self-study of science teaching and science …...analysis of self-study and science teaching and...

Self-Study of Science Teaching and ScienceTeacher Education Practices

Considering and Contesting Knowledge and Authority

Shawn Michael Bullock

ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2The Role of Disciplinary Knowledge in Educational Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Science Education, Self-Study, and the Precarity of Disciplinary Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5The Authority of Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Tensions in Teaching About Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Self-Study as Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Future Directions for Exploring Self-Study and Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

AbstractThe intersections between self-study methodology and science educationresearch, broadly considered, are often tacit. In this chapter, I hope to complicatethese conversations by contesting the kinds of disciplinary boundaries invokedbetween science education and self-study. I begin by highlighting some episte-mological and ontological barriers that tend to exist in a variety of literatures. Ithen use three ideas in self-study that have arisen from science teacher educatorsto analyze and reflect on the nature of knowledge as framed by different disci-plinary traditions. The concepts of the authority of experience, tensions, and self-study as professional development will thus guide our historical and conceptualanalysis of self-study and science teaching and science teacher education, with aview to reducing the tacit and explicit boundaries that have often existed inconsiderations of this work. I conclude with an appeal to acknowledging thedifferent ways of knowing about science education, science teaching and

S. M. Bullock (*)University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKe-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020J. Kitchen (ed.), 2nd International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and TeacherEducation, Springer International Handbooks of Education,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1710-1_31-1

1

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/978-981-13-1710-1_31-1&domain=pdf

mailto:[email protected]

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1710-1_31-1

learning, and science teacher education so that conversations across disciplinesmight be more productive.

KeywordsScience education · Science teaching · Authority of experience · Tensions in self-study · Professional development · Teacher education · Knowledge of teaching

Introduction

The intersections between self-study methodology and science education research,broadly considered, are often tacit. A search for self-study and science educationreveals relatively few results, particularly if one requires that the self-study methodsand methodology involved need to be grounded in the approaches reviewed andanalyzed in this handbook. There are fewer examples still when one examines theintersections between science education research conducted within the disciplines ofscience, as opposed to science education more generally. Indeed, it is not difficult toimagine questions and stereotypes that might immediately be raised by particularcommunities within self-study, science education, and discipline-based scienceeducation when considering each other’s work.

In this chapter, I hope to complicate these conversations by contesting the kindsof disciplinary boundaries invoked between science education and self-study. Inparticular, I will begin by arguing that the debates about the nature of knowledgewithin curriculum studies help to shed light on the tensions within and betweendebates in science education research, self-study methodology research, and teachereducation more generally. I will then invoke a particular lens from curriculum theoryto consider alongside debates in the literature. The bulk of the chapter will focuson three significant conceptualizations of self-study that have arisen from scienceteacher educators who, while speaking to a broad audience in both self-studymethodology and in educational research more generally, have grounded the devel-opment of their ideas within their experiences of science teaching and scienceteacher education. The concepts of the authority of experience, tensions, and self-study as professional development will thus guide our historical and conceptualanalysis of self-study and science teaching and science teacher education, with aview to reducing the tacit and explicit boundaries that have often existed in consid-erations of this work.

The Role of Disciplinary Knowledge in Educational Research

One key debate in the field of curriculum studies that seems to show no signsof dissipating is the debate around the importance of disciplinary knowledge ineducation. Michael Young (1971), for example, argued that knowledge was sociallyconstructed and thus struggles over what was represented in the school curriculumare, in fact, an expression of power relations in society. His work was influential both

2 S. M. Bullock

because he was a student of leading sociologist Basil Bernstein and because his workappeared alongside that of Bourdieu and Bernstein at a time when sociologists wereraising questions about organizational features of schooling (e.g., which subjectswere taught in school and how these subjects might be managed). In the sameinfluential tome, he further argued that any form of institutionalized knowledge,school curricula included, can be critiqued from the perspective of analyzing thetensions between “official” and “unofficial” forms of knowledge and that differencesbetween said forms of knowledge exist only because certain kinds of knowledge arevalued by the powerful.

Significantly, Young (2010) later completely changed his mind and nowadvocates for a return to more traditional forms of knowledge in school and awayfrom a more skills or outcome-based approach to learning that was, largely, enthu-siastically espoused by his many followers after his influential 1971 tome. Youngnow argues that theoretical and everyday concepts are radically different and thatthere are inherently different types of knowledge that can be categorized beyondpower relations, stating: “It is important to distinguish between the curriculum as theconditions for acquiring new knowledge and pedagogy, which refers to the activitiesof teaching and learning involved in the processes of transmission and acquisition”(p. 18). Put another way, Young argued that schools exist, in part, because societybelieves that there are some specialized forms of knowledge that are not easilyobtained just via experiences in the world. Recalling Loughran’s (2006) dissectionand critique of the concept of a pedagogy of teacher education, one can see that thedebate exemplified in Young’s writings on the role of knowledge in school curriculaexists, albeit in slightly different forms, within the teacher education literature morebroadly and the self-study literature more specifically. Knowledge of teachingteachers and knowledge of the pedagogy of teaching teachers are different kindsof knowledge. Indeed, researchers such as Pinnegar and Hamilton (2009) have longmade the argument that knowledge of the pedagogy of teaching teachers, particu-larly that which is gained through self-study methodology, is oriented from amoral commitment that reflects an ontological rather than an epistemologicalcommitment.

Similarly, it is not difficult to make a conceptual leap from Young’s (1971)critique of the school curricula and contemporary tensions that exist in scienceeducation, teacher education, and the self-study of science teaching and scienceteacher education. There is considerable research in science education that isconducted by scientists and reported in scientific journals; one might call thesediscipline-based education research (DBER). Such research often carries moreimport with scientists, policy-makers, and science teachers because those whowork in the natural sciences tend to occupy a higher status than those who work inthe social sciences, particularly in education. Thus the power of the higher status of“knowledge” about teaching science from science professors affords them a strongervoice in the literature. Carl Wieman, for example, lends a particular kind of authorityto research in science education because of his status as a Nobel Laureate. He wasthe subject of an article in the eminent journal Science – notable both for its statusand its tendency to avoid citations to educational research literature – in which he isquoted as saying “The way that most research universities across North America

Self-Study of Science Teaching and Science Teacher Education Practices 3

teach science to undergraduates is worse than ineffective. . .it’s unscientific” (Mervis2013, p. 292). Writing for Issues in Science and Technology, Wieman (2012) himselfbegins with the assertion:

The current approach to STEM education is built on the assumption that students come toschool with different brains and that education is the process of immersing these brains inknowledge, facts, and procedures, which those brains then absorb to varying degrees. Theextent of absorption is largely determined by the inherent talent and interest of the brain.Thus, those with STEM “talent” will succeed, usually easily, whereas the others have nohope. Research advances in cognitive psychology, brain physiology, and classroom practicesare painting a very different picture of how learning works. (p. 25)

