2018 - Transformation of Professional Identities From Scientist To Teacher in A Short Track Science Teacher Education Program

Journal of Science Teacher Education
ISSN: 1046-560X (Print) 1573-1847 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uste20
Transformation of Professional Identities From

Scientist to Teacher in a Short-Track Science
Teacher Education Program
Bengt-Olov Molander & Karim Hamza
To cite this article: Bengt-Olov Molander & Karim Hamza (2018) Transformation of Professional
Identities From Scientist to Teacher in a Short-Track Science Teacher Education Program, Journal
of Science Teacher Education, 29:6, 504-526, DOI: 10.1080/1046560X.2018.1473749
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1473749
© Bengt-Olov Molander and Karim Hamza.

Published with license by Taylor & Francis.
Published online: 25 May 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1542
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 8 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uste20
JOURNAL OF SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION
2018, VOL. 29, NO. 6, 504–526
https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1473749
Transformation of Professional Identities From Scientist to

Teacher in a Short-Track Science Teacher Education Program
Bengt-Olov Molander and Karim Hamza
Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The development of professional identity during a short-track teacher professional identity; science
teacher education; short-
education program is studied. This article presents how individuals
track teacher education
with a strong background in natural sciences describe the teacher
education in which they participate. Individual interviews were con-
ducted with 6 student teachers with a doctorate in natural sciences
and extensive work experience in science-related professions on 5
occasions during their teacher education. We suggest that shared
ways of talking about education and teaching practice can be
described as phases summed up as cautiously positive, rejection,
acceptance, and complexity. It is argued that problems of develop-
ment of professional identities can be understood in relation to the
design of the teacher education under study, and failure to acknowl-
edge the development of a professional identity as a science teacher
among these student teachers is a question of a not unproblematic
transformation of professional identities. Implications for teacher
education are that the design of teacher education needs to consider
a joint frame for the entire education, in particular the relation
between practice and theoretical courses.
Just like schools in many other Western countries, Swedish schools suffer from a shortage
of science teachers (Skolverket, 2017). This deficit puts demands on society and seats of
learning to take action to educate more teachers.
There are two routes to becoming an upper secondary school teacher in Sweden. One
avenue is through a 5-year (300 European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System
[ECTS]1 credits) education consisting of three alternating components. The components
are subject studies, educational studies, and school placement. The other path involves a
consecutive model of teacher education, common in many European countries for initial
upper secondary school teacher training, in which professional components are addressed
after a subject-specific undergraduate degree is obtained (European Commission, 2015).
In the short-track version, students complete a 90 ECTS credit education containing
educational courses (60 ECTS credits) and school placement (30 ECTS credits).
Students applying to the short-track version have varying backgrounds. Some apply
immediately after finishing their subject studies. Others completed their academic studies
CONTACT Bengt-Olov Molander bengt-olov.molander@mnd.su.se Department of Mathematics and Science

Education, Stockholm University, SE 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden.
1
ECTS is a standard means of comparing studies across countries in the European Union. One academic year corresponds to 60
ECTS credits. In a Swedish context this means that 1 week of studies corresponds to 1.5 ECTS credits.
© Bengt-Olov Molander and Karim Hamza. Published with license by Taylor & Francis.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
JOURNAL OF SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION 505
a long time ago and spent substantial time in other professions but for different reasons
change careers and apply for teacher education.
Because of the shortage of science teachers in school, and in order to recruit possible
applicants with a science background, short-track versions of teacher education have
become increasingly important. Steps are being taken by universities and on a political
level to recruit students with a strong academic background in science to teacher educa-
tion. In 2017, for example, the Swedish government started to finance a short-track science
teacher education program exclusively for students with a doctorate (PhD) in science. This
was done by providing extra financial resources to universities hosting the education and
paying the students a salary during their studies (Utbildningsdepartementet, 2016).
Individuals with a solid academic background and a long professional career behind
them reasonably have other expectations of teacher education than students just starting
their academic studies. The overarching research question of the present study is how
perceptions and experiences of teaching and knowledge about teaching change for pre-
service science teachers with a strong academic and professional background during a
short-track teacher education program.
Framework
The frameworks used to examine student teachers’ participation in teacher education are
questions about professional identity and the design of teacher education.
Professional identity
Like other types of academic professional education, such as medical, architectural, and
law education, teacher education faces the specific challenge of contributing to profes-
sionalism in occupations outside of the academy (Dahlgren, Handal, Szkudlarek, & Bayer,
2007). Here we do not address professionalism as discourses of occupational change and
control (Evetts, 2014) highlighting the autonomy of occupational groups (Evetts, 2008) or
“defending the profession against external threats” (Birden et al., 2014, p. 47). Our interest
concerns professionalism as proficiency. One way to regard professionalism is that it
represents a number of attributes and competencies that characterize the skilled profes-
sional (cf. Forzani, 2014). Another way to regard professionalism is that it involves more
than behavioral and personal attributes and concerns questions about identity. In the
context of medical education, Wald (2015) argued that medical education should turn its
focus from “doing the work of a physician” toward the broader question of “being a
physician” (p. 1). Irby and Hamstra (2016) described the development of professional
identity in becoming a physician as “an increasingly integrated commitment to the values,
dispositions, and aspirations of the physician community” in which learners are being
socialized into “thinking, feeling, and acting like a physician” (p. 1608). In a similar line of
reasoning, Lampert (2010) wrote the following about teacher education: “It is more than
acquiring the skills and best practices. It involves adopting the identity of a teacher, being
accepted as a teacher, and taking on the common values, language, and tools of teaching”
(p. 29). If we regard professionalism as occupational identity, we expect to be able to
identify specific values, norms, and language whether we observe teachers, physicians,
architects, or science researchers. In the context of teaching, different scholars have used a
506 B.-O. MOLANDER AND K. HAMZA
number of definitions to examine teachers’ identity, professional development, and actions

(Enyedy, Goldberg, & Welsh, 2006; Gee, 2001; Helms, 1998; Luehmann, 2007; Tobin &
Llena, 2012; Varelas, 2012; Watson, 2013). In these various definitions, identity is con-
strued as socially constituted and relates to participation in different communities, in line
with the reasoning of Lave and Wenger (1991). Wenger (2000) wrote,
We define ourselves by what we are as well as by what we are not, by the communities we do
not belong to as well as by the ones we do. These relationships change. We move from
community to community. In doing so, we carry a bit of each as we go around. (p. 239)
A consequence of viewing identity as formed through participation in social practices is

that it is seen not as a stable, individual trait but rather as a dynamic process and as an
outcome of interaction with others in different social practices (Roth & Tobin, 2007).
Becoming a participant in a social practice means adopting specific ways of seeing, talking,
and acting, thereby being recognized by others as a member of the community. In the
words of Saka, Southerland, Kittleson, and Hutner (2013),
Each of us enact multiple identities relevant to the roles we play in our lives; identity
formation and maintenance are dynamic processes that involve an individual interacting
with others within particular contexts. Too, identity is socially negotiated through discursive
activities with others; an individual cannot perform an identity without some form of
recognition from others. (p. 1225)
In accordance with the above reasoning, successfully participating in teacher education

