Many teacher education researchers have expressed concerns about the lack of rigorous impact evaluations of teacher preparation practices. I summarize these various concerns as they relate to issues of internal validity, measurement, and external validity. I then assess the prevalence of these issues by reviewing 166 impact evaluations of teacher preparation practices published in peer-reviewed journals between 2002–2019. Although I find that very few studies address issues of internal validity, measurement, and external validity, I highlight some innovative approaches and present a checklist of considerations to assist future researchers in designing more rigorous impact evaluations.
AllenS. J.BlackstonA. R. (2003). Training preservice teachers in collaborative problem solving: An investigation of the impact on teacher and student behavior change in real-world settings. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(1), 22–51. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.1.22.20878
2.
American Educational Research Association (AERA). (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035006033
3.
AngristJ. D.PischkeJ.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press.
4.
BallouD.PodgurskyM. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: What is the evidence?Teachers College Record, 102(1), 5–27.
5.
BangelN. J.MoonS. M.CapobiancoB. M. (2010). Preservice teachers’ perceptions and experiences in a gifted education training model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(3), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210369257
6.
BartellT. G.WebelC.BowenB.DysonN. (2013). Prospective teacher learning: Recognizing evidence of conceptual understanding. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(1), 57–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-012-9205-4
7.
BellR. L.MatkinsJ. J.GansnederB. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 414–436. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20402
8.
BirrellJ. R.BulloughR. V. (2005). Teaching with a peer: A follow-up study of the 1st year of teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 27(1), 72–81.
9.
BorkoH.ListonD.WhitcombJ. A. (2007). Genres of empirical research in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487106296220
10.
BoydD. J.GrossmanP. L.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416–440.
11.
BradyM. P.MillerK.McCormickJ.HeiserL. A. (2018). A rational and manageable value-added model for teacher preparation programs. Educational Policy, 32(5), 728–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904816673741
12.
BulloughR. V.YoungJ.BirrellJ. R.Cecil ClarkD.Winston EganM.EricksonL.FrankovichM.BrunettiJ.WellingM. (2003). Teaching with a peer: A comparison of two models of student teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00094-X
13.
BulunuzN.JarrettO. S. (2009). Understanding of earth and space science concepts: Strategies for concept-building in elementary teacher preparation. School Science and Mathematics, 109(5), 276–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.tb18092.x
14.
BurnsR. W.JacobsJ.Yendol-HoppeyD. (2020). A framework for naming the scope and nature of teacher candidate supervision in clinically-based teacher preparation: Tasks, high-leverage practices, and pedagogical routines of practice. The Teacher Educator, 55(2), 214–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2019.1682091
15.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand McNally & Company.
CaughlanS.JuzwikM. M.Borsheim-BlackC.KellyS.FineJ. G. (2013). English teacher candidates developing dialogically organized instructional practices. Research in the Teaching of English, 47(3), 212–246.
18.
ChizhikE. W.ChizhikA. W.CloseC.GallegoM. (2017). SMILE (Shared Mentoring in Instructional Learning Environments): Effectiveness of a lesson-study approach to student-teaching supervision on a teacher-education performance assessment. Teacher Education Quarterly, 44(2), 27–47.
19.
CliftR. T.BradyP. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In Cochran-SmithM.ZeichnerK. (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 309–424). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
20.
Cochran-SmithM. (2004). Ask a different question, get a different answer: The research base for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(2), 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487104262971
21.
Cochran-SmithM. (2005). Studying teacher education: What we know and need to know. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(4), 301–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105280116
22.
Cochran-SmithM.BakerM.BurtonS.ChangW.-C.CarneyM. C.FernándezM. B.KeefeE. S.MillerA. F.SánchezJ. G. (2017). The accountability era in US teacher education: Looking back, looking forward. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 572–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1385061
23.
Cochran-SmithM.CannadyM.MceachernK. P.MitchellK.PiazzaP. (2012). Teachers’ education and outcomes: Mapping the research terrain. Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1–49.
24.
Cochran-SmithM.VillegasA. M. (2015). Framing teacher preparation research: An overview of the field, part 1. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114549072
25.
Cochran-SmithM.VillegasA. M.AbramsL.Chavez-MorenoL.MillsT.SternR. (2015). Critiquing teacher preparation research: An overview of the field, part II. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114558268
26.
Cochran-SmithM.VillegasA. M.AbramsL. W.Chavez-MorenoL. C.MillsT.SternR. (2016). Research on teacher preparation: Charting the landscape of a sprawling field. In GitomerD. H.BellC. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 439–547). American Educational Research Association. https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-48-6_7
27.
