Teaching and Teacher Education 78 (2019) 39e48

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

The hierarchical (not fluid) nature of preservice secondary science

teachers' perceptions of their science teacher identity
Raquel Chung-Parsons a, Janelle M. Bailey b, *
a
University of Utah, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy, 1721 Campus Center Drive Rm 2220, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA
b
Temple University, Department of Teaching & Learning, 1301 Cecil B. Moore Ave., Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

 Preservice secondary science teachers (PSSTs) have hierarchical views of identity.

 Science identity is considered core, whereas science teacher identity is not.
 Teacher identity dominates over both science and science teacher identities.
 PSSTs' science identity unused to help students develop their own science identity.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This qualitative cross-case study explores three US preservice secondary science teachers' conceptions of
Received 24 January 2018 their science teacher identities and contexts within which they draw upon those science identities for
Received in revised form teaching. Grounded in a figured worlds framework, data analysis revealed that participants view their
29 October 2018
science teacher identity separate from their science identity, with only the latter being part of their
Accepted 7 November 2018
“core” identity. Participants view their teacher identity as dominant, and draw upon their science
Available online 16 November 2018
identity's cultural tools in only two teaching contextsdteaching science content and analyzing student
work to facilitate learning. Implications for teacher preparation programs are considered.
Keywords:
Science teacher identity
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
Science identity license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Science education
Preservice secondary science teacher

Students from traditionally marginalized groups are less likely
than male White students within the US to be engaged in science,
to experience success in science, and to pursue and persist in sci-
ence beyond what is required to meet high school graduation re-
quirements (Aud et al., 2011; Grossman & Porche, 2013). Science for
All Americans (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990) warned of the social,
economic, and global implications of poor student achievement in
science and proposed a framework for addressing the problems
plaguing K-12 science education. Science literacy, which attends to
the doing of science, developing a conceptual understanding of
science, and using science (Hazen & Trefil, 1991) for both personal
(“micro”) and national (“macro”) socioeconomic needs and pur-
poses (Fourez, 1989; Laugksch, 2000), became a primary goal of
science education reform efforts. The assumption is that science
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: raquel.chungparsons@gmail.com (R. Chung-Parsons), janelle.
bailey@temple.edu (J.M. Bailey).
teaching practices that facilitate scientific literacy development will
increase students' engagement with science, deepen their con-
ceptual understanding of the nature of science, encourage students
to pursue and persist in science careers, and allow students to
develop a science identity. Therefore, science teachers play a crucial
and central role in realizing science literacy for all Americans as a
reform goal.
The teaching profession is complex and influences the content
and context of student learning, engagement, interest, and
achievement. Teachers are the primary creators and recreators of
school culture and knowledge construction (Darling-Hammond,
1988; Silva, Gimbert, & Nolan, 2000). Multiple interrelated vari-
ables affect teacher quality (Wang, Lin, Spalding, Klecka, & Odell,
2011) and the ability to teach science effectively (Lofgran, Smith,
& Whiting, 2015; Osborne, Simon, & Collins, 2003). Reform ef-
forts to enhance teaching quality are generally geared toward
addressing issues of content knowledge, pedagogy, pedagogical
content knowledge, student engagement, and teacher collaboration

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.11.007
0742-051X/© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
40 R. Chung-Parsons, J.M. Bailey / Teaching and Teacher Education 78 (2019) 39e48
(Pea & Collins, 2008).
Until recently, scant attention has been given to teachers
themselvesdwho they are and how they view their identities with
regard to their profession and educational reforms (Sen & Sari,
2017; Van Driel, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2001). Who teachers are re-
lates to their teacher identity, which shapes their attitudes, beliefs,
and practices (Brickhouse, 1990). Thus, several studies argue for
teacher identity to be included in science teaching reform efforts to
better prepare teachers to teach science literacy, as teachers'
negative perceptions and attitudes toward science literacy and low
self-efficacy regarding teaching for science literacy may thwart
reform efforts (Luehmann, 2007; Saka, Southerland, Kittleson, &
Hunter, 2013). An understanding of science teachers' identities as
a means of improving science teaching is of interest because some
reform efforts have made little change in what students learn and
with minimal gains in achievement (Gibbs & Fox, 1999), and stu-
dent interest in pursuing science careers is decreasing (Smith &
Darfler, 2012) despite the wealth of resources invested in school
reform efforts (Osborne & Dillon, 2008). Our identities define who
we are. Identities influence and are influenced by attitudes, beliefs,
values, and behaviors. Although identity is an individual construct,
identity development is influenced by broader social interactions. It
is characterized by distinctive sets of behaviors and norms, which
are learned through social interactions and involve some degree of
mimicry (Burke & Stets, 2009). Identities reflect the individual to
include a sense of belonging to one or more larger social groups,
such as the teaching profession.
1. Review of literature
This research study is framed within the context of science lit-
eracy for all Americans as a science education reform goal. Differing
perspectives make conceptualizing science literacy's role in edu-
cation challenging (Arons, 1983; Miller, 1983; Pella, O'Hearn, &
Gale, 1966; Shen, 1975). Nonetheless, three common themes have
evolved from the literature: (a) encompassment of scientific
knowledge and conceptual understanding of the nature of science
(Abell & Smith, 1992); (b) development of students' scientific skills
and habits of mind to navigate the technologically driven, global-
ized adult society; and (c) contribution to the country's economic
and social development and advancement (Rutherford & Ahlgren,
1990). However, as Hurd (2001) points out, science literacy for all
Americans is meaningless without reference to the student's in-
teractions with life and living. Throughout the history of science
education, the sciences have been disconnected from the student's
life. Therefore, learning environments and instructional practices
that best facilitate students' scientific literacy and identity devel-
opment must also be considered (Holbrook & Rannikmae, 2007).
1.1. At the intersection of identity and science education
Identity Education (IdEd), a relatively new conceptual frame-
work explicitly linking identity and education (Schachter & Rich,
2011), evolved from the need to bring order, common language,
and purpose to the role of identity development in educational
settings. IdEd is defined as “the deliberate active involvement of
educators with the psychological processes and practices that are
involved in students' identity development” (Kaplan & Flum, 2012,
p. 223). It posits teachers' instructional practices will increase
students' achievement and academic identity development, as
“academic learning can't be divorced from students' development
of values, goals, social roles, and worldviews” (Kaplan & Flum, 2012,
p. 171), all of which are related to identity development. Therefore,
the role of science teachers' identities and teaching practices in
facilitating students' science identity development warrants
consideration given teachers' central role in affecting student
learning, achievement, and identity development. Accordingly,
science teachers' professional, subject matter, and science identi-
ties and science teaching, learning and practices are discussed in
the following sections.
1.1.1. Professional teacher identities
A plethora of literature exists on teachers' professional identities
(e.g., Beijaard, Meijer, & Verloop, 2004; Connelly & Clandinin, 1999;
Schultz & Ravitch, 2012), which are described by Song and Shuhua
(2007) as both a process (continuous, which with time and expe-
rience affirms role identity) and a state (the extent to which a
teacher identifies with the profession). Beijaard, Verloop, and
Vermunt (2000) examined 80 experienced secondary teachers'
perceptions across subject areas about their professional identities
along three knowledge domains: subject matter, didactic, and
pedagogical. In their study, all teachers viewed subject matter
knowledge to be most important at the start of their practice and
later, most incorporated more didactical knowledge. However,
pedagogical knowledgedwhich bears significance for student
identity developmentdconsistently ranked the lowest.
