Keller 2016

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING
Research Article
The Impact of Physics Teachers Pedagogical Content Knowledge and

Motivation on Students Achievement and Interest
Melanie M. Keller,1 Knut Neumann,1 and Hans E. Fischer2
1
Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany
2
University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
Received 21 May 2016; Accepted 29 October 2016
Abstract: This paper examines students achievement and interest and the extent to which they are
predicted by teacher knowledge and motivation. Student achievement and interest are both considered
desirable outcomes of school instruction. Teacher pedagogical content knowledge has been identified a major
predictor of student achievement in previous research, whereas teacher motivation is considered a decisive
factor influencing students interest. So far, however, most research either focused on knowledge or
motivation (both on the students as well as the teachers side), rarely investigating them together or
examining the instructional mechanisms through which the supposed effects of teacher knowledge and
motivation are facilitated. In the present study, N 77 physics teachers and their classes in Germany and
Switzerland are investigated utilizing a multi-method approach in combining data obtained from test-
instruments (teacher pedagogical content knowledge, student achievement) and questionnaires (teacher
motivation, student interest, student perceived enthusiastic teaching) as well as videotaped instruction
(cognitive activation rated by observers). Multi-level structural equation modeling was used to support the
assumptions that teacher pedagogical content knowledge positively predicted students achievement; the
effect was mediated by cognitive activation. Teachers motivation predicted students interest which was
mediated by enthusiastic teaching as perceived by students. Neither did teacher pedagogical content
knowledge predict students interest, nor teacher motivation students achievement. This implies that in
order to improve students cognitive as well as affective outcomes, both teachers knowledge but also
their motivation need to be considered. motivation need to be considered. # 2016 The Authors. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach
Keywords: teacher motivation; teacher pedagogical content knowledge; student interest; enthusiastic
teaching; cognitive activation; physics instruction
Teachers matter. This is one of the central messages in the much acclaimed meta-analysis on
predictors of student achievement published by Hattie (2009). In fact, there is rich evidence that
teachers take a critical role when it comes to student outcomes (e.g., Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005;
Kunter et al., 2013; Sadler, Sonnert, Coyle, Cook-Smit, & Miller, 2013; see also Abell, 2007).
Student achievement is considered one of the main outcomes of instruction, a fact mirrored in
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Contract grant sponsor: German Federal Ministry of Research and Education.
Correspondence to: M.M. Keller; E-mail: keller@ipn.uni-kiel.de
DOI 10.1002/tea.21378
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
# 2016 The Authors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
2 KELLER, NEUMANN, AND FISCHER
international large scale studies on student achievement (such as PISA), standardized testing in
schools (e.g., at the end of compulsory school in Germany) or minimum GPAs required for
admission to particular university subjects or for being employed by companies. In addition to
student achievement, however, students sustained motivation (e.g., in the form of interest in a
particular subject) is important as well, for example in career choice (see Eccles & Wigfield,
2002). The question of students career choices is especially relevant in the light of the ongoing
shortage of skilled workforce in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM; e.g.,
Hetze, 2011; see also Osborne, Simon, & Collins, 2003).
Despite students achievement and motivation being considered equally important outcomes
of (school science) education, research evidence in physics is scarce that considers them
simultaneously and tries to identify corresponding antecedents pertaining to the teacher and
instruction. Although student achievement and interest are interdependent phenomena (Koller,
Baumert, & Schnabel, 2001), it is highly unlikely that one teacher variable alone determines
students growth in both achievement and interest. Because of that, teacher expertise is usually
considered multi-dimensionally as an interplay of teachers knowledge, motivation, and self-
regulating abilities (e.g., Baumert & Kunter, 2013). As a consequence, the present study applies a
multi-criteria perspective of educational outcomes in considering students achievement and
interest and predicting it by corresponding teacher characteristics, namely their pedagogical content
knowledge and motivation to teach. A total of N 77 secondary physics classes in Germany and
Switzerland are investigated. We build on a multi-method approach combining data from teacher
and student tests and questionnaires with data from the analysis of videotaped instruction to obtain
a reliable and comprehensive picture of effects and explanatory processes. To our knowledge,
this is the first study in which teachers knowledge- and motivation-related characteristics are
explored in conjunction predicting students achievement and interest in the subject of physics.
Theoretical Background
Science literacy is widely considered as indispensable in modern developed and highly
technological countries (e.g., deBoer, 2011). Supporting students in developing science literacy is
supposed to satisfy societys need for open-minded well-educated citizens and the labor markets
need for skilled workers in science and science-related fields (Roberts, 2007). Assessment of
students science literacy often focuses on student achievement. However, in a world driven by
ever-accelerating scientific and technological progress, todays students and tomorrows employ-
ees motivation to engage in science or domains of science is also an important factor. With respect
to students future engagement, one prominent variable in educational settings is interest.
Research in the past decades evidenced a decline in students interest over middle school, which is
particularly prominent in the science domains and specifically in physics (see Schiefele, 2009).
These findings had educational researchers focusing on students interest in the field of physics,
yet some researchers state that affective-motivational variables of students are still under-attended
in science education (Fortus, 2014).
Student Achievement and Interest in Physics
With respect to physics, recent research has reassured that secondary school students not only
perceive physics as a difficult and demanding subject (Angell, Guttersrud, Henriksen, & Isnes,
2004; Kessels, Rau, & Hannover, 2006) but also show a considerable lack of interest in the subject
physics or in pursuing a physics-related career (e.g., Barmby, Kind, & Jones, 2008; Jenkins &
Nelson, 2005; see also Osborne et al., 2003). Consequently, along with their achievement,
students subject interest is construed as equally important and a desirable outcome of
instructional processes (Krapp, 2002; Schiefele, 1998).
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
PHYSICS TEACHERS KNOWLEDGE AND MOTIVATION 3
Student Achievement in Physics. Student achievement is widely considered the major

outcome of students learning (about science, e.g., Organization for Economic Development and
Co-operation [OECD], 2010; National Research Council [NRC], 2012). Student achievement is
indicated not only by the knowledge of a broad range of facts, but also by a well-connected
knowledge organized around the core ideas of a domain (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000).
Knowledge organized in this way is expected to enable students to apply this knowledge to known
contexts as well as new contexts that require further learning (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999). That
is, a knowledge of science ideas as well as the relationships between these ideas in the light of the
core ideas of science is considered to form the basis for student competence in science (e.g., NRC,
2012). However, research has repeatedly and consistently shown that many students struggle in
developing such integrated knowledge (Beaton et al., 1996; OECD, 2004, 2010). In order to help
students develop integrated knowledge, science instruction needs to systematically identify
relationships between science ideas and connect them to observations of the real world to make
sense of and then explain phenomena or solve problems respectively (Fortus & Krajcik, 2012;
Fortus, Sutherland Adams, Krajcik, & Reiser, 2015; Linn, 2000; Linn, Clark, & Slotta, 2003).
Student Interest in Physics. Interest is positively associated with students content-related
learning and achievement (Hidi, 1990; Koller et al., 2001; Laukenmann et al., 2003; Marsh,
Trautwein, L udtke, Koller, & Baumert, 2005; Wigfield & Cambria, 2010) and also has a central
role when it comes to lifelong learning and career-related choices (e.g., Koller et al., 2001;
Taskinen, Asseburg, & Walter, 2009; see also Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Interest describes an
individuals inclination towards and liking of a particular object (e.g., the subject of physics) or
class of objects (e.g., solving problems in different domains) and includes cognitive as well as
affective processes (Hidi, Renninger, & Krapp, 2004).
In general, students regard science as moderately interesting, yet compared to other school
subjects the science subjects are perceived as less interesting (Jenkins & Nelson, 2005; Sjoberg &
Schreiner, 2006). According to Osborne et al. (2003), physicsalbeit perceived as usefulis the
least interesting for students compared to chemistry and biology. In the developmental trend of
declining interests during secondary school (e.g., Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, & Wigfield,
2002; Watt, 2004), the observed decline is most prominent for physics and chemistry (see Krapp &
Prenzel, 2011).
Reciprocity of Interest and Achievement. It is still in debate whether interest influences
achievement or rather achievement influences interest or whether in fact both directions of
influence are equally strong (Koller et al., 2001). In general, it is assumed that interest and
achievement are mutually beneficial (Hidi, 1990; Schiefele, 1998; Schiefele, Krapp, & Schreyer,
1993), a fact for which there is considerable empirical evidence (e.g., Chiu & Xihua, 2008;
Denissen, Zarrett, & Eccles, 2007; Koller et al., 2001; Marsh et al., 2005). Successful learning
goes along with experiences of competence and agency and thus increases students intrinsic
orientations and interest. Interest, on the other hand, supports deep-learning strategies and higher-
order cognitive processes, thus supporting learning and hence also achievement (see Hidi, 1990;
Schiefele, 1991, 1998).
In the present study, we therefore aim to explore the mutual influence of students
achievement and interest on each other. Further, we focus on proximal antecedents of students
learning outcomes, namely the way the learning environment is designed, that is teacher behavior
and instructional practices. Thereby, two instructional features are highlighted: Cognitive
activation as the instructional feature impacting students achievement, and enthusiastic teaching
behavior impacting students interest.