can be regarded as developing a professional identity, in which ways of understanding and
talking about instruction change through participation in discursive practices.
One factor that might contribute to problems and possible clashes during student
teachers’ professional identity formation is that they have acquired a view of teaching
and instruction through apprenticeship by observation (Lortie, 1975). As former pupils,
they have taken part in instruction but without seeing the hidden work of teachers in
terms of content selection and teaching methods adapted to a specific context, and so they
may well perceive teaching as a quite straightforward activity of presenting facts.
Moreover, we may suspect that student teachers entering teacher education late in their
careers will keep images of science teaching more in line with their own secondary studies
than with contemporary views. For example, the challenge of offering high-quality, correct
explanations of subject matter may be considered the major concern by these teachers. But
classroom teaching is more than explaining science proper, as good teaching is dependent
on relations between the teacher and pupils. Bullough and Gitlin (2001) acknowledged the
importance of social relationships in teaching in this manner: “Teaching is a relationship,
a way of being with and relating to others and not merely an expression of having
mastered a set of content-related delivery skills” (p. 3). In the same vein, Loughran
(2006) reasoned that teacher education needs to address the social and relational dimen-
sions of teaching to encompass issues about developing sensitivity and building trust and
honesty in the educational setting (see also Feiman-Nemser, 2012; Roosevelt, 2007).
If student teachers enter teacher education with the ambition to learn the correct
methods of teaching, their expectations are likely to be in conflict with what teacher
education actually offers (Bullough & Gitlin, 2001; Korthagen, 2001; Loughran, 2006). The
point being made here, exemplified by discussing the relative importance of content
knowledge and social relationships, is that professional development is not a matter of

adding knowledge about social aspects of teaching to a number of established teaching
techniques. Rather, if we use identity to understand teachers’ professionalism, develop-
ment from a content focus to a relationship focus involves a change in viewing and
valuing aspects of the teaching situation and thus a development toward “adopting the
identity of a teacher” (Lampert, 2010, p. 29). For individuals who already have a profes-
sional career in science, involvement in teacher education represents a transformation
from one professional identity to another. As shown by Snyder, Oliveira, and Paska
(2013), such a transformation is not a smooth process because it involves inter alia
“tensions and rewards of becoming a novice student teacher after being a successful
‘expert’ in a previous career” (Williams, 2010, p. 639). Snyder et al. showed how building
a teacher identity involves the development of knowledge and skills but also concerns
feelings of disorientation, questions of confidence and meaning, and changed perceptions
of social roles.
If the purpose of teacher education is to contribute to the development of professional
identity, it is important to consider how teacher education is organized to meet these
expectations. We therefore turn to the design of academic professional education and
teacher education in particular.
The design of teacher education

In traditional academic education a student is socialized into concepts and ways of talking
and acting through undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral studies within a discipline.
Academic professional education meets another challenge. The academy has a formal
responsibility for the education, but it prepares for occupations outside of the academy. A
common design for academic professional education therefore is that it consists of courses
at universities and participation in the practice that the education is aiming for, such as
clinical work for physicians, studio work for architects, or classroom work for teachers.
In all of these types of academic professional education, it is crucial that university
courses and practice courses interact to contribute to intended goals. However, as van
Driel, Verloop, and de Vos (1998) contended for teacher education, students often do not
see the connection between different courses (see also Abell, 2008; Bishop & Denley, 2007;
Shulman, 1986, 1987). Instead, the teacher education program is often perceived as
“disjointed, fragmented and confusing [because] methods courses were disconnected
from curriculum courses, and both were disconnected from practice teaching”
(Bullough & Gitlin, 2001, p. 1).
Of particular concern is what has been referred to as the theory–practice gap, which
for teacher education means that students often do not see the connection between
educational theory taught in university courses and practice teaching (Clandinin, 1995;
Darling-Hammond, 2009; Zeichner, 2010). However, different meanings of practice and
understandings of the role of practice in teacher education inevitably affect the design of
teacher education and also relate to how one regards professionalism. According to
Lampert (2010), there are three different meanings of practice in relation to teacher
education: practice as that which is opposed to theory, practice as a rehearsal for
teaching performance, and practice as an instance of a set of practices “created and
maintained by a collective and learned by participation in that collective” (p. 32). If
professionalism is regarded as a number of competencies and skills, the role of school

placement is likely to be to provide an arena in which to apply, rehearse, and practice
the competencies obtained (cf. Lampert, 2010). This corresponds to a traditional teacher
education that might be called a theory-into-practice structure (Korthagen & Kessels,
1999; Tom, 1997; Zeichner, 2010). However, if the development of professionalism is
perceived as adopting a professional identity, the role of school placement instead
becomes an arena in which teaching practices are learned through participating in
these practices within a collective of teachers. From that point of view, experiences
from practice need to interact with theoretical on-campus courses in ways that support
such increased participation and development of a professional identity. Different terms,
such as practice based and practice oriented, have been used to describe teacher educa-
tion programs that recognize that much of what student teachers “need to learn must be
learned in and from practice rather than preparing for practice” (Zeichner, 2010, p. 91).
The purpose of the present study is to examine how a short-track science teacher
education might contribute to developing the professional identities of students who
already have strong academic and professional backgrounds in science. The point of
departure is that becoming a professional cannot be reduced to acquiring a number of
abilities and skills in preservice teacher education. Rather, teaching is conceived “as a
composite of technique, analysis, interpretation and judgement” (Forzani, 2014, p. 365).
Thus, teaching involves techniques but also ways of seeing, judging, and acting in
accordance with demands in different educational contexts and situations. In this sense,
becoming a professional teacher means developing a professional way of seeing, valuing,
and judging teaching and learning situations and thus becomes a matter of developing a
professional identity as a teacher. When this framing of identity is used, a central question
becomes whether and how a short-track teacher education program may support a
developing identity as a science teacher through participation in university courses and
school practice.
In this study, we examine the development of professional identity empirically through
student teachers’ ways of talking about teaching and the teacher education they participate
in. Ways of talking and possible changes in ways of talking are interpreted in terms of
course demands and educational design.
The research questions are as follows:
(1) What, regarding teaching and coursework, is highlighted and talked about by
student teachers with a science background throughout their education?
(2) Does student teachers’ focus of attention concerning aspects of their teacher studies
change over time, and if so how?
(3) How can these changes be related to the design of the education program?
Context and methods

