Teacher Educator Knowledge, Skills, and Self-Efficacy: Systemic Impacts on Initial Teacher Education Program

Abstract

Initial teacher education programs are the primary means through which student teachers gain teaching apprenticeship, amass core teaching knowledge, and build skills that prepare them to become effective teachers who are ready to combat the realities and challenges of the classroom. The current study examines the level of content knowledge (CK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and the self-efficacy of language and foundational literacy instruction among the language teacher educators at teacher training colleges (TTCs) in Malawi. This research further explored the teacher educators’ perceptions of CK and PCK, and how their understanding of the Initial Primary Teacher Education curriculum shapes their teaching practices in foundational learning and language. Lastly, we explore the associations between CK, PCK, self-efficacy, and teacher educators’ characteristics. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, we analyzed data from 60 language teacher educators from 10 TTCs in Malawi. The findings revealed that the teacher educators’ level of CK and PCK was low, but they had high self-efficacy in their ability to teach the component skills of literacy to the student teachers. Of the teacher educators’ characteristics, only continuous professional development was positively correlated with their self-efficacy. The teacher educators’ CK and PCK are shaped by the TTC curriculum, their primary school teaching experiences, and the national education policies and guidelines they implement. Gaps in the curriculum and external constraints hinder them from effectively training student teachers in foundational literacy pedagogies. The findings provide pedagogical and policy directions for stakeholders to improve the quality of preservice education in low–middle-income contexts.

1. Introduction

Placing knowledgeable and skilled teachers in classrooms is critical to improving the quality of global education and learning outcomes. This is key for mitigating learning poverty (when children are unable to read and comprehend a simple text by age 10), particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) where the estimate is 89% [1,2]. Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG4) aims to ensure inclusive, equitable, and quality education promoting lifelong learning for all [3]. One target of SDG 4 is to increase the number of qualified classroom teachers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Poor and marginalized children in LMICs lack access to well-trained teachers who can meet their individual learning needs and fail to reach the expected minimum competence in literacy and numeracy [4].

How is teacher quality determined? The Shulman framework of Pedagogical Content Knowledge describes the knowledge and skill sets that effective teachers possess [5]. These include content knowledge (CK; domain-specific knowledge) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK; an understanding of which pedagogical strategies are needed to teach topics in ways students can understand). Cochran and colleagues updated Shulman’s original model of PCK, adding a constructivist lens to Shulman’s perspective of teaching and learning [6]. In addition to knowledge of content and pedagogy, they included other important components such as teachers’ knowledge of students’ abilities and learning strategies, ages and levels of development, motivations, attitudes, and prior knowledge, as well as an understanding of the environmental context. Other studies have added additional markers of teacher quality: the ability to diagnose learning difficulties, the capability to provide regular feedback, engagement in self-reflective processes, the use of effective questioning techniques, the use of instructional strategies that enhance higher-order thinking, and time spent on content instruction with actively engaged learners [6,7,8]. High-quality teaching results from synergy between the essential components of effective instruction. A direct relationship has been observed between educator’s CK/PCK of language and literacy and student learning [9,10]. This has proven true in studies conducted in both high- and low-income contexts, including in SSA [1,7,11]. Many studies have documented knowledge gaps/misunderstandings among general education teachers, including those who specialize in teaching students with reading difficulties [11,12,13,14,15,16]. Research with data across 14 SSA countries found that an average grade 6 teacher’s CK was no greater than that of the students they were instructing, exacerbating the rates of learning poverty [8].

Teachers predominantly gain CK/PCK skills through initial teacher training programs, practicum experiences, professional development, and daily teaching/reflection experiences [17,18,19,20]. Given the evidence of CK/PCK gaps, attention should be directed to how pre-service institutions prepare teachers. Teacher educators use the teacher training curriculum as a conduit to impart CK/PCK to pre-service teachers and teaching foundational literacy skills plays a pivotal role in education across the curriculum. Therefore, teacher educators should be skilled and competent in the most up-to-date research on literacy education and use the most effective teaching practices embedded within a high-quality curriculum. Many teacher training institutions in the United States are disconnected from evidence-based reading practices and course syllabi tend to dismiss the newest findings, continuing to teach approaches that are not evidence-based [21]. This gap has also been detected in SSA, leaving beginning teachers woefully unprepared to meet the real-world challenges of classrooms in LMICs such as Ethiopia, Malawi, Kenya, and Zambia [22,23,24,25]. This is pertinent, as the instructional choices beginning teachers make rely heavily upon the CK/PCK they develop during training [26]. Teacher-level gaps reflect the Peter Effect, which states that one cannot give others what one does not have [27]. In this context, student teachers cannot learn what their instructors do not know [9].

Many SSA teacher education programs struggle to adequately prepare student teachers (STs) to teach foundational skills [17,28,29]. This is attributed to the heavy focus on theoretical content, curricular gaps, disconnection between theory and methods, lecturer-centered instruction, limited understanding of large class pedagogy, limited/ineffective ST practicum experiences, low teacher educator competence, and teacher educators with limited classroom experience [1,17,22,24,29,30,31,32]. Deficient teacher training programming in LMICs results in persistently low learner academic achievements [33]. Research exploring CK/PCK levels in teachers and teacher educators has been predominantly conducted in high-income contexts—the United States [14,34,35]. Dire educational outcomes demonstrate the need to understand teacher CK/PCK development in LMICs.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Early Reading Development

Literacy development begins with the innate acquisition of language skills followed by essential competencies for skilled reading acquired through effective explicit instructional approaches [36,37]. Instruction begins with enhancing automatic word recognition through orthographic symbol knowledge (letter names and sounds), phonological awareness, print awareness, orthographic awareness, and alphabetic principle [38,39,40]. Systematic explicit phonics instruction enhances the mastery of the alphabetic principle and prevents reading difficulties for at-risk learners [37]. Instruction should target other key skills that bridge word reading and reading comprehension, such as graphophonological-semantic cognitive flexibility—the ability to simultaneously attend to and switch between the letters and sounds in words and the meanings of words. Teaching morphological awareness supports the understanding of the morphemic structure of words and the ability to manipulate the smallest meaningful units of words—morphemes [41]. Higher-order reading skills include reading fluency, reading comprehension, and writing.