Cochran-SmithM.ZeichnerK. M. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on research and teacher education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203864043
28.
CohenJ.WongV.KrishnamachariA.BerlinR. (2020). Teacher coaching in a simulated environment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(2), 208–231. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373720906217
29.
Copur-GencturkY.ThackerI. (2021) A comparison of perceived and observed learning from professional development: Relationships among self-reports, direct assessments, and teacher characteristics. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(2), 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119899101
30.
CrawfordR.TanH. (2019). Responding to evidence-based practice: An examination of mixed methods research in teacher education. The Australian Educational Researcher, 46(5), 775–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00310-w
31.
CrespoS.NicolC. (2006). Challenging preservice teachers’ mathematical understanding: The case of division by zero. School Science and Mathematics, 106(2), 84 –97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2006.tb18138.x
32.
CrespoS.SinclairN. (2008). What makes a problem mathematically interesting? Inviting prospective teachers to pose better problems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(5), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-008-9081-0
33.
Darling-HammondL.HoltzmanD. J.GatlinS. J.Vasquez HeiligJ. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v13n42.2005
34.
DassP. M. (2005). Using a science/technology/society approach to prepare reform-oriented science teachers. Issues in Teacher Education, 14(1), 95–108.
35.
Del SchalockH.SchalockM. D.AyresR. (2006). Scaling up research in teacher education: New demands on theory, measurement, and design. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 102–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285615
36.
DiezM. E. (2010). It is complicated: Unpacking the flow of teacher education’s impact on student learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 441–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110372927
37.
DuncanR. G.PilitsisV.PiegaroM. (2010). Development of preservice teachers’ ability to critique and adapt inquiry-based instructional materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9153-8
38.
FivesH.BarnesN. (2017). Informed and uninformed naïve assessment constructors’ strategies for item selection. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116668019
39.
FlodenR.MenikettiM. (2005). Research on the effects of coursework in the arts and sciences and in the foundations of education. In Cochran-SmithM.ZeichnerK. (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 261–308). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
40.
FoleyR. W.ArchambaultL. M.HaleA. E.DongH.-K. (2017). Learning outcomes in sustainability education among future elementary school teachers. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 11(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408217725861
41.
ForzaniF. M. (2014). Understanding “core practices” and “practice-based” teacher education: Learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114533800
42.
GirodM.GirodG. (2006). Exploring the efficacy of the Cook School District simulation. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(5), 481–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487106293742
43.
GoldhaberD. (2019). Evidence-based teacher preparation: Policy context and what we know. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(2), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118800712
44.
GrossmanP. (2008). Responding to our critics: From crisis to opportunity in research on teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(1), 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487107310748
45.
GrossmanP.McDonaldM. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184–205. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312906
46.
HanuscinD. L.ZangoriL. (2016). Developing practical knowledge of the next generation science standards in elementary science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(8), 799–818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9489-9
47.
HartL. C. (2002). Preservice teachers’ beliefs and practice after participating in an integrated content/methods course. School Science and Mathematics, 102(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb18191.x
48.
HartS. M.BennettS. M. (2013). Disciplinary literacy pedagogy development of STEM preservice teachers. Teacher Education & Practice, 26(2), 221–241.
49.
HiebertJ.BerkD.MillerE.GallivanH.MeikleE. (2019). Relationships between opportunity to learn mathematics in teacher preparation and graduates’ knowledge for teaching mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 50(1), 23–50. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.1.0023
50.
HillH. C.ChinM. (2018). Connections between teachers’ knowledge of students, instruction, and achievement outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 55(5), 1076–1112. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218769614
51.
HillH. C.MancenidoZ.LoebS. (2021). Effectiveness research for teacher education. EdWorkingPaper: 20-252. https://doi.org/10.26300/zhhb-j781
52.
HollandP. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(396), 945–960.
53.
HoppeyD.MickelsonA. M. (2017). Partnership and coteaching: Preparing preservice teachers to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Action in Teacher Education, 39(2), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2016.1273149
54.
HumphreyN.LendrumA.AshworthE.FrearsonK.BuckR.KerrK. (2016). Implementation and process evaluations (IPE) for interventions in education settings: An introductory handbook. Education Endowment Foundation.
IsabelleA. D.de GrootC. (2008). Alternate conceptions of preservice elementary teachers: The Itakura method. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(5), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9105-8
57.
