Introduction
The concept of ‘pedagogical content knowledge’ (PCK) was introduced by Shulman (
1986) as an answer to what he called a ‘missing paradigm’ in (research on) teaching and teacher education. By introducing PCK, Shulman wanted to emphasise the central role of subject matter and aimed at overcoming the artificial distinction between content and pedagogy. In recent decades, research on teaching and teacher education considers PCK to be a core component of professional competence (Blömeke, Gustafsson, & Shavelson,
2015). There are different ways of thinking about PCK. Recent research on professional competencies of teachers is characterized by different theoretical approaches on the conceptualization and evaluation of teachers’ professional competencies, namely dispositional versus behavioural approaches. Dispositional orientated approaches restrict the term competence to the sum of cognitive and motivational resources, assuming these multiple constituents are needed for competent performance. From this perspective, competencies are used to predict behaviour in criterion situations. Behavioural orientated approaches stress how cognition, affect-motivation and performance are linked together as a system (cobbled together in response to task demands) and change during the in-situation performance. From this point of view, competence is performance in real-world criterion situations—observable behaviour (Blömeke, et al.,
2015). Blömeke et al. (
2015, p. 8) highlighted these two different ways of thinking about competence as “an unproductive dichotomy view of competence, in particular knowledge
or performance, competence should be regarded as a process, a continuum with many steps in between”. From a more integrated perspective it is of interest which processes connect both approaches (Krauss et al.,
2020; for PE Baumgartner,
2018).
Beside this, special interest has been directed toward teachers’ PCK since it predicts both the quality of teaching as well as student learning (e.g. Baumert et al.,
2010; Iserbyt et al.,
2020). PCK is of critical importance, “since it deals with teachers’ knowledge necessary to achieve the aims of teaching” (Depaepe, Verschaffel, & Kelchtermans,
2013, p. 15) by organising, representing, and adapting content to the diverse interests and abilities of learners and presented for instruction. Thus, PCK serves the function of providing the teacher with knowledge to transform the content in ways that make it understandable to learners.
This is of special importance to physical education (PE), since teaching PE is different from other school subjects in many significant ways. For example, PE takes place in unique learning environments (e.g., gym, swimming pool) and explicitly deals with students’ body and corporeality. For example, performance is permanently staged through the bodies of the students (Alkemeyer,
2002). PE is the only compulsory school subject through which children and young people can learn movement motor skills and acquire the knowledge to participate in a variety of physical activities. It is the only subject whereby physical activity is a primary means of accomplishing educational objectives—although with varying interpretations in different concepts across the European Union (EU) (MacPhail, Tannehill & Avsar,
2019; Naul,
2003). It promotes the notion of learning in and through sports, physical activity, and exercise, targeting students’ personal development as well as the development of sport-specific competences. PE aims at fundamental experience with one’s own body and correlates this with reflection processes on one’s own personal development, allows individual access to the body and thus to the world (Prohl,
2010). Hence, PE is critical to the education of the person in general and has the unique potential to promote integral human development. To date, research on PCK in the field of sport science has contained a “selection bias” (Depaepe et al.,
2013, p. 22; Ward & Ayvazo,
2016, p. 201) because different didactics foci in Europe and research traditions on subject matter didactics (Van Driel & Berry,
2012) have received little interest. Especially in German speaking countries, research on PCK is still at the beginning (Vogler et al.,
2018; Baumgartner,
2018; Heemsoth,
2016; Heemsoth & Wibowo,
2020; Vogler, Messmer, & Allemann,
2017; Wibowo & Heemsoth,
2019). From a conceptual perspective, German scholars mostly refer to dispositional orientated and/or situated approaches (Vogler et al.,
2018), whereas understandings of PCK “have been largely behavioural” in English-speaking publications (Backman & Barker,
2020, p. 2). Since PCK is important in the sense of student learning, it is of particular interest to explore the extent to which PCK is a specific professional feature, thus providing insights into the conditions of PCK within various education programmes in sport science.
The highly specialised PCK is considered to be one of the main features distinguishing teachers from laypeople (Bromme,
2008; Mieg,
2001) and thus characterising their professional identity in a subject, also known as “professional knowledge hypothesis” (Baumert & Kunter,
2006; Krauss, Baumert, & Blum,
2008). For instance, PE teachers are professionals in at least two fields: they are both professionals in the field of sport science and professional teachers, whereas sport science students not aiming for a teaching degree are solely professionals in the field of sport science. The latter are related professionals since they are subject matter specialists. However, to the best of our knowledge, in the field of sport science, there is no study investigating whether students aiming for a teaching degree or not differ in their PCK. With regard to the noticing, a construct close to PCK, Reuker (
2017) investigated differences in the noticing between groups with different expertise (i.e., athletes versus teachers). The findings indicate a connection between pedagogical expertise and a focus on teaching aspects. PE teachers with exclusively high levels of pedagogical expertise more frequently mentioned methodological and didactic approaches compared to athletes with exclusively high levels of sport-specific expertise (Reuker,
2017,
2018). Hence, one could assume differences in the PCK between subject matter specialists and teachers. In other domains scholars have reported higher PCK scores from teachers (Jüttner & Neuhaus,
2013; Schmelzing et al.,
2012). However, a comparison of student teachers and students majoring in mathematics showed that the student teachers’ advantage in PCK can be attributed primarily to the “instruction” dimension (Krauss et al.,
2008).
