Results from the Teacher Knowledge Survey

What is the Teacher Knowledge Survey?

Abstract

This chapter introduces the concept of General Pedagogical Knowledge (GPK), as defined and assessed in the TALIS Teacher Knowledge Survey. It outlines why assessing teachers’ GPK matters, provides sample assessment items and guides readers in interpreting the results.

Introduction

The quality of an education system cannot exceed that of its teachers (Barber and Mourshed, 2007[1]). Teachers play a key role in shaping their students’ learning experiences and outcomes (Rivkin, Hanushek and Kain, 2005[2]), from early childhood (Araujo et al., 2016[3]) to tertiary education (Carrell and West, 2010[4]). Teachers matter for both cognitive and social and emotional skills (Jackson, 2018[5]), and their impact is long-lasting (Chetty, Friedman and Rockoff, 2014[6]).

Nevertheless, the literature has traditionally struggled to identify observable teachers’ characteristics and practices that are demonstrably related to teaching effectiveness (Hanushek, 1971[7]; Chingos and Peterson, 2011[8]; Jackson, Rockoff and Staiger, 2014[9]). A better understanding of what makes teachers effective is crucial to designing targeted policies that raise the quality of education.

In a seminal paper on education reforms and improving teaching, Shulman (1987[10]) focused on knowledge as the basis of teacher expertise. Several different types of knowledge were identified as relevant for teachers in their work, including:

• Content knowledge

• Pedagogical content knowledge

• Curriculum knowledge

• Knowledge of learners and their characteristics

• Knowledge of educational contexts

• Knowledge of educational purposes

• General pedagogical knowledge (GPK)

The Teacher Knowledge Survey (TKS) focuses on general pedagogical knowledge, defined as:

(…) the specialised knowledge of teachers for creating effective teaching and learning environments for all students, independent of subject matter (OECD, 2025[11]).

Previous studies have found that GPK is positively correlated with quality teaching (Ulferts, 2019[12]) and with teacher well-being and job satisfaction (Voss et al., 2015[13]). Moreover, it can be argued that GPK is what distinguishes teachers from other content specialists. Being the shared knowledge base of teachers across different subjects, GPK provides teachers with a common ground for reflection. It also offers a shared language that teachers can use to discuss their students’ learning progress and well-being, and ways to improve teaching and learning support across subjects (Ulferts, 2021[14]). In this sense, it is one of the main pillars of teacher professionalism, and a distinctive element that makes teachers knowledge professionals.

In the early 2010s, the OECD launched the Innovative Teaching for Effective Learning (ITEL) project to investigate the role teachers’ knowledge and competence play in effective teaching and learning. That conceptualisation (Guerriero and Révai, 2017[15]) suggests that teachers draw upon their pedagogical and content knowledge, as well as their affective-motivational competencies and beliefs about teaching to inform the decisions and judgements they make in their teaching approaches. These approaches are put into practice when teachers implement them in the classroom, facilitating student cognitive and socio-emotional learning. Knowledge gained about student learning informs educational research and teachers’ own experience, updating the knowledge base acquired or transferred to pre- and in-service teachers through opportunities to learn, such as initial teacher education, professional learning and informal learning.

Despite its importance, one should not forget that GPK is only one element of teachers’ professional knowledge, which, in turn, is only one element of the broader conceptual framework of teachers’ professional competence developed in Guerriero and Révai (2017[15]). Neither GPK nor teachers’ knowledge in general is expected to account for all variation observed in student outcomes, teaching effectiveness or other outcomes such as job satisfaction or well-being.

Following a successful pilot study that has shown the feasibility of assessing teachers’ GPK with relatively simple instruments (Sonmark et al., 2017[16]), TKS is the first large-scale study providing internationally comparable measures of general pedagogical knowledge for representative samples of teachers across participating countries. About 20 000 teachers from more than 2 000 lower secondary schools from the eight participating countries responded to a battery of multiple-choice questions about various aspects of general pedagogical knowledge.1 More detailed information on the conceptual framework underpinning the development of TKS and its GPK assessment component is provided in Annex A and in OECD (2025[11]).