1.1.2. Subject matter identities
Contrarily, the literature barely addresses teachers' subject
matter identities or these as related to their professional identities,
instead focusing on what teachers can do or how to improve their
practice to develop students' academic identities (Ball, Thames, &
Phelps, 2008; Kaplan, Sinai, & Flum, 2014; Kleickmann et al.,
2013). Schachter and Rich (2011) argue that teachers should not
only identify with the profession of teaching but also with the
subject matter they are teaching, particularly given that the social
identities and roles of each subject has specific and unique cultural
norms (Neumann, Parry, & Becher, 2002). For example, the cultural
norms, standards, expectations, and valued outcomes of science
and scientists are different from those of the teacher (Lemke, 1990;
Varelas, House, & Wenzel, 2005). Therefore, science teachers
should identify with scientists and the scientific community, and
have a science identity that manifests itself in their teaching
identity, if they are to model and foster the same science identity in
their students. Teachers, through their pedagogical practice, can
consequently provide positive exposure to a science identity to
facilitate students' own science identity development. This, how-
ever, is easier said than done (Aydeniz & Hodge, 2011).
1.1.3. The science identity
Carlone and Johnson's (2007) framework explicates three fac-
tors that contribute to a person's science identitydscience identity
as performance, competence, and recognition. The nature of a
person's science identity is influenced by each component and their
interrelationships. The authors posit that a science identity is
“situationally emergent and potentially enduring over time and
context” (p. 1192). However, factors that support or hinder science
identity development, the contributions/influence of sociocultural-
historical contexts, and students' interpretation of their experi-
ences are not considered.
1.1.4. Science teaching and learning
The complex relationships between teaching-learning, teacher-
student, and identity development are reciprocal in nature
(Bernstein-Yamashiro, 2004; Case, 2015; Ligorio, 2010; Loughran,
2013) and play out in classrooms or communities of practice
(Wenger, 1998). The practices of the science classroom community
are influenced, shaped, and reshaped by the beliefs, attitudes, and
personal experiences of each participant and their social position
(Wenger, 1998). Although science teachers and students are
 R. Chung-Parsons, J.M. Bailey / Teaching and Teacher Education 78 (2019) 39e48
participatory actors, the teachers and the quality of teaching are
more dominant and influential on student learning and achieve-
ment (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2007; Rockoff, 2004). Conse-
quently, the instructional practices and decisions of teachers,
derived from their personal narratives, shape science lear-
ningdmaking teachers and their practice a source of bias for stu-
dents' engagement with science (Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992;
Richardson, 1996).
Research highlights sources of influence and contextual expe-
riences that contribute to teachers' narratives regarding science
and science teaching and learning, which in turn define, shape, and
reshape their science classroom practices (Alexakos, 2005; Fletcher,
2006). However, becoming a science teacher begins long before
formal training. It primarily begins with experiences as science
learners and an “apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie, 1975, p.
61). Future teachers make sense of their experiences and construct
ideas about science, science teachers (who science teachers are,
what science teachers do), and science teaching practices, all of
which change over time. Subsequently, science teachers' science
historiesdtheir attitudes, beliefs, and understanding of science,
science teachers, and teaching practices (Connelly & Clandinin,
1999)dinform their science teacher identity development and
practices (Alexakos, 2005). This in turn influences students'
learning and science identity development (Smith, 2005).
1.1.5. Science teaching practices
Fletcher (2006) best describes science literacy goals:
Science teachers must learn how to address prior beliefs and
alternate conceptions, scaffold student understanding, and
extend student thinking to model the characteristics of scientific
inquiry. (p. 6)
Effective science teaching is not simply teaching scientific knowl-
edge; it is teaching about science in a manner such that students
feel connected to what they are learning (Brown & Campione, 1990;
Hagay & Baram-Tsabari, 2015). There is a shift from traditional
science teaching characterized by teacher-centered practices and
transmission mode of presenting science as facts (Aypay, Erdogan,
& So €zer, 2007; Deneroff, 2013) to student-centered classroom
community practices (Bybee, Powell, & Trowbridge, 2008; Kalem &
Fer, 2003).
In sum, if we are to accomplish the goal of science education
reform effortsdscience literacy for all Americansdthen we must
attend to the different identities influencing science teachers'
instructional practices. Therefore, a more in-depth exploration of
the role of teachers' science identity as it relates to their profes-
sional teaching identity and practice is warranted. We must first
take a step back and examine who science teachers are, what the
nature of their science identities and science teacher identities is,
and how they view and position their identities in their science
teaching practices. Preservice secondary science teachers (PSSTs)
are an ideal starting point because they are neophyte in their sci-
ence teacher identity development. Furthermore, little is known
about how PSSTs perceive and understand the development of their
science teacher identities or about how they draw upon their sci-
ence identities in their teaching practices, if at all. This exploratory
research study seeks to contribute to this conversation.
2. Theoretical framework
Understanding who we aredas individuals and as a collective
groupddraws from such disciplines as anthropology, psychology,
cultural studies, and sociology. Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, and
Cain's (1998) figured worlds theoretical framework is the analyt-
ical lens employed in this study to elucidate PSSTs perceptions of,
41
and understanding about, their secondary science teacher identity
development and the perceived role of their science identity in
their practice.
2.1. Social practice and sociocultural-historical theory
Identity development is situated within social contexts, and is
reciprocal in nature (Lave, 1996; Wenger, 1998). Burke and Stets
(2009) describe the reciprocal relationship as the “individual and
society are two sides of the same coin” (p. 3); the “self reflects
society” (p. 37). The nature of the social context is equally impor-
tant in shaping and reshaping identities and the social context itself
(Goodson, 1991; Lave, 1996). Furthermore, behaviors and language
development are consequential to identity development. Identity
behaviors and assigned meanings are the external manifestation of
identities. Knowledge and understanding of identity behaviors are
necessary for participation in social interactions and subsequently
for identity development (Bandura, 1986). “Identity does not sit
separately from knowledge and skills; acquiring new knowledge
and skills plays a critical role in reshaping identity” (Franke &
Kazemi, 2001, as cited in Battey & Franke, 2008, p. 128). The
learning that occurs through participation in social interactions
“transforms who we are and what we can do, it is an experience of
identity” (Wenger, 1998, p. 215). In other words, “who you are
becoming shapes crucially and fundamentally what you know”
(Lave, 1996, p. 157). Language is the medium through which culture
is mediated and is mutually constitutive; it “actively symbolizes the
social system” (Wells, 1999, p. 8). Language facilitates communi-
cation through which meanings and behaviors are derived (Wells,
1999). The nature of social interactions and the collective group
changes over time, leaving behind a shared historical narrative of
the evolution of past to present social interactions, cultures, lan-
guages, and cultural tools. These factors account for variations in
identity development between individuals and social groups.
