Defining knowledge domains for science teacher educators

ABSTRACT

Science teacher educators (STEs) have key roles in the educational system through their preparation of pre- and in-service science teachers and in implementing future-oriented policy reforms. Given the complexity and importance of their role, what types of knowledge do STEs need? STEs come from a range of backgrounds and there are few systematic routes for their ongoing learning. Hence, there is a need for tools that can help 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.

KEYWORDS:

• Science teacher educators
• knowledge domains
• science teacher education
• research-based teacher education

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, 2016; National Research Council, 2012a, 2012b; OECD, 2019; Osborne, 2014). Accordingly, 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 education institutions who educate pre- and in-service teachers (Cochran et al., 2020; Czerniawski 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 backgrounds in academic disciplines, with limited knowledge of schools and education as an academic 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 Commission report raised concerns about ineffective role modelling since many teacher education 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 academic 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 teaching’ (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.

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 assessment, 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 education 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 tailoring professional development according to the needs of STEs is an updated conceptualisation 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 mentoring, 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 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.

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 21^st 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

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 teaching 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 discipline 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, accordingly they need science content knowledge. All STEs need depth and breadth of subject matter content knowledge with strong science process skills within at least one natural science discipline, presupposing that the staff together cover all science disciplines. They must also keep updated on important developments within science. Furthermore, STEs need knowledge of, and preferably experience with, research practices in natural science generally and their own discipline specifically for planning and implementing practical work in science with their student teachers. STEs also need understanding 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 students 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 prevalent 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 (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 learning 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 teaching 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 students 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 evidence-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 practices 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 students’ use of scientific language, including guiding students in moving beyond mere definitions of words and towards conceptual understanding they can apply when engaging 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 assessment. 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 awareness 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 education, 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 knowledge 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 literature. Instead of focusing on skills or processes, she argues for highlighting the contextual 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 theories 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 teaching (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 integration of key sustainability issues into teaching and learning with the aim of developing 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 sustainability 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, Henriksen, 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 historically 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 classroom, 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 technology, 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 contrast 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 expectations 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 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. Lunenberg 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 practices 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 identity 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 challenging 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 educational 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 development for in-service teachers requires that STEs are familiar with the typical work situation 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 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 teachers’ professional identity (BERA, 2014). Research literate teachers are both able to generate 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’ development 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 literate 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 education 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 academic disciplines, including educational sciences, and this provides a basis for the improvement of the curriculum in teacher education’. Also in Norway, all teacher education 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 practice, and disseminate findings in peer-reviewed journals. STEs following pre-service teachers 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 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). According 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 experience 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 education 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 background. 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 education 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 education 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 education that is inquiry-based and focused on science and engineering practices, that promotes 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; Rocard et al., 2007). Accordingly, important updates in our knowledge domains compared 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 sustainable 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 curriculum as well as curricular documents concerning teacher education; they need knowledge 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 practices 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 scholarship 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 necessary 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.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

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