Reporting and interpreting the results of the Teacher Knowledge Survey

The answers teachers gave to the items comprising the GPK assessment component of the Teacher Knowledge Survey were used to estimate the level of GPK proficiency in the population of teachers across the participating education systems. These estimates are expressed as scores on a (continuous and theoretically unbounded) scale, constructed by setting the average score across the eight participating education systems to 250 and the standard deviation to 50. Senate weights were used to set these values, so that each country would contribute equally, irrespective of size.2

On the same scale, one can assign each assessment item a “difficulty score” and rank it by difficulty. In other words, teachers’ GPK and item difficulty are linked: in particular, teachers with a given GPK score have a 67% chance of correctly answering an item with the same difficulty score. Their chances decrease for more difficult items and increase for easier items, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The relationship between assessment items and teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge

The link between respondents’ demonstrated proficiency and assessment items allows us to divide the scale into “proficiency levels” and, importantly, to describe the knowledge teachers demonstrate at each level based on item characteristics. Item developers drafted descriptors for each assessment item, summarising the knowledge assessed. These descriptors helped identify meaningful cut points on the scale, where noticeable shifts in cognitive demand or conceptual complexity of the items could be observed. Two cut points were then identified, creating three proficiency levels. The item descriptors were then aggregated at each level producing the descriptors presented in Table 1. The level descriptors characterise teachers’ knowledge according to the three basic dimensions of GPK – instruction, assessment and learning (OECD, 2025[11]). Since the underlying scale reflects probabilistic tendencies, the descriptors should be seen as indicative profiles, useful for understanding the general nature of teachers’ knowledge at different scale points, but not as definitive statements about any individual teacher.

Table 1. Teachers’ knowledge at the three proficiency levels of the GPK scale

Level	Score range	Knowledge demonstrated by teachers at this level
Level 3 – Advanced	Equal to or above 287 score points	Level 3 teachers demonstrate advanced pedagogical knowledge reflecting conceptual depth and an awareness of current educational discourse. They can distinguish between nuanced instructional, learning and assessment practices, drawing on a well-developed understanding of established learning theories and psychometric principles, as well as contemporary approaches to teaching and learning. Their knowledge enables them to evaluate and differentiate among strategies and to draw valid inferences from learning and assessment data to inform pedagogical decision-making. Instruction: Teachers at Level 3 can distinguish between effective and ineffective strategies for a range of purposes, including supporting students to transfer learning across contexts, accommodating students with dyslexia and encouraging positive behaviour in classrooms. These teachers understand the defining features and purposes of instructional approaches designed to enhance student engagement and interaction, like flipped classrooms and online discussion boards. They recognise the conditions that define collaborative learning and can evaluate classroom management strategies in terms of their impact on teacher-student relationships. Learning: Teachers at Level 3 demonstrate knowledge of formal learning theories and can distinguish behaviourist principles from other theoretical perspectives. They can distinguish accurate information from misconceptions about learning difficulties such as dyslexia and understand concepts like adolescent cognitive development, metacognition and self-regulated learning. They can evaluate motivational and affective factors in student behaviour and can clearly distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. They have a nuanced understanding of the concept of growth mindset and how it may be encouraged in classroom contexts. Assessment: Teachers at this level have a clear understanding of the distinction between formative and summative assessment purposes and between appropriate and inappropriate uses of assessment tools and data, including rubrics, raw scores and pre/post-testing. They understand psychometric concepts such as criterion-referenced assessment and can identify issues in classroom assessment related to construct validity. Their knowledge includes strategies for identifying student misconceptions and making valid interpretations of learning data.
Level 2 – Established	Between 240 and 286 score points	Level 2 teachers possess established knowledge of pedagogical concepts that support instructional adaptability, student motivation and informed assessment practices. They are familiar with a range of instructional strategies and learning principles and recognise their relevance to classroom scenarios. Their knowledge includes established theories related to student motivation, cognitive and metacognitive processes and instructional planning. They are aware of ways to adapt teaching to support diverse learners. They can recognise key psychological and developmental factors in learning and interpret assessment information to inform teaching decisions. Instruction: Teachers at Level 2 know a wide range of instructional tools and strategies, such as differentiated instruction, adaptive teaching and questioning techniques that support student thinking and engagement and accommodate for specific student learning needs. They recognise approaches to teaching that assist students to transfer knowledge and develop metacognitive strategies. They understand the benefits of spaced practice, and the purpose of strategies such as the “think aloud” method. They recognise strategies that maintain student attention and reduce conflict and show some awareness of key features of flipped classrooms. Learning: Teachers at Level 2 recognise general psychological characteristics of learners, including those related to early adolescence, motivation and self-concept. They can identify teacher responses that support growth mindset and self-efficacy and recognise learning behaviours associated with mastery goals. They know how executive functions and stress-reduction strategies relate to learning, and the qualities of feedback that support student learning. Assessment: Teachers at this level can identify formative and summative uses of assessment and know the purposes of diagnostic assessment. They can make some valid interpretations of student learning data and recognise appropriate follow-up questions to probe student thinking. They can identify suitable intentions for pre- and post-testing, the limitations of using correlational data for causal inference and appropriate strategies for diagnosing student misconceptions or forming instructional groups.
Level 1 – Foundational	Below 240 score points	Level 1 teachers demonstrate basic practical knowledge of pedagogical strategies fundamental to fostering a productive learning environment. This knowledge reflects common understandings about positive teacher-student interactions and strategies for engaging and motivating students. Teachers at this level demonstrate some practical knowledge related to the provision of feedback as well as to assessment consistency and fairness. Instruction: Teachers at Level 1 can identify some behaviour support and classroom management strategies that foster positive teacher-student relationships and minimise conflict. They know some teaching strategies designed to increase engagement. Learning: Level 1 teachers can recognise factors of teacher feedback that may influence student motivation, particularly for low-achieving students. Assessment: Teachers at this level are aware of basic accommodations to support assessment of students with learning needs and recognise collaborative practices that support consistent grading and assessment.

