466266

rnal of Teacher EducationBerry and Van Driel

JTEXXX10.1177/0022487112466266Jou

Articles
Journal of Teacher Education

Teaching About Teaching Science: Aims, 64(2) 117128

2012 American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education
Strategies, and Backgrounds of Science Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Teacher Educators
DOI: 10.1177/0022487112466266
http://jte.sagepub.com

Amanda Berry1,2 and Jan H. Van Driel2

Abstract
Despite pressing concerns about the need to prepare high-quality teachers and the central role of teacher educators (TEs)
in this process, little is known about how TEs teach about teaching specific subject matter, and how they develop their
expertise. This empirical study focuses on the specific expertise that science TEs bring into teacher education. Individual
interviews and story lines were conducted with 12 experienced science TEs from four different teacher education institutions
in Australia and the Netherlands, to gain insight into their aims for teaching about science teaching, and how their expertise
has developed on the basis of their professional background and experiences. The findings of this exploratory study reveal
similarities among the concerns of these TEs and yet considerable diversity among their approaches. The study aims to
contribute to a better understanding of science TEs work and the development of a pedagogy of science teacher education.

Keywords
teacher educators, science teacher education, pedagogy of teacher education

Introduction special issue of Teaching and Teacher Education, guest

Internationally, the urgency of providing relevant and high-
quality teacher education has been highlighted for immedi-
ate attention (see, for example, Cochran-Smith & Zeichner,
2005; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development [OECD], 2005). Given widespread concerns
regarding the quality of teachers and teaching, there are
obvious implications for teacher educators (TEs) who have
an essential role in preparing teachers to teach effectively to
groups of students of increasing diversity. Especially in situ-
ations of teacher shortages, which require efficient and yet
high-quality programs for teacher education, TEs are faced
with increasingly challenging demands and expectations.
Furthermore, TEs are expected to be involved in forming
educational change (P. K. Smith, 2010), and are seen by
design or default . . . [as] the linch pins in educational
reforms of all kinds (Cochran-Smith, 2003, p. 5). Yet,
despite these pressing concerns about the need to prepare
high-quality teachers, and the central role of TEs in this
process, there does not seem to be an organized or formal
way of preparing TEs for their tasks. TEs come from various
backgrounds and bring very different experiences into
teacher education, yet it does not seem to be a career that one
deliberately plans to enter. Moreover, there seems to be a
huge literature about the curriculum, the pedagogy, the orga-
nization and the students but next to nothing about the peo-
ple who are teacher educators (Acker, 1997, p. 66). In a
editors Korthagen, Loughran, and Lunenberg (2005, p. 107)
pointed to a serious lack of knowledge about what teacher
educators do and how their work is constructed. Although
this situation is beginning to change (Lunenberg, 2010),
research on TEs is still quite rare and so far has focused
mainly on rather generic issues, such as TEs transition into
the role and the broad set of skills, attitudes, and knowledge
that they may need.
At the same time, Darling-Hammond (2000) asserted that
an important contribution of teacher education is its devel-
opment of teachers abilities to examine teaching from the
perspective of learners who bring diverse experiences and
frames of reference to the classroom (p. 166). Gore (2001)
also argued for a focus on pedagogy in teacher education
such that preservice teachers (PSTs) should develop deep
understanding of the complexities surrounding learning as
well as strong skills for producing learning, to support their
own students to achieve high quality learning outcomes
(p. 127). So far, however, research on TEs has not paid much
attention to what it takes from TEs to support PSTs
1
Monash University, Clayton, Australia
2
Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching, Netherlands
Corresponding Author:
Amanda Berry, ICLON, Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching,
P.O. Box 905, 2300 AX Leiden, Netherlands
Email: a.k.berry@iclon.leidenuniv.nl
118 Journal of T eacher Education 64(2)
processes of learning to teach subject matter, in particular,
the complexities associated with learning specific subject
matter, and that thus make sense from the perspective of the
students in the PSTs classrooms. Programs of teacher edu-
cation usually include method courses for this purpose.
However, in most institutes, these courses are taught by one
specialist educator, sometimes aided by an adjunct or a grad-
uate student, who is then responsible for his or her own cur-
riculum. This may lead to huge differences not only between
various programs (e.g., in the way chemistry method courses
are taught) but also within one particular program (e.g.,
between chemistry and history method courses). Yet, few
studies exist that address TEs pedagogy of teaching specific
subject matter or how they develop their expertise.
In the case of science teacher education, a specific demand
concerns the problem that science education, in particular at
the secondary level, is not very successful in promoting stu-
dent understanding and engagement (see, for example,
Millar, 2006). Programs for science teacher education often
struggle with the task of delivering what beginning second-
ary science teachers need to know, and providing better con-
ditions for learning about teaching secondary science
(Northfield & Gunstone, 1997). While a dominant theme in
science education research is teaching for conceptual devel-
opment and change, Russell and Martin (2007) asserted that
being able to develop learners conceptual understanding
requires dramatic changes in how [teachers] teach
(p. 1152), so that modeling the approaches advocated in a
program of science teacher education and the value of learn-
ing from experience needs to be purposefully highlighted.
Consequently, curricula for science teacher education with a
conceptual change orientation are aimed at helping future
science teachers to reflect on practice and make decisions
grounded in student learning. This implies a focus, espe-
cially in secondary method courses, on how students learn
science, including common misconceptions, and conceptual
change approaches. Moreover, recent curricula for science
teacher education often aim at preparing science teachers to
design and test curricular materials (Van Driel & Abell, 2010).
This empirical study focuses on the specific expertise that
science TEs bring into teacher education, in particular, in
secondary method courses. The study aims to contribute to a
better understanding of what science TEs emphasize in these
method courses and why they do this; in other words, what
their aims are, and how their expertise has developed on the
basis of their professional background and experiences.
Given the central role of TEs in science teacher education
programs, this understanding is of interest to all those who
are engaged in preservice and inservice science teacher
education.
The following research questions guided the present
study:
Research Question 1: What are science TEs concerns
and main purposes when preparing PSTs to teach
secondary science?
Research Question 2: What do science TEs emphasize
in their approaches to teaching about teaching sec-
ondary science?
Research Question 3: How do science TEs prior per-
sonal and professional experiences shape their pur-
poses and approaches to teaching about teaching
secondary science?
