Teachers and Teaching

theory and practice

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ctat20

What constitutes teachers’ general pedagogical

knowledge and how it can be assessed: A
literature review

Äli Leijen, Liina Malva, Margus Pedaste & Rain Mikser

To cite this article: Äli Leijen, Liina Malva, Margus Pedaste & Rain Mikser (2022) What
constitutes teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge and how it can be assessed: A literature
review, Teachers and Teaching, 28:2, 206-225, DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2022.2062710

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2022.2062710

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 10 Apr 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4498

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctat20
TEACHERS AND TEACHING
2022, VOL. 28, NO. 2, 206–225
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2022.2062710

What constitutes teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge

and how it can be assessed: A literature review
a
Äli Leijen , Liina Malvaa, Margus Pedaste a
and Rain Miksera,b
a
Institute of Education, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia; bInstitute of Education, University of Tallinn,
Tallinn, Estonia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Teachers’ knowledge has been an important research focus for Received 05 June 2018
many decades. Although many empirical studies have been Accepted 27 March 2022
carried out regarding content knowledge and pedagogical con­ KEYWORDS
tent knowledge, less attention has been paid to general peda­ General pedagogical
gogical knowledge (GPK). The focus of this study is the knowledge; pedagogical
exploration of different definitions and dimensions of GPK and knowledge; teacher
how it has been assessed. A systematic literature review was knowledge; literature review
conducted on the EBSCOhost Web following the PRISMA guide­
lines. The search and evaluation of eligibility criteria resulted in
23 articles. The results show that the definitions of GPK cover
three broad areas: student-related, teaching-related and contex­
tual characteristics. However, the scope of GPK in the empirical
studies is more narrow, focusing mainly on student-related and
teaching-related dimensions. The results also showed that GPK
has been assessed through teachers’ own perceptions and,
recently, by measuring it with tests. These findings are further
discussed and a framework for analysing, developing and asses­
sing teachers’ GPK in further studies is proposed.

Introduction
Questions about what a teacher should know have concerned educationalists since
the early days of formal schooling (Gutek, 2011). The 1980s saw a new boost in
attention to the knowledge base of the teaching profession in the Anglo-Saxon
world, initiated by Shulman (1986, 1987). Shulman (1987) argued that the contem­
porary psychology-based research tradition on teaching is one-sidedly oriented
towards teachers’ behavioural aspects, but neglects important questions about the
subject matter and content of instruction. Shulman called for a comprehensive and
balanced organisation of teachers’ knowledge base. He proposed a list of knowledge
categories that included: (a) content knowledge, (b) general pedagogical knowledge,
(c) curriculum knowledge, (d) pedagogical content knowledge, (e) knowledge of
learners and their characteristics, (f) knowledge of educational contexts, and (g)
knowledge of educational ends, purposes and values (Shulman, 1987).

CONTACT Äli Leijen ali.leijen@ut.ee Institute of Education University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med­
ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 207

Shulman (ibid) noted that although his categorisation required further specification,
he did not aim to elucidate it thoroughly in his paper. Indeed, although Shulman’s
proposal has been highly influential in general, the degree to which the different
categories have attracted further research varies considerably. Drawing on Shulman,
many authors have highlighted what they see as the three ‘core’ categories in Shulman’s
classification: content knowledge (CK; knowledge of the subject), pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK; knowledge about teaching and learning a specific subject) and
general pedagogical knowledge (GPK; knowledge not specific to a certain subject;
Baumert et al., 2010; König et al., 2016; Merk et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2018). Of
these three categories, CK dominated the study of teachers’ knowledge for many
centuries (Shulman, 1986), whereas PCK has by far received the greatest attention
during the years since Shulman’s proposal (Kansanen, 2009; Ulferts, 2019). There is
a large body of empirical studies conducted on CK and PCK (e.g., Anderson & Clark,
2012; Ball et al., 2008; Hashweh, 2005). What several authors have observed as lacking
sufficient attention is research on general pedagogical principles or, in Shulman’s
terms, GPK (Atjonen et al., 2011; Buchberger & Buchberger, 1999; Depaepe et al.,
2020; König et al., 2016). Such inattention has led to the risk of narrowing the issues
actually related to GPK down to the subject-specific, i.e. PCK, level. Shulman (1987)
defined GPK as ‘ . . . knowledge, with special reference to those broad principles and
strategies of classroom management and organization that appear to transcend subject
matter.’ Seen this way, GPK also has, albeit at a different level, a content of its own,
which is not to be confused with or narrowed down to PCK. The risks of an
imbalanced focus on the subject-specific are clearly described by Buchberger and
Buchberger (1999), keeping in mind that several authors (Depaepe et al., 2013;
Kansanen, 2009) have referred to essential parallels between Shulman’s ‘core’ cate­
gories and the German-originated concepts of general didactics and subject didactics.
Referring to the constant tension between these two concepts, Buchberger and
Buchberger (1999) warn: ‘In many cases a tendency to isolate particular
Fachdidaktiken from closely related ones, as well as a certain lack of integration may
be observed—the individual learner might get lost, while expectations of a particular
Fachdidaktik related to an academic discipline and its structures might become pre­
dominant [. . .]. The frequently used justification of particular Fachdidaktiken, that
they had to provide scientifically validated knowledge for different school subjects as
defined by education politicians in (national) syllabi/curricula, could well give an
impression of superficiality.’ Buchberger and Buchberger (ibid) call for closer integra­
tion between different subject-specific areas and their knowledge base.
Whether and to what degree this caution holds true for any particular context is, of
course, a matter for separate empirical research and discussion. For our purposes, it is
relevant to highlight the importance of a further elaboration of the GPK: a more
precise definition of its meaning and content, and the opportunities and limitations of
its application. The aim of our study is to clarify, by a systematic literature review, how
the GPK of teachers has been defined, what kind of knowledge constitutes GPK
(hereafter referred to as dimensions of GPK) and what the different ways to assess
GPK are. Our initial search and screening of the articles indicated that although
a significant number of articles deal with GPK, there are no systematic literature
reviews that provide generalisations on the concept. The contribution of the current
208 Ä. LEIJEN ET AL.

literature review to future research lies in the synthesis of previous studies. This
provides the opportunity for better operationalisation of the concept in order to
contribute to supporting teachers’ professional development. We formulated the fol­
lowing research questions:
(1) How can the concept general pedagogical knowledge be defined on the basis of
existing studies?
(2) Which dimensions of teachers’ GPK can be distinguished?
(3) Which methods have been used to assess teachers’ GPK?