Wieman (2012) then goes on to highlight some research from psychology andits implications for teaching before discussing the “shortcomings” of the currentsystem, beginning with “the typical teacher starts out with a very weak idea of whatit means to think like a scientist of engineer” (p. 28) before opining about whyeducational reform is hard. Unsurprisingly, one of the targets is the “low standards”in teacher “training” programs, which “attract students with the greatest antipathytoward math and science” (p. 32). A paucity of references, none from educationalresearch journals, are found to support a few of the claims made in the chapter.Putting aside the veracity of the cited claims about the problems of science educa-tion, the difficult rhetoric of asserting that teachers need to “think like scientists andengineers” to do their jobs well, the unacknowledged focus exclusively on contextsin the USA, and the lack of congruence between arguing for a “scientific” approachto science education while ignoring a significant body of literature in education – andthat is a lot to put aside – one is inexorably left with the problem of someone withsignificant scientific credibility in the natural sciences dismissing, by virtue ofomission at the minimum, the efforts of those who teach future science teachers.Science teacher educators are not at all mentioned. Presumably, we are complicit inthe unnamed but pervasive “low quality” (p. 32) teacher preparation programs thathe is concerned about. As Labaree (2005) noted, we are most certainly on themargins of disciplinary importance.

It might be considered a rather easy rhetorical device to use the sweepinggeneralizations of a Nobel Laureate to call attention to the problem of authority inscience education, but I would argue that the relationship between discipline-basedscience education research and science education research has similarities to therelationship between teacher education research and self-study research. Many self-study researchers have opined, particularly at the beginning of the field, that it wasdifficult to publish self-study research within mainstream teacher education researchjournals (Arizona Group 1996). Kitchen (2008) had the temerity to examine theeffects of the tenure and review system on his scholarship in self-study education.Much effort has been made to articulate the rigor and relevance of self-study and topush back against the general tendency to consider research that makes particularclaims about generalizability as the gold standard of research on how we might teachteachers. Indeed, I would argue that one significant contribution of self-studyresearch is that it has helped to locate the importance of research on and by teacher

4 S. M. Bullock

educators – a group whom, as Labaree (2005) has noted, are a group that makedifficult practices look easy.

Science Education, Self-Study, and the Precarity of DisciplinaryKnowledge

It is against this backdrop of the tension of knowledge, particularly disciplinaryknowledge of the school curriculum, that I wish to situate this chapter on scienceeducation and self-study methodology. A handbook chapter is naturally a time totake stock of the field and to suggest new avenues for future research and, perhaps, tooffer new critical lenses on work that has been done in the past. Unfortunately, thereis a relative paucity of literature that explicitly focuses on science education and self-study, so much so that it makes unpacking themes and suggesting new directions achallenge – particularly given that I co-edited a volume on self-study in scienceeducation in 2012 (Bullock and Russell 2012). I hope that the ensuing years wouldhave seen more self-study researchers explicitly focus on science education, inparticular the ways in which particular pedagogical approaches used in scienceeducation methods courses might be understood using the lenses afforded by self-study. I would also argue that the global climate crisis, in which we are all impli-cated, gives new warrant for the importance and relevance of issues of knowledge,identity, and practice in the formation of new science teachers.

Regardless, the idea of constructing a more traditional review chapter exploringissues and themes that have emerged from the intersections of self-study and scienceeducation seemed problematic to me early in the process of thinking about thischapter. After some further consideration of both my own entry into self-study andthose self-study methodologists that might at least partially identify with scienceeducation, I realized that perhaps a different framing was in order. Perhaps a partof the challenge lies in the fact that many of us who identify, in one form or another,as science education researchers who do self-study tend to separate the fields,somewhat. It is not uncommon to find self-study researchers in several disciplinesthat have parallel publishing pathways – in this case, one pathway for scienceeducation research and one for self-study. Furthermore, people such as Tom Russell,John Loughran, and Amanda Berry – long-standing and heavily cited self-studyresearchers – tend to focus more on connecting their self-study work to more generalproblems of teacher education and developing self-study methodology further.

This is not to say that self-study of science education, as understood via the lensesoffered by this handbook, is not undertaken. For example, Wiebke and Park Rogers(2014) examined the transition from being a science teacher to a teacher educatoralongside how one might teach lesson sequencing to preservice teachers via self-study methodology. Trumbull (1998) examined the interactions between her teachercandidates’ personal histories before entering a teacher education program and theirdeveloping selves as science teachers within host school contexts. Garbett (2011)used self-study methodology to investigate the ways in which using a peer-teachingapproach in her science teacher education course might support her belief in


constructivist approaches to teaching about teaching science. Goodnough (2005)investigated constructivist themes in her pedagogy of science teaching as well,choosing problem-based learning as a key intervention in her teaching. Russell(2012) provides a helpful review of a collection of chapters that explore intersectionsbetween science education, science teaching, professional development, and self-study.

Although an atypical intersection between science and self-study methodology,Clarke, Erickson, Collins, and Phelan (2005) used complexity science as a way ofconsidering cohorts within teacher education programs, concluding in part that:

Our commitment to self-study is an essential aspect of a recursive process of doing, thinkingabout what was done, making adjustments, and doing again. In this way, we adapt toemergent circumstances and participate in the emergence of the practice itself. Hence weargue that the perspective on learning phenomena and practices offered by complexityscience represents a new and important theoretical frame that complements the manyapproaches for studying learning and teaching practices. (Clarke et al., p. 175)

Although complexity science has not caught on broadly as a lens for interpretingconclusions drawn from self-study, there are a set of physical education teachereducators who work in self-study methodology that have explored complexityscience-based thinking in significant ways (e.g., Ovens et al. 2013). This is perhapsnot surprising given that Fletcher (2012) pointed out the many similarities facingfuture science teachers and future physical education teachers, including bothteacher-related factors (i.e., prior experiences of the subject as students and contentknowledge) and institutional factors (i.e., the relative place of the subjects relative tosubjects such as literacy and numeracy at the elementary school level).

It is also important to recognize that there is research that makes use of variouskinds of self-study methods and/or self-study methodology published inmore typical science education journals. Akerson, Pongsanon, Weiland, andNargund-Joshi (2014) used research journals, video-recorded lessons, and samplesof student work to examine the ways in which their professional identities aselementary teachers developed alongside their developing understandings on howto teach concepts related to the nature of science (NOS). They argued that onesignificant purpose to their self-study was to learn about themselves as teachers,citing some self-study methodology chapters from the first edition of this handbookbut, curiously, no works by self-study researchers who had written about intersec-tions between science teaching, science teacher education, or self-study. Jones andEick (2007) considered the ways in which they collaborated with local elementaryschool teachers within an inquiry-based curriculum in middle school. Theyconcluded that the efforts of their science education students who worked alongsideelementary teachers were highly appreciated and that future work might focusmore clearly on how disparate content backgrounds might be productively used tofurther strengthen partnerships between university-based teacher educators, teachercandidates, and local teachers. Curiously, again, there was no mention of any sort ofself-study research, as defined within this handbook and related literature. In

6 S. M. Bullock

contrast, Faikhamata and Clarke (2013) explicitly used literature from self-studymethodology to analyze how teacher educators might enhance their own pedagog-ical content knowledge in order to work more effectively with preservice teachers.They highlighted the tensions that exist between what they call subject-specific (i.e.,science) and domain-specific (i.e., biology, chemistry, or physics) pedagogies,highlighting that the ways in which those who majored in biology, chemistry, orphysics before becoming teachers might engage with general pedagogicalapproaches to science teaching in different ways.

