Putting Educational Knowledge of Prospective Teachers to the Test

Further Development and Validation of the BilWiss Test
  • M. KunterEmail author
  • O. Kunina-Habenicht
  • D. Holzberger
  • D. Leutner
  • C. Maurer
  • T. Seidel
  • K. Wolf


Teachers’ generic educational knowledge theoretically constitutes an aspect of their professional competence. However, empirical evidence for its importance for teachers’ daily practice is scarce. In this chapter, we describe findings from the BilWiss research program, which aimed to investigate the development and relevance of the type of generic educational knowledge typically addressed in university teacher education. We developed a standardized test that assesses generic knowledge in the following six domains: learning and development, instruction, assessment, educational theory (and history), school system and educational policy, and the teaching profession. We present findings from a series of studies that (a) provide evidence for the validity of the test score interpretations and (b) prove the predictive value of this test for diverse professional activities. These results are discussed regarding their theoretical and practical implications for teacher education.


Educational knowledge pedagogical knowledge assessment knowledge test; validity teacher education test development 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty Years Later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), pp. 1405–1416. doi:10.1080/09500690802187041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alles, M., Apel, J., Seidel, T., & Stürmer, K. (2018). Candidate Teachers Experience Coherence in University Education and Teacher Induction: the Influence of Perceived Professional Preparation at University and Support during Teacher Induction. Vocations and Learning, 6(2). doi:10.1007/s12186–018-9211–5Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, J., Diercks, U., Rösler, L., Möller, J., & Prenzel, M. (2012). Lehramtsausbildung in Deutschland: Wie groß ist die strukturelle Vielfalt? [Teacher Education in Germany: How Big is the Structual Variety?]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 40(2), pp. 101–120.Google Scholar
  4. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., . . . Tsai, Y.-M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47, (pp. 133–180). doi:10.3102/0002831209345157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J.-E., & Shavelson, R. (2015). Beyond dichotomies: Competence viewed as a continuum. Journal of Psychology, 223(1), 3–13. doi:10.1027/2151–2604/a000194doi:10.1027/2151–2604/a000194Google Scholar
  6. Choy, D., Wong, A., Lim, K., & Chong, S. (2013). Beginning Teachers’ Perceptions of their Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills in Teaching: A Three Year Study. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(5). doi:10.14221/ajte.2013v38n5.6Google Scholar
  7. Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2005). Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  8. Council for Social Foundations of Education (CSFE). (1996). Standards for Academic and Professional Instruction in Foundations of Education, Educational Studies, and Educational Policy Studies. Access: 20 August 2019.Google Scholar
  9. Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in Teacher Preparation: How Well Do Different Pathways Prepare Teachers To Teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), pp. 286–302. doi:10.1177/0022487102053004002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dawson, D., Mazurek, K., & Deyoung, A. J. (1984). Courses in the social foundations of education: The students’ view. Journal of Education for Teaching; International Research and Pedagogy, 10(3), pp. 242–248. doi:10.1080/0260747840100305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: A systematic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics educational research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, pp. 12–25. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dicke, T., Parker, P. D., Holzberger, D., Kunina-Habenicht, O., Kunter, M., & Leutner, D. (2015a). Beginning teachers’ efficacy and emotional exhaustion: Latent changes, reciprocity, and the influence of professional knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, pp. 62–72. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dicke, T., Schmeck, A., Elling, J., & Leutner, D. (2015b). Reducing Reality Shock: The Effects of Classroom Management Skills Training on Beginning Teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 48, pp. 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.01.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EURYDICE. (2002). The teaching profession in Europe: Profile, trends, and concerns. Report I: Initial training and transition to working life. General lower secondary education. Grossman, P. L., & Richert, A. E. (1988). Unacknowledged knowledge growth: A re-examination of the effects of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), pp. 53–62. doi:–051X(88)90024–8Google Scholar
