There is strong inter-European agreement on the outstanding importance of high-quality teacher education systems (ETUCE, 2008). Yet, there is little cross-national consensus concerning explicit criteria or standards to assess the quality of teacher education, beyond national initiatives (e.g. NBPTS, 2002) and approaches focusing on the general assessment of the outcomes of study programmes, but not specifically on teacher education (Gonzales & Wagenaar, 2006). Furthermore, while the overall importance of output orientation in teacher education has been stressed (e.g. Cochran-Smith, 2001), methods of assessing the outcomes of teacher education range from self-reports and tests of teaching knowledge to work samples and observations of practice (Darling-Hammond, 2006).  In Germany, a framework of what teacher students are expected to learn in both pre-service training at university and subsequent in-service training has been issued by a national authority (KMK [Secretariat of the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany], 2004; 2011). These “Standards for Teacher Training” explicitly define the competences teachers-to-be must possess upon entering service and, as such, encompass the four domains termed “teaching”, “education”, “assessment” and “innovation”. The KMK’s standards have been issued with the aim of providing an overall normative framework of orientation for teacher educators and teacher education institutions. In the KOSTA project, we have developed instruments operationalising the KMK’s standards for practical evaluation purposes. KOSTA is an acronym for “Orientation towards Competences and Standards in Teacher Training”. The project’s aim is to assess the development process of teacher students’ competences during the university-based stage of teacher education including practical training episodes. This typically ends with a Master’s degree in education, and is followed by a 12-to-24- months stage of in-service teacher education (preparatory service) before entering service (for more detail see KMK, 2011).

Based on the findings of earlier research employing the Oser (2001) “Standards of Good Teacher Behaviour” framework of reference for assessing teacher students’ competence development in practical field experiences (Bodensohn & Schneider, 2008), we hypothesise a longitudinal increase in competence across all domains of the KMK’s standards, and most prominently so in the “teaching” domain. The research question of whether the perceived quality of university training supports students’ competence development has, however, not been raised before. Here, we expect mildly positive effects.

To our knowledge, no other European country has issued a comparably concise collection of standards defining competences to be developed during teacher education. Therefore, the adaptation of this framework to the national requirements of European countries and/or the establishment of a joint (cross-national) set of standards by the scientific community may prove helpful in (a) enhancing goal clarity concerning the ends of teacher education programmes and in (b) creating a common basis for a comparative evaluation of national teacher education systems. To support these aims, we welcome researchers from all European countries to use or adapt our instruments and research design to their needs.

Bodensohn, R., & Schneider, C. (2008). Was nützen Praktika? Evaluation der Block-Praktika im Lehramt – Erträge und offene Fragen nach sechs Jahren [The Benefit of Practical Phases – Six Years of Evaluation of the University Stage of Teacher Education]. Empirische Pädagogik, 22(3). Cochran-Smith, M. (2001). The outcomes question in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 527–546. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Assessing Teacher Education: The usefulness of multiple measures for assessing program outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 120–138. ETUCE (2008). Teacher Education in Europe: An ETUCE Policy Paper Adopted by the Executive Board on 14th April 2008. Brussels: ETUCE. Retrieved from http://etuce.homestead.com/Publications2008/ETUCE_PolicyPaper_en_web.pdf Gonzales, J. & Wagenaar, R. (2006). Tuning Educational Structures in Europe. Retrieved from http://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/images/stories/documents/ General_Brochure_final_version.pdf KMK [Secretariat of the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany] (2004). Standards für die Lehrerbildung: Bildungswissenschaften: Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 16.12.2004. Retrieved from http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2004/2004_12_16-Standards-Lehrerbildung.pdf KMK [Secretariat of the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany], (2011). The Education System in the Federal Republic of Germany 2010/2011 (Excerpt). Retrieved from http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/doc/Dokumentation/Bildungswesen_en_pdfs/teachers.pdf NTPBS (2002). What teachers should know and be able to do. Retrieved from http://www.ntpbs.org/UserFiles/what-teachers.pdf Oser, F. (2001). Standards: Kompetenzen von Lehrpersonen. In F. Oser & J. Oelkers (Eds.), Die Wirksamkeit der Lehrerbildungssysteme. Von der Allrounderbildung zur Ausbildung professioneller Standards ; Nationales Forschungsprogramm 33, Wirksamkeit unserer Bildungssysteme (pp. 215–342). Chur: Rüegger.