Instructional Processes
Cognitive Activation. Especially in a domain such as physics which is perceived as difficult

and demanding by students (Angell et al., 2004; Jenkins & Nelson, 2005; Kessels et al., 2006),
adaptively supporting students learning processes is highly important. Cognitively activating
instruction is characterized by cognitively challenging and well-structured learning opportuni-
ties (Baumert et al., 2010, p. 145). The tasks and questions offered and implemented by the
teacher are demanding and may challenge or be opposed to students prior beliefs or concepts. The
teacher engages students in elaboration and discussion and lets them explain their own
understanding instead of just going for right or wrong answers, thus eliciting higher cognitive
processes in students. This is reflected in items for rating the perceived cognitive challenge in
teachers tasks from the students perspective (e.g., sample item in Kunter et al., 2008, Our
mathematics teacher asks us to explain our thought processes thoroughly, p. 473). Cognitive
activation may also be assessed by direct rating of teachers tasks and questions, for example,
based on classroom observations (Lipowsky et al., 2009; Praetorius, Lenske, & Helmke, 2012).
Both perspectives seem to converge (Clausen, 2002) providing evidence that cognitively
challenging instruction prompts high levels of cognitive activation in students. At present,
cognitive activation has mostly been investigated in mathematics instruction and found to
positively influence students achievement (Baumert et al., 2010; Kunter et al., 2013; Lipowsky
et al., 2009).
Enthusiastic Teaching. Enthusiastic teaching is a particular effective mode of delivering
information to students (Kunter et al., 2008, p. 469) and describes teachers expressive style and
generally energetic, animated, and inspiring teaching (Babad, 2007; Brophy & Good, 1986;
Murray, 2007). Enthusiastic teaching is considered an element of high-quality teaching and is
predictive of student outcomes, particularly of affective and motivational outcomes such as
enjoyment (Frenzel, Goetz, Ludtke, Pekrun, & Sutton, 2009; Kunter et al., 2013) and interest
(Frenzel, Goetz, Pekrun, & Watt, 2010; Keller, Goetz, Becker, Morger, & Hensley, 2014).
Teacher Knowledge and Motivation
What teachers do, how they behave, the way they design instruction and interact with students
depends on their expertise. A perusal of empirical educational literature reveals that not only are a
plethora of teacher prerequisites being scrutinized. Research targeting motivational aspects of
teachers expertise is also largely separated from research dealing with knowledge- and thus
content-related factors of teachers. Research so far indicates that the extent to which teachers are
able to offer cognitively activating instruction to their students may depend on their own
pedagogical content knowledge, and conversely the extent to which they behave enthusiastically
may depend on their own level of motivation.
Teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Recent research in mathematics and the science
subjects pointed towards teachers pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as one of the most
influential factors contributing to students learning and achievement (see Gess-Newsome, 2013).
Within Shulmans landscape of teacher knowledge (Shulman, 1986, 1987), PCK takes up a
prominent role in that it connects subject matter knowledge and teachers understanding of how to
teach contents to students. Thereby, PCK is the knowledge to make subject matter accessible to
students (Kleickmann et al., 2013, p. 91) and is understood as a combination of content and
pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own special form of professional
understanding (Shulman, 1987, p. 8). Most research on PCK has been done in the domain of

mathematics (see Depaepe, Verschaffel, & Kelchtermans, 2013) and the natural science domains
(for an overview, see Berry, Friedrichsen, & Loughran, 2015). Teachers PCK is usually
considered as a necessary prerequisite for cognitive activation (Baumert et al., 2010; Hill et al.,
2005). It can be assumed that high levels of PCK allow teachers to devise learning environments
that challenge but at the same time support students learning processes, with highly
knowledgeable teachers being able to anticipate student difficulties and adaptively respond when
students encounter problems. Indeed, cognitive activation as the facet of instructional quality
which captures highly structured, cognitively challenging instructional processes (see earlier and
for example, Hugener et al., 2009; Lipowsky et al., 2009) and PCK were found to be highly
correlated (Baumert et al., 2010; Kunter et al., 2013).
Teacher Motivation. In research, teacher motivation has been investigated mainly in terms
of self-efficacy beliefs (e.g., Dicke et al., 2014; Klassen & Chiu, 2011; Moe, Pazzaglia, &
Ronconi, 2010; see also Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, & Davis, 2009) and goal orientations (e.g., Butler,
2007, 2012; Klassen, Perry, & Frenzel, 2012; Nitsche, Dickhauser, Fasching, & Dresel, 2011;
Retelsdorf, Butler, Streblow, & Schiefele, 2010). Less often has teacher motivation been
examined in terms of intrinsic motivation (see Kunter & Holzberger, 2013; Roth, 2013) or
(positive) affect (Frenzel et al., 2009; Keller et al., 2014; Kunter et al., 2008). The findings
overall suggest that teachers motivation determines their instructional behavior and hence
students outcomes (e.g., Butler & Shibaz, 2008; Kunter et al., 2013; Schiefele & Schaffner,
2015). Among other influential factors, particularly teachers motivation and their enthusiastic
and inspiring teaching behaviors seem to affect students motivational and affective outcomes
(Frenzel et al., 2009; Keller et al., 2014; Kunter et al., 2013), a fact for which there is tentative
empirical evidence also in the science subjects (Bryan, Glynn, & Kittleson, 2011; Pickens &
Eick, 2009; see also Potvin & Hasni, 2014).
Interest as a particular kind of intrinsic motivation has rarely been investigated with teachers
(for an exception, see Long & Hoy, 2006). Schiefele and Schaffner (2015) showed elementary
school teachers teaching-related interest influencing students subject interest. Based on the
intrinsic nature and combination of positive affect and value-related cognitions in interest (Krapp,
2007), it can be assumed that teacher motivation positively impacts students interest. With
regards to positive affect, teachers teaching-related enjoyment or experienced enthusiasm has
been shown to be transmitted to students in a way that supports their own enjoyment (Frenzel et al.,
2009; Kunter et al., 2013) and subject-related interest (Keller et al., 2014). Research evidenced so
far that this effect is facilitated via enthusiastic teaching behaviors: Teachers with higher levels of
enjoyment exhibit higher levels of enthusiastic, enigmatic, and animated teaching (Frenzel et al.,
2009; Keller et al., 2014; Kunter et al., 2008). Thereby, enthusiastic teaching can be understood as
the corresponding instructional behavior through which teachers interest as an affectively toned
form of motivation is displayed and as such becomes visible during teaching and perceivable by
students.
Conjoint Consideration of Teacher Knowledge and Motivation. Because knowledge- and

motivation-related facets of teacher expertise are rarely investigated together, it is largely
unknown whether teacher knowledge affects students motivational outcomes or, conversely,
whether teacher motivation affects students content learning and thus their achievement. In a
study considering both knowledge and motivation in elementary science school teachers (Ohle,
Boone, & Fischer, 2014), neither an effect of teachers content knowledge on students
achievement and interest, nor of teacher interest on these two outcomes was found. In mathematics
secondary schools (Kunter et al., 2013), teachers PCK was predictive only for students
achievement, whereas teachers motivation (i.e., their experienced enthusiasm) was positively
related to both students achievement and their affective outcomes. A closer look into the evidence
of this study reveals that the effect of PCK on students achievement was facilitated through
cognitively activating instruction, the one instructional facet teachers motivation did not have an
impact on. Given this evidence and the continuing separateness of research on teacher knowledge
and motivation leads to the impression that on a theoretical level, the instructional mechanisms
through which these two teacher facets enact an influence on students are construed separate from
each other. This idea that teacher knowledge and their motivation are responsible for distinct
instructional processes, determining distinct, albeit related learning outcomes in students, may
only conclusively be tested when considering all teacher and student variables simultaneously.
The Present Study: Aims and Hypotheses
Both students achievement and their interest are considered important outcomes of
instruction as they each determine different, yet interrelated long-term consequences such as life-
long learning or academic choices. So far, however, most research either focused on knowledge or
motivation (both on the students as well as the teachers side), rarely investigating them together
or taking into account the instructional mechanisms through which the supposed effects teachers
on students are facilitated. The present study takes a multi-criteria perspective on students
learning outcomes investigating both student achievement and interest. In doing so, we aim to
determine whether these outcomes are predicted by two corresponding teacher variables, that is
their pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and motivation. Finally, it is investigated how the
supposed effects of teachers on student outcomes are facilitated through instructional features,
explaining not only whether teacher variables predict student outcomes, but also how.
With respect to students learning, there is substantial evidence that teachers pedagogical
content knowledge (PCK) as the knowledge to make subject matter accessible to students (Krauss
et al., 2008) is a key element explaining student learning and achievement (Baumert et al., 2010).
Particularly, teachers with a high level of PCK are able to devise instruction in a way that is
challenging but also supportive (Baumert et al., 2010), a feature of instruction which is called
cognitive activation (Lipowsky et al., 2009; Praetorius et al., 2012). Therefore, in the present study
the impact of physics teachers PCK on students achievement is addressed as well as whether this
effect is mediated by cognitive activation as the explanatory instructional feature.
Previous research evidenced that teacher motivation impacts students interest in a particular
subject, whereby particularly intrinsic orientations and affective forms of teacher motivation are
influential with regard to student outcomes (Kunter et al., 2013; see also Kunter & Holzberger,
2013). Further, research findings evidenced that positive affect of teachers (such as enjoying
teaching) and experienced enthusiasm as a motivational disposition is transmitted to students via
enthusiastic teaching behaviors (Frenzel et al., 2009; Kunter et al., 2008). The present study
therefore considers teachers interest in teaching physics as an intrinsic form of motivation that
also includes positive affect (Krapp, 2007). Further, it investigates the impact of teacher
motivation (that is interest) on students physics-related interest and whether this effect is
mediated by enthusiastic teaching.
Our hypotheses include direct and indirect effects, respectively, and are summarized in
Figure 1. The first hypothesis suggests that teacher PCK and motivation favorably influence
student outcomes. Specifically, it was assumed that teacher PCK is predictive of students
achievement and teacher motivation is predictive of students interest in physics (Hypothesis 1).
In also modeling the interrelation of teacher variables as well as the cross-effects from teacher
PCK on student interest and teacher motivation on student achievement, the direct effects are
partial effects. That is, the direct effects of teacher PCK on student achievement and teacher
Figure 1. Summary of study hypotheses.
motivation on student interest denote the unique contribution of the respective teacher variable
when controlling for the other. The second hypothesis supposes that these effects of teachers on
students should be mediated by corresponding instructional features, that is cognitive activation
and enthusiastic teaching (Hypothesis 2). Based on previous findings, it was hypothesized that the
effect of teacher PCK on students achievement should be mediated by cognitive activation as the
corresponding feature of instruction (Baumert et al., 2010). Conversely, the effect of teacher
motivation on students interest is mediated by enthusiastic teaching behaviors as perceived by
students (Frenzel et al., 2009).
Method
Design
The present study was part of a larger project (Quality of Instruction in Physics, QuIP) which
aimed to examine the interrelations of teacher characteristics, features of instructional quality and
student outcomes in the subject of physics, taking a cross-national perspective, and utilizing a
multi-method approach. A detailed description of the project (including the study design) is
provided elsewhere (see Fischer, Labudde, Neumann, & Viiri, 2014).
The project employed a pre-post design with regular physics instruction on electricity in
between (see Figure 2). To examine features of the quality of this instruction, for each participating
teacher and class either a double lesson or two single lessons (totaling an instructional time of
90 minutes) were videotaped. To ensure comparability across classes, the topic of the videotaped
lesson was the same across teachers and classes, namely the relation between electric energy and
power.
The pre-test (T1) was administered immediately before the instruction on electricity started.
The assessment served as a baseline as students reported on their interest and were tested for their
achievement. For teachers, their PCK and motivation were assessed. The post-test (T2) took place
after completion of the instruction on electricity which was approximately six weeks after the
videotaped lesson(s). The assessment included measures on students achievement and interest.
Sample
The sample included a total of N 1,614 students from grade 10 in secondary schools
grouped in 77 classes (47 in Germany, 30 in Switzerland); average class size was 20.96 students.
The sample was drawn in order to approximate the distribution of students attending the respective
Figure 2. Study design.
school tracks in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia and the German-speaking part of
Switzerland. The distribution of classes across countries and school tracks is shown in Table 1.
Students (50% female) were on average 15.45 years old (SD 0.80 years). The physics teachers
(N 77) were tested in conjunction with their class. The vast majority of teachers were male
(86%) and teachers were on average 45.61 years old (SD 9.91 years). Teaching experience
varied from 1 to 41 years (on average 16.59 years, SD 11.93 years).
Instruments
Student Achievement. The test instrument for students achievement was developed
specifically for the purpose of the QuIP project. In order to capture students learning as a function
of the videotaped instruction, the achievement test was tailored to the topic of electricity.
Specifically, the instrument assessed students knowledge about electricity, energy, and electrical
energy. It included a total of 54 items distributed across three different booklets each containing 18
items. Each student received one booklet at T1 and the other two booklets at T2. In order to obtain
estimates of students knowledge at T1 and T2 located on the same metric, a Rasch analysis was
employed. The analysis yielded sufficient psychometric functioning with adequate fit of the data
to the Rasch model and a reliability of 0.63 for the person parameters according to Warms Mean
Weighted Likelihood Estimates (WLE). For the present study analyses, estimates for student
ability as obtained from the Rasch analysis are utilized. Further details on the development,
validation, and additional psychometric properties of the student achievement test are provided
elsewhere (Geller, Neumann, Boone, & Fischer, 2014).
Table 1
Study sample
Germany Switzerland
Total GE R GY H R GY
Classes/teachers 77 21 10 16 13 10 7
Students 1614 484 211 410 203 166 140
Note: GE: comprehensive school (Gesamtschule), H: lowest track (Hauptschule), R: middle track (Realschule), GY:
highest track (Gymnasium).