  15. Guerriero, S. (Ed.). (2017). Pedagogical Knowledge and the Changing Nature of the Teaching Profession. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Harr, N., Eichler, A., & Renkl, A. (2015). Integrated learning: ways of fostering the applicability of teachers’ pedagogical and psychological knowledge. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(p. 738). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00738Google Scholar
  17. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Loewenberg Ball, D. (2005). Effects of Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching on Student Achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), pp. 371–406.Google Scholar
  18. Hohenstein, F., Zimmermann, F., Kleickmann, T., Köller, O., & Möller, J. (2014). Sind die bildungswissenschaftlichen Standards für die Lehramtsausbildung in den Curricula der Hochschulen angekommen? [Have the education standards for teacher training programmes arrived in the university curriculum?] Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17(3), pp. 497–507. doi:10.1007/s11618–014-0563–9Google Scholar
  19. Hollins, E. R. (2011). Teacher Preparation For Quality Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), pp. 395–407. doi:10.1177/0022487111409415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kennedy, M. M., Ahn, S., & Choi, J. (2008). The value added by teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (3 ed., pp. 1249–1273). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. König, J., & Pfanzl, B. (2016). Is teacher knowledge associated with performance? On the relationship between teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge and instructional quality. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), pp. 419–436. doi:10.1080/02619768.20 16.1214128Google Scholar
  22. König, J., Bloemeke, 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, pp. 76–88.Google Scholar
  23. Kunina-Habenicht, O., Maurer, C., Wolf, K., Holzberger, D., Schmidt, M., Dicke, T., Teuber, Z., Koc-Januchta, M., Lohse-Bossenz, H., Leutner, D., Seidel, T. & Kunter, M. (2020). Der BilWiss-2.0-Test: Ein revidierter Test zur Erfassung des bildungswissenschaftlichen Wissens von (angehenden) Lehrkräften. Diagnostica. doi: 10.1026/0012-1924/a000238Google Scholar
  24. Kunina-Habenicht, O., Maurer, C., Schulze-Stocker, F., Wolf, K., Hein, N., Leutner, D., . . . Kunter, M. (2019). Zur curricularen Validität des BilWiss 2.0-Tests zur Erfassung des bildungswissenschaftlichen Wissens von (angehenden) Lehrkräften [On the curricular validity of the Bilwiss-2.0-Test for the assessment of (prospective) teachers’ educational knowledge]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 65(4), pp. 542–556.Google Scholar
  25. Kunina-Habenicht, O., Schulze-Stocker, F., Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Leutner, D., Förster, D., . . . Terhart, E. (2013). Die Bedeutung der Lerngelegenheiten im Lehramtsstudium und deren individuelle Nutzung für den Aufbau des bildungswissenschaftlichen Wissens [The Relevance of Learning Opportunities in Teacher Education Studies and their Individual Uptake for the Building of Educational Knowledge]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 59(1), pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
  26. Kunina-Habenicht, O., Lohse-Bossenz, H., Kunter, M., Dicke, T., Förster, D., Gößling, J., . . . Terhart, E. (2012). Welche bildungswissenschaftlichen Inhalte sind wichtig in der Lehrerbildung? Ergebnisse einer Delphi-Studie [Which educational topics are important for teacher training? – Results of a Delphi study]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15(4), pp. 649–682. doi:10.1007/s11618–012-0324–6Google Scholar
  27. Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), pp. 75–95. doi:10.1037/0022–0663.78.2.75Google Scholar
  28. Linninger, C., Ewald, S., Stürmer, K., Seidel, T., & Kunter, M. (2016). Educational knowledge: The groundwork for elaborate reflection? Paper presented at the Conference of EARLI Special Interest Group 11 (Teaching and Teacher Education), Zürich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  29. Linninger, C., Kunina-Habenicht, O., Emmenlauer, S., Dicke, T., Schulze-Stocker, F., Leutner, D., . . . Kunter, M. (2015). Assessing Teachers’ Educational Knowledge: Construct Specification and Validation Using Mixed Methods. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 47(2), pp. 72–83. doi:10.1026/0049–8637/a000126Google Scholar
  30. Linninger, C., Kunina-Habenicht, O., Leutner, D., Seidel, T., Terhart, E., & Kunter, M. (2015). Wer zeigt Engagement in der Schule? Individuelle Voraussetzungen proaktiven Verhaltens bei Lehrkräften [Who shows engagement in school? Individual prerequisites for teachers‘ proactive behaviors]. Paper presented at the Fachgruppentagung Pädagogische Psychologie (PAEPS), Kassel.Google Scholar