Methods
A systematic literature review method (see e.g., Higgins et al., 2019) was chosen to
answer the research questions. A systematic review makes it possible to synthesise
information about a specific issue that has been sufficiently studied in previous
research without generalisations being made based on these studies. It has been
pointed out that a simple description of the current status of research done on
a particular topic is not sufficient for a good review (Gruber et al., 2020). Thus, the
aim of using a systematic literature review is to extend existing knowledge through
authors’ contributions to the fields of study. Therefore, we first planned a systematic
search of articles and then a systematic analysis of these articles in order to understand
the diversity in the definitions of the concept of GPK. Next, we aimed to provide
a definition of GPK that would synthesise the most important characteristics of
definitions used for GPK in previous studies. In addition, we found that there was
particular value in providing an overview of the major dimensions of GPK studied in
previous studies since these could be further used to systematically support and assess
teachers’ GPK. Finally, we also aimed to describe by systematic analysis how GPK
could be assessed in our study.

Literature search
Articles were searched for using the EBSCOhost Web service (search.ebscohost.com),
which is one of the largest collections of databases of academic sources. The databases
accessed through the EBSCOhost Web search engine were Academic Search Complete,
ERIC, E-journals, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO and Teacher Reference Center. They cover
almost all articles in other major databases, e.g., in the Web of Science. The keyword used
for the search was: ‘pedagogical knowledge’ not ‘general pedagogical knowledge’. We
omitted the word ‘general’, assuming that in some studies the difference between
pedagogical knowledge and GPK would not have been made and the usage of ‘pedago­
gical knowledge’ would also reveal studies on GPK. Moreover, some studies have used
the word ‘generic’ instead of, or interchangeably with, ‘general’ (Baumert et al., 2010;
Tröbst et al., 2019). We intentionally did not include the name ‘Shulman’ among the
keywords, which enabled us to detect articles that relied on other sources than Shulman
in discussing GPK. However, we understood that some studies might focus on the
concept of GPK even without using the term ‘pedagogical knowledge’, for example,
simply using the term ‘teacher knowledge’. Our initial search with the term ‘teacher
knowledge’ in the abstracts of the articles revealed more than three thousand articles and
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 209

according to initial screening most of the found articles did not provide useful informa­
tion to answer our research questions. Therefore, we decided to narrow the focus to the
term ‘pedagogical knowledge’.
The procedure of the literature search and selection is displayed in Figure 1. The
abstracts and titles of the articles were searched for by the keyword, and the availability of
the full text of an article was set as an eligibility criterion. The search was performed on
2 November 2016 among articles published from 1996 to 2016. The search was limited to
papers in peer-reviewed academic journals and published in English. The search revealed
441 articles.
The first round of article selection was done by screening the abstracts. Three inclu­
sion criteria were used:

(1) the subjects of the articles had to be pre-service teachers or in-service teachers of
preschool or general school education;
(2) the focus of the articles had to be on knowledge (it was not specified at this point
that the article had to focus on GPK, as it was decided that is was too restrictive at
the level of abstracts); and
(3) the articles had to report empirical studies.

All articles that corresponded to the three criteria were selected for further analysis at
the level of full texts. We excluded articles that focused on teaching methods, school
curricula or other aspects but which only marginally concerned teachers’ knowledge.
Sixty-four articles out of 441 remained for the second round of selection.

Figure 1. Flowchart of search and screening process according to the PRISMA guidelines (Moher,
Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & the PRISMA Group, 2009)
210 Ä. LEIJEN ET AL.

For the second round of selection and the screening of full texts, the second inclusion
criterion was specified. The inclusion criteria were:

(1) the subjects of the articles had to be pre-service teachers or in-service teachers of
preschool or general school education;
(2) the focus of the articles had to be on general pedagogical knowledge (providing
information about definition, dimensions and/or assessment of GPK); and
(3) the articles had to report empirical studies.

The second criterion eliminated articles that focused on teachers’ content knowledge
and pedagogical content knowledge. Some studies focused on a specific sample
group (e.g., mathematics teachers). In such cases, we checked that the measure of
GPK used in those studies could still be applied to different subjects, meaning it
would not get mixed with PCK. In order to do so, the theoretical backgrounds and
definitions of GPK in those articles were studied closely before including those
articles in the sample. Altogether, 23 articles remained for the analysis.
Next, an analytical framework derived from the research questions was com­
posed. For the first research question, the description and/or definition of the
concept general pedagogical knowledge was checked both in terms of the content
and the theory used in the analysed articles. A qualitative content analysis was
conducted, using QCAmap software. The definitions were carefully analysed in
order to determine the characteristics of GPK definitions (codes). They were further
divided into larger themes (categories).
For the second research question, the dimensions of GPK were found. In addition, it
was analysed whether the study focused on determining the dimensions or if the
dimensions were retrieved from another study. The dimensions found in content analysis
were further divided by the authors of the paper into categories.
To answer the third research question, we investigated the instruments used in the
analysed studies to measure GPK. The type of approach and the instrument were
determined. In addition to that, the quality indicators of the instrument were assessed.

Results
The 23 articles revealed through our search were published by 11 teams of authors
(see, Table 1). Out of the 23 articles, nine were written by one team, led by
Johannes König. Although for one of these articles (Blömeke et al., 2016b) König
was not a co-author, the leading author of this paper, Blömeke, co-authored three
other articles led by König, which allowed us to categorise the paper in this group.
Another group, represented with three articles, appeared to form around Doris
Choy, the leading author of two papers, and one of the three co-authors of all
three papers. Two Gatbonton (1999, 2008) and Hudson (2004, 2007), were both
represented with two single-authored papers. Other authors, or teams, had one
paper each in our sample.
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 211

Table 1. The coding of the articles.