Alongside mainstream self-study research and mainstream science educationresearch, I might have decided to examine any one of a number of works by well-known scientists that contain, with mixed results, some of the methodologicalmarkers of self-study. Certainly, curriculum work by Nobel Laureates concernedabout the education of future science teachers can be considered to have some of themoral imperative that Pinnegar and Hamilton (2009) highlight as being so essentialto self-study work. Similarly, one can find examples of action research andautoethnography in science education, conducted by teacher educators, that mightbe positioned as self-study.

Ultimately, though, this approach felt somewhat hollow after I consideredLaBoskey’s (2004) assertion that self-study work needs to be self-initiated andself-focused. It is difficult to make the case that work using more casual definitionsof self-study meets these criteria, in my view, as the desired outcome is oftensomething other than a more nuanced understanding of personal practice of teachingteachers. It is often, at best, aimed to cause alarm at the poor quality of undergraduatescience teaching and, in many cases, advocate for a particular intervention that seemsto be created in the belief that interventions in teaching can be considered indepen-dently of those who teach science and science education. Frustrated, I decided thatthe paucity of literature to review demanded a different question: Why is it that self-study of science teacher education has encouraged so many science teacher educa-tors to focus more on general problems of teacher education, to make the connec-tions that Zeichner (2016) charged were lacking, and to develop self-studymethodology more generally?

To respond to this question, this chapter will consider the history of some of themajor ideas in self-study methodology that seem to have developed in the crucible ofscience teacher education classrooms. Exclusion from this chapter does not indicatethat a particular piece of research is not within the umbrella of self-study and scienceeducation, only that it did not represent a particular trajectory of the development ofan idea about self-study methodology. I have not attempted to catalog a completehistory of intersections between self-study and science education. Rather, I will use aheuristic from curriculum studies as a tool for thinking about self-study and scienceeducation. Christou and DeLuca conceived of five threats to curriculum studies:jargon, contemporaneity, grandiosity, discursive balkanization, and methodologicalinsufficiency. Briefly, these threats refer to the tendencies in curriculum studies tointroduce new terms to claim academic territory, to claim that ideas are new andwithout intellectual history, and to claim that ideas are likely to have sweeping


changes across a plethora of fields and areas of inquiry. Additionally, Christou andDeLuca noted the tendency to fracture curricular discussions in increasingly specific,niche groupings, and that the warranted assertions (Dewey 1938) for claims madeare not clearly articulated.

My hypothesis is that those who engage in self-study of science teacher educationoften move to less discipline-specific work in self-study because the questions theyhave explored in science teacher education classrooms have led them to concernsabout teacher education that might be framed in the way that Christou and DeLuca(2013) have framed the threats to curriculum studies. Crucially, as we shall see, aconsideration of the history of three crucial ideas that had their genesis in self-studyof science teacher education, Munby and Russell’s (1994) authority of experience,Berry’s (2004, 2007a, b) tensions, and Loughran’s (2014) self-study as professionaldevelopment for teacher educators, offers important ways forward to the critiques ofeducation research more generally. In so doing, I will demonstrate how 3 ideas fromself-study of science teacher education, combined with 5 lenses of a critique ofcurriculum studies, go a long way to responding to debates about knowledgeand pedagogy in education more generally and, in particular, research on teachereducation.

The Authority of Experience

HughMunby and Tom Russell are both well-cited scholars of science education whospent a lot of time developing and expanding on work by Donald Schön (1983).Additionally, Russell was one of the founders of what came to be known as self-study methodology and has been an extraordinarily active member of the communityever since. Munby and Russell developed the concept of the authority of experiencewithin the crucible of Russell’s physics curriculum methods course during a 1-yearbachelor of education (and teacher certification) program at Queen’s University.Significantly, Russell had just completed 1 year of teaching one secondary schoolphysics course, and, at the time of his research with physics teacher candidates,he had agreed to repeat the arrangement with the local secondary school.Unsurprisingly, this arrangement added to Russell’s credibility as a teacher educatorfrom the perspective of his students, one “not otherwise granted to professors ofeducation” (p. 89). In this way, a significant and somewhat atypical context forlearning about learning to teach was created: a teacher educator (Russell) was setup to conduct a self-study of his practice teaching future teachers while simulta-neously teaching the same disciplinary subject (physics) at a local secondary school.As Munby and Russell (1994) noted, “The linkage between school and universityprograms through Tom’s simultaneous teaching in both contexts created an addi-tional and unusual opportunity to explore Schön’s perspective on the development ofprofessional knowledge” (p. 87) – a perspective that Munby and Russell had beenexploring for some years already before this self-study (e.g., Munby 1989; Munbyand Russell 1989, 1990; Russell 1987). It is also noteworthy that although this paper

8 S. M. Bullock

was published shortly after the formation of the self-study methodology specialinterest group (SIG) of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) –and thus the unofficial genesis of the formalization of self-study of teaching andteacher education practices as methodology – it does not overtly label itself as a self-study. Munby, the first author, was labeled as a “researcher partner, [who] served aslistening post and occasional observer throughout” (p. 87). AlthoughMunby was notlabeled as a critical friend as in Costa and Kallick (1993) or Schuck and Russell(2005), one does wonder about the extent to which the co-construction of knowledgeabout teaching teachers between Munby and Russell, both within this article andelsewhere, might be labeled nowadays as collaborative self-study, critical friendship,or some combination therein.

The core data for this article came from interviews from teacher candidates inRussell’s physics curriculum methods class. A wide variety of comments fromteachers are presented, and the authors argue that the data reveal, in the main, thatteacher candidates find the new ways of learning that are expected of them in teachereducation programs remarkably difficult. Munby and Russell (1994) highlighted thatteacher candidates are particularly focused on the importance of “practice” teachingin their school placements and “predictable references to technical, mechanical, andmore concrete matters which we take to be polite requests for more tell us how weare supposed to teach” (p. 88, emphasis original). Additionally, Munby and Russellunderscored that even the initially popular idea of observing a teacher educator teachin a local physics classroom was tempered by the challenges teacher candidatesexperienced in asking meaningful questions about what they were observing.Perhaps most puzzling was the seemingly bimodal nature of the responses: someteacher candidates wanted far more direct information about how to teach, and otherswondered why their peers seemed so-called focused on best practices.