Jacoby-SenghorD. S.SinclairS.SheltonJ. N. (2016). A lesson in bias: The relationship between implicit racial bias and performance in pedagogical contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63, 50–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.010
KingG.KeohaneR. O.VerbaS. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press.
60.
KloserM.BorkoH.MartínezJ. F.StecherB.LuskinR. (2017). Evidence of middle school science assessment practice from classroom-based portfolios. Science Education, 101(2), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21256
61.
KoedelC.ParsonsE.PodgurskyM.EhlertM. (2015). Teacher preparation programs and teacher quality: Are there real differences across programs?Education Finance and Policy, 10(4), 508–534. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00172
62.
KopchaT. J.AlgerC. (2011). The impact of technology-enhanced student teacher supervision on student teacher knowledge, performance, and self-efficacy during the field experience. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(1), 49–73. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.45.1.c
LabareeD. F. (2004). The trouble with Ed schools. Yale University Press.
65.
LambertJ. L.BleicherR. E. (2013). Climate change in the preservice teacher’s mind. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(6), 999–1022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9344-1
66.
LivingstonK.FloresM. A. (2017). Trends in teacher education: A review of papers published in the European journal of teacher education over 40 years. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 551–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1387970
67.
MackieJ. L. (1974). The cement of the universe: A study of causation. Clarendon Press.
68.
MahalingappaL.HughesE. M.PolatN. (2018). Developing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and knowledge through online experiences with English language learners. Language and Education, 32(2), 127–146.
69.
MartínezJ. F.BorkoH.StecherB. M. (2012). Measuring instructional practice in science using classroom artifacts: Lessons learned from two validation studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 38–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20447
70.
MatthewsM. E.SeamanW. I. (2007). The effects of different undergraduate mathematics courses on the content knowledge and attitude towards mathematics of preservice elementary teachers. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 1, 1–16.
71.
MayerD. (2021). The connections and disconnections between teacher education policy and research: Reframing evidence. Oxford Review of Education, 47(1), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2020.1842179
72.
McGeeJ.ColbyS. (2014). Impact of an assessment course on teacher candidates’ assessment literacy. Action in Teacher Education, 36(5–6), 522–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2014.977753
73.
MenterI.HulmeM.MurrayJ.CampbellA.HextallI.JonesM.MahonyP.ProcterR.WallK. (2010). Teacher education research in the UK: The state of the art. Swiss Journal of Educational Research, 32(1), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.24452/sjer.32.1.4829
74.
MetcalfK. K.CruickshankD. R. (1991). Can teachers be trained to make clear presentations?The Journal of Educational Research, 85(2), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1991.10702820
75.
MichieS.van StralenM. M.WestR. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6(1), 42–42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
76.
MizellJ. A.CatesJ. (2004). The impact of additional content courses on teacher candidates’ beliefs regarding mathematics content and pedagogy. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 4, 1–11.
77.
MorrisA. K.HiebertJ. (2017). Effects of teacher preparation courses: Do graduates use what they learned to plan mathematics lessons?American Educational Research Journal, 54(3), 524–567. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217695217
78.
MurnaneR. J.WillettJ. B. (2010). Methods matter: Improving causal inference in educational and social science research. Oxford University Press.
79.
NuttallJ.MurrayS.SeddonT.MitchellJ. (2006). Changing research contexts in teacher education in Australia: Charting new directions. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660600927224
80.
OlsonJ. K.BruxvoortC. N.Vande HaarA. J. (2016). The impact of video case content on preservice elementary teachers’ decision-making and conceptions of effective science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(10), 1500–1523. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21335
81.
PolaninJ. R.MaynardB. R.DellN. A. (2017). Overviews in education research: A systematic review and analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 172–203. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316631117
82.
RaglandR. (2016). Implementing an evidence-based reflective teaching cycle: Using scholarly research in curriculum design. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 28(3), 196–217.
83.
Rodriguez-VallsF.PonceG. (2013). Classroom, the we space: Developing student-centered practices for second language learner (SLL) students. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21, 55. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v21n55.2013
84.
SantagataR.YehC. (2014). Learning to teach mathematics and to analyze teaching effectiveness: Evidence from a video- and practice-based approach. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(6), 491–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-013-9263-2
85.
SayeskiK. L.EarleG. A.EslingerR. P.WhitentonJ. N. (2017). Teacher candidates’ mastery of phoneme-grapheme correspondence: Massed versus distributed practice in teacher education. Annals of Dyslexia, 67(1), 26–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-016-0126-2
86.