Instrument
Dimensions Paper Measuring for
Instrument of GPK type GPK level measuring
No Study name Fo Us Em Pe Te Su Te Re Va
1 Gatbonton (1999) X X no measuring
2 Hudson (2004) X X no measuring
3 Torff and Sessions (2005) X X no measuring
4 Mullock (2006) X X no measuring X X
5 Hudson (2007) X X no measuring X X
6 Gatbonton (2008) X X no measuring X
7 Wong et al. (2008) X X X X X
8 Capel et al. (2009) X X no measuring
9 Atjonen, Korkeakoski and Mehtalainen X X no measuring
(2011)
10 König et al. (2011) TEDS-M X X X X X X
11 Happo and Määttä (2011) X X no measuring
12 Liakopoulou (2011) X X no measuring X X
13 König and Rothland (2012) TEDS-M* X X X X X X
14 Choy et al. (2012) PKST X X X X X X
15 Choy et al. (2013) PKST** X X X X X
16 König (2013) TEDS-M X X X X X X
17 König et al. (2014) TEDS-M X X X X X X
18 Großschedl et al. (2015) X X X X X X
19 Blömeke et al. (2016) TEDS-M* X X X X X X
20 König et al. (2016) TEDS-M* X X X X X X
21 Blömeke et al. (2016) X X X X X X
22 König and Pflanzl (2016) TEDS-M* X X X X X X
23 Lauermann and König (2016) TEDS-M* X X X X X X
Categories of GPK dimensions: Fo—dimensions were found in that study, Us—dimensions were used from some other
study
Paper type: Em—empirical
Evidence type: Pe—participants’ perceptions, Te—testing
Instrument used for data collection about measuring GPK: Su—survey, Te—test
Re—reliability
Va—validity
*short version of TEDS-M
**adapted version of PKST

Definitions of GPK
Although the inclusion or exclusion of a single word rarely tells the whole story, our
methodological decision to use the keyword ‘pedagogical knowledge’ (PK) instead of
‘general pedagogical knowledge’ (GPK) proved decisive. It emerged that whereas the
usage of ‘GPK’ (whether as an acronym or spelled out) in a paper always indicated its
affiliation with Shulman’s (1986, 1987) proposal, the omission of the word ‘general’ still
revealed, to an extent, a relation to Shulman’s contribution. Eleven out of the 23 articles,
including all of those from König’s research group, used GPK as a key concept, although
two of the articles (Atjonen et al., 2011; Liakopoulou, 2011) used the notions of GPK and
PK somewhat interchangeably. Additionally, one article (Capel et al., 2009) used the notion
of GPK just once, but in that case defined it with explicit reference to Shulman. Altogether,
all 12 articles had Shulman’s aforementioned contribution as a conceptual basis.
The remaining 11 articles, which used the term ‘PK’ and did not use the term ‘GPK’,
varied significantly in terms of their affiliation with Shulman. Three of these articles
(Großschedl et al., 2015; Mullock, 2006; Torff & Sessions, 2005), in slightly varying terms,
212 Ä. LEIJEN ET AL.

were closely affiliated with Shulman’s vocabulary and his division between CK and GPK,
and they also cited Shulman’s (1987) contribution. In general, this means that what was
termed as PK in these three articles can be understood as GPK in Shulman’s vocabulary.
The two articles from Gatbonton (1999, 2008), using only the term PK, linked rather
loosely to Shulman’s categories and did not juxtapose PK and CK. Hudson (2004) cited
Shulman (1986) only in relation to PCK and, although he also referred to the frequent
usage of the term PK, he cited other sources than Shulman for PK. Five papers (Choy
et al., 2012, 2013; Happo & Määttä, 2011; Hudson, 2007; Wong et al., 2008) ignored
Shulman’s contribution altogether.

Main characteristics included in the definition

The analysis of the literature showed some similar characteristics of definitions of GPK
throughout different studies. Most importantly, several studies from different authors
were based on Shulman’s initial definition, although the definition of GPK was not
limited to Shulman’s initial proposal. The literature analysis revealed three successive
characteristics: student-related, teaching-related and context-related characteristics
(Figure 2). Definitions covering characteristics related to students focused mainly on
the learning process, and students’ development and motivation. Teaching-related char­
acteristics added classroom management and teaching process to the definition. Finally,
definitions referring to contextual characteristics took into consideration the educational
context, e.g., curriculum and philosophies of education. Next, the contribution to the
GPK definition by different authors is described in more detail.
Studies by König and his co-authors added to Shulman’s definition of GPK the aspects
of knowledge about learners and learning, assessment, and educational contexts and
purposes. Happo and Määttä (2011) were more focused on the learner, mentioning
principles for supportive interaction with children and the principles of children’s

Figure 2. Characteristics of definitions of general pedagogical knowledge

 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 213

development in order to promote student learning in the context of choices in teaching

situations. Following this, supporting learners’ motivation was another aspect covered in
the study of Großschedl et al. (2015), and it was also mentioned in an improved
definition in Lauermann and König’s (2016) study.
Different aspects of the teaching process were captured in the definitions of GPK, e.g.,
instructional process and activities, teaching methods and effective teaching.
Interestingly, Lauermann and König (2016) combined different authors’ work in order
to propose a definition based on general aspects of the instructional process and, there­
fore, covered principles for supporting student motivation and learning, classroom
management, lesson planning and differentiated instruction. Choy et al. (2013) also
gathered information presented by different authors in order to describe a core body of
knowledge consisting of various instructional methods, activities and assessment.
Knowledge of curriculum evidently received less attention, being mentioned only in
Hudson’s (2004) study and mainly in the context of science teaching. This brings us to
the final aspect, which was seen as an overall characteristic of all parts of the definition of
GPK: subject matter independence, or what Shulman would perhaps call transcendence
over subject matter. This means that GPK is described and defined across different
subjects in contrast to subject-specific knowledge (PCK and CK). This aspect was
found in most of the studies included in the current analysis.