  31. Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  32. Lohse-Bossenz, H., Holzberger, D., Kunina-Habenicht, O., Seidel, T., & Kunter, M. (2018). Wie fach(un)abhängig ist bildungswissenschaftliches Wissen? – Messinvarianz und fachspezifische Unterschiede [How subject(un)-specific is educational knowledge? Measurement invariance and domain-specific differences]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 21 (5), pp. 991–1019. doi:10.1007/s11618–018-0817-zGoogle Scholar
  33. Lohse-Bossenz, H., Kunina-Habenicht, O., Dicke, T., Leutner, D., & Kunter, M. (2015). Teachers’ knowledge about psychology: Development and validation of a test measuring theoretical foundations for teaching and its relation to instructional behavior. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 44, pp. 36–49. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lohse-Bossenz, H., Kunina-Habenicht, O., & Kunter, M. (2013). The role of educational psychology in teacher education: Expert opinions on what teachers should know about learning, development, and assessment. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(4), pp. 1543–1565. doi:10.1007/s10212–013-0181–6Google Scholar
  35. Maurer, C., Ehlers, S., Wolf, K., Gartmeier, M., Hertel, S., & Kunter, M. (2018). Teachers’ professional vision in counseling situations: The development of a new assessment tool. Paper presented at the Conference of EARLI Special Interest Group 11 (Teaching and Teacher Education) Kristiansand, Norway.Google Scholar
  36. Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Bruening, P. S., & Duffin, L. C. (2011). The Role of Educational Psychology in Teacher Education: Three Challenges for Educational Psychologists. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), pp. 71–83. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.538648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), pp. 346–362.Google Scholar
  38. Rösler, L., Zimmermann, F., Bauer, J., Möller, J., & Köller, O. (2013). Interessieren sich Lehramtsstudierende für bildungswissenschaftliche Studieninhalte? Eine Längsschnittstudie vom ersten bis zum vierten Semester [Are teacher students interested in the content of educational foundation courses? A longitudinal study from the first to fourth semester]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 59(1), pp. 24–41.Google Scholar
  39. Schleicher, A. (2016). Teaching Excellence through Professional Learning and Policy Reform. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Schmidt, W. H., Cogan, L., & H ouang, R. (2011). The Role of Opportunity to Learn in Teacher Preparation: An International Context. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), pp. 138–153. doi:10.1177/0022487110391987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmidt, W. H., Houang, R., Cogan, L., Blömeke, S., Tatto, M., Hsieh, F., . . . Paine, L. (2008). Opportunity to learn in the preparation of mathematics teachers: its structure and how it varies across six countries. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(5), pp. 735–747. doi:10.1007/s11858–008-0115-yGoogle Scholar
  42. Schulze-Stocker, F. (2016). Die Normierung der Bildungswissenschaften: Wie reagierenGoogle Scholar
  43. lehrerausbildende Universitäten in Nordrhein-Westfalen auf neue administrative ben? [The standardization of educational foundation courses: Hiwow do teacher education universities in North Rhine Westfalia react to new administrative guidelines?] The Schule NRW, 9, pp. 18–21.Google Scholar
  44. Schulze-Stocker, F., Holzberger, D., & Lohse-Bossenz, H. (2017). Das bildungswissenschaftliche Curriculum – Zentrale Ergebnisse des BilWiss-Programms. [The educational foundation curriculum – Key findings of the BilWiss program.] Das Hochschulwesen, 65(4+5), pp. 134–138.Google Scholar
  45. Schulze-Stocker, F., Holzberger, D., Kunina-Habenicht, O., Terhart, E., & Kunter, M. (2016). Spielen Studienschwerpunkte wirklich eine Rolle? Zum Zusammenhang von bildungswissenschaftlichen Studienschwerpunkten, selbsteingeschätzten Kenntnissen und gemessenem Wissen am Ende eines Lehramtsstudiums [Are educational foundation courses truly important? The relation between the course selection in educational foundations, self-assessed knowledge, and knowledge measured by a test at the end of university teacher education]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 19(3), pp. 599–623. doi:10.1007/s11618–016-0671–9Google Scholar
