International Journal of Science Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Defining knowledge domains for science teacher

educators

Sonja M. Mork, Ellen K. Henriksen, Berit S. Haug, Doris Jorde & Merethe
Frøyland

To cite this article: Sonja M. Mork, Ellen K. Henriksen, Berit S. Haug, Doris Jorde & Merethe
Frøyland (2021) Defining knowledge domains for science teacher educators, International
Journal of Science Education, 43:18, 3018-3034, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2021.2006819

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.2006819

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 29 Nov 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3577

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsed20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION
2021, VOL. 43, NO. 18, 3018–3034
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.2006819

Defining knowledge domains for science teacher educators

Sonja M. Mork a, Ellen K. Henriksen b
, Berit S. Haug a
, Doris Jordec and
Merethe Frøylanda
a
Norwegian Centre for Science Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; bDepartment of Physics,
University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; cDepartment of Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo,
Oslo, Norway

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Science teacher educators (STEs) have key roles in the educational Received 5 March 2021
system through their preparation of pre- and in-service science Accepted 11 November 2021
teachers and in implementing future-oriented policy reforms.
KEYWORDS
Given the complexity and importance of their role, what types of Science teacher educators;
knowledge do STEs need? STEs come from a range of knowledge domains; science
backgrounds and there are few systematic routes for their teacher education; research-
ongoing learning. Hence, there is a need for tools that can help based teacher education
define and assess STEs’ competence. The purpose of this
theoretical paper is to highlight central knowledge domains for
STEs. We draw on previous work and add perspectives from
current trends in science education and teacher education to
describe four knowledge domains for STEs: natural science,
science education in school, science teacher education and
science education research. The main contribution of the paper is
an updated conceptualisation of the nature of STEs’ knowledge
and qualifications, taking into account current requirements for
future-oriented science education and teacher education
including deeper learning and critical thinking skills, cross-
curricular work, education for sustainable development, and
research-based teacher education. The four knowledge domains
can serve as a tool for identifying needs, recruiting staff with
desired expertise, and tailoring interventions to support
professional development for STEs from various backgrounds.

Introduction
Science teacher educators (STEs) have key roles in the educational system through their
preparation of pre- and in-service science teachers. In many countries, teacher education
and school science are undergoing considerable changes (Ministry of Education and
Research, 2016, 2017; Mullis et al., 2016; National Research Council, 2012b). Recent
school reforms expect students to learn about the practices of science and the nature
of scientific knowledge and developing more complex analytic skills in preparation for
education and work in the twenty-first century (Ministry of Education and Research,

CONTACT Sonja M. Mork s.m.mork@naturfagsenteret.no Norwegian Centre for Science Education, University of
Oslo, P. O. Box 1106, Blindern, N-0317 Oslo, Norway
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 3019

2016; National Research Council, 2012a, 2012b; OECD, 2019; Osborne, 2014). Accord-
ingly, teachers must learn to teach in ways that promote deeper learning, develop
higher-order thinking skills and place science into cross-curricular thematic areas
(Darling-Hammond & Oakes, 2019; McDonald et al., 2013). Such reforms place new
demands on STEs who are central in implementing future-oriented science education
(Cochran et al., 2020). What types of knowledge do STEs need to keep up with these
changes when preparing pre- and in-service teachers for future science education?
In the following, we draw on research about teacher educators in general (TEs)
and STEs in particular. When we use the notion of TEs, we mean those in higher edu-
cation institutions who educate pre- and in-service teachers (Cochran et al., 2020; Czer-
niawski et al., 2017; Smith & Flores, 2019).
TE’s are recruited in various ways, but seem to come from two main backgrounds: Those
recruited directly from schools and those with background from academic disciplines
(Cochran et al., 2020; Czerniawski et al., 2017; Lunenberg et al., 2016; Smith, 2005). Shortage
of scholars with the combination PhD in science education, background in one of the
sciences and teaching experience from school, results in recruitment of STEs with teaching
degrees and experience from school, yet limited research experience, or from research back-
grounds in academic disciplines, with limited knowledge of schools and education as an aca-
demic discipline (Czerniawski et al., 2017; Smith, 2005). Both groups may have insufficient
qualifications in some areas to fully meet the requirements of their positions as TEs.
Notably, several countries, have in recent years adopted a master’s degree model for
teacher education (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Munthe, 2019), placing new demands on
TEs to supervise pre-service teachers writing a research-based master’s thesis.
Regardless of background, TEs must develop professionally to attain the knowledge
and skills expected, including: teaching both subject-matter knowledge and didactical
knowledge, being producers and consumers of knowledge in and about teaching
(Cochran-Smith, 2005), and playing key roles in the implementation of policy reforms
(Cochran-Smith, 2003). An often under-communicated part of the TEs’ role is teaching
about teaching which necessarily will be influenced by their background, experience and
understandings of practice (Abell et al., 2009; Korthagen et al., 2005). A European Com-
mission report raised concerns about ineffective role modelling since many teacher edu-
cation programmes involve staff from subject faculties with poor teaching practices and
weak teacher educator identity (European Commission, 2013).
Entering the role as STE may also involve a transition of professional identity – from
teacher, educational scholar or natural scientist to STE. This transition may create tensions
(Donohue et al., 2020; Molander & Hamza, 2018), since it involves moving from one aca-
demic culture, with methods, values and tools, into another, in this case, science teacher
education (Lampert, 2010). Loughran (2014) similarly described the transition that most
TEs undergo when developing their professional competence and identity and remarked
how ‘being a teacher educator involves much more than applying the skills of school teach-
ing’ (p. 272). Research shows that merging of identities may be difficult (e.g. Donohue et al.,
2020; Molander & Hamza, 2018). Professional identity is constructed through involvement
in communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Accordingly, developing a professional
identity as TE will take place while working as a TE and by interacting with colleagues, pre-
service teachers and classroom teachers (Abell et al., 2009; Erduran & Kaya, 2019; Swennen
et al., 2010). In this way STEs’ professional learning is often self-directed.
3020 S. M. MORK ET AL.