The significant contribution made by Munby and Russell (1994) was theirdecision to use the concept of authority to shed light on the puzzling yet familiarnature of teacher candidates’ responses to Russell’s teaching efforts. They beganwith the premise that “the authority within teacher education courses is likely to beno different from that previously experienced; it is the authority of the text and theperson at the front” (p. 92). Munby and Russell then argued that teacher educationdraws upon a different kind of authority, that of the authority of experience, and thatone might productively use the authority to understand the tensions inherent inthinking about teacher education:

We use the term authority of experience because of our concern that students never masterlearning from experience during preservice [teacher education] programs in a way that givesthem direct access to the nature of the authority of experience . . . [if] learning fromexperience has its own epistemology, then our concern is that learning from experience isnever clearly contrasted with learning that can be expressed and conveyed in propositions . . .In their many years of schooling preservice teachers have seen two basic concepts ofauthority at work: the authority of reason and the authority of position . . . Unfortunately,school’s preoccupation with the authority of reason and of position can cause teachers andstudents to ignore a type of authority lying at the heart of action and performance: theauthority of experience. (p. 92)


The concept of the authority of experience not only suggested an explanation forthe difficulties teacher candidates had in making sense of Russell’s unwillingness toadopt an approach to teaching grounded in sharing best practices, it also highlightssome of the reasons teachers find it challenging to make the transition to teachereducator:

The explanatory potential of the authority of experience is evident in the predicamentof experienced teachers appointed to faculties and colleges of education. Their knowl-edge-in-action [gained as schoolteachers] gives them the authority of experience. But thecircumstances of telling their [preservice teachers] about teaching unavoidably commitsthem to the authority of being in charge, and their [preservice teachers] are automaticallyplaced under authority. The authority of experience gets transformed into the authority thatsays, I know because I have been there, and so you should listen. The authority of experiencesimply does note transfer because it resides in having the experience. This [conclusion]coincides with Schön’s view that knowledge-in-action cannot be transformed into proposi-tions . . . Experience in the role of teacher is what is new and exciting for preservice teachers,but their opportunities to learn the authority of that experience are hampered in a funda-mental way by their being subject to observation by cooperating teachers and by represen-tatives of the university. Those observers are in positions of authority with respect to[preservice] teachers . . . Thus the potential of the practicum to be a forum for beginningto understand and interpret the authority of experience is restricted and undermined. (Munbyand Russell, pp. 92–93)

There is indeed a lot to unpack in these comments; one of the most salientmessages may be that teacher education programs do not pay sufficient attentionto teaching preservice teachers how to attend to, and learn from, the new types oflearning required of them. In this particular study, for example, Munby and Russellhighlighted some of the more obvious signals to teacher candidates that teachereducation is different from other forms of university-based education: a pass/failgrading system, a requirement to spend significant amounts of time in local schoolsand to be assessed by nonuniversity personnel (associate/mentor teachers), and amore holistic approach to curricular requirements for coursework are all likely to berather unfamiliar. The idea that teacher candidates might be struggling with learninghow to learn because the nature of authority within their educational context haschanged is one of the most esoteric ideas imaginable for beginning teachers, yet itmay be absolutely critical to helping them to understand and interpret their ownexperiences.

The concept of the authority of experience has become a crucial touchstonewithin self-study methodology as well. Pinnegar (1998) argued that the authorityof experience formed the warrant for self-study methodology – the justification forhow those who use the methodology can make claims. In the first edition of thishandbook, Samaras, Hicks, and Garvey Berger (2004) situated those workingSchön’s ideas, including the concept of the authority of experience offeredby Munby and Russell (1994), as being foundational to the development of whatthey termed “personal history self-study.” The connection was made particularlystrong because of the connections between personal reflections (engaging in the self)and actions taken. Richardson (1996), writing in the second edition of the handbook

10 S. M. Bullock

of teacher education research, highlighted the value of teacher educators such asRussell exploring his practices and beliefs about teaching teachers within thecontexts of school and universities. She also foreshadowed the growth of theburgeoning self-study methodology SIG within AERA. Again writing in the firstedition of this handbook, Berry (2004) used the authority of experience as a wayof thinking about practical knowledge, “a form of knowledge gained throughexperience [that is] personal, context-bound, and includes implicit knowing, thatis, a kind of knowledge that is embedded within action that cannot be separated fromthat action” (p. 1305). In particular, Berry called attention to the concept of theauthority of experience for thinking about the hierarchy between “traditional theo-retical” knowledge and “the status of knowledge derived through personal experi-ence” (p. 1305).

A couple of years after Munby and Russell (1994) appeared, Abell, Bryan, andAnderson (1998) examined the framing positions of elementary preservice scienceteachers with respect to their self-identities as science teachers, the ways in whichthey analyzed video case studies, and the ways in which they problematizedemergent issues in science classrooms. The conclusion of the paper is one of theearly clear articulations of the importance of Munby and Russell’s (1994) work:

Furthermore, we believe that it is the responsibility of science teacher educators to helppreservice teachers recognize the validity of experience in shaping their theories. We wantthem to be able to learn from their experiences in the virtual world and in the real world ofthe classroom, and regard their experience as a source of authority (Munby and Russell1994). We believe that the authority of experience, derived through reflection in and onpractice, will be meaningful and useful to them as teachers. (Abell et al. 1998, p. 507)

In this way, we can see how ideas developed from an early self-study of teachereducation practices conducted by two science teacher educators were first presentedin a more general teacher education literature before then being taken up within amajor, well-regarded, journal specifically focused on science teaching and learning.

Tensions in Teaching About Teaching

Amanda Berry’s use of tensions as a heuristic for thinking about knowledge gainedfrom self-study of teacher education practices has emerged as a popular way forother self-study researchers to consider the results of investigation into their ownpractice. Berry is a significant contributor to self-study methodology and scienceeducation research and, like Russell, comes from a background as a science teacher.In a chapter in a previous edition of this handbook, an article, and a book (Berry2004, 2007a, b), she explained that tensions offered a way of thinking aboutproblems of practice she encountered as a biology teacher educator. By using twoextremes of an idea, she was able to “to capture the sense of conflicting purpose andambiguity held within each” (2007b, p. 120). Berry was also careful to point out thatthe named tensions interacted within and with each other, “as interconnections


between tensions become apparent, new knowledge of practice is brought to light”(p. 120). The six tensions reported were:

1. Telling and growth. This tension is embedded in teacher educators’ learning how tobalance their desire to tell prospective teachers about teaching and providing opportuni-ties for prospective teachers to learn about teaching for themselves.

2. Confidence and uncertainty. This is a tension experienced by teacher educators as theymove away from the confidence of established approaches to teaching to explore new,more uncertain approaches to teacher education.

3. Action and intent. This tension arises from discrepancies between goals that teachereducators set out to achieve in their teaching and the ways in which these goals can beinadvertently undermined by the actions chosen to attain them.