Holland et al.'s (1998) construct of figured worlds is demonstrative
of identity development as social practice and sociocultural-
historical theory.
2.2. Figured worlds
Figured worlds are culturally constructed “realms of interpre-
tation in which particular sets of actors are recognized, significance
is assigned to certain acts, and particular outcomes are valued over
others” (Holland et al., 1998, p. 52). Figured worlds takes an inte-
grative approach that allows for a more nuanced and textured ex-
amination of identity development. “Within these figured worlds,
identity is constructed as individuals both act with agency in
authoring themselves and are acted upon by social others as they
are positioned (as members, nonmembers, or certain kinds of
members)” (Nasir & Cooks, 2009, p. 41). The four tenets of figured
worlds are as follows.
1 Figured worlds are social encounters where position mat-
tersdone's position in the social group is relative to the position
of other group members. One's position is not fixed in figured
worlds; an individual's social position is subject to change as
one participates in the sociocultural-historical practices of the
figured world.
2 Figured worlds are historical phenomenadpeople construct
their personal narratives (History-in-person) and social history
(History-in-system) as they participate in social practice that
changes over time and influences figured worlds (Holland &
Lave, 2001). The historical changes in figured worlds are stee-
ped in the collective past of the individuals and the social group.
42 R. Chung-Parsons, J.M. Bailey / Teaching and Teacher Education 78 (2019) 39e48
3 Figured worlds distribute people as actors to different land-
scapes of actiondhuman agency, availability of cultural re-
sources, and diverse social interactions allow for creativity and
improvisation of new or established courses of action and sub-
sequently varied identities.
4 Figured worlds are socially organized and reproduceddand
therefore dependent upon individual interactions and inter-
subjectivity. This is similar to a collective identity, “an individual's
cognitive, moral, and emotional connection with a broader
community, category, practice, or institution. It is a perception of
a shared status or relation, which may be imagined rather than
experienced directly…” (Polletta & Jasper, 2001, p. 285).
Additionally, pivotingdthe ability to move between figured worlds
and draw upon identity resources from one sociocultural context to
help in another (Nasir & Cooks, 2009)dallows us to use our cultural
resources to both navigate and create figured worlds.
2.3. Figured worlds and science education
Science classrooms are figured worlds. Science teachers and
science learners occupy different social positions, which influences
their perceptions about science, scientists, science teachers, and
science teaching and learning; both social positions and percep-
tions change over time. The participation in figured worlds and the
courses of action taken up during that participation have implica-
tions for science learning and science identity development. For
example, girls and students of color may choose not to participate
in science classrooms because of their perceived lack of personal
connection to science (Hagay & Baram-Tsabari, 2015); likewise,
students may improvise and figure out how to take up a science
identity with or without the support of science teachers (Carlone &
Johnson, 2007). Finally, the learning and teaching culture of science
classrooms is determined primarily by the science teacher, with the
students playing a secondary role (Hazari, Cass, & Beattie, 2015).
Despite science education reform efforts and goals, it is the class-
room teacher's understanding of, and attitude toward, science and
science reform policies and practices that are most important. The
application of the figured world framework to science classrooms
and their goings-on allow for a deeper and more expansive un-
derstanding of science, science learning, science teaching, and
science identity development from the perspective of the science
learner and science teacher, both of which influence, shape, and
reshape science teacher identity development.
3. Methods
3.1. Purpose and research questions
Unlike that of teachers' professional identity development, scant
research exists that describes how preservice science teachers
understand their subject matter identities in relation to their pro-
fessional teacher identity development and their teaching practices
(Avraamidou, 2016; Enyedy, Goldberg, & Welsh, 2005; Helms,
1998; Pedretti, Bencze, Hewitt, Romkey, & Jivraj, 2008; Wilson,
Bradbury, & McGlasson, 2015). Specifically, little is known about
(a) how science teachers conceptualize their science teacher
identities; (b) the extent to which teachers' science identities in-
fluence science teaching and learning; and (c) teachers' thoughts
about their role in fostering the science identity development of
their students. Hoban (2007) and Timostsuk and Ugaste (2010)
have argued for teacher preparation programs to attend to issues
of identity development. Given that teachers' perceptions of their
roles as science teachers (i.e., their professional teaching identities)
and their science identities likely affect their science instruction,
this study seeks to explore preservice secondary science teachers'
conceptualization of their science teacher identities by addressing
the following questions:
1. What is the nature of PSSTs' science teacher identities?
2. What role, if any, do PSSTs' science identities play in their sci-
ence teaching practices and science teacher identity
development?
3.2. Study design
This exploratory study employs a cross-case qualitative research
methodology that allows for in-depth, thick, rich descriptions
(Geertz, 1973) and analysis of a bounded system as a means of
investigating complex social units consisting of multiple variables
of potential importance in understanding a phenomenon
(Merriam, 2009). “Case studies can take us to places where most of
us would not have the opportunity to go” (Donmoyer, 1990, p. 193);
they provide insights into the minds of participants to better un-
derstand their perceptions and the myriad sociocultural-historical
factors and contexts that shaped and reshaped their science and
science teacher identities using their voices (Guba & Lincoln, 2005),
as these factors are not always clear and explicit in their actions
(Merriam, 2009). More specifically, we employed Bogdan and
Biklen's (2007) life history, where “the researcher conducts
extensive interviews with one person for the purpose of collecting a
first person narrative” (p. 63). Each of the three participants,
described below, and their perceptions of their science teacher
identities constitutes a case. Additionally, a cross-case analysis
study design allows for the “capture of complex actions, percep-
tions, and interpretations” and the potential for unearthing “pre-
viously unknown relationships and variables leading to a
rethinking of the phenomenon being studied” (Merriam, 2009, p.
44).
3.3. Study site and participants
Purposeful sampling was used to select PSSTs seeking teacher
certification through the adapted UTeach program (UTeach
Institute, 2013) at an East Coast, urban four-year public institu-
tion in the US. The UTeach secondary teacher certification program
is intended to address the critical shortage of secondary mathe-
matics, computer science, and science teachers in the United States.
The program design takes an integrative approach, synthesizing
content knowledge acquisition with content-specific instructional
pedagogy and other teaching and professional considerations
(UTeach Institute, 2013). Selecting PSSTs enrolled in the program
reflected “the logic and power of purposeful sampling [that] lies in
selecting information-rich cases for study in depth…one can learn
a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of
inquiry” (Patton, 2002, p. 230)din this case, science and science
teacher identity development. Selecting study participants with a
strong personal and professional affinity for science reduced the
likelihood of participants not having considered their science
identities and science teacher identities. Therefore, an assumption
of this study was that participants had a science identity and a
strong understanding of and connection to science as evidenced by
their desire to pursue an undergraduate degree in science.
Participants were drawn from a student teaching seminar, a
weekly university course that supports reflective practice and
professional growth simultaneous to the semester-long, full-time
internship in a secondary science classroom (i.e., student teaching).