Given the complexity and importance of their role, it is remarkable that there are few
systematic routes for TEs’ ongoing professional development (Czerniawski et al., 2017).
In most European countries, formal preparation for becoming a TE is rarely supported
(Berry & Van Driel, 2012; Cochran et al., 2020; European Commission, 2013; Korthagen
et al., 2005). Likewise, the nature of TEs’ work and professional development has received
little attention in research literature and policy documents (e.g. Cochran-Smith, 2003;
Lunenberg et al., 2014; Smith & Flores, 2019). In particular, few studies address TEs’
pedagogy of teaching specific subject matter or how they develop their expertise
(Berry & Van Driel, 2012).
In the field of science teacher education, Abell (1997) pointed to the necessity to
‘identify the needs of science teacher educators and recommend strategies to provide
for the personal and professional development of science teacher educators throughout
their careers’. Likewise, Lederman et al. (1997) argued that the essential qualifications for
STEs had not been addressed, outlining the following six standards for ‘the knowledge,
skills, experiences, attitudes and habits of mind essential for the successful science teacher
educator’: Knowledge of science, Science Pedagogy, Curriculum, instruction and assess-
ment, Knowledge of learning and cognition, Research/scholarly activity and Professional
development activities (Lederman et al., 1997, p. 233).
Some efforts have been made to address these issues, e.g. Abell et al. (2009) suggested
developing pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for STEs arguing that science edu-
cation doctoral programmes should include explicit preparation of future STEs. They
proposed a model of the continuum for learning to be a professional STE, where learning
to teach science teachers is described as a process moving individuals from observer to
apprentice to partner to independent instructor during their doctoral programmes.
There is also a growing body of practice-oriented research on teacher education, like
self-studies by STEs (Buck et al., 2016; Demirdöğen et al., 2015; Faikhamta & Clarke,
2013). However, we argue that there is still a need for conceptualising the nature of
STEs’ knowledge and qualifications. We believe that an important prerequisite for tailor-
ing professional development according to the needs of STEs is an updated conceptual-
isation of knowledge and qualifications that STEs need to offer future-oriented science
teacher education. The purpose of this paper is to provide such a conceptualisation.
We describe four knowledge domains for STEs: natural science, science education in
school, science teacher education and science education research. In the following sections
we elaborate on these.

Knowledge domains for science teacher educators

We recognise that the pedagogy of teacher education involves multiple, complex, and
unique teaching and learning spaces that require a range of pedagogies such as mentor-
ing, mediated interactions, critical dialogue and guided self-reflection (Cochran et al.,
2020; Loughran, 2014). In this paper, we focus the attention on STEs’ knowledge
domains for teacher education in science.
The knowledge domains we propose in Table 1 build on literature review of previous
research and scholarship and current trends in science education and teacher education.
They are also informed by our background as STEs and science education researchers. In
addition, our experiences stem from designing, implementing and evaluating
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 3021

Table 1. Four knowledge domains for Science Teacher Educators. Domain 1–2 are also relevant for
science teachers.
Knowledge domains for Science Teacher Educators
1. Natural science
a) Subject matter content knowledge in at least one natural science discipline
b) Knowledge about research practices in science (procedural knowledge)
c) Understanding of the Nature of Science, NOS (epistemic knowledge)
2. Science education in school
a) Knowledge of relevant learning theories and their application to student learning in science
b) Knowledge of school science curriculum and aims for scientific literacy
c) Knowledge of instructional strategies to promote student learning
d) Knowledge of inquiry-based science education and science and engineering practices
e) Knowledge of how to use assessment purposefully to support student learning in science
f) Knowledge of how to promote 21st century skills in science
g) Knowledge of how to organize cross-curricular work and promote sustainable development and democratic and
equitable participation through science education
h) Knowledge of how to use digital resources and computational thinking to promote science learning
3. Science teacher education
a) Knowledge of how to explicitly model research-based teaching practices
b) Knowledge of pre-and in-service teachers as learners and how they develop an identity as science teachers
c) Knowledge of how to support pre-7 and in-service teachers in implementing educational reforms
4. Science education research
a) Knowledge of a range of educational research approaches
b) Experience with conducting science education research and disseminating findings
c) Knowledge of supervising students at the master’s level
d) Experience with finding, interpreting and applying results from research in science teacher education
e) Knowledge of academic writing in the field of science education

professional development programmes (PDPs) for teachers (Haug & Mork, 2021), and
from developing and implementing a two-year PDP tailored to meet the needs of a
group of STEs with background from the science disciplines.
As STEs must possess the knowledge and skills expected of science teachers,
domain 1 and 2 in Table 1 are also relevant to science teachers. However, in this
context, we focus on STEs and we emphasise that being a STE involves much more
than applying the skills of school science teaching. STEs are expected to have
extended, in-depth and meta-level knowledge and skills building on and extending
those possessed by science teachers. Since science teacher education is part of
higher education, STEs need knowledge of higher education systems and teaching
and learning for this age group. STEs must also be able to model how they expect
pre-service teachers to teach science in school and demonstrate research-based teach-
ing according to current literature on science teaching. In the following, we elaborate
each point in Table 1.

Domain 1: Natural science

Domain 1, natural science, corresponds to Lederman et al.’s (1997) standard knowledge of
science including subject matter knowledge, inquiry experience within a science disci-
pline and understanding of the nature of science where argumentation and critique
are especially relevant for teaching and learning about scientific practices (Erduran &
Dagher, 2014; Osborne, 2014). STEs teach both science and science education, accord-
ingly they need science content knowledge. All STEs need depth and breadth of
subject matter content knowledge with strong science process skills within at least
3022 S. M. MORK ET AL.

one natural science discipline, presupposing that the staff together cover all science dis-
ciplines. They must also keep updated on important developments within science. Fur-
thermore, STEs need knowledge of, and preferably experience with, research practices in
natural science generally and their own discipline specifically for planning and imple-
menting practical work in science with their student teachers. STEs also need under-
standing of the nature of science, NOS, and being aware that there are different
approaches to NOS and that science has become increasingly inter-disciplinary (e.g.
Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Allchin, 2017; Erduran & Dagher, 2014; Hodson &
Wong, 2017). Finally, STEs need knowledge of the epistemology of the subject domain
their pre-service teachers will be teaching (Erduran & Kaya, 2019; Lederman et al.,
1997). From their meta-analysis of inquiry-based science teaching, Furtak et al. (2012),
concluded that engaging students in the epistemic domain for instance by engaging stu-
dents in generating, developing and justifying explanations in science, had a particularly
positive effect on student learning.

