and suggest?
Teaching and Teacher Education, 98, Article 103243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2020.103243
Stürmer, K., Könings, K. D., & Seidel, T. (2015). Factors within university-based teacher
education relating to preservice teachers’ professional vision. Vocations and Learning,
8(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-014-9122-z
Stürmer, K., Seidel, T., & Schäfer, S. (2013). Changes in professional vision in the context
of practice. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 44(3), 339–355. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11612-013-0216-0
Tatto, M. T., Peck, R., Schwille, J., Bankov, K., Senk, S. L., Rodriguez, M., et al. (2012).
Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics in 17
countries: Findings from the IEA teacher education and development study in mathematics.
ERIC: TEDS-M).
Todorova, M., Sunder, C., Steffensky, M., & Möller, K. (2017). Pre-service teachers’
professional vision of instructional support in primary science classes: How content-
specific is this skill and which learning opportunities in initial teacher education are
relevant for its acquisition? Teaching and Teacher Education, 68, 275–288. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.08.016
Voss, T., Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2011). Assessing teacher candidates’ general
pedagogical/psychological knowledge: Test construction and validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 103(4), 952–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025125
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for
school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249–294. https://doi.org/
10.3102/00346543063003249
Weber, K. E., Gold, B., Prilop, C. N., & Kleinknecht, M. (2018). Promoting pre-service
teachers’ professional vision of classroom management during practical school
training: Effects of a structured online- and video-based self-reflection and feedback
intervention. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2018.08.008
Weyers, J., König, J., Santagata, R., Scheiner, T., & Kaiser, G. (2023). Measuring teacher
noticing: A scoping review of standardized instruments. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 122, Article 103970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103970
Wiens, P. D., Hessberg, K., LoCasale-Crouch, J., & DeCoster, J. (2013). Using a
standardized video-based assessment in a university teacher education program to
examine preservice teachers knowledge related to effective teaching. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 33, 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.01.010
Wolff, C. E., Jarodzka, H., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2017). See and tell: Differences between
expert and novice teachers’ interpretations of problematic classroom management
events. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2017.04.015
Wolff, C. E., van den Bogert, N., Jarodzka, H., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2015). Keeping an
Eye on learning: Differences between expert and novice teachers’ representations of
classroom management events. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 68–85. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0022487114549810
Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., & Wilson, M. R. (1997). ConQuest [Computer software].
Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.