4. Safety and challenge (named by Korthagen 2001, p. 75). This tension comes from teachereducators engaging students in forms of pedagogy intended to challenge and confrontthinking about teaching and learning and pushing students beyond the climate of safetynecessary for learning to take place.

5. Valuing and reconstructing experience. This tension is embedded in the teacher educa-tor’s role of helping prospective teachers recognize the value of personal experience inlearning to teach, yet at the same time, helping them to see that there is more to teachingthan simply acquiring experience.

6. Planning and being responsive. This tension emerges from difficulties associated withimplementing a predetermined curriculum and responding to learning opportunities thatarise within the context of practice. (Berry 2007b, p. 120)

Berry’s study was partially motivated by what would eventually come to beknown as the literature on becoming a teacher educator, a significant subgenre ofself-study methodological literature that has been present from the early daysof the field (e.g., Arizona Group 1996) right through to the present day (e.g.,DeMink-Carthew et al. 2017; see Williams, Ritter, and Bullock (2012) for a helpfulreview of the first 20 years of this kind of literature). Berry (2007b) expresseddissatisfaction with what she referred to as a “pedagogy of presentation” approachbecause she realized that she could not “transfer [her] ideas and experiences into theminds of prospective teachers and expect them to enact [her] approach in their ownpractice” (p. 118). Put another way, Berry realized that she was struggling with whatMunby and Russell (1994) referred to as the authority of experience. Like mostteacher educators, she found it difficult to overcome the gap in experience thatexisted between her and her biology teacher candidates.

Berry (2007a, b) employed an extensive data set including interviews, videorecordings of each class, assignments from her students, email correspondence, fieldnotes, collegial observation, and a personal research journal. The study is notewor-thy for, among other things, its precision in the use of methods and of the transitionbetween data and the use of tensions as a conceptual frame. Berry (2007b) providedsome explanation within her text as to both the initial and enduring appeals of usingtensions to make sense of the complicated work of teacher educators:

The notion of tensions offered a useful way of describing teacher educators’ experiences oftheir practice (including my own). It captured well the feelings of internal turmoil experi-enced by teacher educators as they found themselves pulled in different directions by

12 S. M. Bullock

competing pedagogical demands in their work and the difficulties they experienced as theylearnt to recognize and manage these demands. Tensions have, for the most part, grown outof teacher educators’ attempts to match goals for prospective teachers’ learning with theneeds and concerns expressed by prospective teachers for their own learning. (pp. 119–120)

The fundamental difficulty that beginning teacher educators have in reconcilingtheir vision of teaching teachers with the reality of what they are able to accomplishis similar to the disconnect experienced by new teachers, who often struggle with thediscrepancy between their intended and enacted practices (Hammerness 2008).

Berry’s (2007b) use of tensions enabled her to analyze carefully the relationshipbetween and challenges posed to the nature of knowledge used by teacher educators.More specifically, she draws from Korthagen and Kessels’ (1999) considerationsof episteme and phronesis to highlight the role of tensions in developingboth phronesis, defined as “the development of personal perceptions while tryingto act to improve one’s own teacher education practices” (p. 131) and phronesis fromepisteme, defined as “the results of personal efforts to take research-based findingsand enact them in personal practice” (p. 131). Korthagen and Kessels’ (1999)considerations of episteme and phronesis from a reading of Aristotle are not withoutdebate, but Berry’s link between their ideas and a use of tensions as a framing devicehas resonated both with self-study researchers more generally and with self-studyresearchers interested in science education.

One useful example of Berry’s work as a framing device is Wiebke and ParkRogers’ (2014) exploration of Wiebke’s transition from science teacher to scienceteacher educator. In particular, they focused on the development of a processfor teaching future elementary school science teachers how to construct a lessonsequence. Grounded in the concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), firstgenerally articulated by Shulman (1986, 1987) but strongly represented within thecorpus of science education research, the authors view self-study as a way of“developing [their] PCK for teaching elementary science teachers” (Wiebke andPark Rogers, p. 223). The authors used a version of critical friendship, somewhatundefined, to analyze collaborative journal entries using the lenses offered byBerry’s aforementioned six tensions. Wiebke stated that the tension between tellingand growth was most significant, whereas interactions with Park Rogers helped bothto realize that telling and growth was augmented by the tensions between confidenceand uncertainty and planning and being responsive. These comments underscoreBerry’s original assertion that tensions are a heuristic tool and that said tensionsinteract with one another and thus should not be considered as isolated concepts.

As with Munby and Russell’s (1994) work, Berry’s (2004, 2007a, b) analysisresonates with teacher education researchers outside of the sphere of science educa-tion. Goodwin et al. (2014), for example, cite Berry (2007b) as an example of theimportance of developing mentoring opportunities for new teacher educators giventhe difficult transition from teacher to doctoral student to teacher educator, notablyusing the terms tensions and conflicts and citing other self-study work by Dinkelmanet al. (2006). Margolin (2011) cites Berry’s work when describing self-study as “aunique form of research that is responsive to the demands of the practice context”


(p. 10). In both cases, and in many others, we see that work done within the crucibleof a science teacher education classroom by a science teacher educator engaged withself-study methodology produced a useful research tool. Berry (2004) commentedon the importance of these sorts of contributions from self-study work:

One of the major challenges for the self-study of teacher education practices continues toinvolve finding ways to remain true to itself in communicating the particularities of expe-rience while, at the same time, drawing out generalisable knowledge that can be widelyavailable to others. (p. 1328)

It would appear that her use of tensions as an heuristic met, in many ways, therequirements to produce more generalizable knowledge about teaching futureteachers, the transition from teacher to teacher educator, and the professional devel-opment of teacher educators. This last point will be taken up more fulsomely in thefollowing section with a consideration of an article by John Loughran, one of themost widely cited self-study authors and another science teacher educator.

Self-Study as Professional Development

The unique demands placed on teacher educators have been recognized for sometime within the broader teacher education literature. David Labaree, for example, hasconsistently highlighted the ways in which teacher educators are often marginalizedboth within their own institutions and within broader societal concerns. Labaree(2005) argued that teacher educators engage in “a difficult practice that looks easy”(p. 188), in part because of the apprenticeship of observation (Lortie 1975) thatmakes most adults feel as though they have a unique insight into the work of teachersand, in part, because the invisible “second layer of expertise that is distinct to theteacher and teacher educator—the knowledge about how to teach particular subjectsto particular students” (p. 189).

Compounding these issues is the fact that many teacher educators begin theirprofessional lives as teachers and that the transition from teacher to teacher educatoris anything but straightforward (Bullock 2009; Dinkelman et al. 2006; Williams et al.2012) and, as Berry (2004) noted, often relies on past successful practices as ateacher in order to develop an initial framing position as a teacher educator.Loughran (2014) takes on not only the issues around the transition to teachereducation (regardless of past professional history) but also the nature of teachereducation and the importance of researching teacher education practices. Althoughneither explicitly framed as the self-study of a science teacher educator, norpublished in a journal devoted either to science education or self-study, Loughran(2014) merits inclusion in this chapter because he introduces self-study as a way todevelop professionally as a teacher educator – and he does so from a significantamount of research exploring intersections between science education and self-study.

14 S. M. Bullock

John Loughran is also a highly cited and well-published figure in self-studymethodology and science education. Along with Russell, he is an inaugural editorof the flagship journal, Studying Teacher Education (Berry is now one of thecoeditors of this journal, along with Julian Kitchen). Like Russell and Berry,Loughran comes from a science teaching background. Loughran (2014) begins byhighlighting some of the challenges in becoming a teacher educator by citingliterature from both within and outside of self-study. It is common, for example, tocite lack of support for the transition to teacher education as a problem facing newteacher educators. In responding to comments from Berry (2013) about the necessityof having independent space to construct knowledge of practice, Loughrancomments:

Developing professionally carries expectations of a need for teacher educators to be able toconceptualize and enact their own professional learning in ways that require careful planningand thoughtful actions. To do that requires understanding the nature of teacher education inways that are supported by genuinely reflecting on, and responding to, the needs, demands,and expectations of teaching about teaching within the academy. (p. 273)

Loughran resists the temptation to then argue for “upskilling staff to perform innew ways,” instead arguing that teacher educators need to have space to engage inongoing professional development (p. 273). In particular, he argues that developinga pedagogy of teacher education is more important than developing more traditionalideas surrounding knowledge of a teacher education curriculum. Crucially, he arguesthat the construction of a pedagogy of teacher education is something that needs tobe shared with the preservice teacher education students in one’s classroom:

The nature of a teacher educator’s knowledge and practice of teaching teaching can easily bemisunderstood and/or misrepresented. Knowledge and practice of teaching teaching requiresmuch more than the simple delivery of information about teaching, or sharing tips and tricksthat have been “picked up” or accumulated through school teaching experience (which itselfharks back to issues associated with a teacher educator’s transitionary issues in moving fromschool to university). Teaching teaching is about thoughtfully engaging with practice beyondthe technical; it is about using the cauldron of practice to expose pedagogy (especially one’sown) to scrutiny. (p. 275)

Loughran’s comments reflect a consideration of the ideas explored in the twoprevious sections of this chapter. In the first instance, they can be seen as a way ofresponding to Munby and Russell’s concern about the authority of experience; ateacher educator who exposes their own teaching to scrutiny in their classroom ismaking a concerted attempt to address the disconnect between the experiences ofteacher educator and preservice teachers. Berry’s work on tensions articulates someof the fears, uncertainties, and challenges that might result from this difficult work.

In the third part of the article, Loughran (2014) introduces self-study of teachereducation practices as an established, and useful, way of describing, interpreting, andanalyzing one’s practice as a teacher educator. He highlights both the importance ofself-study for challenging assumptions about one’s practice by citing Bullough and


Pinnegar (2001) and the importance of moving beyond personal stories of practicewith a link to earlier work (Loughran, 2010). Anticipating some of the potentialconcerns about making one’s practice visible for public scrutiny in the name ofprofessional development, Loughran (2014) commented:

The expectations of quality self-study could be viewed as disconcerting but for many teachereducators it has meant that they have begun to see new opportunities for ways in which toresearch teaching and learning about teaching. In so doing, they have been able to not onlylearn more about their own practice but also, by focusing more attention on the learningabout teaching perspective, better understand the relationship between teaching andlearning in substantive ways. As a consequence, their inquiries have highlighted the roleof reframing (Schön 1983), the taken-for-granted in their practice to become more informedand knowledgeable about teacher education more generally, their teaching about teachingmore specifically, and the learning about teaching by their students of teaching morefundamentally. (p. 278)

Here again, we see Loughran making links to ideas explored in earlier sections.Like Munby and Russell (1994), he sees a significant role for Schön’s (1983)perspectives on the development of professional knowledge. Like Berry (2004,2007a, b), he acknowledges that the process of learning to teach teachers is bothongoing and likely to be fraught with a certain amount of tension.

Loughran’s (2014) central thesis is that teacher educators must have both anopportunity to examine and analyze their practices in meaningful ways andan opportunity to situate such analyses within scholarship. He acknowledges thatprofessionally developing as a teacher educator is not only of relevance to beginningteacher educators; it is also a crucial feature of being a teacher educator. Thecomplexity and messiness of making one’s practice visible was framed as beingboth necessary and fraught over an extended period.

Thus Loughran’s (2014) assertion that self-study should be considered as a formof professional development goes far beyond what Berry might have referred to astips and tricks for teacher educators. An examination of the reference list forhis article reveals a significant number of references either to work done at theintersections of science education and self-study or to authors who have routinelyidentified, at least partially, as science teacher educators. Like Munby and Russelland Berry, Loughran’s work was soon picked up within the larger sphere ofeducational research. In an attempt to conceptualize the nature of a desirable researchdisposition for teacher educators, for example, Tack and Vanderlinde (2014) pick upon Loughran’s suggestion that teacher educators view their careers in terms of aresearch journal. Patton and Parker (2017) quoted Loughran at the beginning of theirarticle to lend credence to the idea of professional development of teacher educatorsbeing a “touchstone” for learning as and becoming a teacher educator, beforefrequently using ideas advanced in Loughran’s article as a foundation for exploringhow physical education teacher educators engaged in communities of practice.Finally, Ping et al. (2018) used Loughran’s (2014) definition comments about theknowledge and skills required to professionally develop as a teacher educator inorder to conduct a systematic review of the literature on the professional learning ofteacher educators for a major journal. Significantly, they concluded in part:

16 S. M. Bullock

Many of the professional activities reported on in our review study are closely related to theteacher educators’ own practice. For example, doing practice-oriented research, especiallyself-studies conducted both individually and collectively, usually starts from the practicalissues or concerns that teacher educators face in their daily teaching practice. Some reasonsexist for self-study research being one of the activities most referred to in the reviewedarticles. Internationally, a large network of teacher educators strongly promotes this kind ofresearch, organizing its own conferences and having its ‘own’ peer-reviewed journal‘Studying Teacher Education’. Self-study provides an efficient approach for teacher educa-tors to explore the why of their routines in their everyday teaching practices and placesinquiry at the center of learning and teaching about teaching. (Ping et al. 2018, p. 102)

Future Directions for Exploring Self-Study and Science Education

This chapter began by arguing that the debates about the nature of knowledge withincurriculum studies help to shed light on the tensions within and between debatesin science education research, self-study methodology research, and teachereducation more generally. In part, I suggested that the intersections betweenscience teaching, science teacher education, and self-study span a number of differ-ent disciplines, methodologies, and traditions and that academic hierarchies andwarrants for “who” should be listened to in debates about science teaching andlearning play out in any consideration of science education and self-study. Putsimply: the so-called discipline-based educational research in science tends to havelittle to do with science education research, and science education research tends toexist rather separately from self-study of science teaching and science educationresearch.