Domain 2: Science education in school

Domain 2, science education in school, draws on multiple perspectives including several
of Lederman et al.’s (1997) standards. Building on Shulman’s (1986) concept of PCK for
science teachers, Abell et al. (2009) argued for corresponding PCK for STEs, described
in terms of curricular knowledge, assessment knowledge, knowledge of instructional
strategies and teachers’ understanding of science and science teaching – all related to
methods courses in teacher education in the USA. We argue that STEs need PCK on
two levels; both for preparing science teachers for work in schools and for teaching
science and science education to pre-service teachers (Domain 3). Below, we discuss
our proposed knowledge needs for STEs in the domain of Science education in
school, noting that they incorporate elements from Abell’s PCK for STEs as well as
descriptions of PCK for teaching students in school (Carlson et al., 2019; Rollnick &
Mavhunga, 2017).
Learning theories applied to science education are described in Lederman et al.’s
(1997) standards science pedagogy, and knowledge of learning and cognition. They
suggest that STEs should have strong knowledge of, and formal background in,
science pedagogy and extensive background in cognitive science and its applications to
student learning. In the last 2–3 decades, sociocultural views of learning have been preva-
lent within science education research, taking over from the more constructivist-oriented
viewpoints that dominated in the 1980s (Leach & Scott, 2003; Lemke, 2001; Mortimer &
Scott, 2003). A STE needs to be familiar with these and related theories of learning and
how they have shaped research and development work in science education over time.
Knowledge of school science curriculum is essential for STEs who prepare teachers
to enact the curriculum. Curricular knowledge is highlighted by Lederman et al. (1997) in
their standard curriculum, instruction and assessment, where they emphasise that STEs
should possess a strong theoretical and practical background in curriculum development,
instructional design and assessment. Curriculum knowledge is also present in Abell
et al.’s (2009) description of PCK for STEs. Scientific literacy has been a central goal
in many countries’ science curricula in the last decades and is prominent in influential
documents such as the Next Generation Science Standards and the PISA-framework
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 3023

(National Research Council, 2012b; OECD, 2016). STEs must understand how different
curricular aims support the development of scientific literacy.
Knowledge of instructional strategies to promote student learning is central on two
levels in science teacher education; for promoting pre-and in-service teachers’ own learn-
ing of science and for their learning about how to teach to promote science learning in
the classroom. Thus, knowledge of instructional strategies is among the areas where STEs
must practice explicit modelling (see below). Instructional strategies are emphasised in
Abell et al.’s (2009) model of PCK for STEs, and Lederman et al. (1997, p. 237) describe
that STEs need ‘expertise in the development and implementation of curriculum and
instructional materials’. Based on identification of discipline core practices in K-12 teach-
ing in the US (e.g. National Research Council, 2012b), McDonald et al. (2013) argued that
teacher education must prepare teachers to enact these practices and called for a common
language describing how teachers learn to practice and the pedagogies TEs enact to
support teachers in learning to practice. They developed a framework consisting of
four steps for teaching teachers about a core practice or activity: introducing and learning
about the activity, preparing for and rehearsing the activity, enacting the activity with stu-
dents and analysing enactment and moving forward (McDonald et al., 2013). At the level
of science teachers, Windschitl et al. (2012) claimed that there are no sharable and
empirically grounded tools or curricular resources to prepare teachers for science
instruction. They, therefore, proposed a core set of instructional practices and tools as
a repertoire for beginning science teachers sorted under the headings (1) Planning for
engagement with big science ideas; (2) Eliciting students’ ideas and adapting instruction;
(3) Supporting ongoing changes in students’ thinking, and (4) Drawing together evi-
dence-based explanations (Windschitl et al., 2018). Stroupe et al. (2020) proposed that
training pre-service teachers in using this set of core practices should be central in
science teacher education.
Knowledge of inquiry-based science education and science and engineering prac-
tices is needed since STEs educate pre-and in-service teachers to use inquiry approaches
in science and develop students’ competencies regarding science inquiry and science
practices (National Research Council, 2012a). Teaching science as inquiry has been a
major goal for science education for decades (National Research Council, 1996;
Rocard et al., 2007), but the term inquiry has been interpreted in many different ways
(Crawford, 2014; Furtak et al., 2012; Rönnebeck et al., 2016). To specify what inquiry
means in science and include engineering practices, the focus has turned more
towards science and engineering practices (Ministry of Education and Research, 2016;
National Research Council, 2012b). However the research literature shows also large
variations in how practices are defined and operationalised, if they are defined at all
(Rönnebeck et al., 2016). We therefore argue that STEs need in-depth knowledge in
these issues to teach about what the different practices include and how they relate to
other practices. Moreover, STEs must arrange for pre-service teachers to practice
inquiry both in the role as learners, to get experience with science practices, and in the
role as teachers, to practice orchestrating inquiry approaches with students in school
(Baxter et al., 2004).
Focusing on science and engineering practices is a way of providing situations where
students can actively use scientific language which is vital to learning science (Lemke,
1990). Hence, STEs must prepare teachers in how to provide situations for supporting
3024 S. M. MORK ET AL.

students’ use of scientific language, including guiding students in moving beyond mere
definitions of words and towards conceptual understanding they can apply when enga-
ging in science and engineering practices (Mork, 2005; Haug & Ødegaard, 2014; Bravo
et al., 2008; Osborne, 2010). As the use of scientific language is an indication of students’
understanding, situations where students are talking science provide opportunities for
formative assessment.
Knowledge of how to use assessment purposefully to support student learning in
science is part of Lederman et al.’s (1997) standard curriculum, instruction and assess-
ment. Along similar lines, Hattie (2009) pointed out the central position of feedback –
from student to teacher and from teacher to student – for learning to take place. STEs
need deep knowledge in formative assessment to prepare pre- and in-service teachers
for such practice. Teachers must learn that formative assessment should involve aware-
ness of how students are engaging in disciplinary practice to be able to assess student
reasoning in ways that are consistent with how students should learn to assess ideas as
participants in science (Coffey et al., 2011). Moreover, in school as well as in teacher edu-
cation, assessment forms must be constructively aligned with learning goals and learning
activities that learners are engaged in to reach those goals (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Dolin
et al., 2018).
Knowledge of how to promote twenty-first century skills in science has gained
importance with recent educational reforms. Students’ abilities to engage in high-
level reasoning, to understand content and to apply and transfer knowledge when
solving problems are indications of deeper learning. Sawyer (2006) argues that students
acquire deeper knowledge when engaging in activities similar to everyday activities of
professionals working in a discipline. Accordingly, engaging in inquiry and science and
engineering practices is necessary for deeper learning in science. This blend of knowl-
edge and skills is referred to as twenty-first century skills and competencies (National
Research Council, 2012b; OECD, 2019). These are described in various ways, but the
four primary skills; critical thinking, communication, collaboration and creativity,
reoccur in most documents from around the globe (Kennedy & Sundberg, 2020).
For instance, Kind and Kind (2007) suggested more attention to how school science
can develop students’ scientific creativity, whereas critical thinking is considered a
core scientific practice linked to argumentation (Osborne, 2010). Bailin (2002)
points to challenges of diverse conceptions on critical thinking in science education lit-
erature. Instead of focusing on skills or processes, she argues for highlighting the con-
textual nature of critical thinking and focusing on how to meet the criteria of good
thinking in particular contexts. Critical thinking always takes place in response to a
task, questions or challenges including for example problem solving, evaluating the-
ories or conducting inquiries.
Knowledge of how to organise cross-curricular work and promote sustainable
development and democratic and equitable participation through science education:
A major change in education is the increased focus on inter-disciplinary thematic teach-
ing (e.g. Education Scotland, 2019; Ministry of Education and Research, 2016). Many
cross-curricular topics have a science dimension, e.g. socio-scientific issues (Kolstø,
2001; Zangori et al., 2017) and topics related to the UN Sustainable Development
Goals1 (Munkebye et al., 2020). Education for sustainable development refers to inte-
gration of key sustainability issues into teaching and learning with the aim of developing
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 3025

competencies empowering students to make informed decisions and act responsibly

(UNESCO, 2017).
There is a growing understanding that sustainable development requires a holistic
approach treating the three dimensions environmental, social and economic as equally
important and intertwined (Munkebye et al., 2020). According to a review by Evans
et al. (2017), sustainability is seldom a mandated component of teacher education
even though it may be mandated in a country’s school curricula. Despite expectations
it is unclear to which extent sustainability has been integrated in teacher education.
Moreover, TEs tend to embed sustainability in their subject area rather than work
across disciplines (N. Evans et al., 2017). Jegstad et al. (2018) recommended explicit
focus on education for sustainable development in teacher education programmes and
described how this can be realised by building on expertise and methods already
present in the programmes, such as inquiry learning. The interdisciplinary nature of sus-
tainability requires teachers, and hence TEs from different subjects to collaborate across
curriculum and to teach across subject boundaries (Munkebye et al., 2020). We therefore
argue that STEs need knowledge of how to organise cross-curricular work.
Science education also concerns ensuring all students access to science education and
empowering students for decision-making and democratic participation (Bøe, Henrik-
sen, Lyons, & Schreiner, 2011). Stroupe et al. (2020) emphasise that science classrooms
and learning spaces can be places where students experience science in ways that have
relevance and power in their own worlds and cultures, especially for students from his-
torically marginalised groups. Moreover, they point to ‘equity and social justice practices’
and argue that ‘the cultural assets and funds of knowledge students bring to the class-
room, and the potential they have as sense makers, are not fully realized and utilized’
(Stroupe et al., 2020, p. 18).
Knowledge of how to use digital resources and computational thinking to promote
science learning: Both natural sciences and education are highly influenced by the rapid
digital and technological development (Kennedy & Sundberg, 2020). Hence students’
digital literacy is highlighted as crucial in many policy documents (e.g. OECD, 2019).
Recognising that students should not only be consumers, but also producers of technol-
ogy, computational thinking (Bocconi et al., 2016; Shute et al., 2017) has in recent years
become part of the curriculum in several countries (European Schoolnet, 2015). We want
to highlight the importance of integrating computational thinking into subjects, in con-
trast to separate courses where students learn programming without a relevant context.
Most commonly computational thinking is included as part of the subject technology
(e.g. Department of Education, 2014; Education Scotland, 2019; Ministry of Education,
2020), but in some countries, like Norway, computational thinking is included in the
science and mathematics curricula (e.g. Ministry of Education and Research, 2016).
Accordingly, professional digital competency is required in teacher education and expec-
tations to STEs are co-evolving with the technological development.

Domain 3: Science teacher education

Knowledge of how to explicitly model research-based teaching practices. While the
knowledge components described in Domain 2 have related mainly to preparing pre-
service teachers for science teaching in schools, the first two components in this
3026 S. M. MORK ET AL.

domain specifically concern pre-service teachers as learners. As teachers of teachers, TEs,

consciously or unconsciously, model teaching and their values related to teaching
(Loughran, 2014; Loughran & Berry, 2005; Lunenberg et al., 2007). STEs communicate
knowledge of science and science pedagogy, while acting as role models for how teachers
can orchestrate student learning.
In a study of the TE as role model, Lunenberg et al. (2007) concluded that there seems
to be little recognition of modelling as a teaching method in teacher education. They
defined modelling by TEs as the practice of intentionally displaying certain teaching
behaviour with the aim of promoting pre-service teachers’ professional learning. Lunen-
berg et al. (2007) described four types of modelling: (a) implicit modelling, where TEs
model educational practices without drawing attention to their pedagogical choices;
(b) explicit modelling where TEs have meta-conversations with their students around
choices they make while teaching and why they make these choices; (c) explicit modelling
and facilitating the translation to the pre-service teacher’s own practice that adds another
dimension to explicit modelling, as pre-service teachers are not necessarily able to do this
translation on their own; and (d) connecting exemplary behaviour with theory, where
STEs move beyond making useful ‘tricks’ explicit and instead, put tacit knowledge of
teaching into words and link their practice to theoretical notions. Implicit modelling
seems to have limited effects on pre-service teachers, while the three others are key prac-
tices in teacher education.
Knowledge of pre-and in-service teachers as learners and how they develop an
identity as science teachers. Understanding how pre-service teachers develop their iden-
tity as science teachers is central to the design and enactment of science teacher education
programmes (Avraamidou, 2014). For planning and adjusting teaching to learners’ needs
and supporting them in developing their identity as science teachers, STEs must know
about variations in pre-service teachers’ academic background, motivation, interest,
beliefs about science, etc. Teacher learning is situated in practice, and learning to
teach happens in communities through discussing, testing, critiquing practice and chal-
lenging decisions (Hammerness et al., 2020). Pedagogical reasoning, i.e. the thinking
underpinning informed professional practice, and the opportunity to rehearse teaching
practices for school science is considered important for pre-service teachers learning
(Kavanagh et al., 2020).
Knowledge of how to support pre- and in-service teachers in implementing edu-
cational reforms. STEs have the role as change agents operationalising reform initiatives
through design and development of teaching resources and professional development
programmes supporting the implementation of reforms. Designing professional develop-
ment for in-service teachers requires that STEs are familiar with the typical work situ-
ation for science teachers and that they are able to constructively draw on the
expertise found within the group of experienced teachers.

Domain 4: Science education research

There is increased focus on research as a central component in teacher education tailored
to meet the challenges in the twenty-first century (Munthe & Rogne, 2015). Although the
role of research in teacher education is contested and interpreted differently in different
educational systems, research is identified in a range of countries as a key component of
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 3027

teacher education and practice (Menter & Flores, 2021). The British Educational
Research Association suggested research literacy, understood as capacity to engage
with and in research, as one of three main dimensions of teacher effectiveness and tea-
chers’ professional identity (BERA, 2014). Research literate teachers are both able to gen-
erate and evaluate evidence collected from their everyday practice and make sense of
findings from appropriate educational research to inform and develop their practice
(C. Evans et al., 2017). Menter and Flores (2021) suggest that through such orientation
teachers may be in a stronger position to respond positively to challenges they face on a
day-to-day basis. Creating learning environments supporting pre-service teachers’ devel-
opment of research literacy would then be a central aim of teacher education for primary
as well as secondary school levels. If science teacher education is to prepare research lit-
erate teachers who are able to find research, understand why it is important and apply it
to develop and improve their practice, STEs must have the necessary knowledge and
skills both in natural science research and in science education as a research area.
Munthe (2019) pointed out that research has not been prominent in most teacher edu-
cation programmes historically. Finland is one of few exceptions (Niemi, 2016), where
teacher education has been research-based since the early 1970s. According to Niemi
(2016, p. 24) ‘teacher education is grounded in continuous research-based inquiry in aca-
demic disciplines, including educational sciences, and this provides a basis for the
improvement of the curriculum in teacher education’. Also in Norway, all teacher edu-
cation programmes are 5-year (from 2017), leading to a master’s degree including a
research project related to classroom practice.
In line with approaches for including research in higher education (Healey & Jenkins,
2009), Tatto and Furlong (2015) suggested four ways research can contribute to teacher
education: (1) content can be informed by research-based knowledge; (2) design and
structure can be informed by research; (3) teachers and teacher educators can be
equipped to engage with and become consumers of research; and (4) teachers and
teacher educators can be educated to do their own research. In our context of knowledge
domains for STEs (Table 1), points 1–3 are covered in Domains 1–3, whereas our
Domain 4 concerns the final point: STEs should be experienced science education
researchers.
Knowledge of a range of educational research approaches is needed if STEs are to
relate to the entire breadth of science education research. Educational research methods
are different from approaches in natural science research which are part of Domain
1. Lederman et al. (1997) stated that STEs synthesise, apply and create knowledge directly
and indirectly related to science education and hence must have in-depth knowledge of
multiple research approaches. In countries where STEs are supervising master degree
students, knowledge of research methodology is essential.
Experience with conducting science education research and disseminating
findings: Lederman et al.’s (1997) standard research/scholarly activity, suggested that
STEs should possess the skills necessary to apply varied research approaches to answer
significant questions in science education, preferably linked to science classroom prac-
tice, and disseminate findings in peer-reviewed journals. STEs following pre-service tea-
chers into the classroom and conducting research will involve an iterative process
redesigning teacher education programmes based on evidence. Cochran-Smith (2005)
described how the research component of a TE’s work feeds into the education she
3028 S. M. MORK ET AL.

provides – and vice versa. We argue that research conducted by STEs is what drives the
field forward as is evidenced through contributions to science education journals and
conferences.
Knowledge of supervising students at the master’s level: Supervising students
towards the master’s degree has changed the responsibilities for STEs. In Finland, a 5-
year master’s education for all teachers is well established (Jakhelln et al., 2019). Accord-
ing to Darling-Hammond (2017), features of the Finnish teacher education model,
including the strong research component with a master’s thesis, are spreading to other
countries and with it, the need for TEs to have experience as supervisors (APT, 2020;
Munthe, 2019).
Experience with finding, interpreting and applying results from research in science
teacher education is needed if STEs are to educate research literate teachers as described
at the beginning of this section. Thus, STEs themselves need a good overview and experi-
ence in finding and critically assessing research results relevant to science education.
Cochran-Smith (2005) stated that TEs must be able to read, evaluate, critique, interpret
and use research in their work. STEs must be familiar with both research on science edu-
cation in schools, and research on teacher education. Both knowledge bases are needed to
create a fully research-based science teacher education that is innovative and pushes for
research-based change in how we teach science.
Knowledge of academic writing in the field of science education is needed by STEs
both for the sake of their own research and as supervisors of master’s students. According
to an international survey on professional learning needs among TEs, academic writing
was one of top five most important needs (Czerniawski et al., 2017). STEs must know
how to develop and transform ideas from research into science education publications
and be familiar with the publication process.

Summary and discussion

This paper aims to describe central knowledge domains for STEs for future-oriented
science education. Our motivation comes from experience with developing a PDP for
STEs lacking certain necessary competencies in their educational and experiential back-
ground. Building on previous work and adding perspectives from current trends in
science education and teacher education, we suggest the four knowledge domains
natural science, science education in school, science teacher education and science edu-
cation research. We draw on several sources, in particular the work of Lederman et al.
(1997), extending and elaborating their standards to provide a more comprehensive
and contemporary description of the knowledge needed by STEs. In the following, we
will highlight some central contributions from the present paper.
Science teacher education and school science are in constant development. When
policy reforms and trends change the content of school subjects, science teacher edu-
cation must be updated and able to prepare candidates to implement science education
in schools in line with these documents. Current policy documents call for a science edu-
cation that is inquiry-based and focused on science and engineering practices, that pro-
motes creativity, equity, collaboration and critical thinking; and prepares students for
contributing to democratic processes and promoting sustainable development (Ministry
of Education and Research, 2016; National Research Council, 2012a, 2012b; OECD, 2019;
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 3029

Rocard et al., 2007). Accordingly, important updates in our knowledge domains com-
pared to previous work are the elaboration of inquiry-based science education and
science and engineering practices, knowledge on how to promote twenty-first century
skills, knowledge of organising cross-curricular work, democratic participation and sus-
tainable development, and using digital resources and computational thinking; all within
a science education context, see Table 1. These and other perspectives in Domain 2 are
twofold in that they concern both pre-and in-service teachers and the profession they are
being educated to work in: For instance, STEs need knowledge of the school science cur-
riculum as well as curricular documents concerning teacher education; they need knowl-
edge of promoting twenty-first century skills in school science and in teacher education,
etc. This twofoldness underlines the multi-dimensional nature of STE professional
competence.
Internationally we find increased focus on research-based teacher education requiring
STEs with competencies in research, and able to involve students in theories and prac-
tices of science education research, also at the master’s level (BERA, 2014; Munthe,
2019; Murray & Vanassche, 2019). Also new is the knowledge of academic writing in
the field of science education, requiring STEs to participate actively in research and scho-
larship related to science education.
Building on previous work (Abell et al., 2009; Lederman et al., 1997) and our own
experiences, we suggest renewed knowledge domains for STEs with current requirements
for future-oriented science education and teacher education (APT, 2020; Darling-
Hammond, 2017; National Research Council, 2012a). The key outcome of this paper
is the updated knowledge domains for STEs introduced in Table 1, including knowledge
and skills expected of STEs preparing science teachers for the twenty-first century
(BERA, 2014; Crawford, 2014; Lederman et al., 1997; Lunenberg et al., 2007; Munthe,
2019; Windschitl et al., 2012).
We argue for the importance of making visible and explicit the knowledge that STEs
need in order to educate teachers who will deliver research-based science education in
line with current demands. TEs come from various backgrounds (Czerniawski et al.,
2017; Smith, 2005), and more often than not, one or more of the central knowledge
domains are lacking. Hence we argue that an overview of knowledge domains is a necess-
ary and important tool for identifying STEs’ needs (Abell, 1997) and to be able to tailor
professional development targeted to fit the needs of STEs from various backgrounds and
when appointing new staff members in science teacher education.
In identifying and describing the knowledge domains for STEs, we hope to contribute
to a greater awareness of the role of STEs as key professionals in the implementation of
high-quality, future-oriented science education in schools.

Note
1. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
3030 S. M. MORK ET AL.

ORCID
Sonja M. Mork http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2199-094X
Ellen K. Henriksen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0187-4952
Berit S. Haug http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1993-9942

References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature
of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal Science Education, 22(7),
665–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050044044
Abell, S. K. (1997). The professional development of science teacher educators: Is there a missing
piece? Electronic Journal of Science Education, 1(4). http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/
abell.html [Online]
Abell, S. K., Rogers, M. A. P., 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(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-
008-9115-6
Allchin, D. (2017). Beyond the consensus view: Whole science. Canadian Journal of Science,
Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.
1271921
APT. (2020). Transforming Norwegian Teacher Education: The Final Report of the International
Advisory Panel for Primary and Lower Secondary Teacher Education. https://www.nokut.no/
globalassets/nokut/rapporter/ua/2020/transforming-norwegian-teacher-education-2020.pdf
Avraamidou, L. (2014). Studying science teacher identity: Current insights and future research
directions. Studies in Science Education, 50(2), 145–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.
2014.937171
Bailin, S. (2002). Critical thinking and science education. Science & Education, 11(4), 361–375.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016042608621
Baxter, B. K., Jenkins, C. C., Southerland, S. A., & Wilson, P. (2004). Using a multilevel assessment
scheme in reforming science methods courses. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(3), 211–
232. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JSTE.0000047084.51834.a3
BERA. (2014). Research and the teaching profession, final report of the BERA-RSA inquiry into the
role of research in teacher education, BERA. https://www.bera.ac.uk/project/research-and-
teacher-education
Berry, A., & Van Driel, J. H. (2012). Teaching about Teaching Science: Aims, strategies, and back-
grounds of science teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(2), 117–128. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022487112466266
Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4 ed.). Open University
Press/McGraw Hill, 2007.
Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Dettori, G., Ferrari, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2016). Developing compu-
tational thinking in compulsory education. Implications for policy and practice. EUR 28295
EN. https://doi.org/10.2791/792158.
Bøe, M. V., Henriksen, E. K., Lyons, T., & Schreiner, C. (2011). Participation in science and tech-
nology: Young people’s achievement⍰related choices in late⍰modern societies. Studies in
Science Education, 47(1), 37–72. http://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.549621
Bravo, M. A., Cervetti, G. N., Hiebert, E. H., & Pearson, P. D. (2008). From passive to active control
of science vocabulary. In D. W. Rowe (Ed.), 56th yearbook of the National Reading Conference
(pp. 122–135). National Reading Conference.
Buck, G. A., Akerson, V., & Gilles, B. (2016). Garnering the experiences and understandings emer-
ging from self-studies in science teacher education. In G. A. Buck & V. Akerson (Eds.),
Enhancing professional knowledge of pre-service science teacher education by self-study research
(pp. 3–22). Springer.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 3031

Carlson, J., Daehler, K. R., Alonzo, A. C., Barendsen, E., Berry, A., Borowski, A., … Wilson, C. D.
(2019). The refined consensus model of pedagogical content knowledge in science education. In
A. Hume, R. Cooper, & A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in tea-
chers’ knowledge for Teaching Science (pp. 77–94). Springer Singapore.
Cochran, M., Grudnoff, L., Orland-Barak, L., & Smith, K. (2020). Educating teacher educators:
International perspectives. The New Educator, 16(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.
2019.1670309
Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Learning and unlearning: The education of teacher educators.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00091-4
Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Teacher educators as researchers: Multiple perspectives. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 21(2), 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.12.003
Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., & Grant, T. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of
formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1109–1136. https://doi.
org/10.1002/tea.20440
Crawford, B. A. (2014). From inquiry to scientific practices in the science classroom. In N.
Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 515–
541). Rutledge.
Czerniawski, G., Guberman, A., & MacPhail, A. (2017). The professional developmental needs of
higher education-based teacher educators: An international comparative needs analysis.
European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.
2016.1246528
Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from
international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291–309. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399
Darling-Hammond, L., & Oakes, J. (2019). Preparing teachers for deeper learning. Harvard
Education Press.
Demirdöğen, B., Aydın, S., & Tarkın, A. (2015). Looking at the mirror: A self-study of science
teacher educators’ PCK for teaching teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science &
Technology Education, 11(2), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1315a
Department of Education. (2014). National curriculum in England. https://www.gov.uk/
government/collections/national-curriculum
Dolin, J., Black, P., Harlen, W., & Tiberghien, A. (2018). Exploring relations between formative
and summative assessment. In J. Dolin & R. Evans (Eds.), Transforming assessment: Through
an interplay between practice, research and policy (pp. 53–80). Springer International.
Donohue, K., Buck, G. A., & Akerson, V. (2020). Where⍰s the science? Exploring a new science
teacher educator⍰s theoretical and practical understandings of scientific inquiry. International
Journal of Research in Education and Science, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.v6i1.571
Education Scotland. (2019). Curriculum for excellence. https://education.gov.scot/Documents/
Technologies-es-os.pdf
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education.
Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories (Vol. 43). Springer.
Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2019). Transforming teacher education through the epistemic core of chem-
istry. Springer.
European Commission. (2013). Supporting teacher educators for better learning outcomes. Brussels:
https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/education/policy/school/doc/support-teacher-educators_en.pdf
European Schoolnet. (2015). Computing our future Brüssel. http://www.eun.org/documents/
411753/817341/Computing+our+future_final_2015.pdf/d3780a64-1081-4488-8549-
6033200e3c03
Evans, C., Waring, M., & Christodoulou, A. (2017). Building teachers’ research literacy:
Integrating practice and research. Research Papers in Education, 32(4), 403–423. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02671522.2017.1322357
Evans, N., Stevenson, R. B., Lasen, M., Ferreira, J.-A., & Davis, J. (2017). Approaches to embedding
sustainability in teacher education: A synthesis of the literature. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 63, 405–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.013
3032 S. M. MORK ET AL.

Faikhamta, C., & Clarke, A. (2013). A self-study of a Thai teacher educator developing a better
understanding of PCK for teaching about Teaching science. Research in Science Education,
43(3), 955–979. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9300-7
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental
studies of inquiry-based science teaching. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206
Hammerness, K., McDonald, S., Matsko, K. K., & Stroupe, D. (2020). How do teachers learn to
teach science in ambitious and equitable ways? In D. Stroupe, K. Hammerness, & S.
McDonald (Eds.), Preparing science teachers through practice-based teacher education (pp.
13–28). Harvard Education Press.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
Routledge.
Haug, B. S., & Ødegaard, M. (2014). From words to concepts. Teaching for conceptual under-
standing in a inquiry based science setting. Research in Science Education, 44(5), 777–800.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9402-5
Haug, B. S., & Mork, S. M. (2021). Taking 21st century skills from vision to classroom: What tea-
chers highlight as supportive professional development in the light of new demands from edu-
cational reforms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 100, 103286. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tate.2021.103286
Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. The Higher
Education Academy.
Hodson, D., & Wong, S. L. (2017). Going beyond the consensus view: Broadening and enriching
the scope of NOS-oriented curricula. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology
Education, 17(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1271919
Jakhelln, R., Eklund, G., Aspfors, J., Bjørndal, K., & Stølen, G. (2019). Newly qualified Teachers’
understandings of research-based Teacher education practices−Two cases from Finland and
Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65(1), 123–139.
Jegstad, K. M., Sinnes, A. T., & Gjøtterud, S. M. (2018). Science teacher education for sustainable
development: From intensions to realisation. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 14(4), 350–
367. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.3263
Kavanagh, S. S., Conrad, J., & Dagogo-Jack, S. (2020). From rote to reasoned: Examining the role
of pedagogical reasoning in practice-based teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education,
89, 102991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102991
Kennedy, T. J., & Sundberg, C. W. (2020). 21st century skills. In B. Akpan & T. J. Kennedy (Eds.),
Science education in theory and practice: An introductory guide to learning theory (pp. 479–496).
Springer International.
Kind, P. M., & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: Perspectives and challenges for
developing school science. Studies in Science Education, 43(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03057260708560225
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension
of controversial scientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.
1011
Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Lunenberg, M. (2005). Teaching teachers—studies into the exper-
tise of teacher educators: An introduction to this theme issue. Teaching and Teacher Education,
21(2), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.12.007
Lampert, M. (2010). Learning Teaching in, from, and for practice: What Do We mean? Journal of
Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347321
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. The legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge.
Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education.
Science and Education, 12(1), 90–113. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022665519862
Lederman, N. G., Kuerbis, P. J., Loving, C. C., Ramey-Gassert, L., Roychoudhury, A., & Spector, B.
S. (1997). Professional knowledge standards for science teacher educators. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 8(4), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017189315539
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 3033

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities. Sociocultural perspectives on science education.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736
(200103)38:3<296::AID-TEA1007>3.0.CO;2-R
Loughran, J. (2014). Professionally developing as a teacher educator. Journal of Teacher Education,
65(4), 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114533386
Loughran, J., & Berry, A. (2005). Modelling by teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education,
21(2), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.12.005
Lunenberg, M., Dengerink, J., & Korthagen, F. (2014). The professional teacher educator:
Professional roles, behaviour and development of teacher educators. Sense Publishers.
Lunenberg, M., Korthagen, F., & Swennen, A. (2007). The teacher educator as a role model.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 586–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.001
Lunenberg, M., Murray, J., Smith, K., & Vanderlinde, R. (2016). Collaborative teacher educator
professional development in Europe: Different voices. One Goal Professional Development in
Education, 43(4), 556–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1206032
McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher
education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher
Education, 64(5), 378–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113493807
Menter, I., & Flores, M. A. (2021). Connecting research and professionalism in teacher education.
European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.
1856811
Ministry of Education. (2020). The New Zealand curriculum online: Technology. https://
nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum/Technology
Ministry of Education and Research. (2016). Subject-deepening-understanding. A renewal of the
knowledge promotion. Oslo.
Ministry of Education and Research. (2017). Teacher Education 2025. National strategy for quality
and cooperation in teacher education. Ministry of Education and Research.
Molander, B.-O., & Hamza, K. (2018). Transformation of professional identities from scientist to
teacher in a Short-Track Science Teacher Education program. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 29(6), 504–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1473749
Mork, S. M. (2005). Argumentation in science lessons: Focusing on the teacher role. Nordic Studies
in Science Education, 1(1), 16–29.
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University
Press.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Loveless, T. (2016). 20 years of TIMSS. International trends in
mathematics and science achievement, curriculum, and instruction. https://www.iea.nl/
publications/study-reports/international-reports-iea-studies/20-years-timss
Munkebye, E., Scheie, E., Gabrielsen, A., Jordet, A., Misund, S., Nergård, T., & Øyehaug, A. B.
(2020). Interdisciplinary primary school curriculum units for sustainable development.
Environmental Education Research, 26(6), 795–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.
1750568
Munthe, E. (2019). Research-Based teacher education. In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
teacher education (pp. 1–5). Springer Singapore.
Munthe, E., & Rogne, M. (2015). Research based teacher education. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 46, 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.006
Murray, J., & Vanassche, E. (2019). Research capacity building in and on teacher education:
Developing practice and learning. Nordic Journal of Education and Practice, 13(2), 114–129.
https://doi.org/10.23865/up.v13.1975
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National Academic
Press.
National Research Council. (2012a). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowl-
edge and skills in the 21st century. The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012b). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscut-
ting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.
3034 S. M. MORK ET AL.

Niemi, H. (2016). Academic and practical: Research-based teacher education in Finland. In B.

Moon (Ed.), Do universities have a role in the Education and Training of teachers? An
International analysis of policy and practice (pp. 19–33). Cambrigde University Press.
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematics and
financial literacy. OECD Publications.
OECD. (2019). Future of Education and Skills 2030: Conceptual Learning Framework. Skills for
2030. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/skills/
Skills_for_2030_concept_note.pdf
Osborne, J. (2010). Discourse. Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical dis-
course. Science, 328(5977), 463–466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944
Osborne, J. (2014). Scientific practices and inquiry in the science classroom. In N. G. Lederman &
S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook on research in science education (Vol. 2, pp. 579–599). Routledge.
Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Wallberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007).
Science education NOW: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. European Commission.
Rollnick, M., & Mavhunga, E. (2017). Pedagogical content knowledge. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan
(Eds.), Science education: An International course companion (pp. 507–522). Sense.
Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground – A literature
review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education, 52(2),
161–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1206351
Sawyer, K. S. (2006). The new science of learning. In K. S. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook
of the learning sciences (pp. 1–18). Cambridge University Press.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational
Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003
Smith, K. (2005). Teacher educators’ expertise: What do novice teachers and teacher educators
say? Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.12.008
Smith, K., & Flores, M. A. (2019). The Janus faced teacher educator. European Journal of Teacher
Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2019.1646242
Stroupe, D., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, S. (2020). Preparing Science Teachers Through
Practice-Based teacher education. Harvard Education Press.
Swennen, A., Jones, K., & Volman, M. (2010). Teacher educators: Their identities, sub-identities
and implications for professional development. Professional Development in Education, 36(1–2),
131–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415250903457893
Tatto, M. T., & Furlong, J. (2015). Research and teacher education: Papers from the BERA-RSA
inquiry. Oxford Review of Education, 41(2), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.
1017404
UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. https://
unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2018). Ambitious science teaching. Harvard
Education Press.
Windschitl, M., Thomson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core Set of instruc-
tional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878–903. https://doi.
org/10.1002/sce.21027
Zangori, L., Peel, A., Kinslow, A., Friedrichsen, P., & Sadler, T. D. (2017). Student development of
model-based reasoning about carbon cycling and climate change in a socio-scientific issues unit.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(10), 1249–1273. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21404