The teacher education program that we studied is a special version of a short-track teacher
education program at a large university in Sweden. A short-track teacher education program
normally involves three semesters of study. A special version was created for individuals with
a PhD in mathematics, science, or technology, which meant that they could complete their
diploma work during the second semester and the holiday between the second and third
semesters and then get a trial period of employment at a school in the third semester. The
shortened version was offered to applicants with a PhD to meet the demands for more
teachers in mathematics and science and because applicants’ solid academic background in
subject studies and as researchers would imply an ability to study at a quicker pace.
It is the responsibility of the university to work out course content, the number of ECTS
credits per course, and the order of courses. The organization of the university where the
teacher education in question is being carried out is clearly decentralized. Educational
departments are distributed over three faculties: the Faculty of Humanities, Faculty of
Social Sciences, and Faculty of Science. The 60 ECTS credits in the educational core were
divided into 10 courses ranging from 2.5 ECTS credits to 15 ECTS credits, and the
responsibility for course design and course content was distributed among five departments
and three faculties. The three school placement courses (30 ECTS credits) were the respon-
sibility of the same department that offered the three science education courses. The courses,
in order of their appearance in the teacher education program, are described in Figure 1.
Only students with a background in these subjects attend courses in science education
(Figure 1, courses A, I, and K). During school placement (Figure 1, courses C, J, and L)
student teachers are tutored by a science teacher working at the school, and they teach
subjects that correspond to their previous exams. The general educational courses
(Figure 1, courses B, D, E, F, G, and H) do not specifically relate to a particular subject
content, and students with different educational backgrounds participate in the same
classes/groups. This means that students with a background in mathematics and natural
sciences are placed in the same group as students who have specialized in languages, the
humanities, or social sciences. In these courses, content is not usually related to specific
school subjects but is presented on a more general level.
Semester 1
A1 B C D E2
Semester 2
F G H I3 J K4
Semester 3
L M5
Figure 1. Description of the short-track teacher education program with regard to the organization of
courses in semesters and the number of European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)
credits per course. One week of studies corresponds to 1.5 ECTS credits. The marked courses refer to
school placement. Numbers 1–5 mark the five instances when student teachers were interviewed. A =
mathematics and science education (10 ECTS credits); B = perspectives on learning and development
(5); C = school placement (6.5); D = the history of education and its role in society (3.5); E = social
relations in school (5); F = law and ethics in school (2.5); G = evaluation and developmental work of
education and schools (4); H = special education (5); I = science education (5); J = school placement
(8.5); K = science education (5); L = school placement (15); M = diploma work (15).
One consequence of the delegated responsibility for courses to different faculties and
departments is that there is no shared idea about the design of the education with regard to
how campus courses relate to practicum. Thus, some of the courses are framed in a more
theory-into-practice design, whereas other courses are closer to a practice-oriented design.
For example, based on the curriculum and expected learning outcomes, we interpret
the first course in science education (Figure 1, course A) as being framed in a more
practice-oriented design. One of the learning outcomes, which is part of the curricula for
university courses, in the first course in science education is “to plan and discuss teaching
and give reasons for choice of content with a point of departure in curriculum theory and
science education.” Indeed, course content explicitly relates to the act of teaching. In the
following practicum course (Figure 1, course C), postpracticum seminars are held with the
same teachers who were involved in the science education course. In these seminars,
experiences of one’s own practice teaching are discussed in relation to the content treated
in the first course in science education before the practicum.
The course on perspectives on learning and development is run by another department
and is taken by students with backgrounds in different subjects. The course addresses
behaviorist, constructivist, sociocultural, and poststructuralist perspectives on learning
and displays more characteristics of a theory-into-practice design, which is evident from
combining the two expected learning outcomes in the course:
● Discern, describe and compare different theories and perspectives on learning and
individual development.
● Argue for what may limit and enable learning in concrete situations with a point of
departure in different theoretical perspectives.
In the space of 3.5 weeks and prior to their first school placement, the students are
expected to learn and discriminate between different learning theories and then apply the
theories to concrete situations.
Participants in the study

All students with a PhD in science, three women and three men, who attended the short-
track teacher education program accepted to participate in the study. We did not
participate in and had no influence on assessment in any of the courses the students
took. The participating students are described in Table 1 with regard to their academic
and professional backgrounds and their reasons for applying to the teacher education
programs. Names have been changed, and the ages of the students are presented in round
numbers. They all had a PhD in a field of natural science, but for reasons of confidentiality
their specific subjects are not disclosed.
In the following, we refer to the participants as student teachers or students, whereas
learners in school are referred to as pupils.
Methods, data generation, and analysis

The students were interviewed by the first author on five occasions during the program. The
instances when students were interviewed are presented in Figure 1. The semistructured
Table 1. Names of students participating in the study, ages in approximate figures, academic and
occupational backgrounds, and reasons for applying to the short-track teacher education program.
Participant Age, academic and occupational background, and reasons for applying
Ann Female, age 40+, a varied work background before university studies, PhD some years ago, followed by
6 months’ employment at the department. After that unemployed. She had an interest in teaching in which
she could also use her subject knowledge.
Beth Female, age 50+, PhD some 10 years ago followed by research. She had worked in science-related
organizations and also had experience teaching in an upper secondary school for one semester. Applied to
the teacher education program because of the tough labor market and a good subject background.
Caroline Female, age 40+, PhD some 10 years ago. Worked in companies related to her subject specialization but felt
“trapped” in industry. Applied to the teacher education program seeing it as a possibility to use her subject
knowledge but also because teaching enables social encounters.
David Male, age 50+, PhD some 30 years ago. Worked at a university department for about 10 years but switched
to industry and worked in different companies until applying to the teacher education program. Got tired of
recurrent rationalizations and savings programs at the company he worked in. Applied to the teacher
education program because of an engagement and interest in teaching during his years at the university.
Eric Male, age 55+, PhD some 30 years ago. Worked at a university department for a couple of years but since
changed to work in private companies related to his subject specialization. Unemployed for a year, applied
to the teacher education program because he was interested in teaching during the time at his old
department.
Frank Male, age 45+, PhD about 20 years ago. Worked at a university department for a couple of years and then
in companies related to his PhD studies for about 10 years. After that unemployed. Applied to the teacher
education program because he felt he could use his subject knowledge as a teacher.
Note. PhD = doctoral degree.
interviews were conducted individually in an office at the university. Four predesigned

questions were asked of all students in all interviews except where stated below. These
questions were as follows:
● How do you experience the education as a whole?

● How do you experience different courses on campus?
● What are your expectations for school placement [in Interviews 1 and 3]? Or, How
did you experience school placement [in Interviews 2 and 4]?
● How do you experience the connection between campus courses and between
campus courses and school placement [in Interviews 2–5 after they had taken part
in school placement]?
In the final interview, the students were also asked to give their viewpoints on the
education program as a whole.
If students introduced thoughts and comments on something that was not directly related
to the predesigned questions, follow-up questions were asked to allow for the development of
thoughts and points of view. Occasionally students were asked to comment about statements
that they had made in previous interviews. Interviews lasted between 38 and 71 min.
In all, 24 interviews with a total length of approximately 22 hr were conducted.
Interviews were transcribed verbatim after the last interviews were conducted.
After listening to all of the interviews, the first author analyzed them by assembling
statements in categories regarding course content, interaction between university courses,
interaction between university courses and practice teaching, and explicit and implicit
views of teaching. Iterative cycles of data analysis were made in search of patterns of
similarities and differences within categories. This procedure was repeated for all rounds
of interviews.
Validity and reliability were addressed in a variety of ways. First we performed member
checking of our interpretations of the interviews (Mears, 2012). Thus, a preliminary
version of the text was sent to the participants, who were asked to read and comment
on statements presented in the text. We specifically asked them to check that they had not
been misinterpreted. None of the participants objected to the interpretations. In addition,
all categorizations and interpretations initially made by the first author were crosschecked
by the second author (Johnson & Christensen, 2008). The modifications suggested by the
second author were then discussed between both authors until consensus was reached. On
a more general level, we took care to keep a reflexive stance toward our own potential
biases, and a draft of the manuscript was scrutinized by the research group at the
department. Finally, we consider the verbatim accounts of the informants given in
connection with our categories to increase considerably the interpretive validity of the
study.
Of course, the student teachers varied in terms of what they paid special attention to during
the interviews. However, it was possible to identify predominant ways of talking in the
different rounds of interviews. These predominant ways of talking together formed a shared
story of what the students paid attention to and talked about during their teacher education.
Results
It is obvious that what was commented on and given attention to was based on a tension
between expectations of what the teacher education program would offer and what was
actually offered. It was also obvious that predominant ways of talking about teaching and
the education changed over time. Through the five interviews, four different phases
characterized by changing ways of talking both about teaching and about the education
were identified. The phases concerned changes in the student teachers’ views both on
teaching and on their teacher education. The succession of the phases became a story of
the development of a professional identity in these students (or in some cases not, as two
of the six participants quit the program at an early stage).
Below we present excerpts from each round of interviews. Excerpts were chosen to
illustrate the variation in statements and at the same time as grounds for the validity of the
phases as a feature of change common to all participants.
The first interview: The cautiously positive phase