Dimensions of teachers’ GPK

Numerous dimensions of teachers’ GPK were identified in the articles. Several articles
used the dimensions of GPK that were found in other studies; however, many defined
dimensions based on their own study. Based on our qualitative analysis, we divided these
dimensions into six larger categories that were consequently categorised into teaching-
related and student-related dimensions (Appendix A). These two dimensions were in line
with the characteristics found in analysing the definitions of GPK. However, one category
of characteristics found in definitions did not appear among the dimensions: contextual
characteristics of GPK (knowledge about curriculum, educational context and purposes
and philosophies of education) have not been studied in depth in empirical studies.

Teaching-Related dimensions
Lesson planning. Lesson planning as a dimension of teachers’ GPK was identified in
different studies. Overall, lesson planning is seen as a set of psychological processes for
visualising the future that makes teaching more conscious and purposeful. For beginning
teachers, it can also be used as the pedagogical reasoning for articulating what they plan
to do and why (Choy et al., 2013). Lesson planning includes a variety of theoretical
knowledge in order to plan and provide appropriate learning opportunities and, although
it happens on a level that has no direct interaction with learners, the work supports the
achievement of educational goals (Happo & Määttä, 2011).
Some literature suggests that lesson planning, as preparation for teaching, mainly
consists of choosing the appropriate teaching strategies and methods (Choy et al., 2012,
2013; Hudson, 2004; Hudson et al., 2015; Wong et al., 2008), as well as structuring the
lesson process and learning objectives (König, 2013; König et al., 2014, 2011; König &
Pflanzl, 2016, 2016; König & Rothland, 2012) and selecting and preparing appropriate
214 Ä. LEIJEN ET AL.

content (Choy et al., 2013; Hudson, 2004) and resources in order to implement
a curriculum (Choy et al., 2012; Happo & Määttä, 2011; Wong et al., 2008). The planning
phase also includes considering classroom management and assessment (Hudson, 2004;
Hudson et al., 2015), the learning environment (Choy et al., 2013) and how to teach
students with different ability levels (Choy et al., 2012; Wong et al., 2008). Altogether,
lesson planning leads to timetabling (Hudson, 2004) and writing down lesson plans
(Choy et al., 2012).
Instructional strategies. Supporting the development of novice teachers’ instructional
strategies is seen as one of the most important roles of teacher education institutes (Choy
et al., 2013). Instructional strategies, as a dimension of GPK, are described in the
literature quite diversely and in complex ways. In her 1999 study, Gatbonton defined
the domains of pedagogical knowledge, one of which is facilitating the instructional flow.
The concepts and activities she used to describe this knowledge domain were techniques,
procedures, starting activities, reviewing past lessons, pushing students to go on, direct­
ing students towards their intended goals, managing time, anticipating future activities,
recapping activities and sensing how a lesson must proceed. In addition, in 2008
Gatbonton described the domain of instructional strategies as maintaining the flow of
instructional activities and the appropriateness of instructional activities. Mullock (2006)
referred to Gatbonton’s 2000 facilitating the instructional flow pedagogical knowledge
domain as a sense of how the lesson should unfold and the knowledge of techniques and
procedures with respect to control of the classroom.
While Gatbonton focused more on carrying out the Choy et al. (2012); (2013)
described instructional strategies in the context of the preparatory phase of the lesson:
selecting appropriate resources and assessment modes to support instruction, producing
teaching materials, incorporating information and communication technology effectively
in the classroom, and designing and using assessment tools. Choy et al. (2013) also
referred to Darling-Hammond et al. (1999) when describing instructional strategies in
the context of pre-service teachers. The instructional strategies involved principles for
transforming knowledge into actions in order to carry out effective teaching, evaluate
student thinking and learning outcomes, plan appropriate learning opportunities, modify
and use instructional materials to reach learning goals, understand and use several
learning and teaching strategies, explain concepts clearly and appropriately, and provide
students with useful feedback.
Based on these descriptions, it appears that instructional strategies were seen as
a complex dimension of teachers’ GPK involving different phases of teaching.
Großschedl et al. (2015), on the other hand, came back to Shulman’s initial definition
(1986; Shulman, 1987), claiming that his definition of pedagogical knowledge is very
close to the knowledge of instructional strategies itself, covering the knowledge of
teaching methods. Therefore, it can be concluded that the most common characteristic
of instructional strategies through different studies is choosing and using appropriate
teaching methods.
Classroom management. Capel et al. (2009) defined GPK as the ‘broad principles and
strategies of classroom management and organization that apply irrespective of the
subject’ (p 52). As an example from this study, classroom management and organisation
could mean working on getting the full attention of the group and not trying to talk over
students. Classroom management plays an important role in achieving successful lessons
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 215

and managing student learning-groups effectively (Wong et al., 2008). Building rapport
in the classroom includes, for example, developing trust, not discouraging or embarras­
sing students, establishing a relaxed atmosphere, etc. (Gatbonton, 1999). In accordance
with Gatbonton’s (2000) study, Mullock (2006) also emphasised teachers’ awareness of
the need to make contact with students and to be aware of appropriate relationships
between teachers and students.
Based on the above, it can be concluded that classroom management is another
complex dimension of GPK. It is described in connection with effective teaching,
behaviour and discipline management, building rapport with students, and supporting
them to focus on tasks with appropriate classroom management techniques.
Assessment. According to Shulman (1987), teachers’ GPK involves knowledge about
assessment. Assessment is considered to be a typical part of course content in general
pedagogy (König et al., 2014). The importance of assessment has been emphasised in
several studies, as well as its relation to lesson preparation and planning for addressing
students’ learning needs (Hudson, 2004; Hudson et al., 2015). Assessment occurs at
various stages of teaching (Hudson, 2004) and can be used to assist students in their
progress (Wong et al., 2008).
Assessment, as a dimension of GPK, is relevant with respect to student achievement
(Brophy, 1999; as cited in König et al., 2011), which includes diagnosing principles and
evaluation procedures, child-orientation and individuality (Happo & Määttä, 2011), and
differentiation (Capel et al., 2009). Dealing with heterogeneous learning groups in the
classroom is also described as adaptivity. In this framework, adaptivity includes strategies
of differentiation and the use of a wide range of teaching methods (Blömeke et al., 2016;
König, 2013; König et al., 2014, 2011; König & Pflanzl, 2016, 2016; König & Rothland,
2012). In a broad sense, this dimension highlights the importance of good knowledge
about one’s students (e.g., Capel et al., 2009). Respecting each child’s individuality and
being aware of the meaning of child-orientation is seen as a set of values in immediate
interaction with children at a direct level of pedagogical knowledge (Happo & Määttä,
2011). More specifically, Choy et al. (2012) described diversity as using evaluative feedback
to assist students in their progress while teaching according to students’ pace, diagnosing
students’ learning difficulties and responding sensitively to different student needs.