In addition, scholars have described that PCK is impacted by their own experiences with specific content together with the values and emotional connections derived from the content, which is pertinent to both Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) and sport science students. Especially in the field of PE teaching, the professional identity is shaped by direct (personal) experiences with the activity. Pike and Fletcher (
2014) stated that these experiences serve as foundation to view teaching and coaching as significantly different or not. For the United States, they concluded that there “are still many recruits who do come to physical education with the aim of becoming coaches” (Pike & Fletcher,
2014, p. 12), even though teaching orientations are more prevalent prior to 2000. With respect to Germany there is evidence that many (future) PE teachers have taken up different roles in the field of physical activity (as athlete or coach) before their study (Meier
2015). Such experiences shape their view of teaching in a way that many (future) PE teachers tend to coaching orientations (Ernst,
2017; Klinge,
2019). A coaching orientation is focused more on skill mastery and less on the relation of content and pedagogy. Volkmann (
2018) argued that experiences and values inform such orientations and can “block” the process of professionalization. This subject-specific phenomenon is stressed as a “unique and understudied area” in the context of PCK (Ward & Ayvazo,
2016, p. 200).
Furthermore, scholars have shown that teacher education and professional development programmes provide opportunities to acquire PCK by attending workshops and lectures, collaborating with peers, and in teaching practice (Richter,
2013). As a result, preservice and beginner teachers adhered more to their written plan, while experienced teachers were able to depart from their plan to provide PCK in accordance with their students’ abilities (Ward & Ayvazo,
2016). Such learning opportunities during teacher education have fostered PCK and in turn students’ learning (Iserbyt, Ward, & Martens,
2016; Iserbyt et al.,
2020; Kim et al.,
2018). A recent validation study in Germany showed that the PETE students’ semester predicted PCK, whereas the grade point average did not. The authors conclude that this finding supports the qualification hypothesis (Heemsoth & Wibowo,
2020).
Against this backdrop, the purpose of the current study is to compare the PCK of students studying different degree programmes in the field of sport science (PETE and sport science) in Germany. Despite the importance of PCK, no investigation has ostensibly been made into this issue to date. Although the number of studies measuring PCK is rising (Meier
2020; Heemsoth & Wibowo,
2020; Vogler et al.,
2017), no scale has been tested for measurement invariance across these two groups or additional variables relevant to PCK (i.e., prior experience in the field of physical activity). Measurement invariance is the precondition for comparing the PCK of such different groups, as PCK develops through different educational programmes and other non-formal learning opportunities. A meaningful and valid comparison of the PCK of both groups can be made only if a scale measures the same construct in both groups in the same way (Chen,
2008). Hence, the aims of the current study are as follows:
-
The first purpose of the current study is to examine whether it is possible to measure PCK equivalently across PETE and sport science students, along with additional variables relevant to PCK (i.e., prior experience in physical activity, semester).
-
With regard to the professional knowledge hypothesis, we compare latent mean scores of PCK in PETE and sport science students hypothesising that PETE students score higher on PCK than students from sport science. In addition, we explore the extent to which PCK differs across groups with prior experiences in physical activity.
-
Based on evidence that the PETE students’ semester predicted PCK, we hypothesise that PETE students score higher on PCK than sport science students in different stages of the study (semester).
Discussion
The objective of the current study was the PCK across PETE and sport science students in Germany. As research on PCK in German-speaking countries is still at the beginning, the current study contributes to a more comprehensive picture of the PCK, accounting for different didactics foci and research traditions on subject matter didactics in the EU. The aim was to discover the extent to which PCK is specific in the field of sport science.
In the first research question of this study, the factor structure of the PCK-PE was examined across PETE and sport science students, along with additional variables relevant to the PCK (i.e., prior experience in the field of physical activity, stage of the study) via CFA and fitted the data acceptably. With the MGCFA procedure, we ensured that the factor structure was invariant across groups. Testing MI across groups is fundamental in making a reliable comparison of the PCK-PE scores between PETE and sport science students to obtain a valid statistical inference. The MI analysis indicated that the conceptual framework to define the two latent factors is equivalent for PETE and sport science-students in different stages of the study (semester), with different prior experience in the field of physical activity. In other words, it makes sense to compare the mean scores between PETE and sport science students in these different conditions (Chen,
2008; Cheung & Rensvold,
2002). This is important as, to the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence in the field of sport science towards MI across such groups. In mathematics, Kleickmann et al. (
2013) measured PCK with some variation between groups (i.e., scalar model). However, further evaluation of this variation did not specifically disadvantage any of the groups, which is in line with the findings of the current study.