Literature Background
Research on TEs
Research on what TEs know, how they act, and why, is
relatively rare. Cochran-Smith (2003) highlighted a con-
trast, between the enormous attention paid over the past
two decades to what K-12 teachers need to know and be
able to do in order to be effective with their students, and
the relative silence around what teachers of teachers need
to know (p. 6). She noted that although there has been
substantial research produced focusing on teacher educa-
tion (e.g., books about the teacher education knowledge
base, see F. B. Murray, 1996, and handbooks of research on
teacher education, see Cochran-Smith, Feiman-Nemser,
McIntyre, & Demers, 2008; Houston, 1990; Sikula, Butterey,
& Guyton, 1996), discussion within these volumes tends to
concentrate on
demographics and general trendswho teacher educa-
tors are, what their backgrounds are, what they teach in
methods and foundations coursesthan on what they
know or need to know and/or on how it is that they
learn to teach teachers. (Cochran-Smith, 2003, p. 6)
More recently, Martinez (2008) identified a noticeable
gap in [the] rich mosaic of knowledge relate[d] to teacher
educators themselves, with
[l]ittle systematic research . . . to inform us about fun-
damental characteristics of the professional lives of
this occupational grouptheir qualifications, their
recruitment, their career pathways into and through
the academy, their teaching and research practices, the
problems they encounter, or their professional devel-
opment needs and practices. (p. 36)
Looking across the body of research that is beginning to
accumulate about TEs and their work reveals three broad and
interrelated strands: (a) Research on the competencies that
might be used to define the (broad) expertise of TEs,
(b) research on the transition experiences of TEs into the
academy, and (c) research conducted by TEs themselves,
using their own professional contexts as research sites. In
terms of strand (a), research on TEs competencies, some
scholars have focused on lists of competencies to define the
expertise of TEs. Obviously, TEs need a whole range of
skills, attitudes, and knowledge, some of which are generic,
Berry and Van Driel 119
like having excellent communication skills and being able to
work in a team (cf. Koster, Brekelmans, Korthagen, &
Wubbels, 2005). Others have focused on more pedagogically
oriented aspects, such as modeling practice that is consistent
with accepted best practices in teacher education, or fulfilling
the various expectations of academia, such as engaging in and
contributing to scholarship, in this case related to teacher edu-
cation (Kessinger, 2008). K. Smith (2005) offered insights
into the nature of expertise of TEs and how it differed from
classroom teachers, through her study of a group of TEs,
viewed from the perspective of these TEs and a group of nov-
ice secondary education graduates from a small teacher edu-
cation college in Israel. K. Smith pointed at subject-matter
knowledge and pedagogical and didactical knowledge as
being very important to TEs.
In terms of strand (b), research on the transition experi-
ences of TEs into the academy, the work of J. Murray and
Male (2005) and J. Murray (2005) has been a notable addi-
tion, examining the experiences of a group of new TEs dur-
ing their first 3 years in seven higher education institutions in
the United Kingdom. Their work revealed two key tensions
for career entry TEs, developing a pedagogy for Higher
Education-based Initial Teacher Education work, and
becoming research active (J. Murray & Male, 2005, p. 125).
Many of the participants in their study reported a stressful
entry into the academy, feeling deskilled, anxious, vulner-
able, powerless and insecure (J. Murray & Male, 2005,
p. 125). In a further report on this research, J. Murray focused
more on the new TEs priorities for induction and on existing
structures and processes of induction.
Further research related to the transition experiences of
TEs can be found within strand (c), research conducted by
TEs themselves, which is typically related to the develop-
ment of their new professional identities as academics (see,
for example, Bullock, 2011; Dinkelman, Margolis, &
Sikkenga, 2006; Williams, 2010). Such self-studies take a
teacher-as-learner stance (Loughran & Berry, 2012), and
focus on the processes and practices of teaching and learn-
ing, as they are experienced by the various participants them-
selves. Many studies belonging to strand (c) highlight the
importance of TEs processes of (professional) identity for-
mation, and the role of reflection as a tool to help make the
tacit aspects of their practice explicit to PSTs (Berry, 2009;
Loughran, 2006; Williams & Ritter, 2010).
Focusing on Science TEs
In terms of research conducted by TEs themselves (strand c),
a growing contribution comes from science TEs. Typically,
these studies are driven by learning outcomes from research
into contemporary science education issues such as student
conceptions (Scott, Asoko, & Leach, 2007), and engagement
in learning (Millar, 2006), as TEs seek to challenge tradi-
tional approaches to science teaching and learning. In a
recent handbook chapter, Loughran and Berry (2012) sum-
marized and reviewed self-studies conducted by science TEs,
highlighting a number of common foci, including how they
promote reflective practice in themselves and their students,
and investigating the nature of the relationship between the
learner and the science content (see also Loughran, 2007b).
Other common issues include challenges encountered by TEs
in seeking to promote particular approaches to science learn-
ing (e.g., conceptual change or scientific literacy), and
ways in which specific approaches to science learning (e.g.,
science inquiry processes) learnt at university transfer, or do
not transfer, into practicum. A dominant theme across these
self-studies appears to be a concern by science TEs to incor-
porate a constructivist perspective into their teaching about
science teaching and learning. This is typically developed
through an emphasis on promoting opportunities for PSTs to
experience self-directed learning and problem solving.
Such studies have helped to make explicit a number of
issues that have affected not only TEs understanding of
beginning science teaching but also the manner in which they
needed to reconsider what they did, how, and why in their sci-
ence teacher preparation programs. At the same time, much of
the work reported from these studies is often deeply personal
and context bound, so that knowledge of teaching and learning
about science teaching that can affect the work of others and
contribute to the big picture enterprise (Russell, 2007,
p. 190) of science teacher education tends to be limited.
While self-study research offers one (growing) perspec-
tive of science TEs knowledge of practice, there have been
very few studies focusing on the specific expertise that sci-
ence TEs have (or need) to teach PSTs about teaching sci-
ence. A notable exception is a study by D. C. Smith (2000),
who described a part of her professional expertise in terms of
three kinds of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) she
developed as an elementary science TE, that is, knowledge of
(a) PSTs backgrounds as science learners, (b) PSTs ideas
about science and scientists, and (c) PSTs views of learning
to teach science. For each of these knowledge categories, she
indicated why her knowledge mattered for her work as a TE,
and how it influenced the curriculum design, and her approach
toward planning and teaching about teaching elementary sci-
ence. D. C. Smith concludes that explicating and sharing the
knowledge base TEs have developed, will advance our under-
standing of teaching about teaching science, and of the prog-
ress PSTs make, or fail to make, in programs of teacher
education. In particular, new science TEs may benefit from
access to such knowledge as it may fast track their under-
standing of the process of learning to teach science.