Assessing teachers’ GPK

The results of the literature review showed that teachers’ GPK has been assessed using
two different approaches: 1) perceived level of knowledge and 2) testing of knowledge.
The perceived level of knowledge means that participants were asked for their opinions of
their own knowledge levels. These empirical studies were carried out using a survey.
Testing for knowledge, on the other hand, included studies that assessed the level of GPK
with a test. The methods and instruments for measuring teachers’ GPK are discussed in
the following sections.

Perceived level of knowledge

In this literature review, articles about measuring teachers’ GPK have appeared since
2008, when Wong et al. published a study on a comparison of knowledge and skills held
by primary and secondary school student teachers. To assess the level of teachers’
216 Ä. LEIJEN ET AL.

knowledge, a survey instrument with 34 questions was developed. Each participant had
to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale their perception of their own knowledge level (1—no
knowledge at all, 2—not so knowledgeable, 3—uncertain, 4—knowledgeable, 5—highly
knowledgeable). The study was carried out longitudinally, measuring participants’ per­
ceptions at the beginning and at the end of their studies. A factor analysis using principal
components extraction was carried out with Varimax rotation, and the following five
factors were found: facilitation, assessment, management, preparation, and care and
concern. Finally, six questions were eliminated as they did not fit well with the data,
leaving five or six questions for each identified factor. Unfortunately, the authors did not
report on factor loadings. Indeed, they specified that the extraction of eigenvalue was set
at over 1.10 for further analysis. The factors were considered fairly consistent, as
Cronbach’s alpha for items varied from 77 to 89.
A similar study of self-perceived knowledge and skills was carried out by Choy et al.
(2012). In this study, a Perceptions of Knowledge and Skills in Teaching (PKST) survey
was developed and validated. This process included an in-depth review of the relevant
literature, expert consensus building, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). During
data collection, the participants rated four to seven elements per factor on a 5-point
Likert scale in order to report on their perceptions of their knowledge level. The
development of this PKST survey resulted in 37 items strongly loaded on six latent
constructs (with factor loadings from 50 to 82): student learning, lesson planning,
instructional support, accommodating diversity, classroom management, and care and
concern. The study also reported model fit indices with a ratio of χ2 to the degrees of
freedom being 1.67, TLI 92, CFI 93 and the value of RMSEA 05. It showed that the model
had good fit indices. As the main focus of this study was the validation of the instrument’s
factor structure, the results of the study showed that the PKST survey can be adapted by
different teacher education programmes to assess student teachers’ progress in develop­
ing their pedagogical knowledge and skills. The reliability of the instrument was rather
good, with Cronbach’s alpha of 95 for the whole questionnaire and from 71 to 83 for the
six latent constructs.

Testing GPK
In addition to studies reporting the perceived level of knowledge, studies measuring GPK
level with a test have appeared since 2011. The majority of these studies have employed
a TEDS-M (Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics) test that is
aimed to assess the professional knowledge of future teachers. Although the initial TEDS-
M test assessed mathematics’ content knowledge and mathematics pedagogical content
knowledge, the German TEDS-M team, together with colleagues from the United States
and Taiwan, developed a test measuring future teachers’ GPK (König et al., 2011).
During the development of the TEDS-M test, the researchers focused on instruction as
the core activity of teachers (Berliner, 2001, 2004; Blömeke et al., 2008). As their
perspective targeted elements that are directly under the control of the teacher, the
researchers decided to employ the QAIT (Quality, Appropriateness, Incentive, Time)
model of effective instruction (Slavin, 1994). According to König et al. (2011), the four
elements of the QAIT model correspond to elements of other models and listings of
effective teaching. In addition to the QAIT model, the TEDS-M researchers also looked at
the basic dimensions of teaching quality from a didactic point of view in order to define
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 217

the topics of the QAIT framework (König et al., 2011). As a result, four dimensions of
GPK were identified in the TEDS-M test as highly relevant with respect to the target
group of future teachers: structure (structuring learning objects, lesson planning and
structuring the lesson process, and lesson evaluation), motivation/classroom manage­
ment (achievement motivation, strategies to motivate single students/whole groups,
strategies to prevent and counteract interferences, and effective use of allocated time/
routines), adaptivity (strategies of differentiation and use of a wide range of teaching
methods), and assessment (assessment types and functions, evaluation criteria, and
teacher expectation effects).
The final set of 77 items was distributed across four dimensions of GPK and three
cognitive sub-dimensions (König et al., 2011). Item response theory (IRT) analysis
showed that the reliability scores of a four-dimension model of GPK were lower (from
64 to 72) than the reliability for a one-dimension model (.78). However, the four
dimensions were not highly correlated, indicating multidimensionality. In their conclu­
sion, the authors claimed to have found evidence for distinguishing four dimensions
of GPK.
A TEDS-M instrument was also used in later studies. For example, König (2013)
investigated how future teachers acquire GPK during their initial teaching education. In
this study, an EAP (Expected A Posteriori) reliability of 86 is reported for the one-
dimension model of GPK in IRT analysis. In 2014, König et al. examined whether
GPK can be a premise for beginning teachers’ ability to notice and interpret classroom
situations. The study reported GPK test reliability of 81 in a three-dimension model
where the three dimensions were GPK, skill to notice, and skill to interpret. As the results
of the literature review show, not much empirical evidence is provided for the dimen­
sions of GPK and the instruments measuring it.