The first round of interviews was conducted between 2 and 3 weeks into the introductory
course in science education (Figure 1, course A). The course introduces science education
as a field of research. It focuses specifically on curriculum theory, formative and summa-
tive assessment, and how more theoretical aspects can be used as grounds for planning
and assessing science teaching. In this interview, an initial phase representing the new
student teachers’ views on teaching and their education is identified that may be char-
acterized as follows: (a) concerning teaching—focus on explaining the subject, (b) con-
cerning expectations for the teacher education program—learning how to teach, (c)
concerning what the education actually provides—cautiously positive that they get what
they expect. Below we outline in more detail how these aspects of the initial phase played
out in the student teachers’ reasoning during the interviews.
Teaching is implicitly talked about as the transmission and transfer of knowledge from
teacher to pupil. For example, Eric and Ann talk about “how to reach out” or “how to get
through” and how to “scale down” or adjust subject content to “the right level.” It is evident
that the students at this stage of the education focus on their own role as “efficient explainers.”
In response to a question about the school placement that would take place some 6 weeks
later (Figure 1, course C), the participants generally have positive expectations but also
concerns about whether their content knowledge “is enough” or is “up to date,” as in some
cases a long time has elapsed since they studied their subjects. Thus, they highlight the fact that
their subject content knowledge needs to be updated and correct and that the important job is
for them to be able to adjust and explain the academic content to a younger audience.
Caroline’s statement about her expectations of the initial course in science education
(Figure 1, course A) illustrates that both in terms of her coming teaching the pupils are
seen as having a subordinate role compared to the subject and in terms of her teacher
education she expects the course to provide concrete support for this: “I worry about my
portfolio of lesson plans. I would like a physical portfolio with all the lesson plans we have
planned, but we haven’t got there yet.” Caroline wants the course to provide her with the
opportunity to build a portfolio of lesson plans that can be used during practicum and
later when she becomes a teacher. These plans take as their starting point the subject
content, and the question is how to find the right level and mode of presentation.
Adjusting teaching to possible differences between groups of pupils and/or curricular
goals is not, at this stage, a major concern.
Concerning what they actually get from this initial course in science education, the
students say that there is a good balance between “theory and practice, or demonstra-
tions.” However, the more theoretical aspects of science education as a field of research do
not correspond to what these students are used to. These parts of the course are described
as abstract or “woolly”: “It’s different . . . it’s a lot of words as compared to physics. It’s
woolly, but one is groping in the dark how one would really do effective teaching” (David)
and “The texts are so long and you need to read three or four times to understand what
they really wish to say. It becomes so voluminous” (Eric).
In summary, teaching is viewed as adjusting, or scaling down, content in scientific
disciplines into explanations at a proper level for pupils in schools. The student teachers’
expectations of the course in science education are to be presented with defined guidelines
and facts about how to produce effective teaching as well as with the opportunity to build
up portfolios of lesson plans. The student teachers appreciate the lesson planning done in
the course, but the more theoretical content of science education as a field of research and
reasoning about curricula, social interaction, pupil-centered teaching, and possible ways of
assessing students’ learning is described as abstract and woolly. Nevertheless, at this early
stage the attitudes of the students toward what they get from the education program can
be described as cautiously positive.
The second interview: The rejection phase

The second interview took place at the end of the first semester during the course on social
relations in school (Figure 1, course E). Since the first interview, the students had finished
the first practicum (Figure 1, course C) as well as two entire courses in general education
(Figure 1, courses B and D). In terms of the student teachers’ views of teaching and
expectations for their education, there is no actual change compared to the first interview.
However, a second phase may nevertheless be identified through a distinct shift in what
the students think that they get from their teacher studies. The attitude described as
cautiously positive in the first interview has now changed to very critical and may be
categorized as a rejection of what is offered from the three general education courses
(Figure 1, courses B, D, and E).
Statements representing a view of teaching as a transfer of knowledge from teacher to
students recur during this second interview. Eric recounts one occasion during his
practicum when his tutor and a visiting university teacher suggested that he could have
let the pupils discuss possible explanations to phase transitions during one of Eric’s
lessons: “I can’t understand that . . . I thought it was much better to explain it, because
if they had been in groups you wouldn’t know what conclusion they would have reached.”
Eric’s way of making sure that the pupils got the scientific content right is to explain it to
them, which he regards as more effective than discussions because it avoids the possibility
that pupils may come to the wrong conclusion. As in the first interview, there is thus a
continued focus on the subject and getting it through to the students as well as possible.
However, all six students talk about their practicum in positive terms. Their experiences
from observing tutors’ lessons, discussions with tutors, and especially their own practice
teaching are described as very intense but also rewarding.
Their positive experiences of participating in school practice are in marked contrast to
how the student teachers refer to courses on campus and to what extent the courses
interact with the practicum. It is clear from the interviews that the students still expect the
campus courses to provide direct support for teaching. However, the three general
education courses are described as having little to offer to support actual work as a
teacher. Instead, the courses are perceived as strictly academic. David says, “. . . [we]
have done research once upon a time and we want to do something different so it feels
as if an academic course aiming at a career in research is not very relevant.” All student
teachers give similar comments, calling the general educational courses not directly related
to science teaching too “academic” and detached from their practice teachings. Moreover,
these particular students, with a strong background in (natural) sciences, question the very
basis for the theoretical framing and reasoning in educational sciences. Caroline says, “. . .
quite a lot of words, sort of. I’m a scientist and I know how to write lab reports . . . but
analysis of texts and perspectives . . . perspectives alone is a new word for me . . . what kind
of perspectives?” Beth dissociates herself even more from the campus courses with regard
to both form and content. Animated and frustrated, she says that the campus courses are
fragmented and disconnected:
I’ve published scientific articles earlier so I don’t need this kindergarten level . . . writing some
sort of pseudoscientific make-believe texts which is what every assessment is all about. . . . We
were supposed to use one text to analyze something else and that’s completely alien to us
scientists. We work with reality and that’s the physical reality . . . and laws of nature. To me
it’s important that things are possible to quantify and falsify and if it’s not possible it isn’t
science. So of course, this is a clash of cultures for us.
Reasonably, the ambition for the education is that content in campus courses should
merge with experiences in school practice. However, what we can identify is the opposite:
namely, a distinct division between campus courses and school practice. Experiences of
participating in schools are talked about in positive terms, but the general educational
courses at the university are strongly criticized. On the one hand, they are perceived as
preparing someone for a research career in pedagogy rather than a teaching career, while
on the other hand the academic content itself is not actually perceived as academic at all.
The courses are described as presenting pseudoscientific or unfamiliar theories containing
“quite a lot of words” but contributing little toward understanding teaching practice.
At the same time, it may be worth noting that these students realize that in order to
understand teaching practice, for instance as experienced during their first practicum,
some sort of knowledge to which they do not have access is required. Caroline says that
they had many assignments of observing and reflecting on lessons during the practicum
but that they would have needed “more concrete things, because when you sit there so
much happens and you see nothing . . . because you know so little,” and Eric says, “When
you’re supposed to reflect on something. There are a lot of things to take into account that
you don’t really understand. I don’t know how to tackle it.” Obviously, however, none of
the two initial campus courses (Figure 1, courses A and B) have prepared them for such
understanding during the first practicum.
At this stage, two of the students, Eric and Frank, quit the program completely. Frank is
offered a job as a chemist in a private company, whereas Eric says that if he had “been 10
years younger I would probably have continued with the education.” However, he adds
that he had “expected something completely different” of the teacher education, with more
of the content being about actual teaching methods. During his years in the corporate
world, he has been able to build up good retirement savings and now chooses to retire.
In summary, the second phase is characterized by the student teachers retaining a view
of teaching as explanation of subject content as well as expectations for the teacher
education to provide direct support for doing just that. However, they now entirely reject
the content they actually get from the on-campus courses, as these do not provide such
direct support.
The third interview: The acceptance phase