Abell, Park Rogers, Hanuscin, Lee, and Gagnon (2009)
focused on the development of PCK of TEs in various phases
of their careers. These authors identified different roles (i.e.,
observer, apprentice, partner, independent instructor, and
mentor), and related these roles to phases in the development
of science TEs. Specifically, the authors advocate the inclu-
sion of learning to become a science TE in doctoral programs
in science education, so that when a doctoral student con-
cludes this program, he or she is able to work as an indepen-
dent instructor.
120 Journal of T eacher Education 64(2)
Although studies like this are quite useful as starting
points, they are of limited value when it comes to defining
the specific expertise science TEs need to support PSTs to
learn to teach science. In particular, PSTs of science need to
become aware that even though they may have been success-
ful learners of science themselves, for most of the students in
their classrooms (school), science is experienced as prob-
lematic, both in terms of conceptual difficulties and in terms
of relevance. Moreover, PSTs often have prior beliefs about
teaching and learning science that are based on a system that
may have worked for them, in the past, but will not always
be effective for the students they are going to teach.
Aim of the Study
The present study builds on the ideas of a pedagogy of
teacher education (Loughran, 2006). In Loughrans frame-
work, TEs are expected to
simultaneously promote awareness among PSTs of
themselves as learners and as developing teachers
(i.e., of science),
model specific approaches to teaching,
be explicit and analytic about ones own teaching, and
study and share practice as a way to develop profes-
sional knowledge as a teacher.
Our study takes as a starting point that TEs develop their
expertise as a result of their personal professional experi-
ences, for example, as teachers, educators, or researchers.
Although most TEs have been schoolteachers for several
years before becoming TEs, there are other pathways into
(and alongside) teacher education experiences (e.g., through
academic research, either in a specialist science discipline,
or in education), which shape the orientation and the exper-
tise of TEs. Developing a pedagogy of science teacher edu-
cation requires TEs to be aware of, and explicit about, the
problematic nature of science and of teaching. Moreover,
TEs should be willing to design and engage in experiences
in their programs that enable meaningful and relevant learn-
ing to take place for all participants in the learning to teach
process (Loughran & Berry, 2012). The present study aims
to help institution-based science TEs to explicate their
knowledge and experiences, to understand what they do, and
why, in developing and enacting their pedagogy. In this
way, the study aims to contribute to the articulation and
development of a shared language for TEs as the basis of a
pedagogy of science teacher education (Loughran, 2006).
Method
Instruments
Given the absence of specific theories and empirical studies
on TEs expertise on teaching about teaching subject matter
(Berry, 2007), a small-scale, in-depth descriptive study
seemed appropriate. To answer our research questions, data
were collected from experienced science TEs about their
approach to teaching preservice science teachers, and why
they chose to provide PSTs with specific experiences. In
addition, these educators were invited to talk about their
personal and professional experiences, and how these led
them to become TEs and shaped their purposes and practice.
An interview scheme was set up consisting of two parts
(see appendix for interview schedule). Part A focused on fac-
tors influencing career decisions. This part had an open
structure, allowing TEs to give an account of their personal
and professional experiences. In Part B, TEs described and
explained their pedagogical approach in detail, in terms of
activities, ideas, and ways of assessment, by focusing on
how they prepare PSTs to teach a specific topic (e.g., force
or evolution). At the end of the interview, an additional
source of data was obtained from participants through the
use of a storyline protocol. TEs were asked to draw and then
explain a story line (Gergen & Gergen, 1986; Henze, Van
Driel, & Verloop, 2009) on how their satisfaction as a sci-
ence TE had developed over time, and which experiences
had influenced this development.
Sample and Context
To obtain a comprehensive insight into the variety of science
TEs emphases and approaches, a sample of TEs was pur-
posefully selected over a range of variables: science disci-
pline (i.e., biology, chemistry, and physics), experience
(teaching science method classes for at least 2 to more than
20 years), background (different career pathways, for exam-
ple, teaching many years as a secondary teachers vs. having
a research background in university), qualifications (having
finished a PhD or not), and institutes. For the purpose of this
study, four institutes of teacher education were invited to
participate, two from Australia, the home country of the first
author, and two from the Netherlands, where the second
author resides. The four institutes were chosen because their
science teacher education program had a good reputation
(e.g., apparent from external evaluations). All of the TEs
who were invited volunteered to participate in this study.
Participants in this study were five science TEs from two
Australian universities and seven science TEs from two
Dutch universities. All of them had previously taught sci-
ence at the secondary school level for a period ranging from
2 to 38 years. Six were (full-time) university-based educa-
tors holding a PhD who combined teacher education with a
research task; the other six were staff with a part-time job
that did not include research activities. The first author inter-
viewed the Dutch educators, and the second author inter-
viewed the Australian educators. All interviews were
conducted in English.
All of the TEs taught method courses (in Dutch called
vakdidactiek or subject-specific pedagogy) in the context
of the teacher education programs of their institute. In the
Dutch universities, this program consists of a 1-year
Berry and Van Driel 121

Table 1. Some Characteristics of the Participating Science Teacher Educators

Research
Code Discipline experience Experience and background
N1 Biology PhD in education 2 years SE, 9 years in national assessment center, 10 years TE
N2 Biology 10 years SE, 2 years TE
N3 Physics PhD in physics Teaching in Africa and Philippines, 5 years SE and 4 years TE in the Netherlands
N4 Chemistry PhD in education 6 years SE in the Netherlands and 2 years SE in Zimbabwe, 7 years TE in Zimbabwe
and 18 years TE in the Netherlands
N5 Biology PhD in education 7 years research (science and education), 3 years SE, 10 years TE
N6 Biology 20 years SE, 10 years TE
N7 Chemistry 13 years SE, 10 years TE (in two institutes)
A1 Chemistry PhD in education 9 years SE, 21 years TE
A2 Chemistry 38 years SE, 6 years TE
A3 Physics PhD in physics 5 years in research, 3 years SE, 2 years TE
A4 Physics 26 years SE, 11 years TE
A5 General science Working on a PhD 15 years SE, 10 years TE
in education
Note: N = the Netherlands; SE = secondary education; TE = teacher education; A = Australia.

masters program, qualifying participants for the teaching of
either chemistry, physics, or biology at preuniversity level
(cf. Grades 10-12 of secondary education). During the entire
program, PSTs stay at practice schools (teaching about 5-10
lessons per week), while simultaneously taking part in insti-
tutional activities (two afternoons per week, on average),
including in each semester a series of eight method course
(vakdidactiek) sessions. In the Australian universities, the
science teacher education program varies across university
providers (Graduate Diploma in Education, Double
DegreeBachelor of Science/Bachelor of Education and
Master of Teaching), although graduates from all programs
are qualified to teach General Science (Grades 7-10), as well
as one or two senior science specialisms from biology,
chemistry, and physics, depending on participants science
background. Different university programs have different
practica requirements such that students may complete 2 5
week school placements (5 weeks per semester), or under-
take an internship 4 days per week with additional teacher
education classes taking place at the school site and/or the
university.
In Table 1, the characteristics of the participating TEs are
summarized briefly.
Data Analysis
All interviews and explanations of story lines were tran-
scribed verbatim. For the analysis, there was no a priori
system of codes or categories. Instead, to do justice to the
respondents own stories, and capture the richness of their
ideas, the data were analyzed from an interpretative phe-
nomenological perspective (J. A. Smith, 1995). Both authors
first read and discussed all transcripts until they agreed
about the most salient features of each individual TEs
account. For each TE, these features were then summarized,
focusing on (a) his or her concerns and purposes when pre-
paring PSTs to teach science, (b) the emphases in his or her
approaches to teaching about teaching science, and (c) pre-
vious personal and professional experiences and career deci-
sions that had contributed to, or shaped, TEs purposes and
approaches. Next, the summaries per TE were compared
with the aim to identify commonalities and differences
across TEs. Cross-case analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994)
was applied to enable the comparison of the different TEs
against the aforementioned foci: concerns, purposes, and
approaches, and relations of each of these to TEs personal
professional backgrounds.
Results
In this section, we present the findings from the analysis of
the interviews and story lines according to the three research
questions.
Research Question 1: What are science TEs concerns
and main purposes when preparing PSTs to teach
secondary science?
All TEs shared a concern about the general quality of sci-
ence teaching in schoolsthat is, they stated that science
education, typically, does not promote meaningful learning
of science concepts, nor does it commonly inspire students
interest in learning about science, or motivate students to
continue their study of science. One TE stated that teachers
in schools tend to use traditional approaches to teaching and
learning:
I would say most teachers in high school still very
much support the idea of drilling these students in
problems and sort of manipulating these formulas put
122 Journal of T eacher Education 64(2)
in numbers and do calculations, because thats what
the hard physics is all about. (N3)
All TEs talked about the limited influence and the few
opportunities they have to influence how PSTs teach in prac-
tice. Most of them felt that the absence of a strong connec-
tion, in particular, the lack of frequent communication with
the school supervisors of the PSTs, hindered the accomplish-
ment of their goals. A dilemma they encounter is that as tra-
ditional approaches are still widely practiced in schools, the
impact of their message is often diluted when PSTs enter the
real world of practice in schools. For example, A1
explained that when she visits schools, she would focus on
talking with the supervisors of the PSTs:
So, its actually confronting the supervisor to shift
their expectations . . . a lot of it is about mixed differ-
ent expectations and it is more about me finding out
what the expectation of the supervisor is. (A1)
N5 expressed the idea that PSTs are harsh judges of the
usefulness of anything that is offered by their TEs. In particu-
lar, he recognized that many PSTs perceive educational the-
ory as irrelevant. Thus, the influence of TEs is limited if they
are not aware of the needs of their PSTs: Their feedback is
without condition, they just say it doesnt work (N5).
This TE had written a book aimed to help PSTs access a
range of theoretical ideas (i.e., about teaching and learning
biology). Although this book was a success, in that PSTs
found it useful and interesting, he still faced the problem that
PSTs often fail to recognize its content as theory, and so
his attempts to show the usefulness of theory in teacher edu-
cation are not realized:
They love the book very much. They find it nice to
read. The trouble is a little that they dont think they
learn theory. They think theory is something very dif-
ficult with lots of references, etc. (N5)
In relation to the above concerns, we distinguished three
main purposes among this sample of TEs.
Purpose 1: Encourage PSTs to focus on teaching for
conceptual understanding.
Most TEs talked about challenging the traditional or
didactic approaches, common in schools, and aimed to pro-
mote more interactive approaches aimed at conceptual
understanding of science (e.g., N3, A4, A5). For example,
One of the key things that I hope comes through in the
course that I have put together is about the importance
of conceptual understanding and how as a teacher you
should set about improving your students conceptual
understandings of whatever the topic is that you are
trying to teach. So, for me, it is of paramount importance
that as teachers they need to have an idea about what
the students alternate conceptions might be. (A4)
They are aware, however, that in the context of the school,
some of the ideas they try to encourage among PSTs get lost
or diminished.
Purpose 2: Help PSTs develop motivating teaching
strategies and curricula, mainly to engage students
and make science more relevant to their lives.
Worrying about the perceived relevance and popularity
of school science by students, several TEs aimed to make
PSTs aware of the need to make science more engaging. For
example,
My purpose here is to get them to interact with the
kids, rather than just talk about it on the overhead . . .
Theres a flight from chemistry . . . I hope they realize
that this will brighten up a dull lesson. (A2)
One biology TE (N1) focused on familiarizing PSTs with
a new curriculum, which aims to make biology more rele-
vant to students. Another biology TE suggested that biology
would be more motivating if PSTs would reverse the typical
teaching sequence in this subject (i.e., structure followed by
function): I think that a biology lesson would be more moti-
vating for students when you start with an application (N5).
Purpose 3: Promote a critical, questioning attitude
among PSTs, and broaden their scope beyond the
existing, traditional science curriculum and ways of
teaching.
Six TEs explicitly aimed to make PSTs think critically
about some of the fundamental issues underlying science
education. For instance, they would stress the purpose of
teaching science, by raising questions, such as Why are we
teaching this? and Why is it important for students to learn
this? Moreover, these TEs stressed the importance of PSTs
articulating their thinking as a learner and as a new teacher.
Two of them summarized their views as follows: The big-
gest challenge for me is how to get them to think about what
theyre doing (N1), and My aim is to create thinking
chemistry teachers, if you are not prepared to think, you are
in the wrong place (A1).
Similarly, another TE expressed the desire to push PSTs
beyond the level of learning tips and tricks, and confront
them with theoretical notions, even if this conflicts with
PSTs expectations: I need therefore to be very explicit
[with them] about what I think they need and why I am not
delivering some of the things they think they want (A5).
Research Question 2: What do science TEs empha-
size in their approach to teaching about teaching
secondary science?
Berry and Van Driel 123
Related to the purposes discussed in the previous section,
a variety of approaches to teaching about teaching science
was identified. In relation to the focus on conceptual under-
standing, TEs emphasized the need for PSTs to become
aware of the ways in which their students learn science, how
students often misunderstand what is being taught, or fail to
grasp scientific concepts. All TEs aim to encourage PSTs to
adopt the perspective of learners in science, for example,
I keep telling them, so what would it be like if you are a
person in this lesson, what would you be feeling right now?
(A1), or We always tell preservice teachers that they should
put the students at the center and they should learn to sort of
look at the roles of teacher and other people within a
school (N3).
The following issues were emphasized in particular:
The role of students prior knowledge, and the
importance for a science teacher to find out what
students know when they enter their classroom.
One TE explained how her own insights into learn-
ing difficulties of secondary students had increased
by explaining and discussing scientific topics to her
own daughter, helping her with homework (N7).
This inspired her to frame an assignment for PSTs
around talking to a small group of students, to sen-
sitize their abilities to recognize particular learning
difficulties and misconceptions. Other TEs drew on
research literature, in particular, studies on student
misconceptions of certain scientific topics and/or
concept maps, to be used by PSTs to study the prior
knowledge of their students (N3).
The role of language, for instance, how terms that
are used in the context of a science class, by a teacher
and/or schoolbook, can be very confusing for stu-
dents when the same terms are used in everyday
situations. Several TEs (N4 and N6) mentioned, in
particular, that PSTs often use language that is inap-
propriate for their students and could easily evoke
misconceptions and learning difficulties. Therefore,
they aimed to make their PSTs aware of their use of
language and the problems inherent in its use, for
instance, by discussing and analyzing videos of sci-
ence lessons, aimed at conceptual and/or language
issues.
The role of PSTs own subject-matter knowledge.
Many TEs discussed how PSTs are often unaware
that they hold misconceptions, and how such mis-
conceptions may hinder effective communication
with their students: Heres . . . people with degrees
in physics and theyve still got the wrong notions in
their heads on whats happening (A4). TEs seek to
challenge their PSTs subject-matter knowledge, for
instance, by using apparently simple experiments to
deliberately confuse their PSTs. By asking PSTs to
explain the phenomena they have observed and dis-
cuss the outcomes of such experiments, they aim
not only to alert PSTs to gaps in their own subject-
matter knowledge but also to misunderstandings
and conceptual problems their students might expe-
rience in trying to understand the subject matter
at hand.
In relation to the focus on engaging students and making
science more relevant, TEs emphasized the need for PSTs to
teach science in ways that are more activating, motivating,
and innovative compared with the ways in which science is
normally taught. In this context, some TEs (e.g., A2 and A4)
present PSTs with lots of demonstrations, experiments,
applets, and so on, and offer them opportunities to get
acquainted with these by practicing during method course
sessions, before PSTs actually use these tools in the lessons
they teach during their practica in schools. At the same time,
they made it clear that PSTs should develop their own styles
and strategies, and not copy or imitate those of other teach-
ers (including themselves): I think the role I can do is alert
them to whats in kids heads and some of the strategies that
I have seen used and that I have used myself (A4).
Others (e.g., N5), however, focus on the design of lesson
plans by PSTs, for instance, by analyzing and then changing
the structure of regular science lessons (e.g., starting from a
problem or an application rather than starting with explain-
ing theory).
As for promoting a critical attitude among PSTs, and
broadening their scope about science teaching, TEs empha-
sized that they want to make PSTs aware of the background
of the curriculum they are supposed to be teaching, and of
the limitations of this curriculum. Moreover, and in connec-
tion to this, some of them focus on the cultural views inher-
ent (but often implicit) in traditional science curricula, and
how they try to familiarize PSTs with, and challenge, these
views. For example,
It always becomes a question of well, why are we
doing this? . . . It has to be grounded culturally: Why
have we as Western society come to the point where
we develop such ways of talking about things, describ-
ing things, and so on? (A3)
For this purpose, several approaches appeared to be applied
in method courses:
The use of literature, in particular, on the history,
the philosophy, and/or the nature of science.
Group discussions about the goals of science teach-
ing, as implied by science curricula, questioning
why these goals would be worth teaching, and
exploring alternative goals.
Learning to think out of the box, for example,
by asking PSTs to consider teaching topics that are
usually not taught within their curriculum (such
as safety in a biology classN2). In this context,
some also aimed to challenge how PSTs view the
124 Journal of T eacher Education 64(2)
world as a scientist, trying to broaden their often
rather monocultural views.
The use of action research to promote PSTs learn-
ing about their own teaching and to make them
more curious about their own practice and to give
PSTs some experience with educational research
so they can set up a little investigation in their own
school (N1).
Research Question 3: How do TEs prior profes-
sional and personal experiences shape their pur-
poses and approaches to teaching about teaching
secondary science?
As became apparent from the interviews (Part A of
appendix), and also from the explanations to their story
lines, each TE had a different, personal story about how he
or she had entered teacher education. Ten of the 12 partici-
pants began as secondary schoolteachers (see Table 1), and
at some point, sometimes very late in their careers (e.g., A2),
and for different reasons, had become TEs. Only two par-
ticipants (A3 and N5) had different career starts. A3 became
interested in teaching after obtaining a PhD in astrophysics
and only worked for a short time in a secondary school
before returning to university as a TE and lecturer in phys-
ics. N5 started to work in environmental engineering, but
then embarked on a PhD in biology education, and did some
teaching in secondary schools only after finishing his PhD.
In any case, no one had planned a career as a TE. It seemed
that all of them became more or less accidental TEs.
In terms of the sources of influence that shaped their
expertise, they were also quite different. Some, coming from
research in a discipline, felt more associated with the (aca-
demic) community of that discipline (e.g., N3). Others, par-
ticularly those with a long history as schoolteachers,
identified more with the community of teachers and schools
(e.g., A2). Yet others had a strong philosophical stance (N5
and A3), or were strongly driven by the general idea that
education matters and makes a difference to peoples lives
(A5). These different backgrounds led to some interesting
views on how these TEs perceive their job, for example,
I have two drives, one is to make a [theoretical] model
which encompasses all kinds of teaching, thats my
researcher brain that tries to make a consistent model
about it. The other part is that it should work in prac-
tice, so I worked on both sides and I think Im only
able to do that . . . because I also teach student teach-
ers, otherwise my model becomes, a bit too airy. (N5)
Or,
I want to make . . . the science learning better, but I
also have this other research stream that is about
documenting professional practice . . . What consti-
tutes evidence, how do you actually document your
philosophy, how do you articulate that, how do you
communicate that, how do you crystallize those
things? Those sorts of thinking, that sort of thinking
is really important. (A1)
Many of these TEs described their prior experiences as
important sources informing their approach to teacher edu-
cation. One TE phrased this in terms of having multiple
identities:
Yeah, but its [i.e., teacher educator] a part of my
identity but another part is Im an educational
researcher and as an educational researcher Im teach-
ing student teachers how to do educational research,
and on the other hand my work with the teachers in the
. . . examination program pilot is more as a developer
of materials. (N1)
Another TE perceived the ability to teach science in
school as a defining part of who she is as a TE and as she did
not have anything else to lean on, she expressed the need
to stay in touch with this aspect to feel confident as a TE:
For the first six years as a teacher educator, I did stand
in work on a regular basis . . . for shorter or longer
periods of time . . . I thought, what Im good at is the
practicality of teaching and I really havent achieved
all this teacher educator stuff yet, so lets make sure
I dont end up being nowhere, because you lose teach-
ing really quick. The real parts of it, Ive seen so many
people lose it. So I thought I have to make sure I keep
doing it until I feel confident enough about what Im
doing here. (N6)
The personal experiences of another TE helped her to see
that people use science knowledge in different ways, which
then led her to develop an approach that emphasized that stu-
dent teachers need to look beyond how they themselves view
the use of scientific knowledge:
I grew up on a farm . . . it is all about practical use of
your knowledge . . . If I take something like acids and
bases, I have taught it to young kids . . . secondary
kids, tertiary, nurses, artists, . . . [who] have a very
different view of this. You know, there are all these
different people who need to know this stuff, but need
to know it in entirely different ways, . . . I know how
I understand it, but its not really about my under-
standing, but . . . helping others understand it in ways
it is useful for them. (A1)
For most of these TEs, their prior experiences seemed
much more influential on their approach than institutional
features. However, one TE (N7) described the distinction
between TEs with and without a background in research in
Berry and Van Driel 125
relation to the different institutions in which she had worked.
She noted that as a TE without a research background, she
felt more as a performer and it was not until she had the
chance to interact with research literature that her under-
standing of teacher education began to take shape:
I think having a group that is researching stimulates
you and the group as well to look up the literature.
New teacher educators here have to do a . . . literature
course, so that brings you also into contact with the . . .
more general literature about teacher education. (N7)
In the four institutes that were included in this study, there
appeared to be very limited, if any, support for beginning
TEs, let alone a certain learning trajectory. As TEs only had
brief (and distant) experiences of being a student in a teacher
education program themselves, they had had little appren-
ticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975) to work from.
Consequently, TEs talked about learning their role through
experience, for example, Its been an on the job training for
me really . . . because like I said my own teacher training was
a four months program (N3).
Some TEs reported they had had a colleague who coached
them or cotaught with (e.g., N3 and N4). However, this
mostly seemed a matter of personal initiative rather than
institutional policy. As N1 stated, We talked together how
we would fill in the courses we had, I didnt do it really on
my own. But how to do the interaction with the students,
they just trusted you can do it (N1).
Also, most, if not all, TEs had to invent their own indi-
vidual curriculum, leading to rather different and highly per-
sonal approaches:
I had to start out from zero and that gave me the oppor-
tunity to think about and try out whats important and
what I think is important for chemistry teachers . . . So
it took me 5 years to try things out, to find out whats
important, whats important for the preservice teach-
ers, what I think is important they learn. (N7)
Discussion and Conclusion
This study revealed similarities and differences in the aims
and approaches of science TEs in the context of method
courses, aimed at preparing preservice secondary teachers to
teach science. An important common issue concerned their
focus on stimulating PSTs to implement innovative practices
of science teaching (cf. Timmerman, 2009) aimed at making
science more comprehensible and more attractive to school
students. This is consistent with recent curricula for science
teacher education (Van Driel & Abell, 2010). For all par-
ticipants, this focus implied a tension with current practice
in schools that seems to encourage PSTs to adopt traditional
and didactic teaching strategies. In particular, although TEs
aimed at empowering their PSTs to teach science in a way
that focused on student learning, they felt rather powerless
as far as their contribution to how PSTs would be teaching
in practice was concerned.
Differences between the institutes and (national) contexts
in this study were not strongly evident. In none of the four
institutes did we find something that reflected a common
view or policy with respect to teaching about teaching sec-
ondary science. However, and partly because of this, sub-
stantial differences between the TEs were noted. Individual
differences between TEs, even within one institute, were
much larger than differences between institutes. The study
made clear how TEs personal background and individual
career path played out quite differently in their pedagogy of
teacher education, as it became apparent in their aims and
approaches in their method courses. Differences in expertise
seemed to be related to the professional communities TEs
feel most closely associated with (i.e., disciplinary or school-
teachers). In this context, TEs expertise in research, in terms
of doing research themselves, or accessing research litera-
ture, seemed to matter. In particular, some TEs explicitly
drew on (their own) research to inform their practice.
Typically, these TEs expertise was characterized by a focus
on making their PSTs think critically about their curriculum,
and challenging them to reconsider their goals and related
teaching approaches. However, TEs with a long history as a
schoolteacher and little or no research experience usually
displayed a more pragmatic type of expertise, focusing
strongly on stimulating PSTs to engage and interact with
their students as something they need to recognize as crucial
to effective science teaching.
In summary, science TEs expertise seems to be related to
the ad hoc ways in which they enter the profession, plus the
apparent lack of a structure that could help them develop
their practice as a community (e.g., the absence of an induc-
tion program for TEs or planned professional learning).
Taken together, we think this largely explains why these
individual differences may occur, and persist, and why, con-
sequently, teaching about teaching science in practice may
look very different, even within one teacher education
institute.
These insights are important because it is anticipated that
explicating and sharing TEs knowledge and practice of
teaching about teaching science will stimulate both the the-
ory and practice of science teacher education (cf. D. C. Smith,
2000). As it was grounded in the practice of experienced
TEs, we think the outcomes of the present study can be used
to promote the development of a pedagogy of science teacher
education that can be shared among the community of sci-
ence TEs (cf. Loughran, 2006, 2007a), and thus can become
part of their common expertise. For instance, in a practical
sense, these findings might serve to stimulate dialogue
between TEs within their institutions to see what they recog-
nize about their own purposes and approaches that may form
steps toward more common approaches; or contribute to
the construction of a language to describe TEs practices.
126 Journal of T eacher Education 64(2)
Furthermore, by building on these insights, some common
aspects of science TEs expertise may be identified, such as
means of encouraging learning for conceptual change,
enhancing the relevance of science for school students, and
supporting PSTs of science to become critical and reflective
thinkers. For those who come into science teacher education
with little or no research experience, specific activities could
be organized aimed at learning about research and learning
to do research (Lin, Wang, Spalding, Clecka, & Odell, 2011).
For instance, pairs of TEs with and without a research back-
ground could work together as educators and collaborate in
research projects. Taken together, the activities briefly out-
lined above are aimed to promote an organized approach to
science TE development, particularly for those newly enter-
ing the profession, and PSTs learning.
The present study has obvious limitations. Our sample
was rather small, and not meant to be representative for
science TEs in Australia or the Netherlands, let alone for
TEs in general. The concerns, purposes, and approaches of
TEs that were reported (i.e., Research Questions 1 and 2)
seem quite specific to science education, and thus we are
reluctant to broaden the outcomes of the study to teacher
education in general. However, the findings about the dif-
ferent pathways that TEs brought into teacher education,
and the sources they draw on (i.e., Research Question 3),
do not seem specific for science teacher education. More
research, however, is needed to explore how this issue
plays out in a broader sample of TEs. The authors chose to
collect data from the TEs who were not from their home
country. Although this introduced a language issue (i.e.,
for seven TEs and one researcher, English is their second
language), we think that this contributed to openness and
less bias on the part of both researchers and TEs. At the
same time, the data are limited to TEs self-reports of their
practice. In future research, we would like to investigate
how different aims and approaches of TEs affect PSTs
learning to teach science. We assume that, given the sub-
stantial differences found in this study, and taking into
account that any sample of PSTs these days is often quite
heterogeneous in terms of background, motivation, and so
on, there will be huge differences in what PSTs take away
from their science teacher education programs into their
emerging school practice.
Appendix
Interview Scheme and Story Line
Part A: Biographical Questions
1. Science teacher education specialism: biology/
physics/chemistry/general science
2. What made you decide to study science?
3. What made you decide to become a science
teacher?
4. What made you decide to become a science teacher
educator (TE)?
Part B: Aims and Approaches Toward Teaching About
Teaching Science
1. Please select a topic from the curriculum of gen-
eral science/biology/physics/chemistry that you
consider important for student teachers to learn
to teach, and that is addressed in your course/
workshops. Please indicate why you choose this
topic (Topic X).
2. At some point in your course, the teaching of Topic
X is addressed. Can you explain at what point (in
time), and if/why this timing is important?
3. Please describe how you introduce the teaching
of Topic X to student teachers? What sort of argu-
ments do you use to focus their attention on the
importance of the teaching of Topic X?
4. What sort of activities do you organize to prepare
student teachers for the teaching of Topic X?
5. What sort of products do you ask student teachers
to make concerning the teaching of Topic X? What
sort of feedback do you give on these products?
6. If you have observed lessons (or videos of les-
sons) where student teachers actually were teach-
ing Topic X, what indicators would you look for to
see whether student teachers were moving toward
teaching this topic in a way you would qualify as
competent? How would you try to make connec-
tions between what you saw in these lessons and
the activities or products discussed earlier? (See
Questions 5 and 6.)
7. What do you see as the major challenges or dif-
ficulties for you as a TE in teaching about teaching
Topic X? How do you manage these challenges/
difficulties?
8. Student teachers may sometimes comment: You
know a lot about teaching Topic X. Couldnt you
just tell us how to teach this topic?
a. Do you recognize this comment?
b. If yes, how would you handle a situation like
this?
9. To what extent is teaching about teaching Topic X
representative or typical compared with teaching
about teaching other topics? Please explain.
10. Has your teaching about teaching Topic X changed
over the time you have worked as a TE? If yes, in
what ways, and what inspired these changes?
Story Line. You are asked to draw a graph in which you
depict your own satisfaction with the way you teach about
science teaching.
Berry and Van Driel 127
First, assess your current level of satisfaction on a 5-point
scale, ranging from 1 (very unsatisfied) via 3 (not satisfied
nor unsatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). Mark this point in the
graph.
Then go back in time, and assess your level of satisfaction
going back to the first time you taught about teaching sci-
ence, and draw a graph connecting the points.
Finally, explain the graph and indicate what influenced its
course (slope, highs, and lows). In this context, you may dis-
cuss the influence of experiences with student teachers, and
also with colleagues or science teachers (e.g., learning from
each other through collaboration, coteaching).
Authors Note
Until recently Amanda Berry worked at Faculty of Education,
Monash University, Clayton, Australia. Since March 1, 2012,
however, she has moved to ICLON, Leiden University Graduate
School of Teaching, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Abell, S. K., Park Rogers, M. A., Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., &
Gagnon, M. J. (2009). Preparing the next generation of science
teacher educators: A model for developing PCK for teaching
science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20,
77-93.
Acker, S. (1997). Becoming a teacher educator: Voices of women
academics in Canadian faculties of education. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 13, 65-74.
Berry, A. K. (2007). Tensions in teaching about teaching: Under-
standing practice as a teacher educator. Dordrecht, Nether-
lands: Springer.
Berry, A. K. (2009). Professional self-understanding as expertise in
teaching about teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and
Practice, 15, 305-318.
Bullock, S. M. (2011). Inside teacher education challenging prior
views of teaching and learning. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense
Publishers.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Learning and unlearning: The educa-
tion of teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19,
5-28.
Cochran-Smith, M., Feiman-Nemser, S., McIntyre, D. J., &
K. E. Demers. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research on teacher
education: Enduring questions in changing contexts. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (2005). Executive sum-
mary: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher
education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.),
Studying teacher education (pp. 1-36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters.
Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 166-173.
Dinkelman, T., Margolis, J., & Sikkenga, K. (2006). From teacher
to teacher educator: Experiences, expectations, and expatria-
tion. Studying Teacher Education, 2, 5-23.
Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M. (1986). Narrative form and the con-
struction of psychological science. In T. R. Sarbin (Ed.), Narra-
tive psychology: Storied nature of human conduct (pp. 22-44).
New York, NY: Preager.
Gore, J. M. (2001). Beyond our differences: A reassembling of
what matters in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion, 52, 124-135.
Henze, I., Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2009). Experienced sci-
ence teachers learning in the context of educational innova-
tion. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 184-199.
Houston, W. R. (Ed.). (1990). Handbook of research on teacher
education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Kessinger, T. A. (2008, October). The revised teacher educa-
tor standards of the Association of Teacher Educators (ATE).
Paper presented at the Ohio Confederation of Teacher Education
Organizations (OCTEO) Fall Conference in Columbus, OH.
Korthagen, F., Loughran, J. J., & Lunenberg, M. (2005). Teach-
ing teachersStudies into the expertise of teacher educators: An
introduction to this theme issue. Teaching and Teacher Educa-
tion, 21, 107-115.
Koster, B., Brekelmans, M., Korthagen, F., & Wubbels, T. (2005).
Quality requirements for teacher educators. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 21, 157-176.
Lin, E., Wang, J., Spalding, E., Clecka, C. L., & Odell, S. J.
(2011). Toward strengthening the preparation of teacher
educator-researchers in doctoral programs and beyond. Journal
of Teacher Education, 62, 239-245.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Loughran, J. J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher educa-
tion. London, England: Routledge.
Loughran, J. J. (2007a). Researching teacher education practices:
Responding to the challenges, demands and expectations of
self-study. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 12-20.
Loughran, J. J. (2007b). Science teacher as learner. In
S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research
on science education (pp. 1043-1065). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Loughran, J. J., & Berry, A. K. (2012). Developing science teacher
educators pedagogy of teacher education. In B. J. Fraser,
K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international
handbook of science education (pp. 401-415). Dordrecht, Neth-
erlands: Springer.
Lunenberg, M. (2010). Characteristics, scholarship and research of
teacher educators. In B. McGraw, P. L. Peterson, & E. Baker
(Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 676-680).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
128 Journal of T eacher Education 64(2)
Martinez, K. (2008). Academic induction for teacher educators.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 35-51.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analy-
sis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Millar, R. (2006). Twenty First Century Science: Insights from the
design and implementation of a scientific literacy approach in
school science. International Journal of Science Education, 28,
1499-1521.
Murray, F. B. (Ed.). (1996). Teacher educators handbook: Building
a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Murray, J. (2005). Re-addressing the priorities: New teacher educa-
tors experiences of induction into Higher Education. European
Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 67-85.
Murray, J., & Male, T. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: Evi-
dence from the field. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21,
125-142.
Northfield, J., & Gunstone, R. (1997). Teacher education as a
process of developing teacher knowledge. In J. Loughran &
T. Russell (Eds.), Teaching about teaching: purpose, passion
and pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 48-56). London, England:
Falmer.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
(2005). Teachers matter. Attracting, developing and retraining
effective teachers. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
Russell, T. (2007). How experience changed my values as a teacher
educator. In T. Russell & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a peda-
gogy of teacher education: Values, relationships and practices
(pp. 182-191). London, England: Routledge.
Russell, T., & Martin, A. (2007). Learning to teach science. In
S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research
on science education (pp. 1151-1176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Scott, P. H., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student concep-
tions and conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell &
N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science edu-
cation (pp. 31-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sikula, J. P., Butterey., T. J. & Guyton, E. (Eds.). (1996). Hand-
book of research on teacher education (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Macmillan.
Smith, D. C. (2000). Content and pedagogical content knowledge
for elementary science teacher educators: Knowing our stu-
dents. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 27-46.
Smith, J. A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative
analysis. In J. A. Smith, R. Harr, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.),
Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 9-26). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Smith, K. (2005). Teacher educators expertise: What do novice
teachers and teacher educators say? Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21, 177-192.
Smith, P. K. (2010). Professional development of teacher educa-
tors. In B. McGraw, P. L. Peterson, & E. Baker (Eds.), Inter-
national encyclopedia of education (pp. 681-688). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
Timmerman, G. (2009). Teacher educators modelling their teach-
ers? European Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 225-238.
Van Driel, J. H., & Abell, S. K. (2010). Science teacher educa-
tion. In B. McGraw, P. L. Peterson, & E. Baker (Eds.), Interna-
tional encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., Vol. 7, pp. 712-718).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Williams, J. J. (2010). Constructing a new professional identity:
Career change into teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education,
26, 639-647.
Williams, J. J., & Ritter, J. (2010). Constructing new professional
identities through self-study: From teacher to teacher educator.
Professional Development in Education, 36, 77-92.
About the Authors
Amanda Berry is an associate professor at ICLON, Leiden
University Graduate School of Teaching, the Netherlands. As a
teacher educator and researcher, her work focuses on teachers
knowledge development and how knowledge is shaped and articu-
lated through teacher preparation, beginning teaching, and inservice
learning.
Jan H. Van Driel is a professor of science education and director
of ICLON, Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching, the
Netherlands. His research interests include science teachers knowl-
edge and beliefs, and their development in the context of teacher
education and educational innovation.