Three of the eight PSSTs in the 2015 cohort student teaching
seminar agreed to participate in the research study; each
 R. Chung-Parsons, J.M. Bailey / Teaching and Teacher Education 78 (2019) 39e48
participant is identified by a pseudonym. Valerie Manor, a Cauca-
sian female in her early twenties, is “the first of [her] family to go to
college.” Prior to the college of science's orientation where faculty
described the program, Valerie never considered the teaching
profession. Similarly, Zola Andrews realized she “wanted to be a
teacher” during the program's Step 1 course (an introductory
course that encouraged students to explore teaching as a profes-
sion). Zola self-identified as an Indian woman in her early twenties.
Unlike Zola and Valerie, Lize Loupe, an older Caucasian female,
attended college with the intent of becoming a high school physics
teacher.
3.4. Data collection and analysis
Data analysis was iterative with data collection (Gay, Mills, &
Airasian, 2011). Several sources of data were collected to provide
a holistic assessment of PSSTs' understanding of their own science
identities and the role those identities may play in their practice: a
preliminary survey, a 2-h semi-structured interview with each
participant, observations of the weekly seminar and one classroom
teaching occurrence, a 2-h focus group interview, and several
documentsdthree lesson plans, one unit plan, a child study, four-
teen weekly journal reflections, a teaching philosophy statement,
and a reflective essay about student teaching. Interviews served as
the primary data source for the present study, with other data
sources providing support for these interpretations as well as more
salient sources for a larger study (Chung-Parsons, 2016). The semi-
structured interviews allowed flexibility to probe and explore
participants' myriad science experiences and invited storytelling.
Their stories were a “meaning-making process” of their experi-
ences (Seidman, 1998, p. 1), “the oldest and most natural form of
sense making” (p. 66). In retelling their science stories, PSSTs
participated in sense making and assigned new meanings to their
prior experiences related to both their science and science teacher
identitiesdhow and when they were formed, influential sociocul-
tural contexts, self-perceptions, and what type of science teacher
they want to become in the future and why (Connelly & Clandinin,
1999). Participants' teaching philosophy, weekly journal entries,
and child study documents also provided useful insights into their
science teacher identity development and its role in their science
teaching practices over time and multiple instances. The first
author recorded researcher comments to “stimulate critical
thinking” about observations during the semi-structured in-
terviews, focus group, and the weekly course seminar class
(Merriam, 2009, p. 172). These memos provided “a time to reflect
on issues raised in the setting and how they relate to the larger
theoretical, methodological, and substantive issues” (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007, p. 165). Wolcott's (1994) three components of for
transforming qualitative dataddescription, analysis, and inter-
pretationdguided the data analysis.
The semi-structured interviews were transcribed and imported
into the HyperRESEARCH software for data analysis through coding,
an analytical process of assigning words, themes, or categories to
pieces of texts (Silverman, 2006) that were relevant to the research
study (Merriam, 2009). The coding process was recursive, dynamic,
inductive and deductive, and applied through the lens of science
and science teacher identity (Merriam, 2009). First, open and
descriptive coding were used to ascertain the general gist of useful
texts and to identify sociocultural-historical contexts relevant to
the research questions (Merriam, 2009). There were instances in
which multiple descriptive codes were applied to the same text to
“maximize the range of hypotheses that can be generated”
(Silverman, 2006, p. 88). Every attempt was made to use the same
descriptive codes for all participants while being mindful to record
any nuances between participants and code assignments. A case
43
code frequency report was generated to decipher the frequency of
similar codes within and across participants as well as codes unique
to participants and to establish commonalities that may be applied
very loosely to PSSTs.
Next, analytical coding, which “comes from interpretation and
reflection on meaning” (Richards, 2005, p. 94), was applied to
establish possible connections and relationships between derived
categories through the analytical lens of figured worlds (Corbin &
Strauss, 2007). We then analyzed the codes to generate broader
themes and assigned each category a name based upon the study's
frameworkdfigured worldsdand research questions, which were
displayed in separate matrices for visual support of analysis (Miles,
Huberman, & Saldan ~ a, 2014). For example, Valerie's perceptions
about project-based learning was first coded as views on science
teaching practices. Her views were then coded to reflect the his-
torical phenomenon of the figured world framework. Similarly,
Lize's simultaneous role as student, teacher, and colleague while
collaborating with her mentor teacher on lessons was coded as
both the ‘social encounters and positions’ and ‘access to cultural
tools and courses of action’ tenets of the figured world framework.
We exercised care to ensure the categories were exhaustive,
mutually exclusive, and sensitizing (Merriam, 2009). Emerging
themes formed the basis of the findings and centered on conceptual
understanding of science, perceptions of scientists, personal rela-
tionship with science, science teaching practices, and science
teacher identity development.
3.5. Validity, reliability, and the Researcher's role
The nature of the semi-structured interview questions consid-
ered “the degree to which the qualitative data [I] collected accu-
rately gauge what [I] am trying to measure, the degree of
trustworthiness of the data collection and analysis procedures”
(Gay et al., 2011, p. 403) and ensured the participants' voices were
not overshadowed by the researcher voice (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
The semi-structured interview elicited participants’ detailed de-
scriptions of their science experiences across myriad sociocultural-
historical contexts.
We also conducted two member checksdwith interview tran-
scripts and an initial analysis summarydto ensure they accurately
represented PSSTs' thoughts and understanding of their science
and science teacher identities. Participants' documents triangu-
lated, and in some cases provided more detailed information for,
the stories they shared in the semi-structured interview (Denzen,
1978). Relatedly, Maxwell (2005, as cited in Merriam, 2009)
stated that “validity is also relative: It has to be assessed in rela-
tionship to the purposes and circumstances of the research, rather
than being a context-independent property of methods or con-
clusions” (p. 105). This research study is only as valid as the reality
of the participants at the time of the interviews and when they
wrote their documents, which are highly contextual.
Lastly, as “the primary instrument for data collection and anal-
ysis” (Merriam, 2009, p. 15), the first author (hereafter “I”) was
actively engaged with and responsive to the data. I recognized my
“subjectivities as it was important to identify them and monitor
them as to how they may be shaping the collection and interpre-
tation of data” (Merriam, 2009, p. 15). Like the research partici-
pants, at the time of the study I was a student (for me, at the
doctoral level), seeking to learn and understand more about the
nature of the profession I have chosen to pursue. I am also a former
secondary science teacher and consider my science identity a part
of my professional identity. That is, I consider myself a scientist, and
my scientist-self manifests itself in my everyday practice as an
educator; I identify as a scientist. My identities are a source of bias,
especially given I am a woman of color with personal experiences of
44 R. Chung-Parsons, J.M. Bailey / Teaching and Teacher Education 78 (2019) 39e48
marginalization throughout my K-16 science learning experiences. I
practiced reflexivity (Lincoln & Guba, 2000) with mindful attention
to and consideration of participants' stories and voices and kept my
reality separate from that of the participants.
3.6. Limitations
It is important to note that the specific contextual knowledge
gleaned from this case study is not generalizable given the small
number of purposefully selected participants who are all women
participating in the same non-traditional, specialized teacher
preparation program. Each participant's story is nuanced, informed
by differences in their lived experiences, motivations, pedagogical
awareness and practices, and student-teaching school placement
experiences, despite commonalities. No one story captured can
describe how to become a secondary science teacher.