The third interview took place a couple of weeks into the first course on science education
in the second semester (Figure 1, course I), before participants’ second practicum
(Figure 1, course J) and after the three general education courses on law and ethics in
school, evaluation and developmental work in schools, and special education (Figure 1,
courses F, G, and H). Possibly because the students had taken five general education
courses in a row (Figure 1, courses D, E, F, G, H), the focus in this interview was on the
campus courses, with very little talk about teaching, even though the interviewer asked
about their expectations for the second practicum. From this interview, it is possible to
distinguish a third phase in the students’ reasoning. Concerning teaching, there is a slight,
implicit shift toward including aspects other than the subject and its transmission.
Moreover, although there is still an expectation, or at least a wish, for concrete suggestions
for how to do things in school, there is now a kind of resigned acceptance of the
knowledge offered from general education courses.
Thus, although all four remaining students say that they still miss a “how perspective” with
regard to how to use theoretical perspectives in the teaching practice, they now refer not only
to “how to get the content through” but also how to manage other aspects of teaching. For
instance, as David calls for “the how part,” he does so in relation to the need for a teacher to
include all pupils: “I missed the how part. There was a lot of discussion about underlying
philosophy so to say and on what needs to be done but not on how to do it. Everybody should
be included . . . sure, but how?” Likewise, Ann talks about designing instruction that can
include all with a point of departure from each pupil’s ability but says that “I haven’t received
these tools and we didn’t get to know how to do it,” and Caroline says that “it has been about
the same in all of the courses . . . oops, there’s no recipe and everything is situated.”
Although some of the participants describe the courses in general education as “inter-
esting as such,” there is still consensus that the courses are too academic. Certain
comments can be interpreted as statements that their solid academic background in
science is more of a hindrance than a support toward participating in the current teacher
education program, suggesting a move away from putting all of the blame for the
unintelligible course content on the educational subject matter. Mirroring statements
from the second round of interviews, Caroline says that the studies have been “a total
clash to me. It was a clash of cultures to get into it.” But then she adds,
. . . As a [natural] scientist you have a different way of thinking about theories but here it can
be on the one hand and on the other hand and on the third. . . . The concepts are very woolly
and it’s abstract stuff and you first have to understand what the concepts represent and sort
that out . . . I’ve come to some kind of acceptance . . . this is the way it works.
Ann too talks about acceptance, saying that “. . . now I have sort of accepted these analyses
of texts . . . you see the world in different ways but it was a bit stressful in the beginning,
you know, on the one hand and on the other hand. . . .” The students unanimously say that
the course in science education (Figure 1, course I) provides an exception to the theore-
tical focus, as exemplified by Beth’s statement that “we’ve started with science education
again and . . . it feels very good to be back there again . . . It feels very nice because it’s more
hands on and about what you would like to do as a teacher.”
To summarize, the relative inexactness in educational sciences compared to natural
sciences is still seen as a problem, but the strong negative attitudes toward educational
courses voiced during the second interview have changed to what can be labeled “accep-
tance” and that “this is the way it works.” Yet the shift in attitudes toward educational
courses is not smooth and represents a “clash of cultures.” It is evident that the students
still miss a “how perspective” in the general educational courses (i.e., how theoretical
content can actually be used in classroom settings). At the same time, “the how part” now
seems to begin to include more aspects, for instance how to include all pupils.
The fourth interview: The complexity phase

The fourth interview took place during the third course in science education at the end of
the second semester (Figure 1, course K). The student teachers had also finished their
second practicum (Figure 1, course J). During this interview, there is a distinct shift
warranting the identification of a fourth phase. Thus, the student teachers now present a
view of teaching as an extremely complex endeavor, with the relation between the teacher
and the students being highlighted. Moreover, the complexity of teaching is seen as
matching the complexity of educational science, representing a move from the acceptance
of the educational content characteristic of Phase 3 to a cautious appreciation of it.
Clearly, the practicum and classroom teaching experiences have had a significant
impact on the development of a professional identity as a teacher. The student teachers
describe the time spent in schools as very intense and demanding, but nevertheless
rewarding. Their comments show a dramatic shift from a focus on subject and explanatory
skills before the first practicum to social aspects of teacher work after the second
practicum. Ann says,
I have come to realize that subject content knowledge isn’t the . . . primary issue. It comes a
bit down on the list. I had the idea that we’re supposed to transmit subject knowledge. That’s
what we should teach them. I think I’ve gotten more of an understanding that it’s so much
more than just knowledge, subject knowledge.
Reasoning in a similar vein, Caroline is somewhat critical of demands during the course
that participants “reflect” on their teaching practice but says,
But I still think there has been a point in making this development from the realm of strict
natural science, because that’s not everything in life. A lot is this, the other things. Everything
isn’t black or white. Everything isn’t atoms which we are pretty sure of how they work.
In the second interview, after the practicum at the end of the first semester, the partici-
pants expressed strong criticism of course content being pseudoscientific as opposed to
being scientific in the sense of “real” quantifiable science. The absence of clear-cut
evidence and instruction on effective teaching methods was seen as “woollyness” or
vagueness. Now, after the second practicum, when the students have had more opportu-
nity to teach on their own, their attitudes have changed. They see that teaching may not be
a question of primarily striving for the exactness of science but of being able to pay
attention to “so much more” of “other things.” As their attitudes toward the inexactness of
educational sciences and experiences of teaching have become less negative, they have also
begun to acknowledge that the teaching profession is more complex than simply being a
question of transmitting scientific knowledge. Beth says,
There are a lot of people who don’t know what the work [as a teacher] really implies.
Everybody has met teachers in their lives but you haven’t understood what teachers actually
do . . . and it’s now during the education that I really see the full complexity of their work.
Caroline and Ann also mention complexity: Ann says that “the work is much harder than
I thought.” However, all of the students also relate feeling a greater sense of security and
having a better understanding of the work of a teacher. Beth says that “it feels as if you talk
the same language as the other teachers and you understand the thoughts behind,” and
David says, “I felt more secure in what I was doing, and most of all why I did it.” Caroline
talks about an assignment in the course in science education after the practicum in which
they were supposed to reflect on how they had used different content and concepts from
campus courses in their practice teaching and says,
And first we just sat there and thought we had learnt nothing, but then we started to pick one
thing after another of what we had learnt and consider if we had used it. And there were, sort
of, mountains of things we had learnt in different courses, and it had become so self-evident
already so it’s not something that we sit and reflect on . . . you know, it’s hard to reflect on
something that is already a part of us . . . Suddenly, a new world has opened up to me and I
can communicate with them, with people in schools.
At the same time, the student teachers reiterate their critique of the theoretical focus and
lack of concrete methods directly relating to teaching in schools in general education
courses preceding the practicum. The courses in science education are an exception, as
they present more of a “toolkit.” David says that courses in science education “have been
in a class of their own since they have been more down to earth and provided knowledge
that it is possible to apply in teaching.”
To summarize, the comments in the fourth interview represent quite a dramatic
change in the way the student teachers talk about and value different aspects of
teaching. A view of teaching as a straightforward presentation of subject content in
the first semester has changed to a view that teaching concerns “so much more than
just subject knowledge” and that the work of teachers is both complex and very hard.
The courses in science education were also previously seen as useful for practicum, but
now also the courses in general education contribute with “mountains of things” to
understand teaching practice, narrowing the gap between theory and practice. The
content in educational courses was seen as woolly in the first and second interviews
and educational theory was described as pseudoscience in the second interview by Beth,
but now the inexactness of educational theory is more accepted because, after all,
“everything isn’t black or white.”
The fifth interview: The complexity phase continued