Note: The GPK scale is centred around an average score of 250 points across the eight participating countries (adjusting sample weights so that each country contributes equally, irrespective of the underlying population), and a standard deviation of 50 points.

Some examples of items used to assess general pedagogical knowledge

To give readers a better understanding of the kinds of questions used to assess teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge, this section presents three sample items from the GPK assessment. All three sample items are in the form of “complex multiple-choice”, demanding teachers to provide more than one response. This allowed for partial scoring: full credit was given only to teachers who answered all parts of the question correctly, and partial credit was awarded if only some answers were correct. The assessment also included simple multiple-choice items, in which teachers had to select one of four options to answer a question.

A consequence of the possibility of giving partial credit is that the item can be assigned to two different levels of difficulty on the GPK scale and potentially to different proficiency levels (Table 1). This holds for all three questions presented below. If a question is at both Levels 2 and 3, it means that a teacher at Level 2 is likely to receive partial credit (answering only some parts correctly) and unlikely to receive full credit. A teacher at Level 3, on the other hand, will likely get full credit, while a teacher at Level 1 will likely fail all parts of the question.

The three questions presented below (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4) span all three proficiency levels on the GPK scale. Each targets a specific dimension of the GPK construct (instruction, learning and assessment). Information is also provided on the transversal subdimensions along which all GPK questions were classified, depending on whether they elicited practice-based or theoretical knowledge, and on whether they focused on core knowledge or on emergent priorities for teacher knowledge (OECD, 2025[11]).

Figure 2. Sample item: Positive behaviour support strategies

Positive Behaviour Support Strategies: Item Characteristics
Domain	Instruction
Scoring key	E; N; E; E
Scoring rule	4 correct: Full Credit (2); 3 correct: Partial Credit (1); Less than 3 correct: No credit (0)
Item difficulty	206 points (Partial Credit); 308 points (Full Credit)
Item level	Level 1 (Partial Credit); Level 3 (Full Credit)
Type of knowledge	Practice-based
Theme	Core knowledge

Figure 3. Sample item: Pre- and post-test scores

Pre- and Post-Test Scores: Item Characteristics
Domain	Assessment
Scoring key	NV; NV; V; NV
Scoring rule	4 correct: Full Credit (2); 3 correct: Partial Credit (1); Less than 3 correct: No credit (0)
Item difficulty	263 points (Partial Credit); 315 points (Full Credit)
Item level	Level 2 (Partial Credit); Level 3 (Full Credit)
Type of knowledge	Practice-based
Theme	Core knowledge

Figure 4. Sample item: Teacher response

Teacher Response: Item Characteristics
Domain	Learning
Scoring key	N; N; L; L
Scoring rule	4 correct: Full Credit (2); 3 correct: Partial Credit (1); Less than 3 correct: No credit (0)
Item difficulty	258 points (Partial Credit); 311 points (Full Credit)
Item level	Level 2 (Partial Credit); Level 3 (Full Credit)
Type of knowledge	Theoretical
Theme	Emergent priorities for teacher knowledge

References

[3] Araujo, M. et al. (2016), “Teacher Quality and Learning Outcomes in Kindergarten”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 131/3, pp. 1415-1453, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw016.

[1] Barber, M. and M. Mourshed (2007), How the World’s Best-Performing School Systems Come Out on Top, McKinsey, Washington, DC, https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/social-sector/our-insights/how-the-worlds-best-performing-school-systems-come-out-on-top.

[4] Carrell, S. and J. West (2010), “Does professor quality matter? Evidence from random assignment of students to professors”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 118/3, pp. 409-432, https://doi.org/10.1086/653808.

[6] Chetty, R., J. Friedman and J. Rockoff (2014), “Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student”, American Economic Review, Vol. 104/9, pp. 2633-2679, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.9.2633.

[8] Chingos, M. and P. Peterson (2011), “It’s easier to pick a good teacher than to train one: Familiar and new results on the correlates of teacher effectiveness”, Economics of Education Review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.12.010.

[15] Guerriero, S. (ed.) (2017), Knowledge-based teaching and the evolution of a profession, Pedagogical Knowledge and the Changing Nature of the Teaching Profession, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264270695-en.

[7] Hanushek, E. (1971), “Teacher characteristics and gains in student achievement: Estimation”, American Economic Review, Vol. 61/2, pp. 280-288, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1817003.

[5] Jackson, C. (2018), “What Do Test Scores Miss? The Importance of Teacher Effects on Non-Test-Score Outcomes”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 126/5, pp. 2072-2107, https://doi.org/10.1086/699018.

[9] Jackson, C., J. Rockoff and D. Staiger (2014), “Teacher Effects and Teacher-Related Policies”, Annual Review of Economics, Vol. 6/1, pp. 801-825, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-040845.

[11] OECD (2025), TALIS Teacher Knowledge Survey 2024 Conceptual and Assessment Framework, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/65903902-en.

[17] OECD (forthcoming), Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2024 Technical Report, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris.

[2] Rivkin, S., E. Hanushek and J. Kain (2005), “Teachers, schools and academic achievement”, Econometrica, Vol. 73/2, pp. 417-458, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00584.x.

[10] Shulman, L. (1987), “Knowledge and Teaching:Foundations of the New Reform”, Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 57/1, pp. 1-23, https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411.

[16] Sonmark, K. et al. (2017), “Understanding teachers’ pedagogical knowledge: report on an international pilot study”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 159, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/43332ebd-en.

[14] Ulferts, H. (ed.) (2021), Teaching as a Knowledge Profession: Studying Pedagogical Knowledge across Education Systems, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e823ef6e-en.

[12] 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 Education Working Papers, No. 212, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ede8feb6-en.

[13] Voss, T. et al. (2015), “Stichwort Pädagogisches Wissen von Lehrkräften: Empirische Zugänge und Befunde”, Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, Vol. 18/2, pp. 187-223, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-015-0626-6.

Notes

← 1.  The number of participating teachers ranges from 1 362 in the United States (from 145 schools) to 4 584 in Morocco (from 398 schools). See Table A C.4 in Annex C.

← 2.  More details about the underlying methodology for the construction of the GPK scale can be found in OECD (forthcoming[17]).