Discussion
The systematic literature review showed that GPK has been defined in various ways. Our
findings allow us to conclude that the ongoing discussion on GPK is still essentially
inspired by Shulman’s two papers, and particularly by his 1987 article which discusses
GPK explicitly. Although we can conclude that the term ‘GPK’ is sometimes abbreviated
to ‘PK’ (Atjonen et al., 2011, and Liakopoulou, 2011 are good examples), the concept of
PK can also originate from other traditions which are unrelated to Shulman. Most
notably, this is apparent in Wong et al. (2008), Choy et al. (2012), and Choy et al.
(2013). Significantly, there were no cross-references between this group of authors and
the one which is most consistently affiliated with Shulman’s tradition and is now led by
König. This indicates that these two groups of researchers generally relied on different
conceptual traditions.
In regard to the term ‘general’ which proved decisive for our study, König et al. (2014)
shed light on a possible reason for the divergence, referring to differences between the
Anglo-Saxon and the German-speaking Continental European educational traditions. In
the former, notably in the US, ‘educational foundations’ and ‘teaching methods’ are the
common labels that cover issues related to ‘general pedagogy’, whereas in the German
tradition, these issues are discussed within certain foundational disciplines, such as
general didactics (König et al., 2014). It is intriguing that, whereas Shulman’s ideas
218 Ä. LEIJEN ET AL.

were initially received as long well-known to the German-speaking European audience

(Kansanen, 2009), the most elaborate recent research tradition on GPK, explicitly relying
on Shulman, now comes from Germany and especially from the research group of König.
The main characteristics included in the definition of GPK in our reviewed studies
seemed to be classroom management, educational context, learning process, students’
development and motivation, teaching process and subject independence. As a result, we
propose a revised definition of GPK that aims to synthesise the studies found in the
review: GPK is defined as subject transcendent knowledge about learning and teaching
processes, classroom management and educational context to support students’ develop­
ment and motivation.
Our proposed definition includes three components. First, GPK is considered general
knowledge that is important for teaching any subject (e.g., biology, languages or cook­
ing): it is subject-transcendent. Second, the areas of instructional process on which GPK is
focused are: both learning and teaching processes (e.g., how students acquire new knowl­
edge through analogical reasoning or contrasting cases or inquiry-based learning, and
how teachers should guide learners in these processes), classroom management (e.g., how
to build a collaborative improvement-oriented learning environment), and educational
context (e.g., how to organise learning and teaching activities in line with wider educa­
tional purposes). Third, the goals for which GPK should be used are: supporting students’
development (e.g., how to support the development of students’ learning and collabora­
tion skills) and motivation (e.g., how to enhance intrinsic motivation). In comparison
with those used in recent studies (e.g., Atjonen & Co, 2011; Capel et al., 2009; König et al.,
2016), this synthesised definition is much broader. In comparison with Shulman’s (1987)
initially proposed seven categories of teachers’ knowledge, it clearly focuses on the
following three categories: (1) general pedagogical knowledge, (2) knowledge of learners
and their characteristics, and (3) knowledge of educational contexts. However, the last
category also constitutes knowledge about curriculum, and educational context and
purposes that are in accordance with two more dimensions specified in Shulman’s
work (Shulman, 1987): (4) curriculum knowledge and (5) knowledge of educational
ends, purposes and values, and their philosophical and historical foundations. This shows
that during recent decades, GPK has been operationalised more broadly in different
studies than in Shulman’s initial interpretation, where it was one of the seven
dimensions.
In the analysis of dimensions of GPK studies in recent decades, it appeared that the
studies focused only on two of the three general categories of characteristics: (1) student-
related dimensions and (2) teaching-related dimensions. However, the third dimension
—contextual—could be easily integrated with the other two. In Figure 3, a new frame­
work is proposed to describe how the dimensions found in the current literature review—
in the analysis of the definitions and dimensions of GPK—could be systematically
presented and linked with each other and other categories of teachers’ knowledge:
pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge (see, Baumert et al., 2010;
König et al., 2016).
In this synthesis, the student-related processes were divided into general learning
processes and students’ diversity. The former is in accordance with the provided
definition based on the literature review, and the latter adds one more aspect that
was not directly indicated in the definition, although there was a focus on educational
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 219

Figure 3. Framework of general pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and con­
tent knowledge

context (which is broader than students’ diversity-related context). The teaching-

related dimensions cover all essential phases before, during and after the actual
teaching process. Besides lesson planning, instructional strategies, classroom manage­
ment and student assessment, which we highlighted in the literature as important
areas of GPK, we propose to add knowledge about purposes of education, curriculum
and educational context, because these aspects also appeared in the definitions
of GPK.
According to the proposed framework, the dimensions of GPK are applied in
building pedagogical content knowledge where content knowledge is also taken into
account. For example, based on GPK, one knows how education is organised in general
terms (e.g., what the general purposes of formal education are), how particular students
learn (knowledge about both general learning processes and students’ diversity) and
how to organise teaching and learning activities in the classroom (e.g., what the typical
phases of a lesson are). Based on content knowledge, the teacher should know what
students have to learn and why it is important. Now, the pedagogical content knowl­
edge will be constructed as knowledge on the students’ level: how a particular student
or a group of students can be motivated to learn some content and how this content
knowledge should be acquired. In this framework, the broader view of GPK is revisited.
However, based on the literature review, it is clear that most of these dimensions have
not been the focus in assessing GPK. Teachers’ own perceptions of their knowledge can
be limited to give an overview of their knowledge level. Also, the existing multiple
choice test for measuring GPK seems to be limited in capturing the diverse dimensions
of GPK. Therefore, further studies are needed to capture GPK in a more systematic
way. Such studies could also reveal whether some of the dimensions described in this
framework might be combined into one dimension based on empirical findings.
Moreover, it is important to develop instruments that allow researchers to distinguish
and explore different types of knowledge. It would be interesting to explore the three
kinds of teacher knowledge as proposed by Neuweg (2011): knowing in the objective
sense, knowing in the subjective sense, and knowing manifested in action and the
nature and use of theoretical and practical knowledge in teaching (Korthagen et al.,
2001; Meijer et al., 2002; Pišova & Janík, 2011).
220 Ä. LEIJEN ET AL.