4. Findings: science identities as cultural tools for science
teacher identity development
Elements of the participants' perceptions of their science
teacher identity development support findings from other studies
related to professional teacher identity development, specifically
their pedagogical concerns, nature of student teaching placements,
dynamic construction and reconstruction of their teacher identity
as they participated in varied figured worlds, personal goals and
motivations, and wellness and family concerns during student-
teaching (Avraamidou, 2016; Flores & Day, 2006; Izadinia, 2015;
Pajares, 1992; Ronfelt, 2012; Sikes, 1985; Timostsuk & Ugaste, 2010;
Wenger, 1998). This study revealed three additional themes
regarding participants' understanding of their science identities
and the relationship to their science teacher identity: (a) partici-
pants' science identities are a part of their “core” identity whereas
their science teacher identity is not, (b) participants' use of their
science identity in their teaching practices is contextual, and (c) the
teacher identity is dominant over their science identity in the so-
ciocultural context of science classrooms.
First, Valerie, Lize, and Zola understood their science identities
as a part of their “core” identity (Roth & Tobin, 2007). They
considered themselves “science people.” Their science identity was
always “on, somewhere in the back of my head.” Lize, Valerie, and
Zola held common beliefs about the personal and larger social
utility of their science identitiesdscientific thinking and using
scientific skills, processes, and knowledge. For example, they drew
upon these cultural tools in myriad sociocultural contexts to
mediate actions in their everyday activities like “reading, cooking,
taking a nature walk, watching TV, and problem solving.” They also
said,
Valerie: There's a lot of very political scientific things going on,
you really need to know what your politicians are saying before
you vote for them. You need to be able to do the research to see
what they're actually saying, what they're actually doing. A lot of
the skills that you have emphasized in science you really need to
be a better citizen or just a person in general.
Zola: So you have a problem and you're trying to either find a
solution to it or understand why that problem is happening. Or
you know something like an occurrence is happening and you
want to see if it's something that's always going to happen or if
it's just a one-time thing. And just having like an issue or a
problem and trying to figure out what exactly is going on, not
essentially finding the solution, but just trying to figure out
what's happening and then maybe from there, you can find the
solution.
Lize: I feel that science is seen as a tool we use to make our lives
better or to take care of the environment, or to fix things that
people have ruined. I guess I just see more variety in science,
how it's used.
Participants took on science identities at different developmental
times and for different reasons. Zola realized in high school that
“[Science] did come naturally [and] that made me more interested
in it. Oh, I actually understand this. I get this, and this is supposed to
be complicated, but I actually understand it, so this is cool.” Valerie
made herself develop an interest in chemistry for financial stability.
She explained that, “Money, basically, unfortunately [prompted my
interest in pharmacy]. Before that I was more artistic … then I
realized that's not going to give me what I need in terms of finance.”
Lize self-identified as having developed a science identity from a
very young age. She was always “curious about things, wanting to
learn about things” she observed “in the world.” They all made
some kind of reference to ‘doing’ science, using scientific equip-
ment, and engaging in inquiry when asked to describe instances of
when they felt like scientists. Although Valerie and Zola consider
themselves scientists because they enact behaviors that they
perceive to be associated with scientists, Lize does not. She believes
enacting scientist behaviors does not make you a scientist; you are
just mimicking the behaviors based upon the sociocultural context.
According to Lize, scientists create new knowledge and push
boundaries. Despite this different perspective, she acknowledges
having a science identity.
Second, while participants' science identities are a part of their
“core” identity, and they pivoted in and out of their science figured
world, accessing its cultural tools to mediate actions in other
figured worlds, its use in their science teaching practices was
contextual. In one context participants used their scientific cultural
tools to mediate their assessment of student learning and to
critique lesson plans and science teaching practices. They made
observations, collected data on student work, analyzed student
work, and brainstormed ways to address gaps in students' learning.
For example, participants joked about their first class of the day
being their “guinea pig” class where kinks were identified and
‘fixed’ for the next class. Their scientific cultural tools helped them
mediate the expected standards and behaviors of their social po-
sition of teacher. In this particular context, they were fulfilling roles
expected of all teachers (e.g., assessing student learning and
executing effective lessons), not specific to just science teachers.
The other context in which Valerie, Lize, and Zola used their science
cultural tools to mediate their science teaching practice was
directly related to fulfilling their perceived role of science teachers.
This related to teaching about science topics, planning lessons,
figuring out how best to teach the science content, explaining,
discussing, asking questions, or responding to students' questions
related to the science content. Participants were more concerned
with their science content knowledge than using their scientific
skills. This explains why the teacher identity is perceived as
dominant, the third theme.
Valerie, Zola, and Lize held varied and nuanced stereotypical
cultural motifs about science teachers with regards to ‘presence,’
caring, and organization, which are associated with a teacher's
professional identity (Basow, 1987; Jansen & Bartell, 2013), whereas
being nerdy but not boring, using scientific language, and having a
perceived academic status are specifically associated with the sci-
ence teacher identity (Alexakos, 2005). For Zola and Valerie, the
majority of their science teaching practices were mediated by the
cultural tools of teaching, not science. Zola referred to her science-
self when she was teaching science material, which she viewed
differently from her teacher-self and identity because it involved
science. Valerie's teacher-self was always present and she only
 R. Chung-Parsons, J.M. Bailey / Teaching and Teacher Education 78 (2019) 39e48
drew upon her science-self to access science knowledge to talk
about science or ask and answer science related questions, a
contextual use of her science identity. Zola best illustrated this
contextual use of the science identity:
My 6th period completely didn't know how to explain a molar
ratio or how to write it out, so I was like, “All right, how am I
going to go about this and make sure they get this?” It's more of
just figuring out what went wrong and then seeing what I can
do about it. Whereas when I'm analyzing a data from a test or if
just when I'm looking at the students and who's confused or not,
it'sdI feel like there's more attachment when it comes to
looking at it, like looking at the data from my classroom
compared to just data, that's just numbers from something. So
that attachment makes me feel like a teacher, whereas with
random numbers, it's just data.
One explanation for the contextual use of their science identities
in participants' teaching practices is that prior to the semi-
structured interview, neither Zola, Lize, nor Valerie actively
thought about their science identities nor its relationship to or role
in their science teacher identity development. The following quotes
illustrate their sense-making process of this new idea:
Zola: No, not really, I don't feel like a scientist when I'm [stopped
talking, long pause]dactually, do I?d[pause] Hmmmm
[pause]dNo, I don't really feel like a scientist when I'm with the
students or anything.
[at a different time] Now I'm sitting here and like, all right, how
do I make it one blog instead of two blogs.
Valerie: Darn, this [is] thorough, isn't it? It's always hard, always
easy and always hard just talking about yourself. I'm going to
think about this for a moment. [pause] So can you repeat it
again, just so I have it right?
Lize: I've never actually really thought about this too much, like
where would, where is that line that you cross and then you're a
scientist.