Effective instructional strategies for reading fluency include readers’ theater and choral, echo, and paired reading—these provide a base for an accurate understanding of the text [42,43]. Reading comprehension is the ultimate goal of reading any text. Component skills that contribute to reading comprehension include vocabulary, grammatical knowledge, attentional control, working memory, inference-making, background knowledge, and comprehension monitoring [44,45,46]. Knowledge of word meanings and understanding text structures and how punctuation works are also important for reading comprehension. Effective instructional strategies include comprehension monitoring, self-questioning, previewing the text, ascertaining the gist, summarizing, and posing questions for future reading [38,47]. Writing is a critical skill that enhances reading comprehension, as it helps learners to engage deeply with texts [38,48,49]. Instruction should instill skills to organize, refine, and interpret ideas, while building knowledge about content cross disciplines (i.e., with persuasive and informational texts) through activities such as summary writing, answering or generating questions, note-taking, or extended writing [36,48,50].

2.2. Core Knowledge and Teaching Skills

Building upon Shulman’s theoretical framework of PCK, the connection can be made that teachers who have not been explicitly taught the essential components of reading and do not understand the complexities of orthographies and the language may not make the most effective pedagogical decisions while teaching, consequently inadequately supporting students [5,18]. This can be especially detrimental to those learners who require explicit instruction as they learn how to read and write [9]. Piasta and colleagues examined the CK and pedagogies of 485 early childhood classroom teachers [51]. They determined that an educator’s CK of language and literacy is significantly associated with the language they use during instruction, influencing their students’ literacy gains. Educators with greater levels of knowledge not only tend to choose more effective language and literacy classroom pedagogies, but the children in these classrooms tend to experience greater learning outcomes in print concepts, letter naming, and phonological awareness [10]. It is of great importance to recognize that teachers with limited literacy/language CK could inadvertently provide misleading information to developing readers, perpetuating an inaccurate transfer of skills [12]. Similarly, Bos and colleagues found that more than 50% of K-3 educators in the United States were unclear about the difference between phonological awareness and phonics [52]. Bold and colleagues assessed primary school language teachers and their students across eight SSA countries to determine their proficiency levels while completing simple spelling and grammar exercises [7]. They found that only 66% of teachers were able to correctly answer 80% of grade four questions. In fact, many pre-service teachers in SSA graduate from teacher training programs with poor CK despite a heavy emphasis on theory and subject matter knowledge [53,54]. A literacy teacher’s gaps in CK or the transference of misinformation can profoundly affect foundational literacy learning, as children who read poorly in grades one and two tend to remain poor readers throughout their schooling [15,55,56].

2.3. Relations Among CK, PCK, and Self-Efficacy

Evidence reveals that many educators are either not conscious of their CK/PCK gaps or inadvertently overestimate their understanding of teaching reading [57]. Kehoe and McGinty examined the knowledge, self-efficacy beliefs, and literacy practices of reading teachers from a set of rural schools in the United States [15]. Teachers had an average score of 53% on reading CK despite high self-efficacy, indicating that their confidence in effectively teaching reading was greater than their actual skill level. Additional studies have found that teachers with a notable lack of understanding in effective literacy pedagogy often overestimate their knowledge, while those with a proficient understanding of language structures tend to underestimate their knowledge [12,15,52,57]. Evidence from studies conducted among teachers in SSA reveals parallel findings of misplaced confidence [17,24,58]. This may be attributed to teacher training that prescribes a fixed teaching sequence, omits realities of the classroom context, and fails to generate adaptive skills [17,24,58]. Implications of this issue include teachers unknowingly providing incorrect/incomplete instruction to young learners with diverse cognitive, linguistic, or academic needs; failing to seek professional development; or refusing to examine their belief systems because they think they already know how to teach reading [9,12,57].

Research reveals conflicting accounts about whether a teacher’s CK/PCK for literacy correlates with their teaching experience. Bos and colleagues found that teachers with more than 11 years of experience scored higher than educators with 1 to 5 years of experience [52]. Jordan and colleagues later concurred, indicating that the largest factor related to a teacher’s knowledge of literacy pedagogy was their years of experience, not education or training [13]. However, Moats stated that “even those with vast teaching experience and those who specialize in teaching students with learning difficulties are misinformed about the elements of the language they are expected to teach explicitly” [9] (p. 81). Other studies found that even teachers with high levels of teaching experience often lack an understanding of essential literacy CK, suggesting that experienced teachers should be required to learn the most up-to-date evidence-based content [12,14,59]. In addition to student teachers being exposed to the latest foundational literacy research and essential CK, these student teachers must also be taught the key aspects of PCK and be given many opportunities to practice effective instructional strategies with real students. Student teachers require numerous opportunities to test pedagogical choices that teachers make every day [60].

2.4. Language and Literacy Practices in Malawi

Malawi is an ethnically diverse country where approximately 17 living languages are spoken [61]. Chichewa is the most widely spoken indigenous language, and English is the official language. English is typically a second, third, or fourth language for most speakers and is predominately used in major cities. In 2013, it was mandated that English be the medium of instruction in all schools and colleges, with no specific guidance or implementation plans [62]. Barriers to effective implementation of the language policy include low levels of English proficiency among teachers and learners, linguistically diverse classrooms, a lack of materials and resources for teaching English, a lack of policy awareness by some stakeholders, and a societal preference for English [63,64]. In the absence of adequate support for implementing English-only instruction, many early-grade teachers (Standards 1–4) continued to deliver all subjects in Chichewa, with the exception of English class [64]. Further evidence on language practices in classrooms in Malawi indicates that teachers were observed to codeswitch extensively to enhance access to knowledge and promote equity in learning [65]. The use of language practices to mirror a typical multilingual person who utilizes their entire linguistic repertoire is beneficial as it promotes inclusion, the understanding of content, enables learners to make connections between classroom learning and students’ cultural and social contexts, improves class participation, promotes access to literacy, and improves academic outcomes [66,67,68,69].

2.5. Pre-Service Teacher Education in Malawi

The Initial Primary Teacher Education Program (IPTE)—the national teacher preparation curriculum—was introduced in 2016 [70]. The IPTE curriculum includes a two-year program at a TTC and culminates in a certificate in primary (grades/standards 1–8) teaching. Teacher educators deliver the curriculum with a minimum bachelor’s degree qualification; experience teaching primary school is not required. The English and Chichewa language curricula are each structured into four modules that follow a similar model emphasizing history and theory. The critical components of reading are not covered in sufficient detail. Examples/explanations connecting theory to practice are few, with minimal reference to progression in skill development and no content on digital literacy [32]. This aligns with the findings from other LMIC contexts, where curricula heavily focus on theory and CK with limited time teaching STs how to best deliver instruction [17,22]. Key challenges affecting teacher education in Malawi include inadequate continuous professional development (CPD) for in-service teachers and teacher educators, resource/personnel constraints at the TTCs, short training, limited support from the Ministry of Education (MoE), and poor remuneration for teachers [71,72,73].

2.6. Present Study

The present study examines the CK, PCK, and self-efficacy levels across the literacy constructs among teacher educators in Malawi. We further examined how the teacher educators perceive foundational literacy, CK, and PCK and how that shapes their perceptions and influences how they train STs. The specific research questions are as follows:

• What is the level of content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge for Malawian teacher educators on the component skills of literacy?
• What are the relationships between the teacher educators’ characteristics, professional development training, and the level of CK, PCK, and self-efficacy in teaching literacy?
• How do the teacher educators’ perceptions of CK/PCK and their understanding of the IPTE curriculum shape how they train student teachers in early-grades literacy?

3. Methods

3.1. Data Source

This study utilizes the Strengthening Teacher Education and Practice (STEP) Activity baseline situation analysis (BSA) data. This project was jointly implemented by the MoE, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Florida State University, the University of Malawi, School-to-School International, Development Aid People-to-People Malawi, and CharChar Literacy from 2022 to 2025. The key objectives of the STEP activity included strengthening foundational literacy instruction in IPTEs, operationalizing the CPD framework to enhance teacher competence at the primary-school level, and supporting the Ministry of Education in developing a system for teacher induction. The BSA was conducted in June–October 2022 to evaluate the IPTEs and in-service teacher CPD in colleges and primary schools.

3.1.1. Sampling and Participants

The sample consisted of language teacher educators from 10 TTCs, including eight public and two private institutions. These TTCs were selected based on logistical feasibility and to ensure balanced regional and rural–urban representation: two from the Central region, three from the Northern region, and five from the Southern region. At each TTC, the principals randomly selected Language Department lecturers (26 male, 34 female) to participate in focus group discussions (FGDs) and to complete a survey. Their ages ranged from 34 to 65 years old. Thirty-six percent had taught at TTC for 0 to 5 years, 29% had taught for 6 to 10 years, and 34% had taught for over ten years. Some lecturers had primary school teaching experience, 76% had standard 1 to 2 teaching experience, 85% had standard 3 to 4 teaching experience, and 95% taught standard 5 to 8. The majority (88%) held a bachelor’s degree focused on primary education, amounting to 88% of the sample, 11% held a master’s degree, and 1% held a diploma. Of the teacher educators, 74% indicated that they had attended CPD that focused on phonological awareness, and 7% had not attended any CPD.

3.1.2. Data Collection Procedures

Data were collected by research teams assigned to three regions in Malawi. Three days of training focused on becoming familiar with the tools and processes for data collection and best practices for conducting FGDs and administering surveys. Data collection tools were piloted at one TTC and individual items within the FGD protocol and survey were revised for clarity.

3.1.3. Data Collection Tools

The FGDs gathered information about personal experiences gained from teaching in primary and secondary schools, perspectives on the language of instruction policy, literacy content, instructional methods, the availability of resources, and barriers related to teacher training. The teacher educator survey collected teacher educator characteristics, self-efficacy, and CK/PCK. Self-efficacy items were Likert scaled with scores of 1–5 (extremely incompetent to extremely competent), and α = 0.94. Knowledge items were statements that participants indicated agreement/disagreement with, CK (α = 0.98), and PCK (α = 0.95). The survey items for measuring CK and PCK were researcher-created items that have been utilized to assess CK and PCK levels with teacher educators across Nigeria, Zambia, Rwanda, the Philippines, and Malawi [22,31,74,75]. These items have been utilized to document teacher educator growth in CK and PCK before, throughout, and after CPD training activities in these countries, but have not been formally published.

3.2. Data Analysis

A concurrent mixed-methods data analysis approach was utilized to examine the teacher educators’ CK/PCK levels in the component skills of reading and the relationships between lecturers’ characteristics, levels of CK/PCK, and self-efficacy. We utilized concurrent mixed methods to simultaneously collect quantitative and qualitative data to allow for the best possible combination of results from both strands during the overall data analysis [76]. For quantitative data, we conducted descriptive, correlational, and inferential analyses in SPSS/Stata. A series of regression models were used to determine whether gender, primary teaching experience, academic/professional training, and CPD predicted teacher educators’ CK, PCK, and self-efficacy.

