The Impact of Domain-Specific Training on Teacher Knowledge Familiarity: A Case Study of Teacher Training Colleges
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64229/9z863a94Keywords:
Teacher Education Students, Teacher Education, Domain Knowledge, Conditional Knowledge, Eye Movement ResearchAbstract
This study investigates the impact of domain-specific training on the familiarity and proficiency of teacher knowledge among teacher education students. By comparing teacher education students with their non-teacher education peers, the study aims to explore the development of conditional knowledge-encompassing theoretical content knowledge, cognitive process knowledge, and problem condition knowledge-as foundational for effective teaching practices. Utilizing eye-tracking technology, we examine participants’ visual attention patterns and cognitive processing efficiency, capturing metrics such as fixation times, saccades, and response accuracy. Results reveal that teacher education students display a significantly heightened familiarity with teaching-related domain knowledge, reflecting faster response times, higher accuracy rates, and greater confidence levels. These findings underscore the importance of teacher training programs in fostering essential cognitive tools and domain-specific knowledge structures that enhance future educators’ preparedness for complex teaching environments. Insights from this study highlight the need for refined teacher training approaches to further strengthen essential knowledge areas, equipping educators with the competencies required for the demands of the modern classroom.
References
[1]Alexander, P. A. and J. E. Judy (1988). "The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance." Review of Educational research 58(4): 375-404.
[2]Shulman, L. (1987). "Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform." Harvard educational review 57(1): 1-23.
[3]Xin, T., S. Jiliang and L. Chongde (1999). "Examining the Reform of Teacher Education through the Lens of Teachers' Knowledge Structures." Teacher Education Research(06): 12-17.
[4]Chi, M. T., R. Glaser and M. J. Farr (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: L, Erlbaum Associates.
[5]Feltovich, P. J., M. J. Prietula and K. A. Ericsson (2006). "Studies of expertise from psychological perspectives." The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance: 41-67.
[6]Wiley, J. (1998). "Expertise as mental set: The effects of domain knowledge in creative problem solving." Memory & cognition 26: 716-730.
[7]Ricks, T. R., K. J. Turley-Ames and J. Wiley (2007). "Effects of working memory capacity on mental set due to domain knowledge." Memory & cognition 35: 1456-1462.
[8]Hambrick, D. Z. and R. W. Engle (2003). "The role of working memory in problem solving." The psychology of problem solving: 176-206.
[9]Bo-Fen, H., C. Xiao-Yue and P. Y.P. (2010). "Organization of knowledge teaching content in subject field ------ Write knowledge teaching unit in subject field by structure strategy." Journal of Educational Development(08): 20-23.
[10]Wensen, Y. and L. Rong (2007). The Professional Development of Teachers, Fujian Education Press.
[11]Ziyu, J. and D. Zhu (2008). "A Experimental Research on Information Retrieval During Problem Representation." Psychological Science(03): 620-624.
[12]Wolfe, J. M. (2012). "Saved by a log: How do humans perform hybrid visual and memory search?" Psychological Science 23(7): 698-703.
[13]Haider, H. and P. A. Frensch (1997). "Learning mechanisms in cognitive skill acquisition." Zeitschrift fur Experimentelle Psychologie 44(4): 521-560.
[14]Gegenfurtner, A., E. Lehtinen and R. Säljö (2011). "Expertise differences in the comprehension of visualizations: A meta-analysis of eye-tracking research in professional domains." Educational psychology review 23: 523-552.
[15]Kyle R. Cave, M.-S. K., Narcisse P. Bichot, Kenith V. Sobel (2005). "The FeatureGate Model of Visual Selection." Neurobiology of Attention: 547-552.
[16]Schoenfeld, A. H. (2007). Assessing mathematical proficiency, Cambridge university press.
[17]Bertleff, S., G. R. Fink and R. Weidner (2016). "The role of top--down focused spatial attention in preattentive salience coding and salience-based attentional capture." Journal of cognitive neuroscience 28(8): 1152-1165.
[18]Gaspelin, N. and S. J. Luck (2018). "The role of inhibition in avoiding distraction by salient stimuli." Trends in cognitive sciences 22(1): 79-92.
[19]ZHANG, F., A. CHEN, B. DONG, A. WANG and M. ZHANG (2021). "Rapid disengagement hypothesis and signal suppression hypothesis of visual attentional capture." Advances in Psychological Science 29(1): 45.
[20]ZHOU, Z., Y. CHEN and S. FU (2022). "The effects of expectation on attention are dependent on whether expectation is on the target or on the distractor." Acta Psychologica Sinica 54(3): 221.
[21]Ericsson, K. A. and W. Kintsch (1995). "Long-term working memory." Psychological review 102(2): 211.
[22]Rayner, K. (1978). "Eye movements in reading and information processing." Psychological bulletin 85(3): 618.
[23]Yan, Z. and C. Xiao-yue (2012). "The Effect of Disciplinary Domain Knowledge and mathematical achievement On Working Memory Span." Psychological Development and Education 28(01): 70-76.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Tinghong Huang (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