Valerie, Zola, and Lize perceived their science teacher identity to be
a combination of their understanding of the science teacher iden-
tity and their science identity. Zola and Valerie held a hierarchical
perspective of the two identities, positioning their teacher identity
first. It is the “outer layer,” the “dominant” identity that is always
present. Zola and Valerie understood their social roles and re-
sponsibilities as teachers to be dominant, always present when
teaching and interacting with students. They explained that:
Zola: As a teacher, it's more of like how I interact with my stu-
dents. I want them to learn and [that] I'm there for their support
so if you do need something, about something, I am here and I
can help you. Then I see myself as a science teacher more of like
in that classroom setting, so the teacher part is just all the time,
the science teacher is like in the classroom when I'm teaching
you, the material that I need to teach you.
I am leading a double life because there are certain things that I
know that just scientists do, like certain groups and discussions
that you have just strictly as scientists because scientists are
more like thatdfiguring out that data, you have that raw data,
you're trying to understand what it means. Whereas with
teachers, your focus is more on your students and making sure
they're understanding what they need to understand so they
can further their education. So I think for me they're more
separate, they haven't really like fused together. And I think for
45
me personally, there always just going to be two separate
entities.
Valerie: I think maybe the teacher is the outer layer, so you need
to keep the class management skill, then your voice up, and this
presentation, but your knowledge is always there of what you're
talking and if they're not asking [science related] questions, you
have to engage them with [science related] questions.
Everybody has a teacher stage personality that's not exact, like
you're not 100% who you are in the classroom. And then sci-
entific me likes to sit with a book and be quiet, and not talk too
much, just learn stuff and teacher has to be out and proud and
know this. I feel like the science identity, I don't see as much
because it's what I like, it's whatdand then teaching is what I
do. So, I know I have to put on a personality when I go in the
classroom because I'm not hugely talkative, I'm not hugely loud,
so I'm pushing more of that presentation person versus how I
just generally am at home. I think the teaching identity
needsdthere's always more you could be doing and I feel like I
use my science identity of what I could I do better, how do I
improve, how do I know that; using all the skills that I have, me
over here [Laughter] to improve Ms. M over there. So, I think it's
combining the two, I don't know if that's a challenge.
While Zola and Valerie both held a hierarchical perspective
about their science teacher identity, their understanding of it
differed. Zola viewed it from a role and behavior lens. She perceived
the roles and behaviors of scientists and teachers as separate,
serving different functions, and being different figured worlds. As
such, and because teaching is mostly about the teacher-student
interactions and learning, the teacher identity dominated. Science
is the subject she taught and she therefore drew upon her science
identity when teaching the science content. Valerie viewed it from
a personalitydwho I amdlens. For Valerie, she needed to put on
her teacher “personality” in the classroom because that's what
teachers do, they teach. This is separate from who she really is, her
“core” identity that does not belong in the classroom “unless you're
really open with your students.” Which identity dominates is time-
and space-dependent. In the science classroom her teacher identity
is dominant and her true self is hidden; at home her science
identity is dominant.
Lize, on the other hand, did not hold a hierarchical view of her
identities. Instead she believed her science identity and teacher
identity “can be definitely mutually supportive of each other” and
dynamic (Henry, 2016). She said,
To really be teaching itdis a totally different understanding of it
and how it can be useful and trying to think of ways that you can
see it in your life. It's just I feel teaching is a really good way to
become that stronger thinker.
One reason Lize wanted to be a science teacher is to deepen her
own science learning. Teaching science is a way to accomplish that;
she had no difficulties using the cultural tools of her science
identity to mediate her science teaching practices. A noteworthy
explanation for Lize's perspective is that Lize entered the figured
world of science teaching with a better understanding of her
perceived goals and ideas about her science teacher identity. She
entered knowing she wanted to become a science teacher. Zola and
Valerie did not have this ‘jump start’; they were new to thinking
about themselves as science teachers and their practice as they
participated in the figured world of the teacher preparation pro-
gram. Also, teaching is a “backburner” plan for Valerie and Zola is
still reconciling wanting to be a teacher instead of a doctor (which
has been her family's goal for her since the eighth grade). Therefore,
46 R. Chung-Parsons, J.M. Bailey / Teaching and Teacher Education 78 (2019) 39e48
the entry points, motivations, and goals of PSSTs matters.
Another explanation may be time. Developing an identity is a
dynamic, fluid process occurring over historical time and always
subject to change with participation in sociocultural-historical
figured worlds. Also, two of the participants did not consider sci-
ence teaching a career option while they were science learners and
when they did, their entry point into the profession was neophytic
in nature with varied knowledge about and attitudes toward a
career as a science teacher. This study was conducted during
participation in the figured world of their student teaching socio-
cultural context, argued to be the most significant historical time of
teacher identity development (Williams, 2014). They were figuring
out what it meant to be a science teacher while they were being
preservice science teachers. This figuring out is indicative of the
dynamic, fluid, on-going process of identity development (Beijaard
et al., 2004; Holland et al., 1998). Additionally, the participants
indicated that the interview was the first encounter to reflect upon
the role of their science identity in relationship to their science
teacher identity development. While the Uteach program values
and recognizes the role of reflection in teacher identity develop-
ment as evidenced in reflective practices incorporated throughout
all the courses, the PSSTs did not uses their reflective practice skills
in relation to this study's research question (i.e., the relationship
between their science identity and their science teaching identity;
Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 1985; Osterman & Kottkamp, 1993). Their
sensemaking of the issue during the interview suggests that they
will continue to do so moving forward in their profession. It is
important to note that whereas the PSSTs' process of figuring out
their science teacher identities was fluid and dynamic, they held
hierarchical views of their science teacher identitiesdthe teacher
identity dominated over the science identity. Lastly, and perhaps
most importantly, Valerie, Lize, and Zola did not consider the
possibility of leveraging their science identities to mediate their
science teacher identities until the interview. This may be a factor of
participants' science learning experiences that did not make sci-
entific skills and processes explicit; they “figured it out” on their
own over time and so could not draw upon those experiences as a
cultural tool in their science teaching practice.
5. Implications: leveraging science identities to mediate
science teaching practices
Science literacy as a reform goal calls for teachers to facilitate
students' science identity development. Similarly, Harrell-Levy and
Kerpelman (2010) advocate for teachers to be “identity agents” (p.
77), a part of which is to explicitly bring identity to the attention of
students and model the appropriate behaviors of the identity in
order to foster students' academic identity development. Given
that mandatory schooling does not necessarily translate into stu-
dents' taking up different subject matter identities, and that stu-
dents may reject outright or do not consider developing a science
identity because of how science is taught in schools (Lederman &
O'Malley, 1990), science teachers should consider using their sci-
ence identities as cultural tools to mediate their practice in order to
realize science education reform goals.
Zola and Valerie viewed their science and science teacher
identities as separate; none of the participants recognized their
science identities as cultural tools that may be used in their science
teaching practices or to influence students' science identity
development. This gap in their science teacher identity develop-
ment is problematic, as is Lize's perception that only scientists can
create knowledge and push boundaries. The choices they make
forthwith will no doubt bear some significance on their further
science teacher identity development as they participate in future
figured worlds and will have implications for their future students'
science learning, achievement, and possible science identity
development. As such, this gap needs to be addressed.
