Epistemic Beliefs and Teacher Education

  • Sibel Erduran
  • Ebru Kaya
Part of the Science: Philosophy, History and Education book series (SPHE)


The chapter considers the implications of incorporating the epistemic core (i.e. aims and values, practices, methods and knowledge) in pre-service teacher education. Research on teachers’ knowledge and epistemic beliefs as well as related concepts such as personal epistemologies and epistemic cognition are highlighted. Features of effective teacher education are considered, and argumentation, visualisation and analogies are proposed as example strategies that can be used in teacher preparation programmes to support the development of pre-service teachers’ epistemic thinking. Although these strategies are not exhaustive, they provide focus about a set of strategies that can be used in teacher education to teach some fairly abstract learning outcomes such as the learning of epistemic themes. Overall the chapter provides a rationale for why the inclusion of the epistemic core of chemistry is relevant for teacher education and what the implications are for the design of pre-service teacher education courses.


  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views on nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & Roth McDuffie, A. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 194–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aubusson, P., Treagust, D., & Harrison, A. (2009). Learning and teaching science with analogies and metaphors. In The world of science education: Handbook of research in Australasia. Rotterdam, the Netherlands/Boston, MA: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Bay, J. M., Reys, B. J., & Reys, R. E. (1999). The top 10 elements that must be in place to implement standards-based mathematics curricula. Kappan, 80, 503–512.Google Scholar
  6. Bell, R., Blair, L., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bondy, E., Ross, D., Adams, A., Nowak, R., Brownell, M., Hoppey, D., et al. (2007). Personal epistemologies and learning to teach, teacher education and special education. The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 30(2), 67–82.Google Scholar
  8. 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 (special issue). Contribution to Human Development, 21, 108–126.Google Scholar
  9. Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2002). Beliefs about schooled knowledge: Domain specific or domain general? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(3), 415–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buehl, M. M., & Fives, H. (2016). The role of epistemic cognition in teacher learning and praxis. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. ten Bra (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 247–264). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 6, 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chinn, C., Buckland, L., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46, 141–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chinn, C., & Rinehart, R. W. (2016). Epistemic cognition and philosophy: Developing a new framework for epistemic cognition. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 460–478). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dimopoulos, K., Koulaidis, V., & Sklaveniti, S. (2003). Towards an analysis of visual images in school science textbooks and press articles about science and technology. Research in Science Education, 33, 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dori, Y. J., & Barak, M. (2001). Virtual and physical molecular modeling: Fostering model perception and spatial understanding. Educational Technology & Society, 4(1), 61–74.Google Scholar
  17. Duit, R., Roth, W. M., Komorek, M., & Wilbers, J. (2001). Fostering conceptual change by analogies – between Scylla and Carybdis. Learning and Instruction, 11(4), 283–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duschl, R. (1990). Restructuring science education. The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  19. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in 3-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1997). Conceptual change in science and in the learning of science. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), The international handbook of science education (pp. 1047–1065). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Duschl, R. A., & Wright, E. (1989). A case study of high school teachers’ decision-making models for planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 467–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eilam, B., & Gilbert, J. K. (2014). Science teachers’ use of visual representations. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eilam, B., Poyas, Y., & Hashimshoni, R. (2014). Representing visually: What teachers know and what they prefer. In B. Eilam & J. K. Gilbert (Eds.), Science teachers’ use of visual representations (pp. 53–83). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Erduran, S. (2006). Promoting ideas, evidence and argument in initial teacher training. School Science Review, 87(321), 45–50.Google Scholar
  25. Erduran, S. (2017). Visualising the nature of science: Beyond textual pieces to holistic images in science education. In K. Hahl, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, J. Lavonen, & A. Uitto (Eds.), Cognitive and affective aspects in science education research: Selected papers from the ESERA 2015 conference (pp. 15–30). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Erduran, S. (Ed.). (2019). Argumentation in chemistry education: Research, policy and practice. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.Google Scholar
  27. Erduran, S., Aduriz-Bravo, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). Developing epistemologically empowered teachers: Examining the role of philosophy of chemistry in teacher education. Science & Education, 16(9–10), 975–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, J. M. (2012). Research on argumentation in science education in Europe. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Europe: Retrospective and prospective (pp. 253–289). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2018). Drawing nature of science in pre-service science teacher education: Epistemic insight through visual representations. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1133–1149. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park, J. Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: a journal content analysis from 1998–2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2015(2), 5. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Evagorou, M., Erduran, S., & Mantyla, T. (2015). The role of visual representations in scientific practices: from conceptual understanding and knowledge generation to ‘seeing’ how science works. International Journal of STEM Education, 2, 11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologists, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Friedrichsen, P., Van Driel, J. H., & Abell, S. K. (2010). Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations. Science Education, 95, 358–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gentner, D. (2002). Analogical reasoning, psychology of encyclopedia of cognitive science. London: Nature Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  39. Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK: Results of the thinking from the PCK summit. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 28–42). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Giere, R. N. (1999). Science without laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Gilbert, J. (1998). Explaining with models. In M. Ratcliffe (Ed.), ASE guide to secondary science education. London: Stanley Thornes.Google Scholar