With the second research question, the subsequent latent mean comparisons between PETE and sport science students provide further insights into the professional knowledge hypothesis. As hypothesised, the PCK of PETE students is specific to some extent. PETE students outperform the sport science students in terms of the “instruction dimension”. This finding is consistent with findings in other domains (Jüttner & Neuhaus,
2013; Schmelzing et al.,
2012) supporting the assumption that pedagogical content knowledge of instructional strategies is a specific feature of PETE students. They are both professional sport scientists and professional teachers, whereas sport science students are rather professional sport scientists. Hence, knowledge in the “instruction dimension” distinguishes PETE students from sport science students. However, the effect size of the difference was small, and thus future research should study whether this is specific to the field of sport science.
In contrast, PETE and sport science students scored equally on the pedagogical content knowledge of students’ (mis)conceptions and difficulties, which is consistent with the study of Krauss et al. (
2008). Thus, it remains unclear why PETE and sport science students did not score differently on the “students dimension”. According to the professional knowledge hypothesis, one could expect that PETE students score higher on this dimension compared to sport science students. As Shulman (
1986,
1987) initially stated, if a (future) teacher does not know the interests and abilities of the student, then the teacher will be unable to match instruction to their students (Behets & Vergauwen,
2006). Thus, the data support the interpretation that the “instruction dimension” may be a core aspect of PCK, as it is the most lesson-related sub-facet, and both must be integrated for an interactive teaching decision. Hence, this finding sensitises us to a deeper understanding of the similarity between both groups in the “students” dimension, which could date back to learning opportunities in PETE and sport science: To which extent are they specific in the “students” dimension and, moreover, how are they integrated in teaching? However, future research should tackle this in more detail. In addition, the study focused on PCK in the sense of dispositional oriented approaches. Hence, it remains an open question, how PCK is related to performance. From a more integrative point of view future research should “trace the long route from teacher disposition to student learning” (Krauss et al.,
2020, p. 312) to investigate how much PCK predicts student learning and the steps in between.
Furthermore, the findings highlight that prior experience in the field of physical activity is primarily associated with higher scores only on the “instruction” dimension, indicating that such experience is an advantage. However, in terms of the “students dimension”, it is not. One could therefore argue that prior experiences do not sensitise students’ (mis)conceptions and difficulties. This could indicate that subject specific experiences serve as foundation for a teaching orientation (Pike & Fletcher,
2014) with respect to the “instruction” and not to the “students dimension”. Future research should focus on the relevance of subject specific experiences in more detail.
With regard to the third research question, mean comparison in different stages of the study highlighted that PETE students only scored higher than sport science students on the “instruction dimension” at the beginning as well as at the end of studying. As the effect sizes for the differences were small, the results provide little evidence that learning opportunities during PETE are conducive to the development of the highly specialised PCK (e.g., Heemsoth & Wibowo,
2020; Iserbyt et al.,
2020). Unexpectedly, no differences appeared in the “students dimension”. This may indicate that learning opportunities during education do not foster development that much. However, this must be tackled in more detail in future studies.
Conclusion
This study measured the PCK across PETE and sport science students and examined differences in latent means in subsamples (i.e., prior experience in the field of physical activity, stages of the study). It has been demonstrated that the factor structure of the PCK was invariant across (sub)groups; thus latent mean scores can be compared meaningfully. In line with the professional knowledge hypothesis, PETE students outperformed the sport science students in terms of the “instruction dimension”, which is also pertinent in different stages of the study. In addition, prior experience in the field of physical activity is also associated with higher scores on this subdimension. It is the other way around in the “students dimension”: PETE and sport science students did not score significantly different, also with respect to stages of the study. Prior experience is not an advantage for high scores on this subdimension.
Some limitations need to be considered when interpreting the results of the present study. Firstly, participants in the study were all from one region in Germany, aiming for a specific degree in a PETE (i.e., ISCED 3) and sport science programme, therefore the results apply only to these study programmes and do not allow generalisations. Since PCK is assumed to be affected by different traditions in subject matter didactics, which vary across the EU, the results can be seen as a case study or starting point for cross-cultural studies. Secondly, the complex nature of cross-sectional design prevents us from drawing causal conclusions. Although we tested MI and considered covariates, we cannot rule out that other factors confound the group differences in PCK. Remarkably, the comparison of students in different stages of the study must be taken as a tendency. Future, preferably longitudinal studies with prospective investigation should investigate the extent to which PCK develops during educational programmes and control for covariates (e.g., learning opportunities). Nevertheless, an interesting pattern of similarities between PETE and sport science students (at the beginning and end of studying) emerged: Differences do not lay within the “students dimension”. Future research should cast light on this PCK subdimension. However, it must be pointed out that it is still unclear to what degree the findings of the current study relate to observable teacher behaviour in class and/or students’ achievement. Finally, from a methodological point of view, it must be mentioned that the evaluation of (MG)CFA models and MI with categorical indicators is a field not well studied. Although the number of studies is rising, recommendations for using fit measures and cut-off values are based on only a few simulation studies (Rutkowski & Svetina,
2017).