The participants successfully completed their student teaching
with nuanced understandings of science and their science and
science teacher identities despite completing the same teacher
preparation program. The variations among Lize, Zola, and Valerie's
perceptions of their science teacher identities supports Fletcher's
(2006) findings that science teacher identity development is
neither a linear nor a singular pathway. The reason for these vari-
ations is beyond the scope of this paper but in-school and out-of-
school experiences, student teaching placements, motivation, and
entry points into teacher preparation programs influenced the
development of participants' varied science teacher identity
development (Chung-Parsons, 2016; Chung-Parsons & Bailey,
2018). These aforementioned factors, in conjunction with how
science teachers view their own science identities, need to be
brought to the forefront of PSSTs' science teacher identity devel-
opment and teaching practices. Teacher preparation programs that
prepare secondary science teachers should explicitly allow their
student teachers to reflect upon the development of their science
identitydspecifically, how to leverage its cultural toolsdto
mediate their teaching practice, model science practices and be-
haviors, and more importantly, develop students' science identities.
This may facilitate students' exposure to and personal connection
to science via their science teachers. Moreover, all teacher prepa-
ration programs that prepare content-specific teachers, namely
preservice secondary teachers, should do the same as called upon
by tenets of Identity Education (Schachter & Rich, 2011).
Acknowledgements
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. This
work was completed as part of the first author's Ed.D. capstone
project. The authors would like to thank Lize, Valerie, and Zola for
their participation in this study.
References
Abell, S. K., & Smith, D. C. (1992). What is science? Preservice elementary teachers'
conceptions of the nature of science. In S. Hills (Ed.), The history and philosophy
of science in science education (pp. 11e22). Kingston, Ontario: Queens University.
Alexakos, K. (2005). The science teacher as the organic link in science learning:
Identity, motives, and capital transfer. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Disser-
tations (AAT 305006926).
Arons, A. B. (1983). Achieving wider scientific literacy. Daedalus, 112(2), 91e122.
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., et al. (2011). The
condition of education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Avraamidou, L. (2016). Stories of self and science: Preservice elementary teachers'
identity work through time and across contexts. Pedagogies: International
Journal, 11(1), 43e62.
Aydeniz, M., & Hodge, L. L. (2011). Is it dichotomy or tension: I am a scientist. No,
wait! I am a teacher! Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(1), 165e179.
Aypay, A., Erdogan, M., & So €zer, M. A. (2007). The variation among schools on
classroom practices in science based on TIMSS-1999 in Turkey. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 1417e1435.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching:
What makes it special. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389e407.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Basow, S. A. (1987). Student evaluations of college professors: Are female and male
professors rated differently? Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 308e314.
Battey, D., & Franke, M. (2008). Transforming identities: Understanding teachers
across professional development and classroom practices. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 35(3), 127e149.
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers'
professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107e128.
Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2000). Teacher's perceptions of profes-
sional identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(7), 749e764.
Bernstein-Yamashiro, B. (2004). Learning relationships: Teacher-student connec-
tions, learning, and identity in high school. New Directions for Youth
 R. Chung-Parsons, J.M. Bailey / Teaching and Teacher Education 78 (2019) 39e48
Development, 2004(103), 55e70.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An intro-
duction to theories and methods. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning.
London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teacher's beliefs about the nature of science and their
relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53e62.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1990). Communities of learning and thinking, or a
context by any other name. In D. Kuhn (Ed.), Developmental perspectives on
teaching and learning thinking skills (Vol 21, pp. 108e126). Basel, Switzerland:
Karger.
Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. (2009). Identity theory. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bybee, R. W., Powell, J. C., & Trowbridge, L. W. (2008). Teaching secondary school
science: Strategies for developing scientific literacy. Columbus, OH: Pearson/
Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of
successful women of color: Science identity as an analytical lens. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187e1218.
Case, J. M. (2015). Emergent interactions: Rethinking the relationship between
teaching and learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(6), 625e635.
Chung-Parsons, R. (2016). The development of pre-service secondary science teachers’
understanding of their science teacher identities. (Ed.D. capstone). Salt Lake City,
UT: University of Utah.
Chung-Parsons, R., & Bailey, J. M. (2018). A possible mechanism for variations in
preservice science teacher identity development. manuscript in preparation.
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2007). Teacher credentials and student
achievement in high school: A cross-subject analysis with student fixed effects.
Economics of Education Review, 26(6), 673e782.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1999). Shaping a professional identity: Stories of
education practice. London, England: Althouse Press.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and pro-
cedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1988). Policy and professionalism. In A. Lieberman (Ed.),
Building a professional culture in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College,
Columbia University.
Deneroff, V. (2013). Professional development in person: Identity and the con-
struction of teaching within a high school science department. Cultural Studies
of Science Education, 11(2), 213e233.
Denzen, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Donmoyer, R. (1990). Generalizability and the single-case study. In E. W. Eisener, &
A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp.
175e200). New York, NY: Teachers College.
Enyedy, N., Goldberg, J., & Welsh, K. M. (2005). Complex dilemma of identity and
practice. Science Education, 90(1), 68e93.
Fletcher, S. S. (2006). Exploring the beliefs and practices of five preservice secondary
science teachers from recruitment through induction in a university preparation
program: A longitudinal study. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations
(AAT 304978592).
Flores, M. A., & Day, C. (2006). Contexts which shape and reshape new teachers'
identities: A multi-perspective study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(2),
219e232.
Fourez, G. (1989). Scientific literacy, social choices, and ideologies. In
A. B. Champagne, B. E. Lovitts, & B. J. Callinger (Eds.), This year in school science:
Scientific literacy (pp. 89e108). Washington, DC: AAAS.
Franke, M. L., & Kazemi, E. (2001). Teaching as learning within a community of
practice. In T. Wood, B. Nelson, & J. Warfield (Eds.), Beyond classical pedagogy in
elementary mathematics: The nature of facilitative teaching (pp. 27e46). Mah-
wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gay, L. R., Mills, E. M., & Airasian, P. (2011). Educational research: Competencies for
analysis and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ, and Columbus, OH: Pearson
Prentice-Hall/Merrill.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Gibbs, W. W., & Fox, D. (1999). The false crisis in science education. Scientific
American, 281(4), 87e92.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. S. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
Goodson, I. (1991). Biography, identity, and schooling. London, UK: Falmer.
Grossman, J. M., & Porche, M. V. (2013). Perceived gender and racial/ethnic barriers
to STEM success. Urban Education, 49(6), 698e727.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and
emerging confluences. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (3rd ed., pp. 191e216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hagay, G., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2015). A strategy for incorporating students' in-
terests into the high-school science classroom. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 52(7), 949e978.
Harrell-Levy, M. K., & Kerpelman, J. L. (2010). Identity process and transformative
pedagogy: Teachers as agents of identity formation. Identity: International
Journal of Theory and Research, 10(2), 76e91.
Hazari, Z., Cass, C., & Beattie, C. (2015). Obscuring power structures in the physics
classroom: Linking teacher positioning, student engagement, and physics
identity development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(6), 735e762.
Hazen, R. M., & Trefil, J. (1991). Science matters: Achieving scientific literacy. New
York, NY: Anchor Books Doubleday.
47
Helms, J. (1998). Science and me: Subject matter and identity in secondary school
science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 811e834.