I also introduced Christou and DeLuca’s (2013) critique of curriculum studiesmore broadly as a framing device to think about issues raised in the chapter. Theyarticulated five concerns facing curriculum studies: jargon, contemporaneity, gran-diosity, discursive balkanization, and methodological insufficiency. I would make astrong argument to suggest that the current situation of disconnect in scienceeducation can be understood, at least in part, through these lenses. Each field risksfalling into jargon (e.g., what is a critical friend, anyways?), contemporaneity (e.g.,the natural sciences’ keen interest on the most recent studies), and grandiosity (easilyfound in any discipline, I would argue). The most serious shortcoming is thediscursive balkanization that exists between discipline-based educational researchin science, science education research, and self-study of science teaching and scienceeducation research. There are rare instances of overlap. Likely the critique ofmethodological insufficiency could be used by each group to criticize theother two, with accusations of either being too self-focused (and questionablygeneralizable) or not self-focused enough (and thus too instrumentalist) beingleveled.

In selecting Munby and Russell (1994), Berry (2004, 2007a, b), and Loughran(2014), I have attempted to demonstrate the ways in which research done in thecrucible of science teacher education and self-study methodology might help usbreak away from the trends of discursive balkanization and methodological


insufficiency. Each study introduces a concept that has demonstrably broken freefrom the confines of the self-study of science teacher education to move not only intothe frame of self-study methodology more generally but educational research writlarge. Each problematized our understanding of the nature of knowledge for teachingand for teaching teachers. Munby and Russell built on Schön’s work to call attentionto the relationship between authority, knowledge, and experience of teachingteachers. Berry named the complexity and competition between the kinds of knowl-edge one uses for teaching teachers and the difficult standard one holds oneself towhen enacting a pedagogy of teacher education grounded in theory. Loughranpushed us to consider that self-study methodology provides not only a way ofnavigating the transition into becoming a teacher educator but also a way of makingcontinued professional development via scholarly practice the fundamental work ofany teacher educator.

There have been some promising examples of self-study of science teaching andteacher education that have attempted to break down barriers of disciplinary knowl-edge and methodological allegiances. Many have been cited throughout this chapter,but I encourage the reader to examine some of the following work as well tounderstand how we might move forward more collaboratively in self-study. Santau(2012), for example, provides a fascinating account of how she became a scienceteacher educator after having worked in a laboratory. Her self-study is a potentreminder of the preconceived ideas that laboratory scientists might have aboutscience educators and vice versa. In particular, Santau highlights the ways inwhich her doctoral program in science education did and did not help her makethe transition from laboratory science to teacher education, concluding in part that“A series of assumptions appears to drive the path of a doctoral student who entersacademia and who is, by default, expected to teach teacher candidates withoutexplicit attention to preparation for the role of teacher educator” (pp. 61–62).Osmond and Goodnough (2011) explored just-in-time teaching (JiTT) within thecontext of a science education methods course, in work that will likely appeal tomany discipline-based science educators given the popularity of JiTT approachesin undergraduate coursework in science. Osmond commented that the approachboth strengthened her understanding of preservice teachers’ assumptions aboutscientific concepts and her own pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), a popularlyresearched concept in science education more generally. Nageotte and Buck (2019)used critical friendship to understand dialogic approaches to teaching science inhigher education and, in a poignant comment, suggested that “the challenge ofsilence” (p. 16) is a critical challenge for new science instructors to negotiate intheir work with students. Like the work of Munby and Russell, Berry, and Loughrancited earlier, these self-studies of science teacher education offer ideas useful to thespecialist in science teaching or in science teacher education, as well as the generalistaudience across disciplines. I suggest that future work in self-study and scienceeducation readily identifies itself as embracing traditions from both sets of research,in order to help future researchers make connections between the disciplines.

It has been clear since the beginning of the self-study of teaching and teachereducation practices that there is no one right way to conduct self-study research,

18 S. M. Bullock

although there is a particular kind of coherence. Writing in the closing chapter of anedited volume on self-study and science teacher education, Russell (2012) made thefollowing comment:

To conduct a self-study of one’s teaching practices is to give oneself reason, seeking out thesense in one’s existing practices and in the responses of our students to those practices. Aswe seek to understand more fully our practices and what our students make of them, it isalmost inevitable that puzzles and uncertainties will arise, and these often lead to a reflectiveturn. (p. 199)

In closing, I would like to push Russell’s comments a bit further. In the nextdecade, I hope that those who work in discipline-based educational research withinthe sciences, in mainstream science education research, and at the intersections ofself-study and science education will find ways to share their puzzles and uncer-tainties outside of traditional boundaries. Doing so will require an acknowledgmentof different ways of knowing and different warrants for how we come to know aboutscience education, science teaching and learning, and science teacher education.Given the challenges that our planet currently faces, I would argue that Pinnegar andHamilton’s (2009) comments about the moral commitment of self-study researchersshould exceed existing discursive balkanizations and, hopefully, allow us to findways to speak with one another more directly.

References

Abell, S. K., Bryan, L. A., & Anderson, M. A. (1998). Investigating preservice elementary scienceteacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary scienceteacher preparation. Science Education, 82(4), 491–509.

Akerson, V. L., Pongsanon, K., Weiland, I. S., & Nargund-Joshi, V. (2014). Developing aprofessional identity as an elementary teacher of nature of science: A self-study of becomingan elementary teacher. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 2055–2082.

Arizona Group. (1996). Negotiating balance between reforming teacher education and forming selfas teacher educator. Teacher Education Quarterly, 23(3), 153–168.

Berry, A. (2004). Self study in teaching about teaching. In International handbook of self-study ofteaching and teacher education practices (pp. 1295–1332). Dordrecht: Springer.

Berry, A. (2007a). Tensions in teaching about teaching: Understanding practice as a teachereducator. Dordrecht: Springer.

Berry, A. (2007b). Reconceptualizing teacher educator knowledge as tensions: Exploring thetension between valuing and reconstructing experience. Studying Teacher Education, 3(2),117–134.

Berry, A. (2013). Teacher educators’ professional learning: A necessary case of “on your own”?Paper presented at the International Study Association on Teachers and Teaching (ISATT),Ghent, Belgium.

Bullough, R. V., Jr., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-study research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13–21.

Bullock, S. M. (2009). Learning to think like a teacher educator: Making the substantive andsyntactic structures of teaching explicit through self-study. Teachers and teaching: Theory andpractice, 15(2), 291–304.


Bullock, S. M., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2012). Self-studies of science teacher education practices.Dordrecht: Springer.

Christou, T., & DeLuca, C. (2013). Curriculum studies at a crossroad: Curating inclusive andcoherent curriculum conversations in Canada. Journal of the Canadian Association forCurriculum Studies, 11(1), 13–22.

