**1. Introduction**

Teachers are a crucial factor in improving the quality of education and students' academic performance. To this end, governments are committed to enhancing teachers' quality. Den Brok et al. (2004) reported that 7–15% of the variance in student achievements could be attributed to differences between teachers [1]. Day et al. (2006) argued that the differences between teachers might explain 15–30% of the variance in student achievements [2]. The research by Hanushek and Rivkin (2010) has referred to two generally accepted findings regarding teachers' contributions to student performance. First, there is considerable variation in the quality of teachers as measured by the value of increased achievements, future academic achievements, or earnings; second, variables commonly used to determine careers and salaries, such as academic qualifications and certificates, do not explain the variations in measured teacher quality. Therefore, the teacher characteristics we observed are not representative of the quality [3]. Through an empirical study, Rivkin et al. (2005) stated that the variation in teacher quality is rarely explained by observable characteristics [4] and that the observable characteristics of teachers could shed light on only about 5% of the variation in student achievements [3].

Most studies have been conducted on the effects of teachers on students' academic performance by their attributes and characteristics (e.g., gender, teaching standing, academic qualifications, etc.) [5–7], but it remains insufficient to study the effects of teachers' professional development, such as pre-service teacher preparation (PSTP), on students' academic performance. PSTP, also known as initial teacher training, means the preparation

**Citation:** Liu, X.; Gao, W.; Chen, L. Does Pre-Service Teacher Preparation Affect Students' Academic Performance? Evidence from China. *Educ. Sci.* **2023**, *13*, 69. https:// doi.org/10.3390/educsci13010069

#### Academic Editor: James Albright

Received: 17 November 2022 Revised: 23 December 2022 Accepted: 24 December 2022 Published: 10 January 2023

**Copyright:** © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

of teachers for theoretical knowledge and teaching before they start their teaching [8]. PSTP aims to help them transition from campus to career. The No Child Left Behind Act proposed that every student could be taught by highly qualified teachers. Consequently, the US government has invested heavily in teachers' professional preparation and career development to better PSTP and highlight its importance. Countries have focused on PSTP from a variety of perspectives. Through comparison, Zhu Xiaohu and Zhang Minxuan (2017) unveiled that Finland has great strengths in pre-service education and improves teachers' professionalism through rigorous selection. Shanghai, China, has invested heavily in induction training and others to enhance teachers' professionalism through standardized training [9–11]. In addition, Brazil's Accelerated Learning Program trains new teachers through a highly structured curriculum [12]. Schools hope to attract outstanding talents with teachers' qualities to their schools. By improving the PSTP model, they can refine the quality of teachers they recruit and boost their sustainable development and students' academic performance [13]. Ramírez (2006) found that well-prepared math teachers could teach more mathematical content in class [14]. Akiba (2011) noted that teacher preparation for diversity reported by pre-service teachers is associated with positive changes in pre-service teachers' beliefs about diversity in their personal and professional environments [15]. Little and Anderson (2016) found that although most pre-service teachers think that their beliefs are compatible with problem-solving tasks, the ability of middle school students, preparation time, and cooperative teachers are the main factors affecting their performance on problem-solving tasks [16]. Shaukat and Chowdhur (2021) analyzed the perceptions of 52 Australian and 68 Pakistani pre-service teachers (PST) on the professional standards for teachers to compare teacher preparation in the two countries, and concluded that standards-based integrated teacher preparation programs are more effective than nonintegrated teacher preparation programs in promoting professional skills and competency development [17]. Evagorou et al. (2015) compared the teacher preparation courses in England, Finland, France, and Cyprus, and found that the pre-service teacher training programs in the different countries have different focuses. Finland attaches great importance to teacher preparation and encourages teachers to enhance their teaching performance through research skills. Meanwhile, Finnish university-affiliated schools and specially trained tutors emphasize exercises during preparation. Training in Cyprus and the UK also includes research training for students, but the focus is less pronounced than in the Finnish system [18].

There is a strong correlation between PSTP knowledge and content knowledge in teaching. Shulman (1986) summarized content knowledge in teaching into three core aspects: subject matter content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular knowledge [19]. However, the subject matter knowledge that teachers learn in higher education is not directly applied to primary and secondary school instruction, so it is inconclusive whether teachers' content knowledge preparation is beneficial to student performance. Based on the data from the Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY), Monk (1994) showed that teachers' insight into what they have learned has a positive impact on student performance [20]. According to the analysis of Rowan et al. (1997), teachers' subject knowledge and expectations directly influence students' mathematics performance. These effects depend on the students' average ability in a given school [21]. Hill et al. (2015) examined whether and how mathematics teachers' pedagogical content knowledge contribute to students' mathematics performance. After controlling for key covariates of students and teachers, teachers' mathematics knowledge was significantly associated with student performance in both first and third grades [22]. However, Eberts and Stone (1984) found no relationship between college-level mathematics courses and fourth-grade test scores [23]. In addition, content knowledge in teaching is an important determinant influencing learning gain and motivation development [24]. Baumert et al. (2010) explored the importance of teachers' content knowledge and content knowledge in teaching for high-quality mathematics teaching and students' progress in secondary schools, confirming the correlation between specific teachers' expertise and high-quality

teaching and students' learning [25]. Slavíckov ˇ á (2020) uncovered a strong correlation between preparatory mathematics teachers' capabilities for applied digital technology and their activities in the curriculum [26]. Creativity-oriented tasks are integrated into university courses in mathematics, which can better allow pre-service teachers to develop innovative mathematical skills for future students [27]. Corcoran and Flaherty (2018) found no significant relationship between personality traits and the outcome variable, teaching performance. However, teaching performance in the past has also emerged as an important predictor of teaching performance apart from academic performance [28].Furthermore, for under-resourced teaching, teachers should receive specialized training on adapting their curriculum plans for students with different ability levels [29]. Tunjera and Chigona (2020) recommend the adoption of a technology integration framework and pedagogical theory at the level of policy development in pre-service teacher training institutions [30].

Although previous studies agree that PSTP can play a part in students' academic performance, PSTP's role needs to be discussed by discipline given the significant variation in course content and teaching design across disciplines [31]. There is little research on the disciplinary differences in PSTP. Consequently, this study presents the following hypotheses based on the key research issues of existing PSTP studies.

**Hypothesis I.** *PSTP can be divided into one for general subject matter knowledge and one for diverse pedagogical content knowledge.*

**Hypothesis II.** *There is interdisciplinary heterogeneity in PSTP levels due to various learning approaches across disciplines.*

**Hypothesis III.** *PSTP can have significantly positive effects on student performance.*
