Science teacher education relies on empirical work to advance the field. Through investigations of science teaching, science learning, and teacher learning, knowledge accumulates that provides insights into ways science teachers should be supported throughout their careers. Investigations in the field of science teacher education can use different theories, methodologies, or methods to contribute to the knowledge base. Of course, the methodological, theoretical, and conceptual orientation also entails a sound understanding of the studied area. As many researchers know, these considerations are only a few that are important for empirical work that contributes to the field.
The chapters in this section represent a few areas associated with empirical work in science teacher education. They were initially envisioned to be educative and directive for those in science teacher education and science teacher education research. With a broad charge, the authors of these chapters offer science teacher education researchers insights into different dimensions of educational research. They conceptualize science teacher education research, contemplate methodological approaches, and illustrate how a theoretical orientation can contribute to the field of science teacher education.
This section begins with a chapter by Erduran and Guilfoyle, who take a broad view of the nature of research in science teacher education. In their conceptualization of the research, they describe the space existing between science teachers and science teacher educators. The complex nature of this research space is evident in the examples they provide. They describe a continuum of teacher learning that reaches from preservice teachers to experienced teachers to knowledgeable veterans. Science teacher educators engage in the process of research in different ways. These groups are essential in shaping the space of science teacher education research.
Erduran and Guilfoyle’s chapter is to be appreciated for the way in which they attempt to portray this space. Like a painting that is the result of both subject and artist, the activity of science teacher education research is varied. Within this activity is a topic of study that associates with an area and that can have an orientation that ranges from broad, macro, or general to refined, micro, or specific. The varied positioning becomes evident in the examples later in the chapter. However, Erduran and Guilfoyle leave the door open for different configurations or descriptions that comprise the activity of science teacher education, and future science teacher educators are left to contemplate these configurations.
Within science teacher education research are different methodologies and methods that contribute to the variability of contributions. The next chapters broadly contemplate these areas. Tai, Taylor, Reddy, and Banilower provide an overview regarding large data sets that are used in education. The data sets they focus on are the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Surveys (TIMSS), the National Teachers and Principals Survey, the National Assessment of Education Progress, the National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education, and the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009. In their examination of these data sets, they suggest how the data can be used to inform science teacher education and add to the field’s knowledge in various science teacher education research areas.
Their overview provides science teacher educators and researchers with some important considerations related to using these data sets. As experienced researchers who work with large data sets, Tai et al. are the right people to distill the important considerations that should be made when working with these and similar data sets. They also provide a solid example from South Africa about how an analysis of TIMSS data can guide science teacher educators in their work with teachers.
Moore Mensah and Chen, in contrast to analyzing large data sets, explore how science teacher education researchers utilize qualitative or interpretivist research methods. Their analysis of published articles reveals that general qualitative studies and case studies were the most prevalent methods, followed by grounded theory, ethnography, phenomenology, narrative, action research, and self-study. To frame these areas, spotlight studies are selected and described in a way that provides insights about these types of studies to both new and experienced researchers.
The descriptions provided by Moore Mensah and Chen illustrate the manner in which these studies are designed and enacted. These descriptions also provide guidance to those who engage in qualitative research. The authors point out the complex nature of qualitative work and the importance of qualitative research in understanding the varied nature of science teacher education. They also reiterate the need for the purposeful selection and discussion of the research process, especially in areas needing understanding. Qualitative research, they posit, is well-positioned to explore and address many topics that are underexplored – most notably, issues of power/knowledge, diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Buck and Williamson’s chapter on mixed methods research is focused on ways mixed methods studies can and do contribute to the knowledge base in science teacher education. They begin their overview by defining mixed methods research, which is followed by a discussion of the purposes and questions associated with mixed methods research. The rest of the chapter describes the ways mixed methods approaches are used in science teacher education, what has been learned from mixed methods work, and what mixed methods researchers should look toward in the future.
The important contribution of this chapter resides in two areas: the discussion of ways mixed methods research is used in the science teacher education community and the knowledge obtained through mixed methods approaches. Not surprisingly, much of the mixed methods research in science teacher education is evaluative in nature. Buck and Williamson suggest that science teacher education researchers should move beyond this evaluative stance and use mixed methods approaches to understand the more nuanced how-and-why aspect of a study. This methodological orientation will help build a knowledge base with utility in science teacher education.
The final chapter in this section, by Calabrese-Barton, Tan, Schenkel, and Benavides, focuses on the equity-oriented research framework referred to as “rightful presence.” According to Calabrese-Barton et al., this emerging framework pushes equity beyond the notions of inclusion and focuses on high-quality learning experiences that allow students to address their experiences and redress systemic inequities. In this section, they describe the framework, link it to science teacher education, and suggest ways science educators and science teachers can support the enactment of this framework.
The contribution of the chapter to this section is significant. It illustrates how an emerging framework focused on students can be used to guide research in science teacher education. Descriptions in this chapter are drawn from their work in the field with teachers, and they suggest how teachers can create this type of instructional space. The focus on the enactment of a rightful presence framework certainly leaves room for research that explores how science teachers move (or not) toward this approach. The space between the framework and the actions of the teachers and students is ripe for exploring how to support science teacher learning. This opportunity for research occurs with so many other frameworks that are important in science teacher education.
As a collection, the chapters in this section provide a characterization of science teacher education research, an overview of a few research approaches, and an example of ways in which a framework can guide research and implications for science teaching. While several other chapters could have been included in this section, these chapters serve as a beginning point. As researchers review these chapters, they may engage in generative discussions that contemplate how science teacher education researchers engage in their investigations, how they situate their work within a framework, and how their work contributes to the knowledge base in the field of science teacher education. We hope these discussions result in new characterizations, overviews, or examples, and potential chapters for the next handbook.