The fifth interview took place at the very end of the third and last semester, after the last
and longest school placement (Figure 1, course L). Three of the four students did their
final diploma work (Figure 1, course M), whereas one had done the diploma work parallel
to other studies during the second semester and had now begun working as a teacher.
Speaking of phases, the fifth interview primarily demonstrates a continuation and matura-
tion of the fourth phase already identified during the fourth interview. All of the student
teachers—in one way or another—again express that working as a teacher demands more
effort and is more complex than expected, and evenings and weekends are spent on
planning instruction and assessment. They now explicitly state that they appreciate the
knowledge gained from the educational courses and that they feel prepared for their work
as teachers.
Thus, if the view of teaching could be described in terms of “transmitting correct facts
in an effective way” at the beginning of the short-track teacher education program, and
that teaching concerns much more than subject knowledge in the fourth interview, the
students now explicitly highlight the social dimension of teaching. Caroline talks about
emotional aspects of teaching and learning and says that teaching must “affect the pupils
in some way.” She says that she
. . . doesn’t want to be part of forming a person who just sits and chews it in . . . I want them to
think by themselves. We have done experiments that are very closed according to a recipe
model. . . . I can feel I have dismissed that [way of thinking] in some sort of way. If you can
make it more exciting. If you can include some challenge sort of. . . . It’s [the recipe model]
not problem solving, it’s like you shave off information and glue it on.
Beth too reflects on how her view of teaching has changed, saying,
To dare to experiment with more half-open labs and so on. I wouldn’t have thought about
doing a half-open lab or an open lab before I took part in this education . . . I can choose a
much more pupil-active way, and now I can say, as a teacher I work in this way with half-
open labs and so on . . . and it feels as if I know what I’m talking about.
Teaching is not a matter of “shaving off information and gluing it on” the heads of pupils.
The students feel comfortable and now have the educational tools to choose ways of
involving and challenging pupils emotionally and cognitively. They recognize that good
teaching involves more than elegant explanations and puts other demands and challenges
on teaching. If, for instance, one has to consider pupils’ abilities and interests in planning
schoolwork, this would mean more work for teachers. One might indeed expect the
student teachers to express negative attitudes toward heavier workloads. However, Beth
says, “Now I really see the work as a teacher as much harder than I realized it is . . . It gets
more complex and the more complex it is, the more exciting it gets.” The presence of
statements concerning pupils and social aspects of the work is maybe the most striking
feature of this last interview. Caroline says that you get close to each other and “you care
very much for each other and it’s . . . just great. It’s a personal relationship between
people.” Beth reflects on her previous background as a researcher, in which research
results “disappeared somewhere in cyberspace,” but says that working as a teacher means
you are in direct contact with pupils and she has discovered that she likes it. She also says,
I’ve actually discovered something that I didn’t know was nice, and I like . . . not only with the
talented pupils which of course can be exciting but also the ones that struggle or maybe have
not been as interested and when you can awaken an interest among them it feels nice.
In the beginning of the teacher education program, Beth and the others were concerned
about how to approach pupils with little interest in science. How would they manage the
classroom and gain respect? Now these pupils present a welcome challenge, and it is
especially rewarding to awaken a scientific interest among them. This is not to say that
there are no problems. Ann, who did her practicum in a suburban compulsory school,
talks about handling difficult social situations involving certain pupils. These situations are
often related to pupils who have tough conditions at home, perhaps involving school
welfare officers, the social authorities, and the police. Nevertheless, she says,
I’ve realized that I care about these weak ones, and the job is not so much about subject
content. It’s so much more than subject content, almost more outside subjects and subject
content. So, I think it’s more about relationships. I get personally involved in each pupil and
see them . . .
In the last interview then, comments and questions about social interaction and engaging
in students are a prominent feature, in terms of how they relate to not only teaching but
also not only their career choices. All four students without exception are positive about
becoming teachers. David expresses this by saying that “I feel . . . now I’m home.”
In response to the final question about how the student teachers have experienced the
education, they still voice some criticism of the general educational courses at campus, but
it is significantly softer. There are some comments that the course on the history of
education and its role in society (Figure 1, course D) was interesting and educative, and
someone thinks that the course on social relations (Figure 1, course E) was very good and
provided concepts that helped them to reason about things. However, educational courses
are still generally perceived as too theoretical and lacking a clear connection to actual
teaching practice.
The courses in science education are an exception, as they provide content that “is
possible to use in teaching.” However, we can identify a clear change in expectations as to
how applicable course content might be in these courses as well. In the last interview
Caroline is reminded that in the first interview she had said she wanted a portfolio “with
all the lesson plans.” Now she says,
Okay, that portfolio should maybe be filled with something, but then you realize that it’s
more like a . . . that maybe it’s not a detailed lesson plan but more of a . . . instead of having a
lot of ready-made material, maybe you have a lot of educational tools, or thoughts, models,
and exercises.
In different ways both David and Caroline suggest that the education program might be
more “individualized” or adapted to different groups of students. After having criticized
the abundance of tasks asking for “reflection,” Caroline comments on what she missed:
“More discussion and more reflection from the very start . . . We are the bank of all
experiences in some way but it’s frittered away. In some way, it really sounds crazy, but
more reflection in a better way.” Caroline thinks it “sounds crazy” to call for even more
time for reflection after having criticized the many reflective tasks during her teacher
education. However, she is referring not to predefined tasks but to the opportunity to
reflect on one’s own experiences and those of one’s peers.
The shared ways of talking in the fifth round of interviews are thus a continuation of
statements in the fourth round of interviews and explicitly concern social aspects of
teaching and teaching in terms of adapting methods to involve and challenge pupils
rather than transmitting facts. The student teachers appreciate the work and express
that they now have the knowledge, language, and self-confidence to tackle the demands
on a teacher. In this last phase in their teacher education, then, there is appreciation of
both the complex work of science teaching and the corresponding complexity of the
content in educational courses.
Discussion
The results of the present study support earlier findings. Students, especially early on in
their education, want well-defined methods of teaching, experience university courses as
disconnected, and perceive a gap between theory and practice (Bullough & Gitlin, 2001;
Korthagen, 2001; Loughran, 2006). We also recognize expressions of both frustration and
confidence from career changers in the studies of Snyder et al. (2013) and Williams
(2010).
A striking feature in the present study, though, are the very negative attitudes toward
the education described as a phase of rejection in the second round of interviews. We
interpret the negative reactions as signs of conflicts between what the student teachers
expect and what is actually offered in the education and also argue that the educational
content presents a challenge to the students’ background and professional identities as
scientists.
Below we discuss how the different phases relate to professional identity formation and
the design of teacher education. We continue by addressing the need to take transformation
of professional identities into account when designing teacher education for students with a
strong professional background in science. We conclude the section by addressing
implications.
The cautiously positive phase