There are some limitations to this study. The search of the literature was limited to
recent studies and a somewhat different view might be revealed if one included former
studies as well. In addition, there is always a potential publication bias with literature
reviews that use indexing databases to search for studies to be included. However, in this
particular study, one of the largest collections of databases—EBSCOhost Web service—
was selected. Thus, the literature review should provide a significant contribution to the
existing body of knowledge on GPK.

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

ORCID
Äli Leijen http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5708-3837
Margus Pedaste http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5087-9637

References
Anderson, D., & Clark, M. (2012). Development of syntactic subject matter knowledge and
pedagogical content knowledge for science by a generalist elementary teacher. Teachers and
Teaching, 18(3), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2012.629838
Atjonen, P., Korkeakoski, E., & Mehtalainen, J. (2011). Key pedagogical principles and their major
obstacles as perceived by comprehensive school teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and
Practice, 17(3), 273–288.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it
special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022487108324554
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S.,
Neubrand, M., & Tsai, Y. (2010). Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge, Cognitive Activation in
the Classroom, and Student Progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345157
Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of
Educational Research, 35(5), 463–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00004-6
Berliner, D. C. (2004). Describing about and learning from expert teachers. Bulletin of Science,
Technology & Society, 24(3), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467604265535
Blömeke, S., Busse, A., Kaiser, G., König, J., & Suhl, U. (2016). The relation between
content-specific and general teacher knowledge and skills. Teaching and Teacher Education,
56, 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.02.003
Blömeke, S., Paine, L., Houang, R. T., Hsieh, F.-J., Schmidt, W. H., Tatto, M. T., Bankov, K.,
Cedilllo, T., Cogan, L., Han, S. I., Santillan, M., & Schwille, J. (2008). Future teachers’ compe­
tence to plan a lesson: First results of a six-country study on the efficiency of teacher education.
ZDM - the International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(5), 749–762. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11858-008-0123-y
Brophy, J. (1999). Teaching. International Academy of Education.
Buchberger, F., & Buchberger, I. (1999). Didaktik/fachdidaktik as integrative as integrative trans­
formation science(-s) – A science/sciences of/for the teaching profession? Didaktik/
Fachdidaktik as Science(-s) of the Teaching Profession, 2(1), 67–83 https://www.yumpu.com/
en/document/read/5561196/tntee-publications-didaktik-fachdidaktik .
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 221

Capel, S., Hayes, S., Katene, W., & Velija, P. (2009). The development of knowledge for teaching
physical education in secondary schools over the course of a PGCE year. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 32(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760802457216
Choy, D., Lim, K. M., Chong, S., & Wong, A. F. L. (2012). A confirmatory factor analytic approach
on Perceptions of Knowledge and Skills in Teaching (PKST). Psychological Reports, 110(2),
589–597. https://doi.org/10.2466/03.11.PR0.110.2.589-597
Choy, D., Wong, A. F. L., Lim, K. M., & 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 68–79). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n5.6
Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., & Kline, S. P. (1999). A licence to teach: Raising standards for
teaching. Jossey-Bass.
Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge:
A systematic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics education
research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.03.001
Depaepe, F., Vershaffel, L., & Star, J. (2020). Expertise in developing students’ expertise in
mathematics: Bridging teachers’ professional knowledge and instructional quality. ZDM
Mathematics Education, 52(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01148-8
Gatbonton, E. (1999). Investigating Experienced ESL Teachers’ Pedagogical Knowledge. Modern
Language Journal, 83(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00004
Gatbonton, E. (2000). Investigating experienced ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 56(4), 585–616. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.56.4.585
Gatbonton, E. (2008). Looking beyond teachers’ classroom behaviour: Novice and experienced
ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 161–182 doi:10.1177/
1362168807086286.
Großschedl, J., Harms, U., Kleickmann, T., & Glowinski, I. (2015). Preservice Biology Teachers’
Professional Knowledge: Structure and Learning Opportunities. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 26(3), 291–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9423-6
Gruber, H., Hämäläinen, R. H., Hickey, D. T., Pang, M. F., & Pedaste, M. (2020). Mission and Scope
of the Journal Educational Research Review. Educational Research Review, 30, 1–2 doi:10.1016/j.
edurev.2020.100328.
Gutek, G. L. (2011). Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Education: A Biographical
Introduction. Pearson Education.
Happo, I., & Määttä, K. (2011). Expertise of early childhood educators. International Education
Studies, 4(3), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v4n3p91
Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: A reconfiguration of pedagogical
content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching, 11(3), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13450600500105502
Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A.
(Editors). (2019). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd ed.). John
Wiley & Sons.
Hudson, P. (2004). Toward identifying pedagogical knowledge for mentoring in primary science
teaching. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1023/
B:JOST.0000031260.27725.da
Hudson, P. (2007). Examining mentors’ practices for enhancing preservice teachers’ pedagogical
development in mathematics and science. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 15
(2), 201–217
Hudson, P., English, L., Dawes, L., King, D., & Baker, S. (2015). Exploring links between
pedagogical knowledge practices and student outcomes in stem education for primary
schools. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(40 134–151). https://doi.org/10.14221/
ajte.2015v40n6.8
Kansanen, P. (2009). Subject-matter didactics as a central knowledge base for teachers, or should it
be called pedagogical content knowledge? Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 17(1), 29–39. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14681360902742845
222 Ä. LEIJEN ET AL.

