The aim of this study was to explore how pre- and in-service teachers (N = 346) evaluate different learning strategies for six scenarios, and how they justify their answers. Results showed that teachers mostly evaluate strategies found to be effective in previous empirical studies as more effective and they can provide proper scientific justifications, though some justifications included misconceptions. Teachers were most confused when comparing interleaving versus blocking and retrieval versus concept mapping. Configural frequency analysis showed that justifications were generally, but not always, consistent with evaluations. These findings refer to the importance of examining teacher knowledge both with evaluations and with open-end questions. Misconceptions identified by justifications comprise useful information for planning teacher-training courses.