The first interview took place in a course in science education before the first practicum. It
is clear that at this occasion that the student teachers focus on subject content and that
they regard teaching mainly as finding good ways to present and explain science proper.
They do get models for planning lessons in the course, and this more concrete level is
appreciated because it has direct practical value for teaching. The relation between theory
and practice is talked about in that courses at the university should provide tools that can
be used in practice teaching. Thus, practice can be understood as a place for practice as
rehearsal (Lampert, 2010) in accordance with a more theory-into-practice design of
teacher education (Forzani, 2014; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999; Zeichner, 2010).
The student teachers’ backgrounds as experts in science are valued because scientific
knowledge is a self-evident prerequisite for planning science teaching in the campus
course as well as in teaching during the practicum. Consequently, even if theories may
be perceived as somewhat alien, or “woolly,” the student teachers’ identities as experi-
enced experts in the field of science are not challenged but, at least implicitly, are
acknowledged.
The rejection phase

Before the second round of interviews, in which the student teachers were very negative,
they attended courses in general education. These courses were not related to science
teaching in particular but presented comprehensive perspectives on learning theory, the
school as a societal institution, and social relations in school. The student teachers’
negative reactions in the second interviews concern two main lines of reasoning.
First, the courses are seen as too academic and of little use in terms of practice. Even if
the courses seem to be based on a more theory-into-practice design of teacher education
based on curricula and expected learning outcomes, the students say that the content
would need to be more concrete to be of practical use. Thus, the negative comments on
the gap between the “too academic” courses and practice teaching are understandable if
the expectations of university courses are that they should provide concrete tools for
teaching during practice.
Second, the content in the courses is not perceived as scientific at all but is described as
pseudoscientific. These comments can be understood from the point of departure that the
educational course content challenges many of the both implicit and explicit ontological
and epistemological assumptions connected to a scientist’s professional identity. Course
content does not relate to science or science teaching but presents unfamiliar theoretical
perspectives in strong contrast to a (natural) scientist’s way of doing and understanding
science. Thus, in this context the student teachers’ backgrounds as experienced experts are
not valued, and the students are reduced to novices in an unfamiliar terrain of teaching, as
recognized also in the studies by Williams (2010) and Snyder et al. (2013). We understand
the rejection phase as a form of defense mechanism (cf. Turner, 2013) in which the
student teachers are opposing being challenged and asked to abandon one established
professional identity and a certain way of understanding and talking about the world in
favor of another. If one is not yet involved in a community, it is understandable to react by
rejecting that which is new and unfamiliar. Thus, this phase represents an intermission in
narrating a continuous story of transformation of professional identities.
The complexity phase

The rejection phase is followed by a more or less resigned phase of acceptance that “this is
the way it works.” But in the fourth and fifth interviews, after the second and third
practicums, we can see quite a dramatic change. The former focus on subject content and
the role of the teacher as an efficient explainer has been replaced by social aspects of
teaching and adjusting methods to particular contexts and groups of pupils using different
models of teaching. Thus, referring to Forzani (2014), we argue that the student teachers
have changed their way of interpreting and value teaching situations and that they have
acquired the tools and techniques to adjust their teaching. As Bullough and Gitlin (2001)
stated, teaching has become more of a social relationship “and not merely an expression of
having mastered a set of content-related skills” (p. 3). We can also see that the student
teachers at these later stages of their education actually identify themselves as teachers as
they talk about how they can “communicate with the people in schools” and, as Beth says,
“that you talk the same language as the other teachers.”
The relation between theory and practice has also changed. After the second
practicum, as they discuss their teaching experiences in the following science education
course, the student teachers “pick one thing after another” learned in the university
courses and realize that they have learned “mountains of things” as grounds for
understanding teaching. We can see that practice is talked about as something other
than a rehearsal space. Content in the university courses is now used as intellectual
tools to understand life in the classroom and the student teachers’ own teaching
practice. Thus, the way of relating theory to practice is now more in accordance with
a practice-based design of teacher education (Zeichner, 2010). We interpret the way in
which the student teachers talk about teaching and their experiences from university
courses and practice teaching at this stage as representing identifying themselves as,
and belonging to, the collective of teachers.
The design of teacher education in relation to the transformation of professional

identities
One might argue that participating in teacher education and developing a teacher identity
has always been hard and that this is the way it is, so why bother? Eventually the students in
the present study exhibited the development of a professional identity as a teacher anyway.
However, their journey toward this identity was not smooth and without sacrifices. Two of
the six students who started the teacher education program left during the rejection phase,
and the students who stayed showed acceptance rather than engagement for a time.
We interpret the problems described as a question about the education for this
particular group of students involving not just developing a professional teacher
identity but also raising conflicts relating to the transformation from one professional
identity to another. For an identity transformation to take place, it is important to

acknowledge and take into account students’ backgrounds as experienced experts in
science. As students move from one community of practice to another in accordance
with the reasoning of Wenger (2000), teacher education needs to acknowledge their
background and also present thought-through opportunities for recognition work and
reflection on a new practice. Or as Luehmann (2007) expressed it, “Science teachers
need the opportunity to compose and narrate their stories—their interpretations of
participation within a community of practice” (p. 833; see also Hammerness & Darling-
Hammond, 2006).
Teacher education also needs to consider design with regard to the role of practice, as
discussed by Lampert (2010). As we understand the student teachers’ comments in the
present study, practice is expected initially to function as a place for rehearsal and later to
be grounds for acquiring experiences that can be used for reflective work using content in
university courses. It is possible that such a change of the roles of practice may work, but it
is evident that the implicit shift in the role of practice presents a challenge, and grounds
for frustration, to students because it is not clear to them what to expect of the relation
between university courses and practicum.
Implications
In Sweden, as in the rest of Europe, there is a shortage of science teachers.
Arguments have been presented for offering opportunities for short-track, or even
shorter track, teacher education programs to attract scientists to a change of careers.
However, a couple of questions need to be addressed regarding the design of such
programs.
First, short-track teacher education programs cannot just be run at a quicker pace on
the faulty assumption that these students have a strong academic background and there-
fore can manage the quicker pace. The education needs to consider that it deals with a not
unproblematic transformation from one professional identity to another. The students
taking part in these programs have solid academic and/or professional backgrounds and
hence strong professional identities as scientists. The teacher education program needs to
consciously take such backgrounds into account and provide opportunities for responding
to experiences as well as presenting participants with new ways of seeing and talking about
the current social practice in which they are engaged. Acknowledging the science back-
ground and putting it to work in educational courses may work as leverage for the
transitional work of changing identities.
Second, one has to consider the frame for the education as a whole. In the present
study, we can see how some courses are framed in a more theory-into-practice design,
whereas other parts of the education correspond more to a practice-based design. This
lack of distinctness presents a problem, because there is a clash between student teachers’
expectations and what is actually offered. What is called for is a clear idea about the
relations between theoretical courses and practice, and these relations must be explicitly
clarified for participating students.
Acknowledgments
We are indebted to the student teachers who allowed us to share their ways of reasoning. We have
no doubt in our minds that they will become excellent teachers.
Funding
This work was supported by Stockholm University.
ORCID
Bengt-Olov Molander http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5237-7369
Karim Hamza http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4051-3698
References
Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea?
International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1405–1416. doi:10.1080/09500690802187041
Birden, H., Glass, N., Wilson, I., Harrison, M., Usherwood, T., & Nass, D. (2014). Defining
professionalism in medical education: A systematic review. Medical Teacher, 36, 47–61.
doi:10.3109/0142159X.2014.850154
Bishop, K., & Denley, P. (2007). Learning science teaching: Developing a professional knowledge base.
Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
Bullough, R. V., Jr., & Gitlin, A. (2001). Becoming a student of teaching: Linking knowledge
production and practice (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge Falmer.
Clandinin, D. J. (1995). Still learning to teach. In T. Russell & F. Korthagen (Eds.), Teachers who
teach teachers (pp. 25–31). London, UK: Falmer Press.
Dahlgren, L. O., Handal, G., Szkudlarek, T., & Bayer, M. (2007). Students as journeymen between
cultures of higher education and work: A comparative European project on the transition from
higher education to work life. Higher Education in Europe, 32(4), 305–316. doi:10.1080/
03797720802066005
Darling-Hammond, L. (2009, February). Teacher education and the American future. Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education,
Chicago, IL.
Enyedy, N., Goldberg, J., & Welsh, K. M. (2006). Complex dilemmas of identity and practice.
Science Education, 90(1), 68–93. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-237X
European Commission. (2015). The teaching profession in Europe: Practices, perceptions and policies.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Evetts, J. (2008). The management of professionalism: A contemporary paradox. In S. Gewirtz, P.
Mahony, I. Hextall, & A. Cribb (Eds.), Changing teacher professionalism: International trends,
challenges and ways forward (pp. 19–30). London, UK: Routledge.
Evetts, J. (2014). The concept of professionalism: Professional work, professional practice and
learning. In S. Billett, C. Harteis, & H. Gruber (Eds.), International handbook of research in
professional and practice-based learning (pp. 29–56). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2012). Teachers as learners. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Forzani, F. M. (2014). Understanding “core practices” and “practice-based” teacher education:
Learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 357–368. doi:10.1177/
0022487114533800
Gee, J. P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in
Education, 25, 99–125.
Hammerness, K., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). The design of teacher education programs. In L.
Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers
should learn and be able to do (pp. 390–441). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Helms, J. V. (1998). Science—and me: Subject matter and identity in secondary school science
teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 811–834. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736
(199809)35:7<811::AID-TEA9>3.0.CO;2-O
Irby, D. M., & Hamstra, S. J. (2016). Parting the clouds: Three professionalism frameworks in
medical education. Academic Medicine, 91(12), 1606–1611. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000001190
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Korthagen, F. A. (2001). Teacher education: A problematic enterprise. In F. A. J. Korthagen, J.
Kessels, B. Koster, B. Langewarf, & T. Wubbels (Eds.), Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy
of realistic teacher education (pp. 1–19). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Korthagen, F., & Kessels, J. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher
education. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 4–17. doi:10.3102/0013189X028004004
Lampert, M. (2010). Learning teaching in, from and for practice: What do we mean? Journal of
Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 21–34. doi:10.1177/0022487109347321
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education. Understanding teaching and
learning about teaching. London, UK: Routledge.
Luehmann, A. (2007). Identity development as a lens to science teacher preparation. Science
Education, 91, 822–839. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-237X
Mears, C. L. (2012). In-depth interviews. In J. Arthur, M. Waring, R. Coe, & L. V. Hedges (Eds.),
Research methods and methodologies in education (pp. 170–176). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Roosevelt, D. (2007). Keeping real children in the center. In D. Carroll, H. Featherstone, J.
Featherstone, S. Feiman-Nemser, & D. Roosevelt (Eds.), Transforming teacher education: Voices
from the field (pp. 113–138). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (Eds.). (2007). Science, learning, identity: Sociocultural and cultural-
historical perspectives. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Saka, Y., Southerland, S. A., Kittleson, J., & Hutner, T. (2013). Understanding the induction of a
science teacher: The interaction of identity and context. Research in Science Education, 43, 1221–
1244. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9310-5
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Skolverket. (2017). Pedagogisk personal i skola och vuxenutbildning läsåret 2016/17 [Pedagogic staff
in school and adult education in the school year 2016/17]. PM 2017:370. Stockholm: The Swedish
National Agency for Education.
Snyder, C., Oliveira, A. W., & Paska, L. W. (2013). STEM career changers’ transformation into
science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(4), 617–644. doi:10.1007/s10972-012-
9325-9
Tobin, K., & Llena, R. (2012). Colliding identities, emotional roller coasters, and contradictions of
urban science education. In M. Varelas (Ed.), Identity construction and science education research
(pp. 141–156). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Tom, A. (1997). Redesigning teacher education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Turner, J. H. (2013). Contemporary sociological theory. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
Utbildningsdepartementet. (2016). Proposition 2015/16:142. Särskild kompletterande utbildning för
personer med forskarexamen [Proposition 2015/16: 142. Special complementary education for
persons with a doctoral degree]. Stockholm: The Ministry of Education and Research.
Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical
content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)
1098-2736
Varelas, M. (Ed.). (2012). Identity construction and science education research. Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense.
Wald, H. S. (2015). Professional identity (trans)formation: Reflection, relationship, resilience.
Academic Medicine, 90(6), 1–6. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000731
Watson, C. (2013). Narrative of practice and the construction of identity in teaching. Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12, 509–526. doi:10.1080/13540600600832213
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7, 225–246.
doi:10.1177/135050840072002
Williams, J. (2010). Constructing a new professional identity: Career change into teaching. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 26(3), 639–647. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.09.016
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in
college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 89–99.
doi:10.1177/0022487109347671

2018 - Transformation of Professional Identities From Scientist To Teacher in A Short Track Science Teacher Education Program

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018 - Transformation of Professional Identities From Scientist To Teacher in A Short Track Science Teacher Education Program

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Science Teacher Education

ISSN: 1046-560X (Print) 1573-1847 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uste20

Transformation of Professional Identities From

Bengt-Olov Molander & Karim Hamza

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1473749

© Bengt-Olov Molander and Karim Hamza.

Published online: 25 May 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1542

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

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

Transformation of Professional Identities From Scientist to

CONTACT Bengt-Olov Molander bengt-olov.molander@mnd.su.se Department of Mathematics and Science

number of deﬁnitions to examine teachers’ identity, professional development, and actions

A consequence of viewing identity as formed through participation in social practices is

In accordance with the above reasoning, successfully participating in teacher education

knowledge and social relationships, is that professional development is not a matter of

The design of teacher education

professionalism is regarded as a number of competencies and skills, the role of school

Context and methods

Participants in the study

Methods, data generation, and analysis

interviews were conducted individually in an oﬃce at the university. Four predesigned

● How do you experience the education as a whole?

The ﬁrst interview: The cautiously positive phase

The second interview: The rejection phase

The third interview: The acceptance phase

The fourth interview: The complexity phase

The ﬁfth interview: The complexity phase continued

The cautiously positive phase

The rejection phase

The complexity phase

The design of teacher education in relation to the transformation of professional

identity to another. For an identity transformation to take place, it is important to

You might also like