Student Interest. For assessing students interest, the PISA 2006 measure for interest and
enjoyment in science (Frey et al., 2009) was adapted to the subject of physics. The final scale
included four items which could be rated on a six-point scale from (1) totally agree to (6) totally
disagree with a sample item being I am interested in learning about physics; item wordings are
given in Appendix A. Items were inverted so that higher scores reflect higher levels of interest. The
same items were issued in the pre- and post-test, so that a direct comparison is possible. The scale
achieved high internal consistency (Cronbachs a 0.93 for pre- and post-assessment,
respectively).
Teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge. The instrument assessing teachers pedagogical
content knowledge (PCK) was newly developed as a paper-and-pencil test (e.g., Baumert et al.,
2010; Krauss et al., 2008). A synthesis of previous investigations suggests that PCK is a highly
topic specific knowledge which requires topic-specific assessment as compared to assessing it on a
general basis (see Depaepe et al., 2013; van Driel & Berry, 2012). Thus and in order to be able to
link teachers PCK to their instructional behavior as observed in the videotaped lesson(s), the PCK
test referred specifically to the topic of electricity. Building on the conceptualization of PCK
proposed by Shulman (1986, 1987) and Ball, Thames, and Phelps (2008), the instrument assessed
teachers PCK in three dimensions, namely (1) knowledge about common students misconcep-
tions and difficulties, (2) knowledge about curriculum, and (3) knowledge about the difficulty of
tasks and contents. Development and validation are described in detail in Olszewski (2010) and
Ergonenc, Neumann, and Fischer (2014). The final instrument included 25 open-ended items, 12
in category (1), 3 in category (2), and 10 in category (3); sample items are given in Ergonenc et al.
(2014). The open-ended items were scored by one rater. A second rater independently coded 10%
of the test booklets yielding acceptable interrater agreement (Cohens k 0.67; see Cohen, 1960).
The internal consistency of the test also was good (Cronbachs a 0.78).
Teacher Motivation. Teacher motivation was operationalized as teachers interest in teaching
physics. In line with previous research on teacher motivation (for an overview, see e.g.,
Richardson, Karabenick, & Watt, 2013), teacher motivation (similar to students interest) was
assessed on a general level, that is related to the overall subject of physics. The present instrument
was newly developed and was based on the interest conceptualization developed by Krapp (2007).
As such, the items addressed the positive affect that comes with teaching physics (e.g., Im
excited about teaching physics.) as well as the personal value attributed to the activity of teaching
physics (e.g., Teaching physics is important to me.). Altogether, the scale included four items
which could be rated on a five-point scale ranging from (1) not agree at all to (5) agree totally.
Wordings of all items are summarized in Appendix A. Internal consistency of the scale was good
(Cronbachs a .81).
Cognitive Activation. Cognitive activation as a part of instructional quality refers to the
degree of cognitive demands required of students within one lesson that facilitate meaningful
learning and understanding of subject-related contents and concepts (Lipowsky et al., 2009).
Cognitive activation can be assessed by direct rating of teachers tasks and questions by analyzing
the complexity of the content of teachers (written) tasks and questions (Neubrand, Jordan,
Krauss, Blum, & L owen, 2013), or based on classroom observations (Lipowsky et al., 2009;
Praetorius et al., 2012). Because the level of complexity and its assessment is inextricably linked
to subject matter and understanding thereof (e.g., Lee & Liu, 2010), cognitive activation was
assessed by analyzing teachers tasks via expert ratings based on the video-taped physics lessons.
Teachers tasks were rated based on a hierarchical categorization of complexity on a six-point
scale: (1) one fact, (2) several facts, (3) one relation, (4) several relations, (5) several
interconnected relations, and (6) overarching concept (see Appendix A for sample teacher tasks
and questions).
Each lesson was analyzed on an event-by-event basis with regards to the tasks and questions it
contained. That is, the lesson was divided into a series of events, each of which representing one
task or question. Each event was then analyzed with respect to its complexity. Finally, for each
lesson, the average task complexity level was determined. Although the average task complexity
does not allow for conclusions about how cognitive activation develops across the lesson, a higher
average task complexity suggests that a lesson offered higher cognitive activation (i.e., more
higher-order learning opportunities) and thus should lead to higher students achievement level.
Therefore average task complexity was utilized in further analyses as a proxy of cognitive
activation.
The rating was conducted by two coders who had profound knowledge background in
physics. They firstly practiced coding and their (common) understanding of the coding system
with videotaped physics lessons not part of the present study until they reached good agreement.
Afterwards, they double coded five lessons of the present study based upon which the interrater
agreement was calculated. It yielded an adequate value (Cohens k 0.65; Cohen, 1960).
Afterwards, the coders independently rated the rest of the physics lessons of the present study with
regards to cognitive activation.
Enthusiastic Teaching. The scale for student perceived enthusiastic teaching was newly
developed and its items reflect the teacher being able to convey excitement and interest to the
students. Thus, enthusiastic teaching is understood as a feature of instruction. The scale was
included in the student questionnaire at T1 and included three items, with a sample item being
Our teacher can get the class really excited; all item wordings are given in Appendix A. Items
could be rated on a six-point scale from (1) totally right to (6) totally wrong. Items were inverted so
that higher scores reflect higher levels of enthusiastic teaching. Internal consistency of the scale
was good (Cronbachs a 0.92).
Video-Taping Procedure and Ethics

As part of the overall project, routine physics lessons on a fixed topic were videotaped to
be accessible afterwards for in-depth analyses of instructional processes. Taking classroom
videotapes puts special demands on researchers who need to ensure not only adequate technical
quality of the tapes and comparability across different schools, school settings, and countries,
but also have to consider ethical and data protection rights of participating students and
teachers.
Regarding technical and comparability issues, the present project abided by the guidelines
developed and enacted by the IPN video study (Seidel, Prenzel, & Kobarg, 2005; see also Fischer
& Neumann, 2012). Thereby, a team of trained testing personnel taped instruction with two
cameras: One camera had a fixed frame and angle including as much of the classroom as possible.
The second camera was operated by one of the testing personnel and was set to follow the teacher
as it was assumed that in the vast majority of lessons and lesson time, the important instructional
and interactional processes involved the teacher to some extent. To ensure adequate audio quality,
in addition to the camera microphones three separate microphones were distributed in the
classroom; their audio-tracks were later synchronized to the audio- and video-tracks of the
cameras. This procedure allowed for similar quality and comparability of classroom videos
recorded as part of the overall project (for details see Neumann, Fischer, Labudde, & Viiri, 2014).
All video and audio data were linked within the program Videograph (Rimmele, 2015) into which
the coding system for cognitive activation was implemented and coded data exported to SPSS.
The current project abided by ethical guidelines of, for example, the American Psychological
Association [APA] (2010). Participation in the current study was completely voluntary and
teachers and students received no monetary compensation for participation. Participants were
informed that the study and data analyses were conducted purely for scientific purposes. They
were assured that personal identifiers would not be retained in the final datasets. Verbal consent
was obtained from teachers. Permission for testing and videotaping legally minor students was
obtained in written form from the parents prior to lesson recording. Parents were issued an
information letter on study purposes, data processing and protection/anonymity of personal
information and were provided with contact information of the research team. Thereby, the project
and its procedures are in accordance with ethical standards (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki of the
World Medical Association).
Data Analyses
Data represented a nested data structure with students (N 1,614) nested within classes/
teachers (N 77). In order to correctly estimate the standard errors in such a nested data
structure as well as to differentiate effects occurring within and between classes, multilevel
structural equation models (MSEM) were calculated utilizing the software Mplus 7.0 (Muthen
& Muthen, 19982012). Teacher and student motivation as well as students perceived
enthusiastic teaching were modeled as latent variables, teacher pedagogical content
knowledge, students achievement and cognitive activation as manifest variables. Two models
(M1 and M2) were estimated with regards to the two study hypotheses: Firstly, the effect of
teacher variables on student outcomes was modeled (Hypothesis 1; M1), and in a second model
the hypothesized mediators cognitive activation and enthusiastic teaching were introduced
(Hypothesis 2; M2).
Students interest at T1 and T2 were modeled as latent variables. To account for common
method variance due to identical item formulations, residuals of the respective items at T1 and T2
were correlated to each other (correlated uniqueness; see e.g., Marsh, Byrne, & Craven, 1992).
In order to distinguish within from between effects, separate models were estimated on the
within level (i.e., across students, but within classes) and the between level (i.e., across classes and
teachers). Thereby, predictors on the within level were groupmean centered to determine relations
occurring within classes, and predictors on the between level were grandmean centered. Beyond
Chi-square statistics, model fit was evaluated utilizing the CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR and their
respective cut-off values (see Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Results
Descriptive Results
Descriptive statistics for the study variables are provided in Table 2, their intercorrelations in
Table 3. These statistics show that teachers scored moderately well on the PCK test (with an
average 42% of items solved correctly) and achieved only low to moderate levels of cognitive
activation in the coded physics lessons (average level of cognitive activation 2.15 out of a scale
from 1 to 6). Teachers were motivated and enthusiastic to a moderate to high extent (teacher
motivation: M 3.84 out of a scale from 1 to 5; student-perceived enthusiastic teaching: M 4.15
out of a scale from 1 to 6). Values for students achievement in Table 2 show the average person
ability (and standard deviation) obtained from Rasch analysis. Item difficulty was constrained to
0, suggesting that the test was slightly more difficult than students were able both at T1 (mean
value 0.35) and T2 (mean value 0.22). Still an overall increase of students ability from
T1 to T2 could be observed (for further information, see Geller et al., 2014). Students exhibited a
Table 2
Descriptive statistics of study variables
M SD ICC(1) ICC(2)
Teacher
Motivation 3.84 0.77
PCK 0.42 0.09
Instruction
Enthusiastic teaching 4.13 1.39 0.30 0.90
Cognitive activation 2.15 0.38
Student
Interest
T1 3.43 1.33 0.08 0.65
T2 3.43 1.31 0.11 0.72
Achievement
T1 0.32 0.94 0.22 0.85
T2 0.18 0.97 0.31 0.90
Note: Teacher motivation items were rated on a five-point scale from (1) to (5); student interest and student perceived
teacher enthusiasm items as well as cognitive activation were rated on a six-point scale from (1) to (6). The mean value of
PCK gives the percentage of the tasks which were solved correctly. Means and standard deviations are based on observed,
manifest scales, and are reported for the class level (N 77, for teacher interest, PCK, and cognitive activation) and the
student level (N 1,614, for student perceived enthusiastic teaching, interest, and achievement). ICC(1) gives the
percentage of variance that lies on the between level, that is across classes/teachers. ICC(2) indicates the reliability of an
aggregated measures. It is a function of ICC(1) and the mean cluster size (20.96 students); for a calculation formula see
Ludtke et al. (2006).
moderate interest in physics (mean values 3.45 and 3.43 for T1 and T2, respectively, out of a
scale from 1 to 6).
A look into the correlations between the variables analyzed in this study (Table 3) reveals that
students interest and achievement are positively correlated to a small or moderate extent,
respectively (r 0.25 for T1 and r 0.33 for T2). However, the corresponding variables on the
Table 3
Intercorrelations of study variables
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Teacher
(1) Motivation 0.05 0.27 0.09 0.29 0.43 0.13 0.13
(2) PCK 0.04 0.20 0.08 0.20 0.45 0.45
Instruction
(3) Enthusiastic teaching 0.14 0.70 0.55 0.07 0.12
(4) Cognitive activation 0.02 0.12 0.37 0.41
Student
(5) Interest (T1) 0.36 0.82 0.15 0.27a
(6) Interest (T2) 0.27 0.64 0.18 0.32
(7) Achievement (T1) 0.06 0.25 0.23 0.85
(8) Achievement (T2) 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.43
Note: Within-level correlations are shown below diagonal, between-level correlations above diagonal.
a
p < 0.10 (marginally significant).

p < 0.05.

p < 0.01.

p < 0.001.

teachers side, that is their PCK and motivation, are not related (r 0.05, p 0.60), nor are the two
features of instruction, cognitive activation, and enthusiastic teaching related to each other
(r 0.14, p 0.21).
The values of the intra-class correlation ICC(1), which give the proportion of variance in a
given variable that lies between classes and teachers (Ludtke, Trautwein, Kunter, & Baumert,
2006), reveal that a sizable proportion of variance in enthusiastic teaching (30%) was located
between teachers, indicating that differences in enthusiastic teaching were not only grounded in
differences in the perception of students. Student interest only had a small proportion of variance
between classes (approximately 10%), indicating that interest to a large extent was an individual
characteristic of students and also that students level of interest was very heterogeneous within
one given class. Student achievement, however, had a larger class-specific component with 21%
and 31% of variance between classes. All student-reported variables modeled on the between level
(enthusiastic teaching, student interest, and achievement at T2) showed acceptable reliabilities of
their aggregated measures (ICC[2] > 0.70).
Teacher PCK and Motivation Impacting Students Achievement and Interest (M1)
To examine the impact of teacher PCK and motivation on student outcomes, we ran a MSEM
in which teacher variables predicted students achievement and interest at T2 while controlling on
the within level for students prior levels of achievement and interest at T1 (M1). The results are
shown in Figure 3.
On the within level, students interest in physics seemed relatively stable (b 0.69 between
interest at T1 and T2). Students achievement at T2, however, was dependent both on prior
achievement and prior interest (b 0.43 and 0.24, respectively), indicating that when controlling
for prior achievement, students who reported higher levels of interest at T1 also had higher levels
of achievement at T2.
On the between level and congruent to our hypotheses, teacher pedagogical content
knowledge predicted students achievement (b 0.44). Teacher motivation was predictive for
students interest in the subject (b 0.53). The cross effects were not statistically significant,
suggesting that students achievement was not directly affected by teacher motivation and
students interest was not directly affected by teacher PCK. Explained variances in student
outcomes on the class level were substantial (R2 0.34 and 0.21 for student achievement and
interest, respectively). Model fit for M1 was overall acceptable (x2 221.273, df 58, p 0.00,
RMSEA 0.04, CFI 0.98, and SRMRwithin 0.02), only the between SRMR of 0.07 was
slightly above the cut-off value of 0.05 proposed by Hu and Bentler (1999).
Instructional Features as Mediators (M2)
In order to explain the effects of teacher variables on student outcomes via instructional
features, cognitive activation and perceived enthusiastic teaching were included as mediators on
the between level as part of the model (M2). The results are shown in Figure 4.
Teacher PCK was predictive of cognitive activation (b 0.33), and cognitive activation in
turn predicted students achievement at T2 (b 0.37). The direct effect from PCK on student
achievement was smaller after introducing the mediator (b 0.34), suggesting partial mediation.
However, the indirect effect did not reach statistical significance (bindirect 0.12, p 0.105).
Explained variance in student achievement was increased compared to M1 when including
cognitive activation as an additional predictor (R2 0.36).
Teacher motivation was perceived by students in the form of enthusiastic teaching (b 0.32),
which in turn predicted students interest at T2 (b 0.49). The direct effect of teacher motivation
on students interest was reduced, although still substantial, when introducing enthusiastic
Figure 3. Results of the multilevel structural equation model (M1) of teacher variables predicting student variables
(between level), controlling for students prior interest and achievement at T1 on the within level. Standardized coefficients
are shown; the values at the outcome variables indicate explained variance (R2). Statistically not significant relations
(p > 0.05) are indicated by a dashed line. p < 0.01, p < 0.001.
teaching as mediator (b 0.33), suggesting a partial mediation (indirect effect bindirect 0.16,
p < 0.01). Also, explained variance in students interest was increased compared to M1 when
including enthusiastic teaching (R2 0.53). Model fit for M2 with the exception of between
SRMR of 0.07 was acceptable (x2 352.155, df 127, p 0.00, RMSEA 0.03, CFI 0.98,
and SRMRwithin 0.02).
Discussion
The present study takes a multi-criteria perspective on students outcomes in physics by
addressing their achievement and interest, and investigating the impact of two corresponding
variables on the teachers side, namely their PCK and motivation. Given students particularly low
interest in physics and their perception of physics as a relatively demanding subject (Kessels et al.,
2006), identifying factors that (positively) affect both learning and interest is important. Following
the instructional quality paradigm we assumed that student outcomes are the result of instructional
features (Lipowsky et al., 2009) and that differences in instructional features can be explained by
teacher characteristics (Kunter et al., 2013). The results support this assumption by confirming
that teacher PCK predicts student achievement by means of cognitive activation, and teacher
motivation determines students interest through enthusiastic teaching.
Figure 4. Mediation model (M2) of instructional variables mediating the effect of teacher motivation and pedagogical
content knowledge on student interest and achievement, respectively. Standardized coefficients are shown; the values at the
outcome variables indicate explained variance (R2). Statistically not significant relations (p > 0.05) are indicated by a
dashed line. p < 0.10 (marginally significant). p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001.
Interest and Its Relation to Achievement
Stability and Malleability of Students Interest. The results show that students individual
interest in physics over the course investigated in the present study (up to six months between T1
and T2) remains relatively stable (see high auto-regression between T1 and T2 in within-part of
the model in Figure 3). This is in line with theoretical considerations on the stability or
changeability of individuals belief systems (e.g., Rokeach, 1985) as well as previous studies
showing interest as a relatively stable preference in students (e.g., Hofstein & Welch, 1984; Koller
et al., 2001; Sadler, Sonnert, Hazari, & Tai, 2012; Tracey, Robbins, & Hofsess, 2005). However,
the results also reveal that students interest at T2 is predicted by the teacher or more specifically
the teachers motivation and enthusiastic teaching behaviors (see between-part of the model in
Figure 4). This is in line with previous findings evidencing that teachers and the way they devise
instruction and learning environments have a substantial impact upon their students emerging
interest (e.g., Frenzel et al., 2010; Keller et al., 2014; Kunter, Baumert, & Koller, 2007; Patrick,
Turner, Meyer, & Midgley, 2003). Teachers often seem to believe that a student either does or
does not have interest (Lipstein & Renninger, 2007, p. 116), coming to the conclusion that student
interest is not malleable and that they themselves as teachers have no impact on it. Our findings
clearly disprove this belief of teachers, providing evidence that despite the nature of interest as a
rather stable characteristic, teachers own motivation and their behavior in fact influence students
interest.
Reciprocal Effects of Interest and Achievement. With respect to the interrelation of students
interest and achievement, effects are usually assumed to be reciprocal (see Renninger & Hidi,
2002): Interest should on the one hand trigger deep-learning strategies and in-depth processing of
information that are ultimately beneficial for learning and achievement (Schiefele, 1996;
Schiefele & Krapp, 1996). On the other hand, performing well should provide important feedback
information and foster students competence beliefs, thus satisfying one of the basic human needs
which would ultimately feed into higher levels of self-determined motivation and interest (Deci &
Ryan, 1991). Our results support the assumption of an effect of students interest prior to
instruction on their achievement after instruction; prior achievement had no effect on their
subsequent interest. In fact, empirical findings regarding this reciprocity are somewhat mixed:
Koller et al. (2001) found effects of prior achievement on subsequent interest, but not of interest on
achievement, whereas Marsh et al. (2005) found effect only of prior interest on subsequent
achievement. Mutually beneficial effects are reported, for example, by Koller, Trautwein, Ludtke,
and Baumert (2006) in the domain of mathematics, and by Denissen et al. (2007) in the domain of
mathematics, science, and English. Possibly, prior achievement does not automatically translate
into higher levels of perceived competence which ought to impact subsequent interest. Previous
studies in fact suggest that the reciprocity of interest and achievement depends on students
academic self-concept (Denissen et al., 2007; Guay, Ratelle, Roy, & Litalien, 2010; Marsh et al.,
2005). Therefore, reciprocal relations might develop only long-term and might presently not be
captured entirely due to the study design.
The Role of Teacher PCK for Students Achievement
One teacher characteristic focused on in the present study was pedagogical content knowledge
(PCK). In the recent years, research on PCK, particularly in mathematics and natural science
domains, has become increasingly popular, not the least because PCK has been shown multiple
times as one decisive element predicting students learning and achievement (see Gess-Newsome,
2013), with most evidence stemming from the mathematics domain (Ball et al., 2008; Baumert
et al., 2010; Hill et al., 2005). In finding a similar positive effect of PCK on student achievement,
the present study corroborates these previous findings also for the domain of physics.
The effect of PCK on students achievement was partially mediated by cognitive activation, a
content-related feature of instruction representing the cognitive challenge through task
implementation by the teacher. Specifically, teachers with high levels of PCK were able to
implement tasks of a higher complexity which in turn required higher-order cognitive processing
by the students, thus enabling them to acquire more complex and advanced knowledge structures
as evidenced by higher levels of achievement.
The Role of Teacher Motivation for Students Motivation
The second teacher variable, their motivation in the form of interest for teaching physics had a
positive effect on students interest. This is in accordance with previous findings in teacher
motivation research, although therein teacher interest as a particular form of motivation was only
targeted rarely. Specifically, effects on students for similarly intrinsic and/or affective forms of
teacher motivation have been found for teacher flow (in the subject of music; Bakker, 2005),
teacher enthusiasm (various subjects; Keller et al., 2014; Kunter et al., 2013; Patrick, Hisley, &

Kempler, 2000; see also Keller, Woolfolk Hoy, Goetz, & Frenzel, in press), or teacher enjoyment
(in mathematics; Frenzel et al., 2009).
The reason why teacher motivation should have an impact on student motivation is not easily
understood because most likely various explanatory processes are at work simultaneously. The
present study targeted one specifically, namely enthusiastic teaching, and found it partially
mediated the effect of teacher motivation on students interest. Enthusiastic teaching can be
understood as the expression of teacher positive affect, and has been found to mediate the relation
of teacher enjoyment on students enjoyment (Frenzel et al., 2009) and on students interest
(Keller et al., 2014). Partial mediation in the present study, however, points towards explanatory
processes beyond enthusiastic teaching. One such process could be related to the conceptualiza-
tion of teacher motivation as interest in the present study which incorporated also a value-related
component. It is possible, that teachers subjective belief regarding the personal value, importance
and relevance of teaching physics could translate into his/her teaching behavior and instructional
style, thus providing a role model for students (in the sense of social-cognitive theory; Bandura,
2001). These role models could inspire students to adopt physics-related values and attitudes as
their own, which is thus reflected in their elevated levels of interest.
Teacher Knowledge and Motivation: Cross Effects
In combining teacher knowledge and motivation as conjoint predictors of student outcomes,
the present study contributes to previous research in which these two teacher prerequisites are
rarely investigated together. Hence and within the present study, we can carve out unique effects of
teacher knowledge on student achievement when controlling for teacher motivation. Conversely,
unique effects of teacher motivation on student interest can be determined when controlling for
teacher knowledge. Our findings evidence no cross effects: Teacher knowledge contributes solely
to students achievement, and teacher motivation contributes solely to students interest (see
Figure 3).
Further, the underlying instructional mechanisms facilitating the respective effects of teacher
knowledge and motivation are very different. Teachers PCK manifests itself in the complexity of
teachers task and questions as a rather content specific feature of instruction, allowing students to
build upon and connect their previous knowledge and understanding of subject matter.
Conversely, teacher motivation manifests itself in enthusiastic teaching behaviors. Enthusiastic
teaching was assessed on a high-inferential level allowing no conclusions as to the concrete
behaviors, yet previous research allows for concluding that nonverbal expressiveness may play a
dominant role in enthusiastic teaching (Babad, 2007). Enthusiastic teaching and cognitive
activation, evidencing no substantial correlation (see Table 3), are thus two different aspects of
instruction facilitating the effects of teacher characteristics on student outcomes.
Taken together, we can conclude that teacher knowledge and motivation are equally
important prerequisites on the teachers side. They are independent of each other, evidenced by no
substantial correlation between teacher PCK and motivation (see Table 3). Further, the ways these
two prerequisites manifest themselves in instruction and teacher behavior, are very different, thus
resulting in no substantial cross-effects on students outcomes within the present investigation.
Study Strengths and Limitations
The strength of the present study lies in its multi-criteria as well as its multi-method approach
and the combination of different perspectives. The inclusion of data from teacher and student self-
report questionnaires (motivation, interest, perceived enthusiastic teaching), test instruments
(PCK, achievement), and classroom videos (cognitive activation) allows for a holistic impression
of effects and their explanatory processes. By including both students interest and achievement
and treating them as equally important, the study takes a broader perspective on student outcomes
than much of the previous research. Finally, taking instructional features into account, we
elucidate the important role of two important instructional features: Enthusiastic teaching and
cognitive activation.
However, some limitations also need to be considered with regards to the interpretation of
findings. First, PCK is a decisive prerequisite of teachers determining students learning and
achievement which is also supported by study findings. However, PCK depends on teachers
content knowledge (CK; see Baumert et al., 2010), which is not included as an antecedent in the
present study. Therefore, differing levels in teachers PCK could be due to differing levels of CK.
Future studies need to disentangle the effects of different kinds of teacher knowledge in
considering their PCK as well as other types of teacher knowledge, thus aiming for a
comprehensive picture how students learning can be fostered in instruction.
Second, two instructional features are considered, namely cognitive activation and
enthusiastic teaching. Cognitive activation was assessed by coding videotaped lessons as task
complexity (i.e., a highly content dependent feature of instruction). Enthusiastic teaching,
however, was assessed in the form of students perceptions of their teachers behavior in general
and is not related to one particular lesson. Therefore, the mediators although treated as such are
technically not on the same level of generalization: Cognitive activation is assessed lesson specific
whereas enthusiastic teaching is assessed on a generalized level. A previous study reported on the
relative stability of social supportive behaviors (which would also include enthusiastic teaching),
but found high lesson-to-lesson variability of cognitive activation (Praetorius, Pauli, Reusser,
Rakoczy, & Klieme, 2014). This needs to be kept in mind when interpreting the findings of the
present study. Further, whereas cognitive activation is assessed mid-point between Time 1 and
Time 2, enthusiastic teaching was assessed at Time 1. Although there is previous evidence that
enthusiastic teaching acts indeed as a mediator between teacher and student motivation, the effects
as found in the present study may have been influenced by the fact that teacher motivation and
students perceived enthusiastic teaching were assessed at the same time.
Third, 90 minutes of teaching for each class were analyzed by rating the task complexity of
teacher tasks or questions given within the lesson. The average task complexity was utilized as a
proxy for cognitive activation. Although a rank order in average cognitive activation was sufficient
for the present studys purposes, the overall level of cognitive challenge could have been
underestimated because each task was awarded the same weight. Further, it might be possible that
student learning is not only affected by the overall challenge, but also by the task sequence within
each lesson (see Supplementary Material for task sequences for three sample lessons). More in-
depth analyses on within-lesson variability and sequence of task complexity might provide
insights to further our understanding of how students learning might best be supported.
Fourth, constructs as considered within the present study varied regarding their specificity. On
the one hand and in order to tie teachers PCK and students achievement to cognitive activation as a
feature of instruction observed in the videotaped lessons, these variables were all assessed
referring specifically to the topic of electricity. On the other hand, motivational variablesthat
is teacher motivation, enthusiastic teaching, and students interestwere assessed referring to
physics in general. Thus, the present study cannot account for the possibility of teachers motivation
as well as students interest varying regarding different topics. Whereas there seems to be evidence
that students interest varies with respect to different topics and activities (Haussler, Hoffmann,
Langeheine, Rost, & Sievers, 1998; see also Krapp & Prenzel, 2011), teacher motivation is
generally considered on a domain-specific level but not further differentiated with regards to topics
within the domain (for an overview on teacher motivation research, see Richardson et al., 2013).
Thus, the present approach is consistent to previous approaches, allowing us to compare our
findings to previous findings (such as those of Kunter et al., 2013). Further, topic specific differences
would only be expected regarding differences in mean levels, not in structural relations. That is, the
underlying mechanisms explaining an effect of teacher motivation on students interest should be
the same across topics. Although the instruction in between has been topic-specific, the fact that
we found an effect on a general level lets usalbeit guardedlyassume generalizability of our
findings also to other topics. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to know whether teachers and
students interest differed with regards to different topics, and whether fostering students interest in
one specific topic can contribute to their overall interest in the subject.
Finally and although the sample covers two countries and different school tracks and thus
allows for rather generalizable conclusions, the sample size is not large enough to investigate
differences between countries and school tracks: In accordance with, for example, Maas and
Hox (2005) who evidenced severely biased standard errors of Level 2 estimates for sample
sizes smaller than 50 units on Level 2, the multilevel structural equation models were not
estimated separately for the subsamples. Also, from a theoretical viewpoint, its hard to come
up with explanations why there would be, for example, differential effects of PCK on students
achievement in the two countries. That is, while mean level differences in PCK or in student
achievement could very well be the case, the effect of teachers PCK on student achievement
is generally assumed to be invariant across countries (or, similarly, across school tracks).
Beyond mean level differences (see Table B1 in the Appendix B for the current study), we
know of no studies evidencing country differences in structural relationships between
variables. Although there were some differences in correlational patterns between Germany
and Switzerland for the present study (see Table B2 in Appendix B), the small sample size
makes point estimates when estimated separately not sufficiently accurate to allow for
systematic comparison between German and Swiss subsamples. As such and because results
of the present study may have been confounded by country to some extent, the findings of the
present study require replication.
Practical and Scholarly Implications

Responding to Student Heterogeneity
Distribution of variance in student outcomes in the present study revealed that the majority of
variance of students interest and achievement lies within classes. Todays classrooms exhibit
different types of heterogeneity (e.g., regarding ethnicity, inclusive education, socio-economic
status), yet responding to heterogeneity regarding interest and achievement in a way that each
student is supported according to his/her needs remains one of the challenges teachers face.
The present study based on its design and corresponding analyses only gives insight into
average effects of teacher characteristics. Yet, with regards to students achievement, it would be
interesting to learn whether teachers design their cognitive level of instruction with the average
achievement in the class in mind. In fact, the assessment of cognitive activation in the present
study mirrors that assumption somewhat. Average cognitive activation in the observed physics
lessons in the present study was rather low: Teacher tasks usually range on a low complexity level,
mostly targeting factual knowledge and hardly ever delving into higher complexity levels where
abstract concepts and ideas are aimed for in students understanding; this mirrors similar findings
in mathematics (Baumert et al., 2010; Hugener et al., 2009). Since classes of today are
characterized by a relatively high heterogeneity in students achievement, adaptively using the
whole range of task complexity could be an adequate mean to respond to that heterogeneity. In
other words, complexity of tasks as offered by the teacher could differ for students depending on
their individual prior knowledge and understanding of topic materials in order to optimally
promote each students progress. Future studies could consider this individualized aspect of
cognitive activation in investigating how a cognitively activating classroom environment could
look like that fosters both high and low achieving students in equal measure.
Implementing Teacher Motivation in the Classroom
The present study considered teacher motivation and its implementation through enthusiastic
teaching as factors influencing students interest in physics. Given that only a partial mediation
was found implies that teachersconsciously or unconsciouslyfind other ways to implement
their motivation into their teaching. Future research could address other instructional features
enabling teachers to transport their own excitement into teaching in a way that students can profit
from it. In the present study, only teachers motivation in the form of interest in teaching physics
was considered because teaching related factors of motivation were found to be the more decisive
in previous research (Frenzel et al., 2009; Kunter et al., 2008). However, it might very well be the
case that also subject-specific interest serves as a basis teachers can motivationally draw on during
instruction, presenting physics contents in a way that arouses students curiosity. Empirical
evidence, however, on how teachers subject specific motivational factors are reflected in their
teaching is at present largely lacking.
Teachers Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Cognitive Activation
Beyond the study by Baumert et al. (2010) and of Kunter et al. (2013) drawing on the
mathematics teacher sample of the COACTIV study, evidence of explanatory processes at work
with teacher PCK during instruction and outside the domain of mathematics is scarce. Thus, the
present study contributes to our understanding on the importance of teacher PCK for student
learning and the particular instructional feature of cognitive activation facilitating this effect. This
finding bears important implications for teacher preparation. Much published research in the area
of PCK focuses on furthering (student) teachers development of PCK (e.g., Abell, Rogers,
Hanuscin, Lee, & Gagnon, 2009; van Driel & Berry, 2012). Knowing that PCK is indeed effective
with regards to student learning and knowing that PCK is implemented in teaching through
cognitive activation might guide the design of professional development programs for teachers by
focusing on PCK itself in conjunction with its instructional implementation. Future research could
consider this conjoined development of PCK and instructional techniques and investigate their
distinct and mutual benefits for student learning and achievement.
Conclusion
The present study closes a research gap in physics education by applying a multi-criteria
perspective on students outcomes, including their achievement and interest and treating them as
equally important. While being knowledgeable in science is considered a prerequisite for societal
participation and is an entry requirement for academic or vocational domains, interest as a form of
sustained motivation influences life-long learning and academic and career-related choices.
Further, the present study goes beyond much published research in addressing two corresponding
teacher prerequisitespedagogical content knowledge and motivationand investigating them
conjointly predicting student outcomes. We found that teacher pedagogical content knowledge
mainly influences student learning whereas teacher motivation mainly influences students
interest. The cross effects, that is the respective effects of teacher motivation on students
achievement and teacher knowledge on students interest, were found to not be of any practical
importance. This evidence of no cross effects is important insofar as it shows that teacher
knowledge and teacher motivation have distinct effects on students outcomes: Having only one
cannot compensate not having the other. Reversely, aiming at fostering both knowledge and
interest in studentsa proclaimed educational goal and aim of instructional processesone

important conclusion of our present findings is this: Teachers need to be both knowledgeable and
motivated in order to optimally foster their students growth and learning. It is thus important in
teachers professional development to pay attention to systematically developing pedagogical
content knowledge but also to maintaining pre- and in-service teachers intrinsic motivation in the
same way as it is to devising instruction for secondary school students that fosters learning but also
is enthusiastic, captivating, and inspiring.
The present study was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Research and Education
(BMBF). The authors would like to thank especially Cornelia Geller and Jenny ErgonenSc
(nee Olszewski) and all other QuIP project members, research assistants as well as
participating teachers and students.
References
Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.),
Handbook of research on science education (pp. 11051149). Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Abell, S. K., Rogers, M. A. P., Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., & Gagnon, M. J. (2009). Preparing the next
generation of science teacher educators: A model for developing PCK for teaching science teachers. Journal
of Science Teacher Education, 20(1), 7793. doi: 10.1007/s10972-008-9115-6
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological
Association [APA] (6 Ed.). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.
Angell, C., Guttersrud, ., Henriksen, E. K., & Isnes, A. (2004). Physics: Frightful, but fun. Pupils
and teachers views of physics and physics teaching. Science Education, 88(5), 683706. doi: 10.1002/
sce.10141
Babad, E. (2007). Teachers nonverbal behavior and its effects on students. In R. P. Perry, & J. C. Smart
(Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 201261). Dordrecht:Springer.
Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak experiences.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(1), 2644. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2003.11.001
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it
special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389407. doi: 10.1177/0022487108324554
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,
126. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Barmby, P., Kind, P. M., & Jones, K. (2008). Examining changing attitudes in secondary school science.
International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 10751093. doi: 10.1080/09500690701344966
Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2013). The COACTIV model of teachers professional competence. In M.
Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive activation in the
mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers (pp. 2548). New York, NY:Springer.
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., . . . Tsai, Y.-M. (2010). Teachers
mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational
Research Journal, 47(1), 133180. doi: 10.3102/0002831209345157
Beaton, A. E., Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., Smith, T. A., & Kelly, D. L. (1996). Science
achievement in the middle school years: IEAs third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS).
Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy, Boston College.
Berry, A., Friedrichsen, P., & Loughran, J. (2015). Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in
science education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind experience and
school. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple
implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61100.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (Vol. 3, pp. 328375). New York, NY:Macmillan.
Bryan, R. R., Glynn, S. M., & Kittleson, J. M. (2011). Motivation, achievement, and advanced
placement intent of high school students learning science. Science Education, 95(6), 10491065. doi:
10.1002/sce.20462
Butler, R. (2007). Teachers achievement goal orientations and associations with teachers help seeking:
Examining a novel approach to teacher motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 241252. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.241
Butler, R. (2012). Striving to connect: Extending an achievement goal approach to teacher motivation to
include relational goals for teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 726742. doi: 10.1037/
a0028613
Butler, R., & Shibaz, L. (2008). Achievement goals for teaching as predictors of students perceptions of
instructional practices and students help seeking and cheating. Learning and Instruction, 18(5), 453467.
doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.004
Chiu, M. M., & Xihua, Z. (2008). Family and motivation effects on mathematics achievement:
Analyses of students in 41 countries. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 321336. doi: 10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2007.06.003
Clausen, M. (2002). Unterrichtsqualitat: Eine Frage der Perspektive? [Quality of instruction: A question
of perspective?]. Munster: Waxmann.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 20, 3746.
deBoer, G. E. (2011). The globalization of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
48, 567591. doi: 10.1002/tea.20421
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R.
Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Perspectives on motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 237288).
Lincoln: University Of Nebraska Press.
Denissen, J. J. A., Zarrett, N. R., & Eccles, J. S. (2007). I like to do it, Im able, and I know I am:
Longitudinal couplings between domain-specific achievement, self-concept, and interest. Child Develop-
ment, 78(2), 430447. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01007.x
Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: A systematic
review of the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics educational research. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 34(0), 1225. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.03.001
Dicke, T., Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., Kunter, M., Schmeck, A., & Leutner, D. (2014). Self-efficacy in
classroom management, classroom disturbances, and emotional exhaustion: A moderated mediation analysis
of teacher candidates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 569583. doi: 10.1037/a0035504
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109132.
Ergonenc, J., Neumann, K., & Fischer, H. E. (2014). The impact of pedagogical content knowledge on
cognitive activation and student learning. In H. E. Fischer, P. Labudde, K. Neumann, & J. Viiri (Eds.), Quality
of instruction in physics (pp. 145159). Munster: Waxmann.
Fischer, H. E., Labudde, P., Neumann, K., & Viiri, J. (2014). Quality of instruction in physics:
Comparing Finland, Germany and Switzerland. Munster: Waxmann.
Fischer, H. E., & Neumann, K. (2012). Video analysis as a tool for understanding science instruction. In
J. Dillon, & D. Jorde (Eds.), The world of science education: Handbook of research in Europe (pp.115139).
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Fortus, D. (2014). Attending to affect. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 821835. doi:
10.1002/tea.21155
Fortus, D., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Curriculum coherence and learning progressions. In B. Fraser, C.
McRobbie, & K. Tobin (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 783798).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Fortus, D., Sutherland Adams, L. M., Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. (2015). Assessing the role of curriculum
coherence in student learning about energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(10), 14081425.

Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Ludtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Sutton, R. E. (2009). Emotional transmission in the
classroom: Exploring the relationship between teacher and student enjoyment. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 101(3), 705716. doi: 10.1037/a0014695
Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Watt, H. M. G. (2010). Development of mathematics interest in
adolescence: Influences of gender, family, and school context. Journal of Research in Adolescence, 20(2),
507537. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00645.x
Frey, A., Taskinen, P., Schutte, K., Prenzel, M., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., . . . Pekrun, R. (2009). PISA 2006
Skalenhandbuch: Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente [PISA 2006 Scale Documentation]. Munster:
Waxmann.
Geller, C., Neumann, K., Boone, W. J., & Fischer, H. E. (2014). What makes the Finnish different in
science? Assessing and comparing students science learning in three countries. International Journal of
Science Education, 36(18), 30423066. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.950185
Gess-Newsome, J. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Hattie, & E. M. Anderman (Eds.),
International guide to student achievement (pp. 257259). New York, NY: Routledge.
Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., Roy, A., & Litalien, D. (2010). Academic self-concept, autonomous academic
motivation, and academic achievement: Mediating and additive effects. Learning and Individual Differences,
20(6), 644653. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.08.001
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. New York, NY:Routledge.
Haussler, P., Hoffmann, L., Langeheine, R., Rost, J., & Sievers, K. (1998). A typology of students
interest in physics and the distribution of gender and age within each type. International Journal of Science
Education, 20(2), 223238.
Hetze, P. (2011). Nachhaltige Hochschulstrategien fur mehr MINT-Absolventen [Universities
sustainable strategies for obtaining more STEM-graduates]. Retrieved from: https://www.stifterverband.
org/nachhaltige-hochschulstrategien-fuer-mehr-mint-absolventen
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational
Research, 60(4), 549571.
Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A., & Krapp, A. (2004). Interest, a motivational variable that combines affective and
cognitive functioning. In D. Yun Dai, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative
persepectives on intellectual functioning and development. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers mathematical knowledge for
teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371406. doi: 10.3102/
00028312042002371
Hofstein, A., & Welch, W. W. (1984). The stability of attitudes towards science between junior and
senior high school. Research in Science & Technological Education, 2(2), 131138.
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
6(1), 155. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
Hugener, I., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2009). Teaching patterns
and learning quality in Swiss and German mathematics lessons. Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 6678. doi:
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.02.001
Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in childrens self-
competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child
Development, 73(2), 509527.
Jenkins, E. W., & Nelson, N. W. (2005). Important but not for me: Students attitudes towards secondary
school science in England. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(1), 4157. doi: 10.1080/
02635140500068435
Keller, M. M., Goetz, T., Becker, E., Morger, V., & Hensley, L. (2014). Feeling and showing: A new
conceptualization of dispositional teacher enthusiasm and its relation to students interest. Learning and
Instruction, 33, 2938. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.03.001
Keller, M. M., Woolfolk Hoy, A. E., Goetz, T., & Frenzel, A. C. (in press). Teacher enthusiasm:
Reviewing and redefining a complex construct. Educational Psychology Review. Advance online
publication. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9354-y

Kessels, U., Rau, M., & Hannover, B. (2006). What goes well with physics? Measuring and altering the
image of science. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 761780. doi: 10.1348/00070990559961
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). The occupational commitment and intention to quit of practicing
and pre-service teachers: Influence of self-efficacy, job stress, and teaching context. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 36(2), 114129. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.01.002
Klassen, R. M., Perry, N. E., & Frenzel, A. C. (2012). Teachers relatedness with students: An
underemphasized component of teachers basic psychological needs. Journal of Educational Psychology,
104(1), 150165. doi: 10.1037/a0026253
Kleickmann, T., Richter, D., Kunter, M., Elsner, J., Besser, M., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J.
(2013). Teachers content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: The role of structural differ-
ences in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 90106. doi: 10.1177/
0022487112460398
Koller, O., Baumert, J., & Schnabel, K. (2001). Does interest matter? The relationship between
academic interest and achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(5),
448470. doi: 10.2307/749801
Koller, O., Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2006). Zum Zusammenspiel von schulischer
Leistung, Selbstkonzept und Interesse in der gymnasialen Oberstufe [On the interplay of academic
achievement, self-concept, and interest in upper secondary schools]. Zeitschrift fur Padagogische
Psychologie, 20(1/2), 2739.
Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: Theoretical considerations
from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12, 383409.
Krapp, A. (2007). An educational-psychological conceptualisation of interest. International Journal for
Educational and Vocational Guidance, 7, 521. doi: 10.1007/s10775-007-9113-9
Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings.
International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 2750. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.518645
Krauss, S., Brunner, M., Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Neubrand, M., & Jordan, A. (2008).
Pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100(3), 716725. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.716
Kunter, M., Baumert, J., & Koller, O. (2007). Effective classroom management and the development of
subject-related interest. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 494509. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.002
Kunter, M., & Holzberger, D. (2013). Loving teaching: Research on teachers intrinsic orientations. In P.
W. Richardson, S. A. Karabenick, & H. M. G. Watt (Eds.), Teacher motivation: Theory and practice (pp. 83
99). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Professional
competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 105(3), 805820. doi: 10.1037/a0032583
Kunter, M., Tsai, Y.-M., Klusmann, U., Brunner, M., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J. (2008). Students and
mathematics teachers perceptions of teacher enthusiasm and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 18(5),
468482. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.008
Laukenmann, M., Bleicher, M., Fu, S., Glaser-Zikuda, M., Mayring, P., & von Rhoneck, C. (2003). An
investigation of the influence of emotional factors on learning in physics instruction. International Journal of
Science Education, 25, 489507. doi: 10.1080/09500690210163233
Lee, H.-S., & Liu, O. L. (2010). Assessing learning progression of energy concepts across middle
school grades: The knowledge integration perspective. Science Education, 94(4), 665688. doi: 10.1002/
sce.20382
Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science
Education, 22(8), 781796.
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science
Education, 87(4), 517538.
Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., Pauli, C., Drollinger-Vetter, B., Klieme, E., & Reusser, K. (2009). Quality of
geometry instruction and its short-term impact on students understanding of the Pythagorean Theorem.
Learning and Instruction, 19(6), 527537. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.11.001

Lipstein, R., & Renninger, K. A. (2007). Putting things into words: 12-15-year-old students interest
for writing. In P. Boscolo, & S. Hidi (Eds.), Studies in writing: Writing and motivation (Vol. 19). Oxford:
Elsevier.
Long, J. F., & Hoy, A. W. (2006). Interested instructors: A composite portrait of individual
differences and effectiveness. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(3), 303314. doi: 10.1016/j.
tate.2005.11.001
Ludtke, O., Trautwein, U., Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Reliability and agreement of student
ratings in the classroom environment: A reanalysis of TIMSS data. Learning Environment Research, 9,
215230. doi: 10.1007/s10984-006-9014-8
Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology:
European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1(3), 8692. doi: 10.1027/
1614-2241.1.3.86
Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., & Craven, R. (1992). Overcoming problems in confirmatory factor analyses
of MTMM data: The correlated uniqueness model and factorial invariance. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 27(4), 489507. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2704_1
Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., Koller, O., & Baumert, J. (2005). Academic self-concept,
interest, grades, and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models of causal ordering. Child
Development, 76(2), 397416. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00853.x
Moe, A., Pazzaglia, F., & Ronconi, L. (2010). When being able is not enough. The combined value of
positive affect and self-efficacy for job satisfaction in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(5),
11451153. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.02.010
Murray, H. G. (2007). Low-inference teaching behaviors and college teaching effectiveness: Recent
developments and controversies. In R. P. Perry, & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning
in higher education (pp. 145200). Dordrecht: Springer.
Muthen, B. O., & Muthen, L. K. (19982012). Mplus users guide (7th Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen
& Muthen.
Neubrand, M., Jordan, A., Krauss, S., Blum, W., & Lowen, K. (2013). Task analysis in COACTIV:
Examining the potential for cognitive activation in German mathematics classrooms. In M. Kunter, J.
Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive activation in mathematics
classrooms and professional competence of teachers: Results from the COACTIV project. Heidelberg:
Springer.
Neumann, K., Fischer, H. E., Labudde, P., & Viiri, J. (2014). Design of the study. In H. E. Fischer, P.
Labudde, K. Neumann, & J. Viiri (Eds.), Quality of instruction in physics: Comparing Finland, Germany and
Switzerland (pp. 3148). Munster: Waxmann.
Nitsche, S., Dickhauser, O., Fasching, M. S., & Dresel, M. (2011). Rethinking teachers goal
orientations: Conceptual and methodological enhancements. Learning and Instruction, 8, 574586. doi:
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.12.001
NRC (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
OECD (2004). Learning for tomorrows world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2009). PISA 2006: Technical report. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2010). Education at a glance 2010: OECD indicators. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/
skills-beyond-school/educationataglance2010oecdindicators.htm
Ohle, A., Boone, W., & Fischer, H. (2014). Investigating the impact of teachers physics CK on student
outcomes. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(6), 12111233. doi: 10.1007/
s10763-014-9547-8
Olszewski, J. (2010). The impact of physics teachers pedagogical content knowledge on teacher action
and student outcomes. Berlin: Logos.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature
and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 10491079. doi: 10.1080/
0950069032000032199

Patrick, B. C., Hisley, J., & Kempler, T. (2000). Whats everybody so excited about?: The effects of
teacher enthusiasm on student intrinsic motivation and vitality. Journal of Experimental Education, 68(3),
217236. doi: 10.1080/00220970009600093
Patrick, H., Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., & Midgley, C. (2003). How teachers establish psychological
environments during the first days of school: Associations with avoidance in mathematics. Teachers College
Record, 105(8), 15211558. doi: 10.1111/1467-9620.00299
Pickens, M., & Eick, C. J. (2009). Studying motivational strategies used by two teachers in differently
tracked science courses. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(5), 349362. doi: 10.3200/
JOER.102.5.349-362
Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12
levels: A systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85129.
doi: 10.1080/03057267.2014.881626
Praetorius, A.-K., Lenske, G., & Helmke, A. (2012). Observer ratings of instructional quality: Do they
fulfill what they promise? Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 387400. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.03.002
Praetorius, A.-K., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2014). One lesson is all you need?
Stability of instructional quality across lessons. Learning and Instruction, 31, 212. doi: 10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2013.12.002
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2002). Student interest and achievement: Developmental issues raised by a
case study. In A. Wigfield, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 173195). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Retelsdorf, J., Butler, R., Streblow, L., & Schiefele, U. (2010). Teachers goal orientations for teaching:
Association with instructional practices, interest in teaching, and burnout. Learning and Instruction, 20,
3046. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.01.001
Richardson, P. W., Karabenick, S. A., & Watt, H. M. G. (2013). Teacher motivation: Theory and practice.
New York, NY: Routledge Chapman & Hall.
Rimmele, R. (2015) [Computer software]. Videograph: The program for coding of videos. Retrieved
from http://www.dervideograph.de/enhtmStart.html
Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.),
Handbook of research in science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Rokeach, M. (1985). Inducing change and stability in belief systems and personality structures. Journal
of Social Issues, 41(1), 153171. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01123.x.
Roth, G. (2013). Antecedents and outcomes of teachers autonomous motivation: A self-determination
analysis. In P. W. Richardson, S. A. Karabenick, & H. M. G. Watt (Eds.), Teacher motivation: Theory and
practice (pp. 3651). New York, NY: Routledge.
Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Coyle, H. P., Cook-Smit, N., & Miller, J. L. (2013). The influence of teachers
knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational
Research Journal, 50, 10201049. doi: 10.3102/0002831213477680
Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in
high school: A gender study. Science Education, 96(3), 411427. doi: 10.1002/sce.21007
Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 299323.
doi: 10.1080/00461520.1991.9653136
Schiefele, U. (1996). Topic interest, text representation, and quality of experience. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 21(1), 318. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1996.0002.
Schiefele, U. (1998). Individual interest and learning: What we know and what we dont know. In L.
Hoffman, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning: Proceedings of the Seeon
conference on interest and gender (pp. 91104). Kiel: IPN.
Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In K. R. Wentzel, & A. Wigfield (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 197222). New York, NY: Routledge.
Schiefele, U., & Krapp, A. (1996). Topic interest and free recall of expository text. Learning and
Individual Differences, 8(2), 141160. doi: 10.1016/s1041-6080(96)90030-8

Schiefele, U., Krapp, A., & Schreyer, I. (1993). Metaanalyse des Zusammenhangs von Interesse und
schulischer Leistung [Meta-analysis of the relation between interest and achievement in school]. Zeitschrift
fur Entwicklungspsychologie und Padagogische Psychologie, 25(2), 120148.
Schiefele, U., & Schaffner, E. (2015). Teacher interests, mastery goals, and self-efficacy as predictors of
instructional practices and student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 159171. doi:
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.06.005
Seidel, T., Prenzel, M., & Kobarg, M. (2005). How to run a video study: Technical report of the IPN
video study. Munster: Waxmann.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,
15(2), 414.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 57, 122.
Sjoberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2006). How do students perceive science and technology? Science in
School, 1, 6669.
Taskinen, P., Asseburg, R., & Walter, O. (2009). Wer mochte spater einen naturwissenschaftsbezogenen
oder technischen Beruf ergreifen? Kompetenzen, Selbstkonzept und Motivationen als Pradiktoren der
Berufserwartungen in PISA 2006. [Who wants to take up a job in STEM? Competencies, self-concept, and
motivation as predictors for job aspirations in PISA 2006]. Zeitschrift fur Erziehungswissenschaft,
Sonderheft, 10, 79105.
Tracey, T. J. G., Robbins, S. B., & Hofsess, C. D. (2005). Stability and change in interests: A longitudinal
study of adolescents from grades 8 through 12. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(1), 125. doi: 10.1016/j.
jvb.2003.11.002
van Driel, J. H., & Berry, A. (2012). Teacher professional development focusing on pedagogical content
knowledge. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 2628. doi: 10.3102/001318911431010
Watt, H. M. G. (2004). Development of adolescents self-perceptions, values, and task perceptions
according to gender and domain in 7th- through 11th-grade Australian students. Child Development, 75(5),
15561574.
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students achievement values, goal orientations, and
interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. Developmental Review,
30, 135.
Woolfolk Hoy, A. E., Hoy, W. K., & Davis, H. A. (2009). Teachers self-efficacy beliefs. In K. Wenzel, &
A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation in school (pp. 627654). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Appendix A
Table A1
Item wording for assessing teacher motivation
tmot1 I like teaching physics.
Ich unterrichte gerne Physik.
tmot2 Teaching physics is important to me.
Physik zu unterrichten hat fur mich eine groe Bedeutung.
tmot3 For me, teaching physics has little to do with self-fulfillment.
Physik zu unterrichten hat fur mich recht wenig mit Selbstverwirklichung zu tun. (-)
tmot4 I am excited about teaching physics.
Ich kann mich fur Physikunterricht begeistern.
Note: (-) item inverted for further analysis.

Table A2
Item wording for assessing student interest
sint1 I generally have fun when I am learning physics topics.
Es macht mir Spa, mich mit physikalischen Themen zu befassen.
sint2 I am happy doing physics problems.
Ich beschaftige mich gerne mit physikalischen Problemen.
sint3 I enjoy acquiring new knowledge in physics.
Ich eigne mir gern neues Wissen in Physik an.
sint4 I am interested in learning about physics.
Ich bin interessiert, Neues uber Physik zu lernen.
Note: Items were adapted from the scale enjoyment of science from PISA 2006 (German: Frey et al., 2009; English:
OECD, 2009).
Table A3
Item wording for assessing students perceived enthusiastic teaching
enth1 Our teacher makes lessons exciting.
Die Lehrperson gestaltet den Unterricht spannend.
enth2 Our teacher can even make dry material interesting.
Die Lehrperson kann auch trockenen Stoff interessant machen.
enth3 Our teacher can get the class really excited.
Die Lehrperson kann die Klasse auch mal richtig begeistern.
Table A4
Rating cognitive activation: Complexity levels and sample teacher tasks
Description: Teacher Question Could

Rating Complexity be Answered/Task Accomplished
Level Level Sample Teacher Question or Task by. . .
1 One fact What is the mathematical symbol . . . naming one or several facts that
for electrical power? need not be linked to each other.
2 Several facts What do you need for assembling Facts are designations, symbols,
this electric circuit? technical terms, etc.
3 One relation How are electrical current and voltage
in circuit related?
4 Several How is the capacity of a battery
relations related to the batterys voltage and . . . describing the dependency of
the current in the circuit connected several variables, comparing several
to the battery? variables, or describing a process,
5 Several How would you describe the change or transformation.
interconnected movement of the electrons in the
relations wire once the battery is connected
to the circuit?
6 Overarching Why would you think that energy is . . . drawing on general physics
concept conserved, when the electrical principles (such as energy,
circuit will stop after leaving the conservation of energy or
battery connected to it for a while. momentum, etc.).

Appendix B
Table B1
Means, standard deviations, and 95%CI for the mean for German and Swiss subsamples
Total Germany Switzerland

M SD 95%CI M SD 95%CI M SD 95%CI
Teacher
Motivation 3.85 0.78 [3.63, 4.06] 4.08 0.73 [3.82, 4.33] 3.45 0.71 [3.11, 3.74]
PCK 0.42 0.07 [0.40, 0.44] 0.42 0.08 [0.40, 0.45] 0.42 0.07 [0.39, 0.45]
Instruction
Enthusiastic teaching 4.20 0.78 [3.99, 4.40] 4.27 0.69 [4.02, 4.48] 4.07 0.92 [3.65, 4.48]
Cognitive activation 2.15 0.38 [2.05, 2.27] 2.18 0.37 [2.06, 2.31] 2.10 0.40 [1.92, 2.28]
Student
Interest (T1) 3.48 0.52 [3.35, 3.63] 3.39 0.32 [3.27, 3.48] 3.64 0.74 [3.35, 3.99]
Interest (T2) 3.51 0.58 [3.36, 3.67] 3.45 0.42 [3.30, 3.59] 3.60 0.80 [3.29, 3.98]
Achievement (T1) 0.35 0.47 [0.47, 0.22] 0.27 0.43 [0.43, 0.14] 0.47 0.52 [0.68, 0.24]
Achievement (T2) 0.16 0.58 [0.32, 0.00] 0.20 0.52 [0.39, 0.04] 0.08 0.68 [0.36, 0.20]
Note: Student data were aggregated onto the class level. All descriptive statistics are calculated based on observed,
aggregated measures on the class level.
Table B2
Intercorrelations of study variables for German and Swiss subsamples
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Teacher
(1) Motivation 0.07/0.09 0.12/0.47 0.10/0.03 0.12/0.50 0.31 /0.44 0.12/0.21 0.03/0.24
(2) PCK 0.08/0.23 0.02/0.44a 0.11/0.13 0.26/0.11 0.30a/0.51 0.31 /0.57
Instruction
(3) Enthusiastic 0.08/0.15 0.68 /0.59 0.48 /0.51 0.13/0.33a 0.06/0.29
teaching
(4) Cognitive 0.05/0.03 0.18/0.02 0.41 /0.19 0.45 /0.32
activation
Student
(5) Interest (T1) 0.64 /0.84 0.06/0.39 0.09/0.38
(6) Interest (T2) 0.03/0.38 0.05/0.49
(7) Achievement 0.82 /0.83
(T1)
(8) Achievement
(T2)
Note: Correlations for the German subsample are displayed before the dash and for the Swiss subsample after the dash.
All correlations are based on observed, manifest variables aggregated onto the class level. ap < 0.10 (marginally
significant). p < 0.05. p < 0.01. p < 0.001.
Supporting Information
Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article.

Keller 2016

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Keller 2016

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING

The Impact of Physics Teachers Pedagogical Content Knowledge and

Received 21 May 2016; Accepted 29 October 2016

Student Achievement in Physics. Student achievement is widely considered the major

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Cognitive Activation. Especially in a domain such as physics which is perceived as difficult

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Conjoint Consideration of Teacher Knowledge and Motivation. Because knowledge- and

Figure 1. Summary of study hypotheses.

Figure 2. Study design.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Video-Taping Procedure and Ethics

(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Interest and Its Relation to Achievement

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Practical and Scholarly Implications

interest in studentsa proclaimed educational goal and aim of instructional processesone

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Note: (-) item inverted for further analysis.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Description: Teacher Question Could

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Total Germany Switzerland

(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Вам также может понравиться