We utilized thematic analysis to examine the teacher educators’ perceptions of CK/PCK for early-grade literacy and how this influences how they train STs. The first step involved reading and rereading the FGD transcripts while memoing to become familiar with the data. The researchers systematically sorted and organized the data based on similarity and assigned substantive codes [77]. The research team applied an inductive approach for the initial coding (where codes were established based on the words and ideas participants expressed in the data), descriptive coding to identify the key topics in readiness for further exploration, and open coding/theming. To enhance inter-rater reliability and credibility, the process of intercoder agreement and consensus building involved team coding, which included checking and discussing coding decisions as a team. The analytic approach entailed collating similar teacher educator views, and choosing, chronicling, and ordering the codes to develop a detailed data account, deduce categories, and generate themes/subthemes.

4. Results

4.1. Content and Pedagogical Content Knowledge

The first question examined the levels of CK/PCK among teacher educators in Malawi. The findings revealed that the composite score of PCK was 53%. This assessment was dichotomously scored; hence, a score of 50% is equal to performing at chance. The score was relatively low, given that the lecturers are responsible for imparting evidence-based skills for teaching foundational literacy to STs. It is imperative for the teacher educators to be competent with high levels of PCK.

Table 1. Pedagogical content knowledge scores.

Components	Range	Mean (SD)	Percentage
Concepts of Print	0–2	0.6 (0.63)	28%
Phonological awareness	0–2	1.6 (0.58)	81%
Phonics	0–4	2.9 (0.95)	72%
Fluency	0–3	1.8 (0.55)	59%
Vocabulary	0–2	0.6 (0.67)	29%
Comprehension	0–2	1.1 (0.72)	57%
Writing	0–2	1.0 (0.61)	48%
Composite	0–17	9.5 (1.80)	53%

displays the mean, SD, and percentages across the component skills. The highest scores occurred in phonological awareness at 81%, followed by phonics at 72%. The survey on CPD attendance indicated that most of the lecturers had attended a CPD training focused on phonological awareness. The relatively high levels of PCK in phonological awareness and phonics could be attributed to exposure to CPD training. The teacher educators scored lower than chance in concepts of print (28%), vocabulary (29%), and writing (48%). This could be an indication that they lacked PCK of evidence-based practices in these areas, or that they may have been taught or have internalized incorrect pedagogical information. The surveys further indicate that these topical areas were not included in the CPD sessions held with the teacher educators. The percentage scores for fluency (59%), comprehension (57%), and writing (48%) were moderate and relatively close to chance, an indication that they may have a limited amount of knowledge in these areas.

The analysis of the levels of CK indicates that the composite scores of the teacher educators ranged from 28% to 88% with a mean of 65% see

Table 2. Content knowledge scores.

Component	Range	Mean (SD)	Percentage
Concepts of Print	0–2	0.6 (0.61)	28%
Phonological awareness	0–2	1.0 (0.56)	51%
Phonics	0–2	1.5 (0.55)	76%
Fluency	0–2	1.7 (0.53)	86%
Vocabulary	0–2	0.9 (0.71)	46%
Comprehension	0–2	1.8 (0.48)	88%
Writing	0–2	1.6 (0.60)	81%
Composite	0–13	9.1 (1.93)	65%

. This means that the lecturers possessed an understanding of the content on comprehension (88%), fluency (86%), writing (81%), and phonics (76%), as these scores are much higher than chance. However, their CK of concepts of print was notably lower, at 28%, indicating that lecturers likely possess incorrect knowledge. The CK on phonological awareness (51%) and vocabulary (48%) was about equal to chance scoring.

4.2. Self-Efficacy

As depicted in

Table 3. Self-efficacy rating of teacher educators.

How Confident Do You Feel in Your Ability to:	N	Range	Mean (SD)
Teach early-grade reading and writing	80	1–5	4.0 (1.06)
Teach phonemic and/or phonological awareness instruction	80	1–5	4.0 (1.06)
Teach phonics	80	1–5	3.9 (1.03)
Teach vocabulary skills	79	1–5	4.4 (0.75)
Teach comprehension skills	80	3–5	4.4 (0.74)
Teach writing skills	80	2–5	4.2 (0.85)
Teach reading fluency skills	80	2–5	4.4 (0.79)
Teach English as a second language	77	2–5	4.0 (0.86)
Teach assessment in English language education	78	2–5	3.9 (0.89)
Teach Chichewa as a second language	80	1–5	4.2 (0.90)
Teach assessment in Chichewa language education	80	2–5	4.1 (0.84)
Teach gender-sensitive education	79	2–5	3.7 (1.00)
Teach inclusive education	79	1–5	3.6 (1.03)
Teach social and emotional learning	76	1–5	2.8 (1.30)
Use the NRP phonics-based approach	79	1–5	3.9 (1.17)

, the teacher educators were highly confident in their ability to teach foundational literacy skills. The mean score was 4.0, with a minimum of 2.1. Despite the teacher educators rating themselves as confident, results in the CK assessment indicate that their confidence may not be founded in knowledge and skills.

Findings from the correlational analysis in

Table 4. Correlations among the teacher educator characteristics, CK, PCK, and self-efficacy.

Category	CK	PCK	TTC Teaching	Self-Efficacy	Primary Teaching	Secondary Teaching
CK	1
PCK	0.48 *	1
TTC Teaching	0.18	0.15	1
Self-efficacy	0.10	−0.06	0.21 ***	1
Primary Teaching	0.09	−0.06	0.075	0.09	1
Secondary Teaching	0.06	−0.23 **	−0.15	−0.02	−0.22	1

Note: * p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.001. (2-tailed).

indicate a positive and significant relationship between CK and PCK (r = 0.48), suggesting that teacher educators with an adequate level of CK are likely to display good PCK. TTC teaching experience was weakly correlated with self-efficacy, whereas secondary teaching was negatively correlated with PCK. There were no relationships among the other variables.

4.3. Regression Results

To address the second question, we created a series of regression models examining the extent to which teacher educator characteristics of teaching experience, gender, CPD, and professional qualifications predict CK, PCK, and self-efficacy. Note that we utilized a complete data set with no missing data. Regarding the CPD variable, we chose to code this as a dichotomous variable because, so few teacher educators experienced multiple sessions of professional development.

Table 5. Effects of teacher characteristics on PCK, CK, and self-efficacy scores.

	PCK	CK	Self-Efficacy
	β (Std. Error)	β (Std. Error)	β (Std. Error)
Years taught at TTC	0.398 (0.239)	0.006 (0.324)	−0.002 (0.019)
Male	3.366 ** (1.992)	3.896 (2.704)	−0.048 (0.162)
CPD (No)	−1.229 (2.515)	−4.218 (3.413)	−0.664 *** (0.204)
Highest qualification	0.104 ** (2.989)	4.067 (4.056)	0.108(0.243)
constant	52.701 ** (2.801)	65.662 *** (3.801)	4.243 ***(0.227)

Standard error in the parentheses. ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.001.

indicates that teacher educator characteristics did not significantly predict the teacher educator knowledge and core teaching skills. This suggests that the variations in teacher characteristics examined do not significantly impact PCK or CK. However, the models indicate a significant impact of CPD on the teacher educators’ self-efficacy (p = 0.002), suggesting that CPD had a substantial influence on teachers’ confidence in their ability to teach.

For the third question, we explored the teacher educators’ perceptions of CK and PCK, their understanding of the IPTE curriculum, and how these shape their practices in teacher training. We discuss the emerging themes in the following section.

4.4. Influence of the IPTE Curriculum on Content Knowledge

The teacher educators’ CK of early-grade teaching is directly shaped by the content in the IPTE curriculum and the Malawi National Reading Program (NRP). The teacher educators state that the IPTE curriculum captures the reading skills in English and Chichewa as topics—listening, speaking, reading and writing, grammar, and critical thinking skills. One teacher educator (TE) mentioned that the NRP curriculum outlines the five components of reading skills, even though the TE did not elaborate further. “We have five key components of reading, and within those five key components of reading, we may now have methodologies” TE1. Findings from the STEP curriculum review indicate that the language curriculum does not have sufficient content for foundational literacy instruction and there is no clear connection between the NRP materials and the IPTE curriculum, as the NRP content was not adequately referenced or embedded in the language modules. The modules contained relevant theory but not practical examples, and there were minimal references to progression in skill development [32]. The teacher educators further observe that the IPTE curriculum had insufficient content. The TEs believed that grammar is a very important component of language teaching and that the IPTE curriculum did not adequately cover topics such as grammar and writing. “About the grammar you find that you just introduce the grammar they have not produce the content for real grammar, but you do not find the content you should look outside so the content is not enough in the curriculum.” TE2. Due to these content deficiencies in the curriculum materials, teacher educators and STs resort to the internet to find relevant content. It is generally assumed that because STs learned English grammar content in primary and secondary school, they should already have a strong foundation in grammar and their training at the TTC should emphasize teaching methods. “Grammar is not really emphasized here in TTC because there is an assumption that most of the grammar has been done in the lower levels; when they come here, it’s only how to teach, but we find many challenges in these students “TE3. Despite this inherent assumption, teacher educators continue to find that STs have weak English grammar, phonology, and writing skills (essay and composition writing); hence, they may not be able to correctly impart these skills to their future learners in primary schools.

The current curriculum is designed to provide the foundations of teacher training; however, teacher educator knowledge gaps result in instructional gaps for student teachers. When asked about the connection between the courses they teach and how these courses equip STs for foundational literacy instruction, one teacher educator observed that they teach courses like sociolinguistics, prohumanistics, and phonology, without a connection to reading skills’ development. “We teach sociolinguistics, issues like phonology, those areas. So, there is not a bit of relationship with actual reading.” TE4. The teacher educators fail to understand that knowledge of the linguistic constructs of English and Chichewa is critical for understanding language structure, orthographic similarities and differences, and how these relate to reading processes. For instance, phonology is a linguistics concept, not a literacy concept; however, understanding the phonology of the language is important for effectively teaching phonological awareness (a foundational literacy skill). Further knowledge gaps were exhibited when teacher educators were asked about ways to strengthen the curriculum to improve foundational literacy instruction. Several lecturers observed that the IPTE curriculum needs more content on literature, grammar, and writing to equip STs with skills to teach learners how to compose good stories. However, these topics are not directly related to the development of foundational reading skills, revealing teacher educators’ limited understanding of the essential content needed to support early language and reading acquisition.

National assessments are important factors that guide lecturers on areas to prioritize for instruction. Lecturers observe that one limitation is the misalignment between the Malawi National Examinations Board (MANEB) assessment and the content delivered in the IPTE. Teacher educators observe that many choose not to focus in depth on any content that is not directly assessed in the MANEB. On the issues of assessment, a teacher educator stated the following:

“Phonology, the topic is given in the modules and is taught but at no point when you look at MANEB sample papers you never see that aspect being examined. So, the worry is, if we still have that one and it’s not being examined, there may be that possibility that lectures may be skipping the topic because they will not see the importance of that” TE5.

If teacher educators choose to only “teach to the test,” foregoing essential content, the lack of alignment between IPTE curriculum content and MANEB assessments could be detrimental to the STs as core CK of linguistic aspects are deleted from their course of studies.

The teacher educators point out that assessment is an important aspect of instruction. They suggest using early-grade reading assessment strategies for their STs, including a scheme chart and teacher-developed assessments to keep track of learners’ proficiency. They also note the importance of providing remediation when learners struggle to learn how to read. They vaguely suggest that learners struggling with reading difficulties should be provided with more resources like books and other teaching resources. The teacher educators did not mention specific effective differentiation strategies that have been proven to help children with reading difficulties. They observe a challenge in one of the assessment tools suggested by the curriculum, the running record, which has been borrowed from other countries and included in the curriculum without being contextualized to Malawi. Therefore, they do not have adequate information on how to conduct or use this assessment and must resort to the internet for information on how to use it.

4.5. Influence of the IPTE Curriculum on Pedagogical Content Knowledge

The teacher educators draw PCK primarily from the IPTE and NRP curriculum materials for their instruction. They note that the IPTE curriculum has gaps in teaching PCK, which presents a barrier to effective teacher training. According to the IPTE curriculum review report, pedagogy is addressed through activities/tasks that STs are expected to complete. These activities are typically closed-ended questions and teacher-led, with few formative assessments and limited differentiation strategies [32]. The teacher educators state that the IPTE has deficits in PCK for teaching grammar, such as nouns, and the instructional approaches are tailored for typically developing children, without guidance for how to teach learners with special needs. One teacher educator exhibited some understanding of the pedagogical approaches for teaching reading comprehension, which were introduced by activating learners’ background knowledge and using listening and speaking to help learners visualize what they will read. One noted that “You start with maybe activating background knowledge as well as predicting, making references, those areas you teach learners so that they should understand because reading is not just vocalizing or sounding out words taught but also understanding” TE6. This could be attributed to some teacher educators being exposed to NRP training and having familiarity with the materials.

Generally, many teacher educators demonstrate a good understanding of the importance of using translanguaging practices when teaching multilingual learners and are keen to pass this knowledge on to their STs. When asked about the language of instruction policy in Malawi, many stated that the policy stipulates that English classes should be taught in English and Chichewa classes should be taught in Chichewa. These teacher educators encourage STs to use local languages (i.e., Chichewa or other ethnic languages) during English lessons as a bridge to help learners understand, clarify information, enhance communication, explain vocabulary terms, and then switch back to speaking in English. As one TE stated,

“English is taught in English and Chichewa is taught in Chichewa. But [...] during that time when they are teaching English and the learners do not understand an instruction, a point or a concept, they are advised to come with a Chichewa a little bit and then after clarifying that point, they switch back quickly to English” (TE8).

However, they did not highlight whether this code-switching approach is planned. It seems spontaneous; therefore, whether these practices are widely used to enhance bilingualism or biliteracy is unclear. Among some teacher educators, code-switching is only acceptable for learners in grades 1–4, whereas for grades 5–8, the language being taught should be exclusively used. A few teacher educators exhibit gaps in their understanding of multilingual teaching approaches. They state that they discourage STs from using Chichewa and other local languages to support learning during English lessons, even for learners with special needs. It was their belief that plurilingual practices should be discouraged to avoid getting learners used to having the crutch of their local language as support. This lack of consensus on the best approaches to teaching multilingual learners is an indication that the STs may graduate not fully equipped with the evidence-based knowledge and skills to address the diverse needs of their learners nor able to use translanguaging techniques proficiently.

4.6. Primary Teaching Experiences

The teacher educators acknowledge that they pass on the techniques they used when teaching English and Chichewa in lower primary schools to STs in addition to sharing the critical thinking methods they have recently acquired. “We are using the same methods at the TTC apart from the critical thinking methods which we have learned, and we are using.” TE6. They shared that the most-used methods were group work, pair work, and demonstration/modeling (each mentioned eight or nine times). They encourage STs to use interactive methods like these to enhance participation and engage all learners. A common challenge mentioned was that when teaching in the primary classroom, most of the learners struggled with reading and writing skills, even though they were using these playful instructional approaches. “When I was teaching Chichewa, the class had only two learners who could read Chichewa. The rest, about 70-something, could not read.” TE7. The low levels of reading outcomes for children may be attributed to gaps in the teacher educators’ CK and/or PCK (who were, at that time, classroom teachers), even though they were using typically engaging strategies.

4.7. Mastery of Procedures and Sequences

Teacher educators report feeling confident about their ability to train STs and find reassurance through STs’ performances in the teaching practice schools. They perceive that the outcome of good training is exhibited through the ability to follow lesson procedures and sequences. The skills they prioritize are professionalism, lesson planning, preparing schemes of work, and lesson delivery by following all steps outlined in the lesson plan, the use of inclusive teaching practices, the preparation of teaching resources, and classroom management. Some teacher educators remark that the STs are well-prepared to handle learners with learning difficulties or those with special needs. This observation contradicts other teacher educators’ statements, who observe that the IPTE curriculum has a deficiency in PCK in teaching learners with special needs.

4.8. Barriers to Effective Training

The teacher educators pinpointed several constraints that hinder them from effectively training and supporting STs during their teaching practice. They reported that there was an acute shortage of important reference books across the TTCs and primary schools, including learner books, teacher guides, supplementary readers, and materials distributed by the NRP. One TE explained, “Books like grammar books are in short supply, even other materials like the modules that we are using, they lack content [...] we need some Supplementary Materials on the content” (TE6). The learner book-to-learner ratio at primary schools is very high; sometimes, classrooms only have one book for 60 learners. At the TTC, STs have limited access to the primary materials used at the teaching practice schools, which precipitates lecturers’ gaps in knowledge of the critical content of the materials they will be expected to deliver and hinders the effective preparation of schemes of work, lesson planning, and delivery.

“The main challenge is availability of resources, we would wish if there was adequate provision of resources both here in the college and in the primary schools” TE10.

5. Discussion

This study aimed to examine the levels of CK, PCK, and self-efficacy in teaching foundational literacy in lecturers in Malawi. We explored the relationships between lecturers’ characteristics, CPD opportunities, CK, PCK, and self-efficacy. Lastly, we examined the teacher educators’ perceptions of CK and PCK, their understanding of the IPTE curriculum, and how these shape their practices in teacher training. First, we examined the level of CK and PCK of the component skills of reading of teacher educators in Malawi. Overall, the teacher educators did not demonstrate strong CK or PCK in the component skills of foundational literacy. Their scores in the areas of concepts of print and vocabulary knowledge were particularly low, indicating that the teacher educators could potentially have incorrect knowledge. These findings of teacher educators in Malawi are consistent with studies of TTC programs from other SSA contexts that report that teacher educators and teachers are not adequately equipped with relevant knowledge and evidence-based pedagogical skills, as well as evidence from studies from high-income contexts [7,14,22,23,24,74,78]. One possible explanation for the above-average scores in PA/phonics is that most teacher educators were exposed to CPD training focused on PA/phonics, which positively influences their PCK in those areas. Of the CPD opportunities they attended, the teacher educators observed that concepts of print and vocabulary were not key-focused; hence, they did not improve their limited CK and PCK skills. Another possible explanation for the low levels of CK and PCK could be attributed to the limited coverage of reading component skills in the IPTE curriculum, as noted by the teacher educators, or not being exposed to the NRP training. The qualitative findings corroborate the quantitative findings, revealing that teacher educators have a limited understanding of the relevance of linguistic knowledge (phonology, sociolinguistics, grammar, syntax) for foundational literacy. This finding is reiterated by teacher educators’ observation that there is no relationship between phonology, sociolinguistics, and actual reading. A positive observation was that the majority of the teacher educators indicated that they taught STs translanguaging practices, even though a few had divergent views on this instructional technique. To align with current best practices when teaching in multilingual classrooms, it is imperative that teacher educators be conversant with current evidence of translanguaging pedagogies (codeswitching, translation). Passing this knowledge onto their STs will prepare them to facilitate learning in their future classrooms for language learners to help children build new language skills, increase engagement during learning, foster creativity and critical thinking skills, and access more texts, among other benefits [79,80,81]. The observed gaps in knowledge suggest that the teacher educators are passing inaccurate knowledge and skills on to STs, which, if not mitigated, risks perpetuating poor pedagogical strategies in classrooms in Malawi [12,82]. Essentially, it will be extremely challenging to close the learning gap that exists in schools “without [first] closing the knowledge gap that exists in the teaching profession” [44] (p. 223). Evidence from other studies on sub-Saharan Africa suggest that teachers use translanguaging in multilingual classrooms to encourage students to understand content, facilitate connections between classroom learning and students’ cultural and social contexts, and promote creativity [66,67,68].

Secondly, we explored the teacher educators’ perceptions of CK/PCK and how their understanding of the IPTE curriculum shapes how they train student teachers in early-grades literacy. The findings revealed that the teacher educators’ CK and PCK are shaped by the IPTE curriculum, which influences the transmission of knowledge, pedagogical skills, and assessment strategies to STs, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of teacher education programs. However, teacher educators are aware that the IPTE curriculum has gaps in CK and PCK (particularly for the development of foundational skills), and this impacts how they train STs. For example, inadequate CK and PCK in the component skills of reading, grammar, phonology, and differentiation strategies for learners with special needs or those at risk of reading failure, along with misalignment between content and MANEB assessments, suggest a compromise in the quality of teacher education in Malawi. Walsh and colleagues reported that if teacher training curricula are disconnected from the science of reading, it poses a risk that lecturers will not adequately develop necessary teaching skills, which impacts the STs they instruct [21]. Quality reading programs have models of coherent coursework drawn from theories, research, and evidence-based teaching practices and target the component skills of reading, address language development, adhere to contextual issues, and include access to quality assessments [83,84,85]. When teacher training curricula exhibit deficiencies, this suggests that the STs may be forced to join the teaching profession with gaps in knowledge and skill, perpetuating poor instructional strategies in classrooms. The teacher educators acknowledge that STs graduate from their programs with weaknesses in areas such as English grammar, writing, assessment, phonology, and pedagogy. This corroborates other studies in SSA which report that STs step into the profession with gaps in CK and PCK [53,54]. Reading teachers and teacher educators need a strong foundation in linguistic aspects, including phonology, morphology, semantics, pragmatics, orthographic depth, and syntax, and a clear understanding of how these concepts apply to reading instruction. If the teacher educators do not have expertise in these constructs, then STs are likely to have gaps in knowledge when it comes to language acquisition [86]. However, teacher educators’ limited scope of understanding of CK and PCK of foundational literacy is observed when they indicate what topics would strengthen the IPTE curriculum to enhance foundational learning.

Despite the low levels of CK and PCK in certain areas, the self-efficacy of the teacher educators was very high, as they reported confidence in their abilities to teach the component skills of reading. These findings corroborate previous studies that reported typical trends in teachers and teacher educators not recognizing what they do not know or overestimating their knowledge in areas where they lack ability [12,15,57]. The teacher educators, as the primary transmitters of knowledge and skills, could be rating themselves highly to protect their honor and reputation when evaluated, or they truly believe that they are well versed on these topics. Empirical evidence indicates that if the teacher educators are not aware of the gaps or shortcomings in their knowledge and skills, they are unlikely to seek professional development in these areas, may not be open to new learning, and resist behavioral change [9,57]. Given that this is baseline data, these findings suggest that in the Malawian context, a better approach could be to measure the actual skills of CK/PCK rather than relying upon self-reported parameters, as participants can employ social desirability attributes where they rate themselves highly. The qualitative findings further revealed that the teacher educators had confidence in their ability to train STs, as evidenced by their performances during teaching practice. Their perceptions of effective practices are strong skills in professionalism, lesson planning, developing schemes of work, TLMs preparation, and classroom management. While all these are important, this perception has a narrow focus, which excludes many other teaching skills needed to teach children, including PCK that is relevant to foundational learning. In agreement, other studies from SSA have reported that teachers and STs have misplaced confidence in their abilities to teach foundational skills, and this is attributed to a fixed sequence of teaching as mapped in the teacher training curriculum without taking into account contextual factors and necessary adaptation measures to ensure effective instruction [17,24].

We also examined the relationships between the teacher educators’ characteristics, professional development training, and the level of CK, PCK, and self-efficacy in teaching literacy. The results showed a lack of a statistically significant relationship between the TE’s characteristics, including years taught at TTCs, lower primary and secondary experience, and their level of CK and PCK. Similarly, other studies also found that being an experienced teacher did not correlate with high levels of essential content knowledge and PCK required to teach reading [12,14,59]. Other studies have reported that teachers with more years of teaching experience do indeed have higher CK and PCK of foundational literacy in certain areas [13,52]. One plausible explanation for this discrepancy in the Malawian context could be the gaps in the IPTE curriculum. Hence, the lecturers’ CK and PCK are based on the current curriculum which does not adequately reflect current evidence. The teacher educators acknowledged that their teaching experiences inform how they train their STs, teaching the skills they used themselves in primary schools. In agreement, Akyeampong and colleagues reported the tendency of duplicate, cyclical teaching and learning patterns being transferred from a teacher’s prior experiences to training institutions, which are then transmitted to STs and used to guide the learners in their own classrooms [17]. These findings suggest that the lecturers need to find ways to access and learn the most up-to-date, evidence-based CK and PCK available. Contrastingly, we observed a significant relationship between the teacher educators’ self-efficacy and what they were taught in CPD. These findings suggest that exposure to CPD boosted the teacher educators’ confidence in teaching some of the component skills of reading, but it did not improve knowledge or skills. It is critical that high-quality CPD be offered to teacher educators, particularly in the areas of foundational literacy, to impart content and PCK in these and other areas. This could translate to behavioral change in instructional practices and increased self-efficacy. There could be several reasons for low uptake or amounts of behavior changes after attending CPD training, including poor-quality training. Another possible reason is that in the Malawian context, teacher educators and practicing teachers have been known to have divergent motives when attending CPD workshops, which could contribute to the low levels of CK and PCK as there is low uptake. The main motivation for attending CPD is often financial remuneration associated with the activities and not to learn and then implement the skills learned. Further, other barriers exist due to systemic issues in Malawi and the lack of sufficient resources at TTCs and primary schools, which makes it challenging to incorporate new strategies. We note this as a hindrance to the delivery of quality education, and this has been echoed in other studies in Malawi [71,72,73]. These challenges are not unique to the Malawian context, but resonate with challenges in other LMIC contexts, such as student teachers who are not familiar with the basic education curriculum, the misaligned language of instruction policies, and the lack of teaching and learning resources, among others [17,24,29]. There is a need for education stakeholders and development partners to establish sustainable mechanisms for teacher training institutions to access current, evidence-based materials, ample teaching materials, and ICT tools to facilitate the transfer of knowledge and best practices.

6. Limitations and Future Research Directions

Several limitations of the present study are worth noting. First, the tool utilized to measure CK and PCK only had 42 items with 2–3 questions on each component skill. Although it sheds light on the level of skill sets of the teacher educators, future research should use a more robust tool that broadly captures component skills of reading and linguistic constructs of English and Chichewa (phonology, morphology, syntax, grammar), and second language acquisition, factoring in multilingual teaching practices [9,24]. The self-reported tool to measure self-efficacy may not be reliable; future research in the Malawian context needs to re-examine measures of self-efficacy and its relation to teaching practices and levels of CK and PCK. Veiluf and colleagues concluded that the same constructs can be used to account for responses to teacher self-efficacy based on evidence from 23 countries that participated in the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) [87,88]. No SSA country was included in the sample; hence, it is critical for further research to examine these constructs in the Malawian context or across SSA. The construct of self-efficacy may be influenced by regional cultures. Studies conducted with East Asian teachers (in Singapore and Hong Kong) have reported low self-efficiency scores even though they are from contexts with relatively high student outcomes [89]. Future research should examine the linkages between self-efficacy and actual teaching using classroom observation data with a relatively large sample.

7. Conclusions and Implications

To conclude, our findings demonstrate that Malawian teacher educators have relatively lower-than-ideal levels of CK and PCK in foundational literacy. They do demonstrate an understanding of plurilingual teaching practices, which is imperative in a multilingual society. Contrastingly, the teacher educators had high levels of confidence in their ability to teach foundational literacy despite their low levels of PCK. This indicates a striking and concerning difference between their perceived confidence and their actual knowledge and skills. Teacher educators’ participation in CPD opportunities boosted their self-efficacy, but it is not clear if this is beneficial to their ability to appropriately train student teachers. The findings of the present study on the levels on the CK and PCK of teachers’ educators and how the pre-service curriculum and prior teaching experience inform how teacher educators prepare student teachers to teach reading provide critical insights, and pedagogical and policy directions for researchers, education stakeholders and policy makers. These insights are essential to inform curriculum adaptation and to strengthen pre-service teacher education in Malawi and other low–middle-income contexts.

The findings of the baseline situation analysis shed light on areas that education stakeholders can target to strengthen the quality of teacher education in Malawi. For instance, there is a need for education stakeholders to address the gaps and revamp the IPTE curriculum to explicitly address the component skills of reading and language constructs as part of targeted efforts to improve knowledge and skills. Curriculum adaptations should address the linguistics situation in the Malawi context as well as the classroom realities that pre-service teachers face when they enter into the teaching profession. For instance, educators and preservice teachers need exposure to the content of the linguistic aspects of Chichewa and other local languages. In addition, they need to be retooled on the content and pedagogical content knowledge of translanguaging for bilingual and biliteracy development. Professional development training is a means to improve teacher educators’ pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge. To strengthen the areas of weakness, professional development training should target the core components of literacy that educators have low capacity in such as concepts of print, writing, the alphabetic principle, oral reading fluency, and reading comprehension and strategies for differentiated instruction across all skills. Further research is needed to explore how specific CPD models impact teacher educator confidence, result in measurable gains in CK and PCK, and ultimately enhance the preparedness and performance of student teachers. Without addressing these gaps, there is a risk that new cohorts of teachers will continue to enter classrooms without the necessary tools to support early literacy, thereby perpetuating low literacy outcomes and learning poverty among learners.