Latent Profile Analysis of Generic Teaching Competencies of Preservice Teachers: A Mixed-Methods Study

Competency-Based Education

CBE relies on standards and data obtained from learning environments that embrace the application of competencies (Sullivan & Downey, 2015; Wesselink et al., 2017). CBE programs require students to be able to demonstrate their knowledge and skills that are assessed methodically (Burnette, 2016). The main objective of CBE is to provide learners with an appropriate and equitable education in line with the competencies required in a particular discipline (Denami & Adinda, 2023). Therefore, at the heart of CBE is equity through learning activities that challenge students (Levine & Patrick, 2019). CBE curricula provide students with meaningful activities, knowledge bases, and competencies related to the profession (Denami & Adinda, 2023). Experiencing competencies in real settings enhances student engagement in lessons (Lancaster & Lundberg, 2019; Mallillin et al., 2021), their interactions with peers and instructors, and facilitates self-regulated learning (Kirk & Courtner, 2020) with its reflective phase (Denami & Adinda, 2023). Although taught by teachers, students construct their own knowledge by experiencing a variety of student-centred activities that allow students to gauge their own level of learning (Gervais, 2016).

The competencies are developed by the contribution of stakeholders including students, teachers, and community partners (Burnette, 2016; Gervais, 2016; Johnstone & Soares, 2014). In addition to discipline-specific competencies, transversal or cross-curricular competencies, which refer to skills and abilities that are independent of the discipline in solving complex problems and situations, are an essential component of CBE. Transversal competencies include but not limited to synthesis, critical and analytical thinking, problem solving, collaboration, 21st century skills, and noncognitive skills (Denami & Adinda, 2023; Levine & Patrick, 2019).

The European Union’s support for CBE and especially the Bologna Process has given CBE a boost. The Bologna Process entails the establishment of a comparable and integrated higher education system among the member states of the European Union and the acquisition of lifelong learning competencies by its citizens. The Bologna Process was “the shift from teacher-centred training to student-centred learning” (Davies, 2017). In an age of uncertainties and challenges, individuals are expected to use their transversal competencies to solve the problems they face. In order to realize this goal, primarily teachers need to acquire a wide range of knowledge and skills (Halász & Michel, 2011; Koenen et al., 2015; Vogt & Rogolla, 2009), which could be achieved with a flexible teacher education curriculum shaped by the needs of individuals and society. The benefits of CBE for teacher education can be categorized as: “(1) the demystification of teacher education, (2) a clearer role for schools/colleges in the training process, (3) greater confidence of employers in what beginning teachers can do, and (4) clearer goals for students” (Struyven & De Meyst, 2010, p. 1496).

Developing Teacher Competencies for Evaluation Purposes in Türkiye

As a result of the Bologna Process, TMoE introduced the first generic teacher competencies in 2006. Due to the criticisms that competencies lack observable and measurable qualities, and no longer responding to the demands of individuals and society (Alan & Güven, 2022), the 2006 competencies were renewed in 2017 (TMoE, 2017a). Regarding 2017 competency framework, TMoE published Teacher Strategy Paper (TMoE, 2017b) with two major objectives: (a) to create a system for performance evaluation and professional development needs of teachers and (b) to enhance professional development activities for teachers.

In line with the international literature, the holistic 2017 teacher competency framework consisted of three main domains: knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values (Blömeke & Kaiser, 2017; Caena, 2011; Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2013). However, Alan & Güven (2022) revealed that competencies without performance indicators are too general that (a) they do not allow education faculties to determine the course contents according to competencies, (b) the framework cannot be used as a professional guide for teachers and PTs, and (c) the framework cannot be used as a reference document for self-evaluation (Koenen et al., 2015). As Education Evaluation Report (TEDMEM, 2018) indicates, the most serious problem for any performance evaluation system is the vague and general statements used in competency frameworks. Therefore, upon conducting a needs analysis, the researcher developed a new GTCF with the participation of PTs, teachers, and teacher educators (Alan & Güven, 2022) as it is suggested in the literature (Burnette, 2016; Gervais, 2016; Johnstone & Soares, 2014).

Teacher Education Context and Participants

All levels of teacher education are provided in universities in the form of 4-year bachelor programs in Türkiye. The curriculum is mandated by the Council of Higher Education for all teacher education programs. The programs include generic and content-specific courses taught concurrently and an internship in the final year. The participants were senior (fourth grade) 247 volunteered PTs enrolled at eight different departments of an education faculty. Although the sample seem to be heterogenous, PTs from different departments take the same general pedagogical courses as common core courses (professional teaching knowledge) from the department of educational sciences regardless of their department. The rationale for the selection of the participants from senior PTs was that they had completed all the required courses and the first semester of their internship, and hence they had gained teaching experience. Because the objective of the study was to identify the competency profiles of PTs, they had to experience all teacher preparation process. Therefore, purposeful sampling was chosen for this study (Patton, 2015). Table 1 shows the departments and number of participants.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

The Departments and Number of Participants.

Departments	Number of participants
Primary school teaching	61
Social sciences teaching	42
English language teaching	44
French language teaching	14
German language teaching	23
Special education	23
Preschool teaching	25
Mathematics teaching	15
Total	247

Data Collection Tools

The data were obtained through GTCF and semi-structured interviews at the end of 2023 to 2024 academic year. The quantitative data were obtained from GTCF – self-report questionnaire developed by the researcher. The structure of GTCF consisting of competency domains, sub-competencies, and quadruple performance indicators allow GTCF to be used as a data collection tool. Therefore, upon receiving the ethic approval from the university and consents of the participants, GTCF was administered to PTs to identify the competency profiles by choosing one of the performance indicators referring to their perceived level from A (the highest level) to B, C and D (the lowest). Table 2 below shows an exemplary section of GTCF used as data collection tool.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Sample Competency, Sub-competency, and Performance Indicators of GTCF.

2.	Content knowledge and teaching
2.1	The teacher has the knowledge of related discipline and uses it effectively
A	Teacher; has the command of subject-matter terminology; well knows the prerequisite knowledge and provides students with concept maps; builds the subjects on students’ previous knowledge; presents the relationship between the subjects and concepts through specific examples; gives examples from daily life and engages students in this process; provides students with activities allowing the transfer of knowledge across subjects and generalization; gives importance to depth rather than the breadth of knowledge during instruction; doesn’t make content errors.
B	Teacher; has the command of basic knowledge of subject-matter terminology; knows the prerequisite knowledge; builds the subjects on students’ previous knowledge; demonstrates the relationship between subjects and concepts; gives examples from daily life; asks students to give their examples; doesn’t make content errors.
C	Teacher; knows the basic subject-matter concepts, but has some difficulties in showing the relationship between them; conducts activities that indicate s/he has the basic command of prerequisite knowledge of the field.
D	Teacher; makes content errors; conducts limited activities indicating s/he has the basic command of prerequisite knowledge of the field.
	Justification: (The reason of your choice)
2.2	The teacher adapts teaching process according to the requirements in the face of unexpected situations
A	Teacher; prepares flexible lesson plans; possesses advanced decision-making skills; skilfully makes significant changes to lesson plans as needed; continually analyses context and makes appropriate attempts; pursues diverse and alternative instructional methods that may be effective for students with learning difficulties; incorporates deductive and inductive instructional strategies depending on objectives, topic, situation, and individual differences; uses a variety of resources; turns unexpected situations or diverse student interests and questions into opportunities for learning and teaching; helps students question and explore the topic from multiple perspectives.
B	Teacher; continuously analyses the context and makes appropriate attempts; successfully makes little changes in the lesson plan according to the need and situation; successfully replies students’ various questions or responds to their interests and continues to the lesson; tries different instruction ways for students who have learning difficulties.
C	Teacher; attempts to make changes in the lesson plan in the face of unexpected situations; however, those attempts partly become successful; loses a lot of time while responding to students’ questions or interests. The flow of the lesson breaks down. Teacher has a limited repertory of teaching strategies and decision-making skills.
D	Teacher sticks to the lesson plan strictly even if it needs to be changed. Teacher is indifferent to students’ various questions.
	Justification: (The reason of your choice)
2.3	The teacher enables students to use higher-order thinking skills
A	Teacher; utilizes thinking skills such as critical thinking, creative thinking, problem solving, and decision-making skills; asks questions like “Why?,” “What would have happened if…?,” “What would you do if you were…?,” “Which option would you choose and what would be your justification?,” What approaches would you use in solving this problem and why?” that guide higher-order thinking; encourages students to critique each other by presenting evidence and reasoning in a democratic environment, taking multiple points of view, asking effective questions, and presenting real and alternative answers; guides students to synthesize and analyse; organizes activities to develop their creativity, thinking, and social skills; and becomes a role model for students.
B	Teacher; utilizes higher-order thinking skills; always asks questions guiding to higher-order thinking and usually engages students in this process; supports students to focus not only the surface but also the deeper meaning of the knowledge.
C	Teacher; asks questions both requiring and not requiring higher-order thinking; encourages students to make meaningful arguments instead of direct instruction and repetition even if it isn’t regular.
D	Teacher’s instruction is at information level. The questions s/he asks have a single right answer rather than requiring higher-order thinking. The interaction between the teacher and students depends only on information transmission.
	Justification: (The reason of your choice)
2.4	The teacher assigns tasks based on research and inquiry
A	Teacher; guides students to use information technology for research and inquiry; illustrates the use of various resources; uses examples to show how students can access knowledge; helps students use search strategies; shows students how to analyse knowledge; allows students to research various resources in small or larger groups and asks them to compare, classify, and question what they find; assigns homework that promotes students’ lifelong learning skills.
B	Teacher; enables students to research from various resources; demonstrates how to access those resources; illustrates how to analyse knowledge; guides students in using various resources; provide students with opportunities to share their findings.
C	The resources s/he uses in the activities and assignments are limited. The teacher partly demonstrates how to access and analyse knowledge. Out of class activities and assignments are limited.
D	Teacher carries out the activities and assignments through a single resource. All the activities and assignments are done in the classroom.
	Justification: (The reason of your choice)

Table 2 shows the second competency domain (2. Content knowledge and teaching) and its sub-competencies 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, with performance indicators (Alan & Güven, 2022, pp. 326–327). The “justification” section under performance indicators was intended to obtain further information about the self-reports of PTs. GTCF was developed as part of the doctoral study of the author (Alan, 2019). Upon extensive literature review on teaching competencies across the world and interviews conducted with MoNE experts, teacher trainers and PTs, the draft form of GTCF was developed by the participation of 397 K-12 teachers from the province where the author’s university is situated. The preliminary GTCF consisted of seven competency domains with two levels as “competent and incompetent.” In the final phase of the development of GTCF, the author carried out an extensive workshop on teaching competencies. Fifty-two experts from educational sciences departments of five different universities participated in the workshop and they scrutinized and evaluated each competency item in terms of structure, content, language, and appropriateness. The final form of GTCF consisted of 6 competency domains, 31 sub-competencies, and quadruple performance indicators, which enable to (self)evaluate teachers at their different career points. Besides, Danielson’s (2007) competency framework consisting of four levels (unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, and distinguished), which inspired the competency frameworks of many countries (Santiago & Benavides, 2009), the CCSSO (2013), and Blömeke and Kaiser’s (2017) developmental perspective of competencies were also influential in structuring GTCF. The second data collection tool was the semi-structured interviews conducted with 10 volunteered PTs upon collection of GTCF questionnaire. The interview protocol is presented in Appendix 1.

Data Analysis

LPA, which was used to answer the first research question, is carried out with interval-level measurements. Therefore, the construct validity of the questionnaire was first tested with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Before performing CFA, normality assumption was tested and it was seen that the skewness values of the scales were between 0.94 and 1.86 and kurtosis values were between 0.3 and 6.43. Therefore, Maximum Likelihood Robust (MLR) was used as the estimation method in CFA.

As a result of the CFA, it was concluded that the scales were unidimensional. In order to facilitate the comparison of the scores obtained from the scales, the scores of all variables were equalized on the same scale. In other words, the results were organized so that a minimum score of 25 and a maximum score of 100 could be obtained from all scales. In the next stage, LPA was conducted using the scores obtained by the participants from the subscales of GTCF. Mplus 8 and Jamovi 2.3.28 programs were used at this stage.

Regarding qualitative data, the participants filled in a “justification” section in GTCF under each performance indicator to explain why they chose that particular level. Besides, 10 semi-structured interviews conducted with the participant PTs who volunteered to be interviewed. The participants were the representatives of all departments except French and German Language Teaching from which the data were collected. The interview method is used to identify and interpret feelings, thoughts, beliefs, and values that are not easy to observe in individuals (Patton, 2015). The data obtained from the interviews were analysed by systematic analysis method associated with the research questions by using data summarization and coding techniques (Saldaña, 2009). Although only 10 PTs (5 males and 5 females) volunteered to be interviewed, the researcher decided that this number could be sufficient since the data reached saturation. The interviews and written responses were originally in Turkish. A selection of responses and quotes from the GTCF and interviews which are presented in the following section was translated into English and they were reviewed by another expert to check whether the responses conveyed the same meaning in the original language.

Model Fit Indices

During the LPA, fit indices were examined for model selection. The fit indices obtained are as given in Table 4.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Model Fit Indices.

Model	AIC	BIC	aBIC	Entropy value	aLMR test (p)	BLRT (p)	The smallest group n (proportion)
2 profile-model	11,062.651	11,129.329	11,069.099	0.87	.0336*	<.001	68
3 profile-model	10,914.238	11,005.482	10,923.062	0.89	.1044	<.001	10
4 profile-model	10,869.526	10,985.336	10,880.726	0.82	.2816	< .001	9
5 profile-model	10,829.994	10,970.369	10,843.570	0.86	.2302	<.001	4

*

p < .05.

When the fit values of the models with varying number of profiles are examined, it is seen that the entropy value for all models is within the desired range. Entropy is a statistical value that measures how accurate the classification process of the established model is (Lim et al., 2024). For a good fit, the entropy value should be above 0.80 (Kim et al., 2024). When AIC, BIC, and aBIC, entropy values, and p-values of aLMR test were taken into account, the two-profile model was chosen as the optimal solution both statistically and substantively. Although the AIC and BIC values, which are desired to be as low as possible are similar for all solutions, the three, four, and five-profile models were eliminated because their p-values for the LMR were insignificant. The correct classification probabilities of the individuals belonging to the two-profile model indicated that the probability of the individuals placed in the high-profile is 94%, while the probability of the individuals placed in the low-profile is 97%.

Characteristics of the Profiles

The mean variables of the two-profile model are as indicated in Table 5.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

The Mean Scores and Score Ranges of Each Profile.

Variable	Low-profile (n = 68)	High-profile (n = 179)
Learning and teaching process (LTP)	73.9 (53–92)	87.9 (67–100)
Content knowledge and teaching (CKT)	67.5 (38–88)	84.5 (56–100)
Classroom management (CM)	75.5 (44–94)	89.8 (69–100)
Effective communication with stakeholders (ECS)	68.7 (40–95)	86.8 (60–100)
Professional development and responsibilities (PDR)	69.5 (38–100)	84.9 (50–100)
Assessment and evaluation (AE)	71.9 (50–100)	88.7 (65–100)

Table 5 shows that majority of the PTs (n: 179) falls into high-profile, whereas less than one third (n: 68) of the PTs belongs to low-profile. The line graph of the score levels of the profiles is shown in Figure 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Line graph of the low- and high-profile PTs according to LPA.

When the distribution of the departments according to the profiles was analysed with the chi-square test, it was concluded that the two profiles were not equivalent in terms of department membership (χ² = 21.3, p < .01). The department with the highest proportion of PTs in the high profile is the Social Sciences Teaching Department and this rate is well above the distribution of PTs according to the two-profile model. When Table 6 is analysed, it is seen that these distributions differ according to the department.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 6.

Distribution of PTs in Departments According to the Two-Profile Model.

Department	Low-profile	High-profile	Total
Primary school teaching	20	41	61
Social sciences teaching	2	40	42
English language teaching	14	30	44
French language teaching	3	11	14
German language teaching	12	11	23
Special education	6	17	23
Preschool teaching	5	20	25
Mathematics teaching	6	9	15
Total	68	179	247

As Table 5 and Figure 1 indicate, it is plausible to say that the difference between low- and high-profile PTs might be related to competency domains of ECS, CKT, and AE respectively, as the difference between the mean scores of low and high profiles are higher than the rest.

Table 5 indicates that mean scores of LTP is the highest of all variables for both low -and-high profile PTs. Regarding the second research question, semi-structured interviews revealed that according to PTs, more importance is given to the LTP and content knowledge (but not teaching) in which theories, methods, approaches, and techniques are emphasized in their education. When PTs were asked “Which of these competency areas do you think were emphasized the most in the training you received?,” PTs expressed their opinions as shown in the following excerpts:

The justification responses written on the GTCF regarding LTP (1) of some of the same PTs match with their interview responses. Sample extracts below taken from the justification responses and the level of performance indicator they chose support their interview responses. For instance, regarding the sub-competencies “1.1. The teacher prepares effective lesson plans and conducts lessons accordingly”; “1.4. The teacher enunciates the objective of the subject and lesson”; “1.5. The teacher gives timely and accurate instructions”; and “1.9. The teacher enables students to actively participate in teaching process,” the participants wrote the following responses, respectively:

The quotes above show that PTs acknowledge their education as theoretical in that more emphasize is given to LTP and content knowledge in their curriculum. The PTs seemed to be benefited from this situation that the least statistically significant difference between low- and high-profile PTs was found in the LTP as seen in Table 5. The interviews also revealed that PTs felt themselves most competent in the LTP and content knowledge, along with classroom management. The following excerpts illustrates their opinions with regard to the interview question “In which competency area do you consider yourself most competent?”

The justification responses written on the GTCF regarding CKT (2) of some of the same PTs also match with their interview responses. For instance, regarding the sub-competencies “2.1. The teacher has the knowledge of related discipline and uses it effectively”; “2.2. The teacher adopts teaching process according to the requirements in the face of unexpected situations”; and “2.3. The teacher enables students to use higher-order skills,” the participants wrote the following responses:

The justification responses written on the GTCF regarding CM (3) of some PTs are in line with their interview responses. Regarding the sub-competencies “3.1. The teacher creates a democratic and free classroom environment”; “3.2. The teacher knows and applies the preventive measures in classroom management”; and “3.3. The teacher supports and appreciates students’ efforts for learning,” the participants stated following responses:

The PT responses above are in parallel with the profile analysis and mean scores given in Table 5 that the margins between the competency areas of LTP, CM, and PDR are close to each other with 14, 14.3, and 15.4 respectively.

As shown above, not only the semi-structured interviews but also the written responses to the section on GTCF where the participants justified why they chose a particular performance level revealed findings that supported the LPA. When PTs were asked “In which competency area do you consider yourself least competent?” and “Which of these competency areas do you think are least emphasized in the training you received?,” ECS, AE, and CKT are the competency areas that were mentioned by the majority of PTs. Sample responses given by PTs regarding these competency areas in the interviews and in their justification responses on GTCF are presented in Table 7.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 7.

Sample Interview Quotes and Justification Responses about ECS, AE, and CKT Competencies.

Effective communication with stakeholders
Quotes from semi-structured interviews	Written justification responses on GTCF for the low-level performance indicators
Participant 2: Communication with stakeholders. We have never been approached with such things.Participant 5: It is not the children but the parents who scare us the most.Participant 6: Communicating with stakeholders. I have never seen a course on how to communicate with any of my colleagues.Participant 8: For example, we could have met with the family, with the parents … We received family and environment training, but I would have liked to receive it practically. I mean, after all, practice provides more permanent learning.Participant 10: I did not see anything like communication with stakeholders. In the process of our training…. we do not have a course on how to interact with stakeholders.	Participant 29: Interns do not communicate with parents.Participant 46: I have no authority. I am a trainee teacher.Participant 117: We did not have such an experience.Participant 147: We do not have any communication with parents during the internship/no interaction with families.Participant 192: I do not meet with parents because I am a practicum student. I am not in a position to cooperate with parents.Participant 211: Since I am a practicum student, I have limited opportunities to communicate directly with parents.Participant 213: I do not provide any information to parents because I am a practicum student. I can do very limited family activities because I am a practicum student.Participant 215: We do not have the opportunity to meet with parents face to face because we are interns… We cannot be in contact with families.
Assessment and evaluation
Quotes from semi-structured interviews	Written justification responses on GTCF for the low-level performance indicators
Participant 2: Assessment and evaluation. We only usually have classical questions. Here, I hope I can reach everyone equally because I am afraid of being injustice to the students … because I would like to be able to make the right decision about which of them I should give more points.Participant 3: I think assessment and evaluation, exactly … I don’t think I have achieved it. I mean, I felt this in the internship, I want the students to get high grades so that the students will be happy and they will do something.Participant 4: We took a course on assessment, but we didn’t see anything about assessment and evaluation in his course … Apart from that course, there were no other applications for this.Participant 7: Assessment and evaluation. We had only one course under the name of assessment… I took only one course… maybe it was enough, but only one course. I think assessment is a more comprehensive field, it should not be limited to one course…. we never practiced on assessment.Participant 8: We took only one course on assessment. If I’m not mistaken, I think it was online.Participant 9: Assessment, you know, we all know what can be done in assessment. You know, but it is like a name, yes, peer assessment, self-assessment, but when I went to the internship, I never used them, you know? I don’t know how to do it.	Participant 25: I don’t know (about the process evaluation techniques).Participant 61: Since we are not together in a long process, process evaluation (skills) is limited. I usually do not have time to discuss (process evaluation criteria) with students.Participant 117: We never did assessment and evaluation. We did not use any assessment tools.Participant 118: Unfortunately, I could not experience this (self-assessment and peer assessment).Participant 119: It is a subject I have not been trained in (organizing teaching according to assessment results/developing assessment tools for learning outcomes).Participant 123: Homework, project, group work assignments were not given.Participant 147: In the internship, I do not do any grading/develop assessment tools.Participant 170: I have not yet developed these techniques (self-assessment and peer assessment).Participant 232: I do not have much experience in this subject (assigning homework, project, group work).
Content knowledge and teaching
Quotes from semi-structured interviews	Written justification responses on GTCF for the low-level performance indicators
Participant 3: When we go to the internship, we give two lectures in a whole semester.Participant 4: Theoretical. Of course, it’s important, but I don’t think it will lead anywhere. I don’t think too much theory will lead anywhere…. I think the practical level should be more.Participant 5: It is not possible to put knowledge into practice without taking it theoretically, but it is better for us if the theoretical courses are a little more practical.Participant 7: There are too many methods, the methods are very similar to each other. You know, I know the theory, but how can it be applied to students? After these courses, our teachers need to teach us this, how can we apply this? You know, on a student, how do we apply this? We need to see this a little bit.Participant 8: I mean, methods and so on. It would be better if these were given practically.Participant 9: They were always theoretical, you know… it was not very practical.Participant 10: First of all, I think the internship practice, that is, the teaching practice course. Maybe it would be better to make it more widespread in the second and third year, and it would be good to go two or three days a week instead of one day a week.	Participant 4: My inexperience causes me difficulties in such situations (organizing teaching situations according to the needs in unexpected situations).Participant 26: I am incompetent in suggesting sources.Participant 29: I can confuse the concepts.Participant 32: I did not receive such training (developing higher order thinking skills).Participant 34: There are times when I cannot put critical thinking to work. / I have never been given such a task before (based on research and inquiry.Participant 46: I cannot assign long-term research tasks because I only go to school one day a week.Participant 48: My class often leaves questions that require higher-order thinking unanswered.Participant 118: I don’t know what to state about this topic (higher order thinking skills).Participant 138: I am not sure that I can handle unexpected situations (adapting teaching situations to the needs in unexpected situations).Participant 145: I try to make changes in the plan, but I don’t think it is what I really want (adapting teaching situations to the needs in unexpected situations).Participant 178: These are things I can rarely do in class (higher order thinking skills).Participant 209: Sometimes I ask one-answer questions (higher order thinking skills).Participant 211: I get nervous when I try to answer questions that are different from my lesson plan and I don’t know how to recover (adapting teaching situations to the needs in unexpected situations).Participant 219: I have never learned in this way before, but it is something I will pay attention to now (giving tasks based on research and inquiry).

The data analysis showed that PTs regard the education they receive as highly knowledge-intensive, based on rote-memorization in that there is little space for practice-based lessons, studies, assignments, and activities. When PTs were asked “What kind of trainings do you think you should receive or carry out activities to be more competent in these competency areas?,” they all highlighted the need for more practice. PTs emphasized the lack of field experience because they thought that the structure of their internship in which they have limited application opportunities did not sufficiently prepared them for their profession. They also wanted to see concrete examples of good practices and they would like to engage in practice opportunities right after the courses so that they could combine theory with practice more easily. Finally, regarding the interview question, “What other areas of competency do you think should be among these competencies?,” participant 2, 3, 4 recommended specific competencies about communication with students and parents, a finding supporting the results above.

Preservice Teachers’ Competency of Effective Communication With Stakeholders

According to self-reports, ECS competency is the first distinctive pattern distinguishing low and high-profile PTs. This result is similar with research studies conducted by latent analyses. For instance, Gartmeier et al. (2016) explored communication competency of secondary teachers across Germany and they found that only one-fourth of secondary teachers were high confident in terms of communication competency with parents. Majority of the teachers were profiled as medium or low confident teachers. In a recent study, Methlagl and Vogl (2024) explored intraindividual and interindividual emotional regulations of PTs in Austria. They found that half of the PTs fell into the low-profile use of interpersonal strategies in a three-profile model. As the effective use of interpersonal strategies facilitates better communication with students, parents, and colleagues (Methlagl & Vogl, 2024), enhances job satisfaction, well-being, and reduces emotional stress (Barthel et al., 2018; Williams et al., 2018), it is crucial for PTs to develop their communication competency for their self-efficacy (Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci et al., 2022), students’ well-being (Braun et al., 2020), classroom management (Sutton et al., 2009), and teacher-student relationships (Hagenauer et al., 2015).

Similarly, Holzberger et al. (2019) found that the distinctive feature identifying effective teachers from ineffective ones was the teacher-student interactions. The way they deliver instruction, provide constructive feedback, and the degree of their patience in different conditions were significant factors to be regarded as effective teachers by students. The literature supports these studies in that teacher education programs across the world poorly equip PTs with competencies regarding communication with families and other community partners (Evans, 2013; Symeou et al., 2012). Communication with parents is an everyday and core practice of teachers (Aasheim et al., 2018; Gartmeier et al., 2016), yet very few teacher education programs provide PTs with opportunities to interact with families (Walker & Dotger, 2012) except early childhood and special education teachers (Epstein, 2013). However, teacher-parent talk is a delicate practice, responsibility, and competency especially in resolving classroom problems, announcing grades, and evaluating students’ performances as they could be linked to teachers’ instructional practices by parents (Gartmeier et al., 2016; Pillet-Shore, 2015). Hence, teachers should learn to be proactive in such situations while communicating with parents (Gartmeier et al., 2016). Although meeting and communicating with parents who are closely involved in educational outcomes have become more challenging than ever, for instance, due to helicopter parenting (Angert, 2020; Wilhelm et al., 2014), the importance of interacting with families is underscored and teachers are committed to develop their communication competency in informal learning settings (Methlagl & Vogl, 2024).

In order to better prepare PTs for their future profession and reduce the negative effects of reality shock (Evans, 2013), teacher education programs should include comprehensive courses whereby PTs are equipped with necessary and realistic strategies on communicating with parents (Gartmeier et al., 2016; Symeou et al., 2012). As it is widely recognized, teaching is an emotional enterprise (Hargreaves, 1998; Sutton et al., 2009) rather than a technical practice. Hence, regulating emotions through interpersonal strategies in educational contexts is an important competence for teachers as it plays a significant role in conducting classroom practices (Jiang et al., 2016) and building strong relationships with students and parents (Williams et al., 2018). Therefore, PTs should be prepared for the situations in which they could regulate their emotions (Taxer & Gross, 2018) not only for their well-being and self-efficacy (Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci et al, 2022), but also for better pedagogical decisions (Jiang et al., 2016). In addition to the courses and activities in preservice education on communication, PTs should be allowed to interact with parents during their internship. Just after PTs’ first internship experiences, reflective practice activities could be carried out to develop their interpersonal competency (Methlagl & Vogl, 2024).

The LPA findings related to communication competency of PTs is congruent with the responses given in the semi-structured interviews and open-ended justifications written in GTCF. During the interviews, majority of PTs emphasized the need for courses, strategies, practices, or opportunities tailored for developing their parent-talk competencies. They stated that they did not even take a single course on communicating with parents and, therefore, it is regarded as the most frightening component of their future career. In GTCF, they also wrote that they are not allowed to talk to parents during their internship and they cannot experience it. This is an area which is neglected in their 4-year education.

Preservice Teachers’ Competency of Content Knowledge and Teaching

The second characteristic distinguishing high- and low-profile PTs is their CKT competency. This finding is congruent with previous studies in which PTs found teacher education in Türkiye to be quite theoretical (Alan, 2019). They believe they lack opportunities to experience knowledge bases they learn and they find it difficult to link theory with practice. This study yielding a similar result is significant given that effective student learning is the result of high-quality teaching (Agathangelou et al., 2024; Blömeke et al., 2016; Hattie, 2009), which is the most important factor in classroom as the quality dimension is related to teaching process (Kyriakides et al., 2009). Because the quality of teacher instruction matters, the quality of teacher education is also of great importance for PTs (Blömeke et al., 2016) and a determinant on student achievement (Baumert et al., 2010; Kersting et al., 2012). Research shows that effective instruction shares certain characteristics; cognitive activation, clarity of instruction, and supportive environment for individual learning along with classroom management (Baumert et al., 2010; Decristan et al., 2015; Hattie, 2009).

Kyriakides et al. (2009) examined the teaching quality of teachers based on certain behaviours from basic to complex level to distinguish effective teachers from ineffective ones. They identified five types of teacher behaviours. The first three levels of teacher behaviours were more of teacher-centred and routine tasks, which often trivialize cognitive activation (Baumert at al., 2010), whereas teachers in the last two levels engaged in more demanding tasks allowing student engagement. Those teachers’ instructional techniques were regarded as high-quality because they deployed an array of teaching approaches including differentiation according to the needs of students and classroom environment. The structure of GTCF developed by the researcher is similar to the levels identified by Kyriakides et al. (2009) in that performance indicators of each sub-competency are defined at four levels of complexity. The higher levels of performance indicators under the competency domain of CKT consist of teacher behaviours regarding the use of various instructional approaches and are related to higher-order thinking skills. PTs who self-reported their performance at low levels stated that they were either not ready to perform at higher competency levels or they were not trained to teach that way. This concurs with Hattie’s (2009) assertion that there is not a recognized standard for teaching PTs and they must be cognizant of the fact that teaching is not merely related to craft techniques and common sense. Hattie (2009) found that most teacher education programs lack teaching multiple instructional methods and focus on teaching low-level skills, which PTs already possess. This is similar to the findings of this study that PTs feel incompetent about teaching or assigning tasks with regard to higher-order thinking skills and activating cognition.

Although there is not empirical evidence to support it, some responses of PTs suggest that there could be differences and inconsistencies among different departments in the same faculty in teaching generic competencies. Table 6 shows that the two profiles were not equivalent in terms of department membership, which indicates differences among departments. Some PTs who self-reported themselves as low competent in CKT stated that they teach according to the lesson plans they prepare together with mentor teachers or their university advisors. Teacher trainers may also favour content knowledge over pedagogical content knowledge during preservice education. Although pedagogical content knowledge is inconceivable without content knowledge, content knowledge is not merely sufficient for high-quality teaching (Hattie, 2009), but it is the pedagogical content knowledge that is decisive for cognitive activation and individual learning support (Baumert et al., 2010). Therefore, there must be a balance between content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education programs.

Agathangelou et al. (2024) examined teachers’ use of content-generic and content-specific instructional practices through LPA. They found that the high-quality teachers incorporated both content-generic and content-specific teaching practices effectively. Similarly, Blömeke et al. (2020) identified competency profiles of mathematics teachers via LPA. The analysis indicated that the highest competency profile consisted of teachers using high levels of knowledge and skills. The skills including content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge activating cognition were the most influential factor distinguishing other profiles.

As Blömeke et al. (2016) found out, there are differences between and within countries in terms of teacher quality and instruction. Countries differ in the extent to which teachers have autonomy over how they deliver the curriculum and teaching. While teachers are fully autonomous implementers of instruction in some countries, in others, they are compelled to stick to the prescribed lesson plans, which seems to be the case for PTs in Türkiye at least according to their self-reports. PTs’ responses indicated that they found their education highly theoretical focusing mostly on the “learning and teaching process,” which was supported by LPA. Almost all participants in the interviews highlighted the need for more practice during their education process and in their internship. Whereas PTs learn many theories and approaches regarding teaching, they either lack opportunities to experiment those approaches or they are not provided with exemplars through case stories. PTs also think that the duration of the internship and the number of lessons they teach must be increased to gain more experience. In addition, their responses suggest that they are not prepared to teach for cognitive activation and differentiation, which are key to quality-teaching.

Preservice Teachers’ Competency of Assessment and Evaluation

AE competency is the third distinguishing pattern between low- and high-profile PTs. Teachers need basic knowledge of testing and test instruments to organize educational situations and instruction (Reuter & Leuchter, 2023). Assessment literacy (Stiggins, 1991) requires an understanding of basic principles of assessment, which has gained importance due to accountability. Therefore, it is regarded as a fundamental competence for all teachers (DeLuca & Johnson, 2017). Assessment literate teachers can interpret assessment results better and hence, they can make informed decisions regarding instruction and arrange necessary remediation based on evidence (Massey et al., 2020; Rogers et al., 2022). While assessment literacy was once considered as testing culture, which was mainly summative, it has moved towards formative assessment (Atjonen et al., 2022; Massey et al., 2020). Formative assessment is an essential element of effective teaching because gathering information about what students know and can do using appropriate assessment techniques can improve both students’ learning and teachers’ teaching (Atjonen et al., 2022; Rogers et al., 2022; Sondergeld, 2014).

There are two types of assessment pedagogy; content-based teaching, which is dominant in teacher education programs, and process-based teaching (DeLuca et al., 2013). While the first one is typical teacher-centred didactic instruction based on knowledge transmission, the latter requires “critical reflection, dialogue, experiential and authentic learning” (DeLuca et al., 2013, p. 130). According to DeLuca et al. (2013) there are three types of process-based pedagogies; practicing the art of assessment, field-based teaching experiences, and assessment for learning approaches. It is the assessment for learning approach which should be taught in teacher education thereby PTs gain new insights towards assessment by eliminating their negative conceptions. PTs can also develop a stance of inquiry by systematically examining their own instructional practices leading to continuous professional development.

However, this study indicates that PTs are not sufficiently aware of different formative assessment tools, which have gained importance with the recognition of constructivist approach in teaching (Massey et al., 2020) and the importance attached to the students’ learning process (Cañadas, 2021). PTs also believe that those tools are not applicable due to class size or student level. They do not know how to involve their students in formative assessment processes including co-constructing the assessment criteria or goal setting (Hill et al., 2017). Formative assessment is rarely used in teacher education due to the excuses such as the heavy workload of educators and overcrowded classrooms, or formative assessment is considered as a light form of evaluation (Cañadas, 2021). These might be some of the reasons why (formative) assessment is given less importance in Turkish teacher education landscape. DeLuca and Johnson (2017) assert that some other factors that prevent the development of assessment literacy of PTs include the short and disconnected structure of teacher education programs, less importance given to assessment competency compared to others, and low assessment competent teacher educators. Even if assessment is taught in teacher education, it is usually theoretical and focuses on general issues such as validity and reliability and ignores the practical dimension (Kruse et al., 2020) such as giving effective feedback (Namakshi et al., 2022; Rogers et al., 2022).

The findings of this study are congruent with the studies across the globe concerning assessment competency. The participant PTs stated that they take just one course on assessment throughout their education and it is not tailored for their actual needs. PTs do not develop and apply assessment instruments either on campus or in their internship studies and they cannot experience giving feedback, engaging in peer, self, and portfolio assessment in real environments. They are not allowed to score student papers, too. As a result, they do not feel confident with assessment related tasks, a finding similar to the literature (Kruse et al., 2020; Sondergeld, 2014).

Limitations to the Study

One of the limitations of this study is that it was conducted in a particular teacher education program. The study can be duplicated in other teacher education programs. Hence, a nation-wide and more comprehensive picture of teacher education and competency level of PTs can be obtained. Besides, as Blömeke and Kaiser (2017) assert, it might be difficult to determine the accepted level to be called as competent because of the difficulty of examining whether low competency areas could be compensated by high competency areas. Furthermore, while some teachers may feel competent in instructional strategies, some may feel incompetent such as in classroom management (Sun & Yin, 2025). Another limitation of this study is that PTs may over or underestimate their competencies in their self-reports (Reuter & Leuchter, 2023; Struyven & De Meyst, 2010) rather than observed performances by trained raters (Gartmeier et al., 2016). However, self-report is an acknowledged approach relying on the rationale that the teacher scores for each item on the instrument is directly related to the instructional practices if the instrument is reliable (Halpin & Kieffer, 2015). Finally, only ten PTs volunteered to be interviewed. More interviews with PTs might have revealed additional results.