SayeskiK. L.KennedyM. J.de IralaS.ClintonE.HamelM.ThomasK. (2015). The efficacy of multimedia modules for teaching basic literacy-related concepts. Exceptionality, 23(4), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2015.1064414
87.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
88.
ShaughnessyM.BoerstT. A. (2018). Uncovering the skills that preservice teachers bring to teacher education: The practice of eliciting a student’s thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(1), 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117702574
89.
SikesP. (2006). On dodgy ground? Problematics and ethics in educational research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 29(1), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/01406720500537502
90.
SlavinR. E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educational Researcher, 15(9), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015009005
91.
SlavinR.MaddenN. A. (2011). Measures inherent to treatments in program effectiveness reviews. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(4), 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2011.558986
SmithM. E.SwarsS. L.SmithS. Z.HartL. C.HaardorferR. (2012). Effects of an additional mathematics content course on elementary teachers’ mathematical beliefs and knowledge for teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 34(4), 336–348.
94.
SohL.-K.FowlerD.ZygielbaumA. I. (2007). The impact of the affinity learning authoring tool on student learning. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36(1), 29–62. https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.36.1.d
95.
SpybrookJ.ZhangQ.KelceyB.DongN. (2020). Learning from cluster randomized trials in education: An assessment of the capacity of studies to determine what works, for whom, and under what conditions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(3), 354–374. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373720929018
96.
StoverK.YeartaL. S.SeaseR. (2014). “Experience is the best tool for teachers”: Blogging to provide preservice educators with authentic teaching opportunities. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 10(2), 99–117.
97.
SuppaS.DiNapoliJ.MixellR. (2018). Teacher preparation “does” matter: Relationships between elementary mathematics content courses and graduates’ analyses of teaching. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 20(2), 25–57.
98.
ThomasA. F.SondergeldT. (2015). Investigating the impact of feedback instruction: Partnering preservice teachers with middle school students to provide digital, scaffolded feedback. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(4), 83–109.
99.
Von HippelP. T.BellowsL. (2018). How much does teacher quality vary across teacher preparation programs? Reanalyses from six states. Economics of Education Review, 64, 298–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.01.005
100.
WaggonerJ.CarrollJ. B.MerkH.WeitzelB. N. (2015). Critics and critical analysis: Lessons from 19,000 P-12 students in candidates’ classrooms. Teacher Education Quarterly, 42(1), 97–108.
101.
WeinburghM. (2007). The effect of Tenebrio obscurus on elementary preservice teachers’ content knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(6), 801–815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-007-9073-4
102.
WelshK. A.SchafferC. (2017). Developing the effective teaching skills of teacher candidates during early field experiences. Educational Forum, 81(3), 301–321.
103.
WhitehurstG. J. R. (2003, April21–25). The institute of education sciences: New wine, new bottles. American Educational Research Association 2003 Annual Meeting Presidential Invited Session, Chicago, IL, United States. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED478983
104.
WilkinsJ. L. M.BrandB. R. (2004). Change in preservice teachers’ beliefs: An evaluation of a mathematics methods course. School Science and Mathematics, 104(5), 226–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2004.tb18245.x
105.
WilsonS. M. (2006). Finding a canon and core: Meditations on the preparation of teacher educator-researchers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285895
106.
WilsonS. M.FlodenR. E.Ferrini-MundyJ. (2002). Teacher preparation research: An insider’s view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 190–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053003002
107.
WindschitlM.ThompsonJ.BraatenM. (2008). How novice science teachers appropriate epistemic discourses around model-based inquiry for use in classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 310–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177193
108.
WineburgM. S. (2006). Evidence in teacher preparation: Establishing a framework for accountability. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105284475
109.
YadavA.MayfieldC.ZhouN.HambruschS.KorbJ. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 14(1), 5:1–5:16. https://doi.org/10.1145/2576872
110.
ZeichnerK. (2005). A research agenda for teacher education. In Cochran-SmithM.ZeichnerK. (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 737–759). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
111.
ZeichnerK.ConklinH. G. (2005). Teacher education programs. In Cochran-SmithM.ZeichnerK. (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 645–735). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
112.
ZientekL. R.CapraroM. M.CapraroR. M. (2008). Reporting practices in quantitative teacher education research: One look at the evidence cited in the AERA panel report. Educational Researcher, 37(4), 208–216. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08319762
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