  42. Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. K. Gİlbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 9–27). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gilbert, J. K. (2010). The role of visual representations in the learning and teaching of science: An introduction. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 1.Google Scholar
  44. Gilbert, J. K., Reiner, M., & Nakhleh, M. (Eds.). (2008). Visualisation: Theory and practice in science education. New York/London: Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Gitomer, D. (2003). Preparing teachers around the world. Policy information report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  46. Glynn, S. M., & Duit, R. (1995). Learning science meaningfully: Constructing conceptual models. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 3–33). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Grandy, R., & Duschl, R. (2007). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Analysis of a conference. Science & Education, 16(1), 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Greene, J. A., Azevedo, R., & Torney-Purta, J. (2008). Modelling epistemic and ontological cognition: Philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychologist, 43, 142–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W. A., & Braten, I. (2016). Handbook of epistemic cognition. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  51. Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  52. Haukoos, G. D., & Penick, J. E. (1985). The effects of classroom climate on college science students: A replication study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(2), 163–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hirsch, E., Koppich, J. E., & Knapp, M. S. (2001). Revisiting what states are doing to improve the quality of teaching: An update on patterns and trends. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.Google Scholar
  54. Hoban, G. F. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change: A systems thinking approach. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Hofer, B. K. (2016). Epistemic cognition as a psychological construct: Advancements and challenges. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 19–38). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ingersoll, R. (2003, September). Is there really a teacher shortage? (CPER Report #RR-03-4). Seattle, WA: A National Research Consortium, University of Washington.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Izquierdo, M., & Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2003). Epistemological foundations of school science. Science & Education, 12(1), 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. James, M. C., & Scharmann, L. C. (2007). Using analogies to improve the teaching performance of preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 565–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Joram, E. (2007). Clashing epistemologies: Aspiring teachers’, practicing teachers’, and professors’ beliefs about knowledge and research in education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(2), 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kang, N. (2008). Learning to teach science: Personal epistemology, teaching goals, and practices of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 478–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kitchener, R. F. (2002). Folk epistemology: An introduction. New Ideas in Psychology, 20, 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kleinhenz, E., & Ingvarson, L. (2004). Teacher accountability in Australia: Current policies and practices and their relation to the improvement of teaching and learning. Research Papers in Education, 19(1), 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lantz, O., & Kass, H. (1987). Chemistry teachers’ functional paradigms. Science Education, 71, 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequence: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Leach, J. T., Hind, A. J., & Ryder, J. (2003). Designing and evaluating short teaching interventions about the epistemology of science in high school classrooms. Science Education, 87(6), 831–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012). Supporting inquiry about the foundations of evolutionary thinking in the elementary grades. In S. M. Carver & J. Shrager (Eds.), The journey from child to scientist: Integrating cognitive development and the education sciences (pp. 171–206). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Loucks-Horsley, S., Brooks, J. G., Carlson, M. O., Kuerbis, P. J., Marsh, D. D., & Padilla, M. J. (1990). Developing and supporting teachers for science education in the middle years. Andover, MA: National Center for Improving Science Education.Google Scholar
  75. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  76. Loughran, J. (2007). Science teacher as learner. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1043–1065). New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
  77. Luft, J. A., Firestone, J. B., Wong, S. S., Ortega, I., Adams, K., & Bang, E. (2011). Beginning secondary science teacher induction: A two-year mixed methods study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1199–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Lunn Brownlee, J., & Schraw, G. (2016). Reflection and reflexivity: Higher order thinking in teachers’ personal epistemologies. In G. Schraw, J. Brownlee, J. L. Olafson, & M. Vander Veldt (Eds.), Teachers’ personal epistemologies: Evolving models for transforming practice. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Press.Google Scholar