  46. Seidel, T., Stürmer, K., Prenzel, M., Jahn, G., & Schäfer, S. (2017). Investigating pre-service teachers’ professional vision within university-based teacher education. In D. Leutner, J. Fleischer, J. Grünkorn, & E. Klieme (Eds.), Competence assessment in education – research, models and instruments (pp. 93–110). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), pp. 4–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sonmark, K., Révai, N., Gottschalk, F., Deligiannidi, K., & Burns, T. (2017). Understanding Teachers’ Pedagogical Knowledge: Report on an International Pilot Study. OECD Education Working Papers (Vol. 159). Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Ständige Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (KMK). (2014). Standards für die Lehrerbildung: Bildungswissenschaften [Standards for teacher education: Educational foundation studies]. Access: 29.07.2019.Google Scholar
  50. Stürmer, K., & Seidel, T. (2015). Assessing Professional Vision in Teacher Candidates. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(1), pp. 54–63. doi:10.1027/2151–2604/a000200Google Scholar
  51. Terhart, E., Lohmann, V., & Seidel, V. (2010). Die bildungswissenschaftlichen Studien in der universitären Lehrerbildung. Eine Analyse aktueller Studienordnungen und Modelhandbücher an Universitäten in Nordrhein-Westfalen [The educational foundation coureses in university teacher education. An analysis of current study regulations at universities in North Rhine Westfalia]. Unpublished report. Institute of Educational Science. Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster.Google Scholar
  52. Tozer, S. E., & McAninch, S. (1986). Social Foundations of Education in Historical Perspective. Educational Foundations, 1(1), pp. 3–32.Google Scholar
  53. Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54(2), pp. 143–178. doi:10.3102/00346543054002143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Voss, T., Kunina-Habenicht, O., Hoehne, V., & Kunter, M. (2015). Stichwort Pädagogisches Wissen von Lehrkräften: Empirische Zugänge und Befunde [Keyword: Teachers‘ Educational Knowledge: Emprical Approaches and Findings]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 18(2), pp. 187–223. doi:10.1007/s11618–015-0626–6Google Scholar
  55. Voss, T., Kunter, M., Seiz, J., Hoehne, V., & Baumert, J. (2014). Die Bedeutung des pädagogisch psychologischen Wissens von angehenden Lehrkräften für die Unterrichtsqualität [. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 60(2), pp. 184–201.Google Scholar
  56. Wilson, S., & Floden, R. E. (2003). Creating Effective Teachers: Concise Answers for Hard Questions. An Addendum to the Report “Teacher Preparation Research: Current Knowledge, Gaps, and Recommendations. . Access: 29 July 2019.Google Scholar
  57. Wilson, S., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002). Teacher preparation research: An insider’s view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 190–204. doi:10.1177/0022487102053003002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilson, S., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations, A research report prepared for the U.S. Department of Education.–2001.pdf. Access: 29 July 2019.Google Scholar
  59. Wolf, K. (2019). Individuelle Unterschiede auf dem Weg zur Lehrkraft: Die Bedeu-tung persönlicher Eingangsvoraussetzungen für den Studien- und Be-rufserfolg von (angehenden) Lehrkräften [Individual differences in the route towards becoming a teacher: The relevance of personal prerequisites for the study and job succes of (future) teachers]. (PhD thesis, Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main, Germany).Google Scholar
  60. Wong, A. F., Chong, S., Choy, D., Wong, I. Y., & Goh, K. C. (2008). A Comparison of Perceptions of Knowledge and Skills Held by Primary and Secondary Teachers: From the Entry to Exit of Their Preservice Programme. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3). doi:10.14221/ajte.2008v33n3.6Google Scholar
  61. Zeichner, K. M. (2006). Reflections of a University-Based Teacher Educator on the Future of College- and University-Based Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), pp. 326–340. doi:10.1177/0022487105285893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zeichner, K. M. (2005). A research agenda for teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 737–760). Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Kunter
    • 1
    Email author
  • O. Kunina-Habenicht
    • 2
  • D. Holzberger
    • 3
  • D. Leutner
    • 4
  • C. Maurer
    • 5
  • T. Seidel
    • 3
  • K. Wolf
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für PsychologieGoethe-Universität Frankfurt am MainFrankfurt am MainGermany
  2. 2.Institut für Bildungswissenschaftliche ForschungsmethodenPädagogische Hochschule KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany
  3. 3.TUM School of EducationTechnische Universität MünchenMünchenGermany
  4. 4.Fakultät für BildungswissenschaftenUniversität Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany
  5. 5.Goethe-Universität FrankfurtFrankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations