In the German educational debate, the recognition of teachers as professionals is coded as “semi-professionals”, incomplete or deficit professionalization (Oevermann 1996, Combe/ Helsper 1996), teachers have the notion of a 'structural technologies deficit' (Luhmann/Schorr 1982). In the view of Tenorth, such proclaimed deficits are broadly useless because they miss the ‘sensitivity in the profession theory for the pedagogic field, they ignore the achievements of pedagogy and the potential of its technology’ (Tenorth 2006, p. 580). More than any other academic discipline Educational Science, pedagogy itself, especially teacher education and professionalization is determined by the separation of theory and practice (or knowledge and capability). The supposed open gap between theory and practice is a feature of a traditional knowledge order. The traditional knowledge order can be characterized through the relief of the urge to act and accountability which creates the potential for cognition and exceeds the need for action (Spinner 1994, p. 16). In today’s educational research exist a lot of different kinds of teacher knowledge models like professional or experts’ knowledge, knowledge forms and types, hierarchically and non-hierarchically models of teacher knowledge. Such models try to overcome attributions like teacher is an ‘impossible job’ (Carlsburg/ Heitger 2005). Knowledge systems or models of knowledge (and competencies) are a total of normative terms and factual conditions for the generation, processing, use, application, etc. of information (Spinner 1994, S. 329). In some parts these types, models and forms are based on each other or merge into each other. Such normative models are the foundation and direction for furthermore research on teacher education. In this paper I present theoretical considerations of my doctoral thesis which center on educational beliefs (convictions) and the capacity for judgments of teacher students, trainee teachers and professional teachers. This year I like to present the analyses of different models of teacher knowledge which constitute a part of my theoretical approach.

On the one hand I found international relevant models like knowledge growth in teaching (Shulman 1986), knowledge of the knower and the known (Fenstermacher 1994), the knowledge base for teaching expert (Turner-Bisset 1999) and the teaching profession (Hiebert et al. 2002). On the other hand are models of teacher knowledge in the German context like teacher expert knowledge (Bromme 1992), professional decision-making and responsibility (Baumert/ Kunter 2006), areas of teacher knowledge (Neuweg 2010) and professional teacher competencies (Blömeke 2011). This opens a cultural perspective in teacher research. Education research is embedded in particular national and cultural backgrounds, which form the intellectual and social composition of education research (Keiner 2010). Normative determinations of terms in teacher knowledge models indicate the cultural perceptional focuses of researchers on certain academic necessary issues in teacher education at a point of time.

Baumert, J. & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 9 (4), 469-520 Blömeke, S. (2011): Zum Verhältnis von Fachwissen und unterrichtsbezogenen Überzeugungen bei Lehrkräften im internationalen Vergleich. In: Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia (Hrsg.): Stationen Empirischer Bildungsforschung, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. S. 395-411. Bromme, R. (1992): Der Lehrer als Experte: zur Psychologie des professionellen Wissens. Bern: Carlsburg / Heitger, M. (Hrsg.) (2005): Der Lehrer – ein (un)möglicher Beruf. – Frankfurt a.M. Combe, A./ Helsper, W. (Hrsg.) (1996): Pädagogische Professionalität. – Frankfurt a.M. Fenstermacher (1994): The knower and the known: the nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Review on Research on teaching, 20, p. 1-54. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R. , and James W. (2002): Knowledge base for the teaching profession- Stigler Base for the Teaching Profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? In: educational Researcher, Vol.31, No. 5, pp. 3-15 Keiner, E. (2010). Disciplines of education. The value of disciplinary self-observation. In: J. Furlong & M. Lawn (Eds.), Disciplines of Education. Their role in the future of education research. London, pp. 159–172. Luhmann/Schorr 1982 Zwischen Technologie und Selbstreferenz: Fragen an die Pädagogik, Suhrkamp Neuweg (2011): Das Wissen der Wissensvermittler. Problemstellungen,Befunde und Perspektiven der Forschung zumLehrerwissen. In: Terhart, Ewald/Bennewitz, Hedda/Rothland, Martin (Hrsg.): Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf.Münster: Waxmann, S. 451 – 477. Shulman (1986): Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. In: Educational Researcher, February, 4–14. Spinner (1994): Die Wissensordnung. Ein Leitkonzept für die dritte Grundordnung ist Informationszeitalters. Leske & Budrich Turner-Bisset, R. (1999): Knowledge base for teaching. British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 39-55 Oevermann, U. (1996): Theoretische Skizze einer revidierten Theorie professionalisierten Handelns. In: In: Combe, A./Helsper, W. (Hrsg.): Pädagogische Professionalität. – Frankfurt a.M., S. 70-182.