  79. Lunn Brownlee, J., Schraw, G., & Berthelsen, D. (2011). Personal epistemology and teacher education: An emerging field of research. In J. Brownlee, G. Schraw, & D. Berthelsen (Eds.), Personal epistemology and teacher education (pp. 3–21). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  80. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implication for science education (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  81. Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children’s discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1817–1841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Marra, R. (2005). Teacher beliefs: The impact of the design of constructivist learning environments on instructor epistemologies. Learning Environments Research, 8, 135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Mason, L. (1996). An analysis of children’s construction of new knowledge through their use of reasoning and arguing in classroom discussions. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(4), 411–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Mayer, R. (2005). Multimedia learning: Guiding visuospatial thinking with instructional animation. In The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 477–508). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. McComas, W. F. (2014). Analogies in science teaching. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The language of science education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Minstrell, J., & Van Zee, E. (Eds.). (2000). Teaching in the inquiry-based science classroom. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  87. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Ortwein, M., McCullough, A. C., & Thompson, A. (2015). A qualitative analysis of teachers’ understandings of the epistemic aims of education. Journal of Education and Human Development, 4(3), 161–168.Google Scholar
  90. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in college years. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  91. Peters, E. E., & Kitsantas, A. (2010). Self-regulation of student epistemic thinking in science: The role of metacognitive prompts. Educational Psychology, 30(1), 27–52. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Post, T. R., & Cramer, K. A. (1989). Knowledge, representation, and quantitative thinking. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 221–232). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  93. Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 839–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Inquiry teaching in high school chemistry classrooms: The role of knowledge and beliefs. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(10), 1510–1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Rollnick, M., Bennett, J., Rhemtula, M., Dharsey, N., & Ndlovu, T. (2008). The place of subject matter knowledge in pedagogical content: A case study of South African teachers teaching the amount of substance and chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1365–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 1–103). New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  99. Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the Beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Scott, P., Leach, J., Hind, A., & Lewis, J. (2006). Designing research evidence-informed teaching strategy. In R. Millar, J. Leach, J. Osborne, & M. Ratcliffe (Eds.), Improving subject teaching: Lessons from research in science education (pp. 60–78). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  102. Sendur, G., Polat, M., & Kazanci, C. (2017). Does a course on the history and philosophy of chemistry have any effect on prospective chemistry teachers’ perceptions? The case of chemistry and the chemist. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18, 601–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Simon, S., Osborne, J., & Erduran, S. (2003). Systemic teacher development to enhance the use of argumentation in school science activities. In J. Wallace & J. Loughran (Eds.), Leadership and professional development in science education: New possibilities for enhancing teacher learning (pp. 198–217). London/New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  107. Smith, E. L., & Anderson, C. W. (1984). Plants as producers: A case study of elementary science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(7), 685–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Smylie, M. A. (1989). Teachers’ view of the effectiveness of sources of learning to teach. Elementary School Journal, 89(5), 543–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Sosu, E. M., & Gray, D. S. (2012). Investigating change in epistemic beliefs: An evaluation of the impact of student teachers’ beliefs on instructional preference and teaching competence. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Spillane, J. S. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 143–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. TIMSS. (1999). International science report: Findings from IEA’s repeat of the third international mathematics and science study at the eighth grade. Retrieved from
  113. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  114. Tsai, C. C. (2007). Teachers’ scientific epistemological views: The coherence with instruction and students’ views. Science Education, 91(2), 222–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Tzanakis, C. (1998). Discovering by analogy: The case of Schrödinger’s equation. European Journal of Physics, 19, 69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Veal, W. R. (2004). Beliefs and knowledge in chemistry teacher development. International Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Vesterinen, V. M. (2012). Nature of science for chemistry education: design of chemistry teacher education course. Unpublished PhD thesis. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  118. Yadav, A., Herron, M., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Personal epistemology in preservice teacher education. In J. Lunn Brownlee, G. Schraw, & D. Berthelsen (Eds.), Personal epistemology and teacher education (pp. 25–39). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  119. Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93(4), 687–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Zembal-Saul, C., & Vaishampayan, A. (2019). Research and practice on science teachers’ continuous professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran (Ed.), Argumentation in chemistry education: Research, policy and practice (pp. 142–172). London: Royal Society of Chemistry.Google Scholar
  121. Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245–268). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  123. Zohar, A. (2012). Explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge: Definitions, students’ learning, and teachers’ professional development. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research (pp. 197–223). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Zohar, A., & Ben-David, A. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition Learning, 3, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sibel Erduran
    • 1
  • Ebru Kaya
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and Science EducationBoğaziçi UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations