After two decades of curriculum development, integrative activity (IA) has become integral to the curriculum followed in Taiwan’s junior high schools. IA aims to engage students in courses that foster multiple intelligences; life skills; and competencies in communication, negotiation, critical thinking, and problem-solving to help them cope with overwhelming pressure. This aim aligns with the recommendations of major international organizations, such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which emphasizes the importance of developing life skills in children. Pedagogical content knowledge, which was initially proposed by Shulman (1986, 1987), refers to knowledge for teaching purposes—practical wisdom that teachers internalize through dynamic pedagogical activities and processes, from class preparation and teaching to reflection. However, few studies have defined or measured junior high school teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge regarding IAs. Moreover, studies on the content or dimensions of this knowledge are rare. Therefore, in this study, we constructed the Integrative Activity Pedagogical Content Knowledge (IAPCK) scale for junior high school teachers and examined its reliability and validity on the basis of item–response theory. Moreover, we investigated whether teachers with different backgrounds perform differently on the IAPCK scale.

This exploratory sequential mixed-methods study was conducted in three stages. In Stage 1, semistructured interviews were conducted with 10 IA teachers who had varying experience levels. Their practical knowledge about IAPCK was evaluated, and core themes were identified through content analysis. In Stage 3, the IAPCK scale was constructed using the results of Stage 1. A focus group was conducted to validate the content of the preliminary version of the scale. The focus group comprised five domain knowledge and teaching experts. Face validity was assessed on the basis of input from IA teachers and preservice teachers. In Stage 3, a pilot test was conducted with 176 school teachers and preservice teachers specializing in IA. A total of 591 school teachers and preservice teachers completed a survey conducted using the final version of the IAPCK scale.

On the basis of a systematic review of the literature and the results of the semistructured interview, we constructed the IAPCK scale to cover the following eight dimensions: Knowledge of curriculum and objectives, knowledge of content, knowledge of instructional strategies, knowledge of instructional representations, knowledge of learners and their characteristics, knowledge of evaluation, knowledge of instructional media, and knowledge of educational contexts. The preliminary scale was subjected to item analysis; a total of 41 items were retained in the final version. An analysis performed using the multidimensional partial credit model revealed that three items were misfit for the scale; these items were subsequently deleted.

The final version of the IAPCK scale comprised 38 items across eight dimensions. The item separation reliability was .992, which indicated good item separation. The person separation reliability values for the individual dimensions were as follows:Knowledge of curriculum and objectives, .89; knowledge of pedagogical content, .93; knowledge of instructional strategies, .94; knowledge of instructional representations, .93; knowledge of learners and their characteristics, .93; knowledge of evaluation, .88; knowledge of instructional media, .94; and knowledge of educational contexts, .84. These values highlight the scale’s ability to differentiate between different levels of a latent trait. Our scale demonstrated good reliability and validity, supported by substantive content and structural evidence. The results also indicated that in-service teachers performed better on the IAPCK scale than did preservice teachers, confirming the construct validity of the scale.

We further investigated if teachers with different backgrounds perform differently on the IAPCK scale. The following results were obtained:

1. Male in-service IA teachers significantly outperformed female teachers; differences were observed in knowledge of instructional media.

2. No significant difference was observed among IA teachers with different education levels.

3. No significant difference was noted in IA teachers with different experience levels.

4. Significant differences were noted among teachers with different years of service in terms of their performance on various IAPCK dimensions, except for knowledge of curriculum and objectives and knowledge of pedagogical content.

5. The IAPCK performance of IA teachers with different expertise levels varied significantly, although not on each dimension, according to an F test.

6. No significant difference was observed among IA teachers employed in different districts.

7. IA teachers who had received on-the-job training on pedagogical knowledge and skills outperformed those who had never received such training.

This paragraph highlights the significance of our study. First, we investigated the specific implications of IAPCK at the junior high school level. Through semistructured interviews, we deduced the distinct characteristics of IA pedagogical knowledge. Second, the IAPCK scale was developed through a systematic content analysis, which closely aligned with the practical teaching context. This approach facilitated the comprehensive representation of the characteristics of IA pedagogical knowledge. Furthermore, in contrast to previous measurement methods that solely relied on participants’ self-reported data, our approach involved an objective scoring method to evaluate teachers’ curriculum and objective knowledge as well as situational knowledge. Nonetheless, for the other dimensions of knowledge, the traditional measurement approach was used for assessing IA pedagogical knowledge: Participants completed the survey on the basis of congruence. We used the multidimensional partial credit item–response theory model for data analysis; this facilitated the establishment of the objective scale, which not only addresses the challenge of inconsistent scoring methods for different items within the scale—a problem encountered in traditional item analysis—but also ensures that the scale possesses the characteristics of equidistance and objective measurement. Third, we further confirmed that our scale has adequate item quality and good item and person separation reliability. Additionally, substantive evidence, criterion-related validity, interpretability evidence, and generalizability evidence supported the potential of the eight IAPCK dimensions in evaluating the IA pedagogical content knowledge of junior high school teachers. The IAPCK can serve as a self-evaluation tool for both preservice and in-service IA teachers. By answering questions under each dimension, teachers can monitor their IAPCK development and improve their weak areas. In addition, this scale can be used as a measurement tool in future studies. Finally, the IAPCK scale can be valuable for educational institutions—for example, during re-entry programs to assess the effectiveness of efforts investigated in enhancing re-entry education. By using a multidimensional radar chart to evaluate the performance of in-service teachers across different subject knowledge dimensions before and after their participation in a re-entry education program, the program organizers can gain insights to better align their future planning with the specific needs of the participants. This targeted and demand-driven approach would facilitate the organization of effective re-entry education programs.

Nonetheless, we only conducted a preliminary overview analysis of junior high school teachers’ background information and their performance on the IAPCK scale. Further studies are needed to clarify the specific aspects of IAPCK. Future studies should include a broad range of variables and explore factors that potentially influence teachers’ performance in the IA domain. Additionally, the long-term effects of re-entry education on teachers’ instructional practices and student outcomes should be investigated to gain key insights for educational policy development and practice.