Henry, A. (2016). Conceptualizing teacher identity as a complex dynamic system:
The inner dynamics of transformations during practicum. Journal of Teacher
Education, 67(4), 291e305.
Hoban, G. (2007). Considerations for designing coherent teacher education pro-
grams. In J. Butcher, & L. McDonald (Eds.), Making a difference: Challenges for
teachers, teaching and teacher education (pp. 173e187). Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for
enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11),
1347e1362.
Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in
cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Holland, D., & Lave, J. (2001). History in person: Enduring struggles, contentious
practice, intimate identities. Albuquerque, NM: School of American Research
Press.
Hurd, P. D. (2001). Modernizing science education. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 39(1), 3e9.
Izadinia, M. (2015). A closer look at the role of mentor teachers in shaping pre-
service teachers' professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52(1),
1e10.
Jansen, A., & Bartell, T. (2013). Caring mathematics instruction: Middle school
students' and teachers' perspectives. Middle Grades Research Journal, 8(1),
33e49.
Kalem, S., & Fer, S. (2003). The effects of the active learning model on students'
learning, teaching and communication. Educational Sciences: Theory and Prac-
tice, 3(2), 455e461.
Kaplan, A., & Flum, H. (2012). Identity formation in educational settings: A critical
focus for education in the 21st century. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
37(3), 171e175.
Kaplan, A., Sinai, M., & Flum, H. (2014). Design-based interventions for promoting
students' identity exploration within the school curriculum. In S. A. Karabenick,
& T. C. Urdan (Eds.), Motivational interventions (pp. 243e291). Bingley, United
Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Kleickmann, T., Richter, D., Kunter, M., Elsner, J., Besser, M., & Krauss, S. (2013).
Teachers' content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. The role of
structural differences in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1),
90e106.
Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education,
84(1), 71e94.
Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3(3),
149e164.
Lederman, N. G., & O'Malley, M. (1990). Students' perceptions of tentativeness in
science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74(2),
225e239.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Ligorio, M. B. (2010). Dialogical relationship between identity and learning. Culture
& Psychology, 16(1), 93e107.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies. Contradictions, and
emerging confluences. In N. K. Denizen, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163e188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lofgran, B. B., Smith, L. K., & Whiting, E. F. (2015). Science self-efficacy and school
transitions: Elementary school to middle school, middle school to high school.
School Science & Mathematics, 115(7), 366e376.
Lortie, D. (1975). School-teacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Loughran, J. J. (2013). Pedagogy: Making sense of the complex relationship between
teaching and learning. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 118e141.
Luehmann, A. (2007). Identity development as a lens to science teacher prepara-
tion. Science Education, 91(5), 822e839.
Maxwell. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implantation
(revised and expanded from Qualitative research and case study applications in
education). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldan ~ a, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A
methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus,
112(2), 29e48.
Nasir, N., & Cooks, J. (2009). Becoming a hurdler: How learning setting afford
identities. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 40(1), 41e61.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 19(4), 317e328.
Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disci-
plinary contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4),
405e417.
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. A
report to the Nuffield foundation. London, UK: Kings College.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the
literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9),
1049e1079.
Osterman, K. F., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1993). Reflective practice for educators: Improving
schooling through professional development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
48 R. Chung-Parsons, J.M. Bailey / Teaching and Teacher Education 78 (2019) 39e48
Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307e332.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pea, R., & Collins, A. (2008). Learning how to do science education: Four waves of
reform. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science
education (pp. 3e12). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Pedretti, E. G., Bencze, L., Hewitt, J., Romkey, L., & Jivraj, A. (2008). Promoting issues-
based perspectives in science teacher education: Problems of identity and
ideology. Science Education, 17(8e9), 941e960.
Pella, M. O., O'Hearn, G. T., & Gale, C. G. (1966). Referents to scientific literacy.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4(3), 199e208.
Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. M. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual
Review of Sociology, 27, 283e305.
Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data. London, UK: Sage.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In
J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research in teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102e119).
New York, NY: Macmillan.
Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement:
Evidence from panel data. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 247e252.
Ronfelt, M. (2012). Where should student teachers learn to teach? Effects of field
placement school characteristics on teacher retention and effectiveness.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(1), 3e26.
Roth, W. M., & Tobin, K. (2007). Aporias of identity in science: An introdction. In
W. M. Roth, & K. Tobin (Eds.), Science, learning, identity: Sociocultural and
cultural-historical perspectives (pp. 1e10). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Ox-
ford University Press.
Saka, Y., Southerland, S. A., Kittleson, J., & Hunter, T. (2013). Understanding the
induction of a science teacher: The interaction of identity and context. Research
in Science Education, 43(3), 1221e1244.
Schachter, E. P., & Rich, Y. (2011). Identity education: A conceptual framework for
educational researchers and practitioners. Educational Psychologist, 46(4),
222e238.
Schultz, K., & Ravitch, S. (2012). Narratives of learning to teach: Taking on profes-
sional identities. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 35e46.
Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia
University.
Sen, O. F., & Sari, U. (2017). Pre-service teachers' beliefs about science teaching and
perception of the nature of science. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 21(1),
1e14.
Shen, B. S. P. (1975). Scientific literacy and the public understanding of science. In
S. B. Day (Ed.), Communication of scientific information (pp. 44e52). Basel,
Switzerland: Karger.
Sikes, P. J. (1985). The life cycle of the teacher. In S. J. Ball, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.),
Teachers' lives and careers. London, UK, and Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press.
Silva, D. Y., Gimbert, B., & Nolan, J. (2000). Sliding the doors: Locking and unlocking
possibilities for teacher leadership. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 779e804.
Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text
and interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smith, L. K. (2005). The impact of early life history on teachers' beliefs: In-school
and out-of-school experiences as learners and knowers of science. Teachers
and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(1), 5e36.
Smith, C. M., & Darfler, A. (2012). An exploration of teachers' efforts to understand
identity work and its relevance to science instruction. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 23(4), 347e365.
Song, G., & Shuhua, W. (2007). A study on pertinent influencing factors on teachers'
professional identity. Frontiers of Education in China, 2(4), 634e650.
Timostsuk, I., & Ugaste, A. (2010). Student teachers' professional identity. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1563e157.
UTeach Institute. (2013). The UTeach secondary STEM teacher preparation model
and current standards reform initiatives. Retrieved April 25, 2016 from http://
uteach-institue.org.
Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and
reform in science education: The role of teachers' practical knowledge. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137e158.
Varelas, M., House, R., & Wenzel, S. (2005). Beginning teachers immersed into
science: Scientist and science teacher identities. Science Education, 89(3),
492e516.
Wang, J., Lin, E., Spalding, E., Klecka, C., & Odell, S. (2011). Quality teaching and
teacher education: A kaleidoscope of notions. Journal of Teacher Education,
62(4), 331e338.
Wells, G. C. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of
education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, R. C. (2014). Preservice teachers' application of theory in student teaching
practice: The inconsistency of implementation. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital
Dissertations (AAT 559962204).
Wilson, R. E., Bradbury, L. U., & McGlasson, M. A. (2015). Integrating service-learning
pedagogy for preservice elementary teachers' science identity development.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(3), 319e340.
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and inter-
pretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.