Clarke, A., Erickson, G., Collins, S., & Phelan, A. (2005). Complexity science and cohorts inteacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 1(2), 159–177.

Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 49–51.

DeMink-Carthew, J., Grove, R., & Peterson, M. (2017). The influence of the core practicesmovement on the teaching and perspectives of novice teacher educators. Studying TeacherEducation, 13(1), 87–104.

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Dinkelman, T., Margolis, J., & Sikkenga, K. (2006). From teacher to teacher educator: Experiences,

expectations, and expatriation. Studying Teacher Education, 2(1), 5–23.Faikhamata, C., & Clarke, T. (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.

Fletcher, T. (2012). Using self-study to develop a pedagogy of elementary teacher education:Addressing the specialist-generalist issue. In S. M. Bullock & T. Russell (Eds.), Self-studiesof science teacher education practices (pp. 85–102). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Garbett, D. (2011). Constructivism deconstructed in science teacher education. Australian Journalof Teacher Education, 36(6), 36–49.

Goodnough, K. (2005). Issues in modified problem-based learning: A self-study in pre-servicescience-teacher education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and TechnologyEducation, 5(3), 289–306.

Goodwin, A. L., Smith, L., Souto-Manning, M., Cheruvu, R., Tan, M. Y., Reed, R., et al. (2014).What should teacher educators know and be able to do? Perspectives from practicing teachereducators. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 284–302.

Hammerness, K. (2008). “If you don’t know where you are going, any path will do”: The role ofteachers’ visions in teachers’ career paths. The New Educator, 4(1), 1–22.

Jones, M. T., & Eick, C. J. (2007). Providing bottom-up support to middle school science teachers’reform efforts in using inquiry-based kits. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(6),913–934.

Kitchen, J. (2008). The tenure track as a tender trap: Balancing teaching and scholarship as aneducation professional. In M. L. Heston, D. L. Tidwell, K. K. East, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.),Pathways to change in teacher education: Dialogue, diversity, and self-study. Proceedings ofthe 7th International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (pp. 192–196).Cedar Falls: University of Northern Iowa.

Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy ofteacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17.

Korthagen, F. A. J. (in conjunction with Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B., & Wubbels, T.)(2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

LaBoskey, V. (2004). The methodology of self-study and Its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J.Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International Handbook ofSelf-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (pp. 817–869). Dordrecht, The Neth-erlands: Springer.

Labaree, D. F. (2005). Life on the margins. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 186–191.Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and

learning about teaching. London: Routledge.

20 S. M. Bullock

Loughran, J. J. (2010). Seeing knowledge for teaching teaching: Moving beyond stories. StudyingTeacher Education, 6(3), 221–226.

Loughran, J. (2014). Professionally developing as a teacher educator. Journal of TeacherEducation, 65(4), 271–283.

Margolin, I. (2011). Professional development of teacher educators through a “transitional space”:A surprising outcome of a teacher education program. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(3),7–25.

Mervis, J. (2013). Transformation is possible if a university really cares. Science, 340(6130),292–296.

Munby, H. (1989). Reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. Current Issues in Education, 9(1),31–42.

Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1989). Metaphor in the study of teachers’ professional knowledge. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Assocation, SanFrancisco, CA.

Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1990). Metaphor in the study of teachers’ professional knowledge.Theory Into Practice, 29(2), 116–121.

Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1994). The authority of experience in learning to teach: Messages from aphysics methods class. Journal of Teacher Education, 4(2), 86–95.

Nageotte, N., & Buck, G. (2019). Transitioning to teaching science in higher education: Exploringinformal dialogical approaches to teaching in a formal educational setting, Studying TeacherEducation, Online First Edition, 1–16.

Osmond, P., & Goodnough, K. (2011). Adopting Just-in-Time Teaching in the context of anelementary science education methodology course. Studying Teacher Education, 7(1), 77–91.

Ovens, A., Hopper, T., & Butler, J. (Eds.). (2013). Complexity thinking in physical education:Reframing curriculum, pedagogy, and research. New York: Routledge.

Patton, K., & Parker, M. (2017). Teacher education communities of practice: More than a culture ofcollaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 351–360.

Ping, C., Schellings, G., & Beijaard, D. (2018). Teacher educators’ professional learning: Aliterature review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 93–104.

Pinnegar, S. (1998). Introduction to Part II: Methodological perspectives. In M. L. Hamilton (Ed.),Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education (pp. 31–33). London:Falmer Press.

Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2009). Self-study of practice as a genre of qualitative research.Dordrecht: Springer.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.),Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102–119). New York: Macmillan.

Russell, T. (1987). Research, practical knowledge, and the conduct of teacher education.Educational Theory, 37, 369–375.

Russell, T. (2012). Science teacher education, self-study of teacher education practices, and thereflective turn. In S. M. Bullock & T. Russell (Eds.), Self-studies of science teacher educationpractices (pp. 193–199). Dordrecht: Springer.

Samaras, A., Hicks, M., & Berger, J. (2004). Self-study through personal history. In J. J. Loughran,M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study ofteaching and teacher education practices (pp. 905–942). Dordrecht: Springer.

Santau, A. O. (2012). Bridging the gap between a science laboratory past and a science teachereducator present: Rethinking the doctoral program in science education. In S. M. Bullock & T.Russell (Eds.), Self-studies of science teacher education practices (pp. 45–64). Dordrecht:Springer.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Schuck, S., & Russell, T. (2005). Self-study, critical friendship, and the complexities of teacher

education. Studying Teacher Education, 1(2), 107–121.Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational

Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.


Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. HarvardEducational Review, 57(1), 1–23.

Tack, H., & Vanderlinde, R. (2014). Teacher educators’ professional development: Towardsa typology of teacher educators’ researcherly disposition. British Journal of EducationalStudies, 62(3), 297–315.

Trumbull, D. (1998). What are we as teacher educators? In A. L. Cole & S. Finley (Eds.),Conversations in community. Proceedings of the Second International Conference of the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England (pp. 55–57).Kingston: Queen’s University.

Wiebke, H., & Park Rogers, M. (2014). Transition to science teacher educator: Tensionsexperienced while learning to teach lesson sequencing. Studying Teacher Education, 10(3),222–238.

Wieman, C. (2012). Applying new research to improve science education. Issues in Science andTechnology, 29(1), 25–32.

Williams, J., Ritter, J., & Bullock, S. M. (2012). Understanding the complexity of becominga teacher educator: Experience, belonging, and practice within a professional learningcommunity. Studying Teacher Education, 8(3), 245–260.

Young, M. (1971). Knowledge and control: New directions for the sociology of education. London:Collier Macmillan.

Young, M. (2010). The future of education in a knowledge society: The radical case for a subject-based curriculum. Journal of the Pacific Circle Consortium for Education, 22(1), 21–32.

Zeichner, K. (2016). Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher education. Journal ofTeacher Education, 58(1), 36–46.

22 S. M. Bullock

self-study of science teaching and science …...analysis of self-study and science teaching and...

Documents