König, J. (2013). First comes the theory, then the practice? on the acquisition of general pedago­
gical knowledge during initial teacher education. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 11(4), 999–1028. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9420-1
König, J. (2014). Designing an international instrument to assess teachers’ General Pedagogical
Knowledge (GPK): Review of studies, considerations, and recommendations. http://www.oecd.
org/officialdocuments/%0Apublicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=EDU/CERI/CD/%0ARD%
282014%293/REV1&doclanguage=en (Paris, France: OECD)
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 doi: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., Lammerding, S., Nold, G., Rohde, A., Strauß, S., & Tachtsoglou, S. (2016). Teachers’
professional knowledge for teaching English as a foreign language. Journal of Teacher
Education, 67(4), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116644956
König, J., & Pflanzl, 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), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.
2016.1214128
König, J., & Rothland, M. (2012). Motivations for choosing teaching as a career: Effects on general
pedagogical knowledge during initial teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 40(3), 289–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2012.700045
Korthagen, F. A. J., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B., & Wubbels, T. (2001). Linking practice and
theory: the pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lauermann, F., & König, J. (2016). Teachers’ professional competence and wellbeing:
Understanding the links between general pedagogical knowledge, self-efficacy and burnout.
Learning and Instruction, 45, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.06.006
Liakopoulou, M. (2011). Teachers’ pedagogical competence as a prerequisite for entering the
profession. European Journal of Education, 46(4), 474–488 doi:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2011.01495.x.
Meijer, P. C., Zanting, A., & Verloop, N. (2002). How can student teachers elicit experienced
teachers’ practical knowledge? Tools, suggestions, and significance. Journal of Teacher
Education, 53(5), 406–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248702237395
Merk, S., Rosman, T., Rueß, J., Syring, M., & Schneider, J. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ perceived
value of general pedagogical knowledge for practice: Relations with epistemic beliefs and source
beliefs. PLOS ONE, 13(2), 1–25 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0184971.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group. (2009). Reprint-
preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement.
Physical Therapy, 89(9), 873–880. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/89.9.873
Mullock, B. (2006). The pedagogical knowledge base of four TESOL teachers. Modern Language
Journal, 90(1), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00384.x
Neuweg, G. H. (2011). Das Wissen der Wissensvermittler. In E. Terhart, H. Bennewith, &
M. Rothland (Eds.), Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf (pp. 451–477). Waxmann.
Pišova, M., & Janík, T. (2011). On the nature of expert teacher knowledge. Orbis Scholae, 5(2),
95–116. https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2018.103
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Research, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Slavin, R. E. (1994). Quality, appropriateness, incentive, and time: A model of instructional
effectiveness. International Journal of Educational Research, 21(2), 141–157. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0883-0355(94)90029-9
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 223

Torff, B., & Sessions, D. N. (2005). Principals’ perceptions of the causes of teacher ineffectiveness in
different secondary subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 530–537. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.530
Tröbst, S., Kleickmann, T., Depaepe, F., Heinze, A., & Kunter, M. (2019). Effects of instruction on
pedagogical content knowledge about fractions in sixth-grade mathematics on content knowl­
edge and pedagogical knowledge. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 47(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s42010-019-00041-y
Ulferts, H. (2019). The relevance of general pedagogical knowledge for successful teaching:
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the international evidence from primary to tertiary
education. OECD Publishing.
Wong, A. F. L., Chong, S., Choy, D., Wong, I., & Goh, K. (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 77–93). https://doi.org/
10.14221/ajte.2008v33n3.6
Yang, X., Kaiser, G., König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2018). Measuring Chinese teacher professional
competence: Adapting and validating a German framework in China. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 50(5), 638–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1502810
Appendix A. Dimensions of GPK and embeddedness in prior studies
Dimension identified in the current Dimensions as mentioned in
study the original articles
TEACHING RELATED Lesson planning Planning for teaching
DIMENSIONS Preparation for teaching
Timetabling lessons
Timetabling
Teaching strategies
Lesson planning
Lesson-planning skills
Planning and coordination
Planning
Preparation
Structure
Instructional Facilitating the instructional
strategies flow
Instructional strategies
Instructional strategies for
teaching
Lesson-implementation skills
Classroom Classroom management
management Management
Motivation/classroom
management
Classroom-management
skills
Ability to establish rapport
with students
Building rapport
Assessment Assessment
224
References
Hudson, 2004; Hudson 2007
Hudson, 2004; Hudson 2007
Hudson, 2004; Hudson 2007
Hudson et al., 2015
Ä. LEIJEN ET AL.
Hudson, 2004; Hudson 2007
Choy et al., 2012; Choy et al., 2013
Torff & Sessions, 2005
Happo & Määttä, 2011
Hudson et al., 2015
Wong et al., 2008
König et al., 2011; König & Rothland, 2012; König, 2013; König et al., 2014; Blömeke et al., 2016; König & Pflanzl, 2016;
König et al., 2016; Lauermann & König, 2016
Gatbonton, 1999, Gatbonton, 2008; Mullock, 2006
Choy et al., 2012; Choy et al., 2013
Großschedl et al., 2015
Torff & Sessions, 2005
Choy et al., 2013; Hudson, 2004; Choy et al., 2012
Wong et al., 2008
Blömeke et al., 2016; König, 2013; König et al., 2014, Blömeke et al., 2016, König et al., 2011; König & Pflanzl, 2016;
König & Rothland, 2012
Torff & Sessions, 2005
Torff & Sessions, 2005
Gatbonton, 1999; Mullock, 2006
Hudson, 2004, p. 2007; Wong et al., 2008; König et al., 2011; König & Rothland, 2012; König, 2013; König et al., 2014;
Hudson et al., 2015; König et al., 2016; König & Pflanzl, 2016; Blömeke et al., 2016
(Continued)
(Continued).
Dimension identified in the current Dimensions as mentioned in
study the original articles References
STUDENT RELATED General Learning theories Liakopoulou, 2011
DIMENSIONS learning Student learning Choy et al., 2012
processes
Students’ understanding Großschedl et al., 2015
Motivation/classroom Blömeke et al., 2016; König, 2013; König et al., 2014, Blömeke et al., 2016, König et al., 2011; König & Pflanzl, 2016;
management König & Rothland, 2012
Students’ Teaching pupils with special Capel et al., 2009
diversity needs
Special education Liakopoulou, 2011
Differentiation Capel et al., 2009
Multicultural education Liakopoulou, 2011
Accommodating diversity Choy et al., 2012
Child-orientation and Happo & Määttä, 2011
individuality
Adaptivity König et al., 2011; König, 2013; König et al., 2014; König & Rothland, 2012; König & Pflanzl, 2016; König et al., 2016;
Blömeke et al., 2016
TEACHERS AND TEACHING
225