Journal of Science Teacher Education (2007) 18:399–421 DOI 10.1007/s10972-007-9047-6


Springer 2007

Revealing Student TeachersÕ Thinking through Dilemma Analysis Vicente Talanquer & Debra Tomanek & Ingrid Novodvorsky Science Teacher Preparation Program, College of Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, U.S.A; e-mail: [email protected]

Vicente Talanquer Department of Chemistry, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA; e-mail: [email protected]

Debra Tomanek Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, U.S.A; e-mail: [email protected]

Ingrid Novodvorsky Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, U.S.A; e-mail: [email protected]

We explore the potential of dilemma analysis as an assessment tool to reveal student teachersÕ thinking and concerns about their practice. For this purpose we analyze the dilemma analyses completed by 22 student teachers enrolled in our science teacher preparation program over a period of four semesters. Student teachersÕ dilemmas fall into two main groups: dilemmas about student performance and dilemmas associated with instructional decisions. These dilemmas reveal a variety of concerns that student teachers have about their work. In particular, concerns about lack of student motivation and its consequences on performance and instruction play a central role in student teachersÕ thinking. The recognition of common patterns of thought in our student teacher thinking has made us reflect on and re-evaluate important components of the curriculum in our science teacher preparation program.

Introduction One of the persistent challenges that our initial science teacher preparation program faces is seeing what our students are thinking while they are engaged in the work of teaching. We find it much easier to identify what our students do while engaged in this work. For example, we can read their written lesson plans or observe them teaching science lessons.

400

TALANQUER, TOMANEK, & NOVODVORSKY

Perhaps it is precisely because we can more readily see these products and performances rather than their thought patterns that we create so many opportunities for preservice teachers to demonstrate their teaching skills. However, demonstrating competence in performing a set of teaching skills is a necessary, but by itself insufficient, outcome of initial science teacher preparation (Munby, Russell, & Martin, 2001). We also need to assess our studentsÕ abilities to think about the multiple and complex components of teaching practice. Assessing preservice teachersÕ thinking about teaching and learning has been one of the central tenets of a comprehensive evaluation model we have implemented as part of our science teacher preparation program. This non-traditional program offers all subject- matter and pedagogy courses within the College of Science and has been specifically designed to prepare undergraduate science and engineering majors to become secondary school science teachers (Talanquer, Novodvorsky, Slater, & Tomanek, 2003). Students enrolled in the program are required to complete seven science education courses (including a one-semester student teaching experience), which address central issues and ideas in teaching and learning science in a secondary school setting. These courses also require varying degrees of student involvement in highly-structured field experiences in secondary school classrooms. The content and structure of courses and field experiences is periodically revised based on data collected using different assessment tools. During the past four years, we have worked on the design and implementation of different assessment instruments to gather data about our studentsÕ subject- matter, pedagogical, and pedagogical content knowledge at different stages in the program. In this process, we have faced the challenge of devising mechanisms for collecting evidence of our student teachersÕ abilities to: (1) identify what their students have to think about in order to understand a concept or idea, (2) analyze the degree to which their students understand a scientific concept as evidenced by their studentsÕ work, (3) reflect on the adequacy of their own scientific understanding based upon their responses to their studentsÕ questions, (4) think about the point at which a studentÕs struggle with a problem diminishes his/her motivation to solve it, and (5) decide at which point in a class discussion they might effectively insert ideas that move students to a higher level of understanding. These abilities are not simple cognitive activities and we certainly do not expect our student teachersÕ thinking about these actions to be anywhere near that of expert teachers. However, the listed examples represent a sample of the many cognitive components of science teaching that we would at least like to see our student teachers begin to think about. In order to uncover our prospective teachersÕ thinking about teaching and learning during their student teaching experience, we designed a set of assessment instruments that ask them to analyze, discuss, and evaluate their practices based on evidence collected in their own classrooms. We refer to these instruments as lesson analyses. Additionally, we ask student

REVEALING STUDENT TEACHERS THINKING

401

teachers to identify, describe, and critically reflect on a teaching dilemma they have faced during the semester. This latter instrument, which we call dilemma analysis, has proven to be very useful in promoting critical reflection among student teachers and in revealing important aspects of their thinking about their work. In this paper we describe and discuss what we have learned about our prospective science teachersÕ thinking by analyzing the dilemma analyses of 22 student teachers enrolled in our program over a period of four semesters. In particular, we focus the analysis on the nature of the dilemmas the students identified and the concerns they expressed about their practice. Based on these results, we analyze the potential of dilemma analysis as a tool to assess student teacher thinking. Grounding the Problem Teacher knowledge, learning, and thinking are difficult phenomena to study. The knowledge associated with the complex activity of teaching has been described in such ways as knowing-in-action (Scho¨n, 1983), pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987), and personal or practical knowledge (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990; Elbaz, 1983). The way teachers develop their knowledge has been described as experientially situated and domainspecific (Carter, 1990), metaphor-based (Munby, 1986; Tobin, 1990), narrative (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990), and dilemma-based (Lampert, 1985). There has been disagreement in the field on how phenomena such as teacher knowledge and learning can best be studied. Similarly, different methods of inquiry for studying teacher thinking have also been disputed, particularly those methods that involve teacher self-reporting. Self-reporting by teachers in studying teacher thinking has been criticized by educational psychologists as being unreliable and with limited validity (Nisbet & Wilson, 1977). However, this criticism has been challenged by other researchers (Ericsson & Simon, 1980) and a variety of powerful self-reporting research methods have since appeared in the literature such as think aloud, stimulated recall, or journal keeping (see Clark & Peterson, 1986). To address the criticism related to reliability and validity, researchers using self-reporting methods now rely on reports of recent, rather than long past events and use specific, rather than vague probes that may require much inference on the teacherÕs part. The findings indicate that the more recent and well-remembered the event, the more reliable and valid the data generated from these techniques. Self-reported teaching dilemmas have proven to be useful tools in studying teachersÕ thinking about their practices. We define teaching dilemmas in this paper as problem spaces created in the minds of teachers as they engage in the practice of teaching. Teaching dilemmas are often accompanied by dissatisfaction with the consequences of a teacherÕs past decisions or anxiety about a decision that is yet to be played out in real classroom time. Lampert (1985) and Lortie (1975) found dilemmas to be

402

TALANQUER, TOMANEK, & NOVODVORSKY

such common elements of teachersÕ practices that they have described the activity of teaching largely in terms of dilemma management. The analysis of dilemmas has been used by teacher-researchers to reveal and understand their own teaching beliefs, to develop strategies to change them (Tomanek, 1994), and to understand the multiple goals and constraints within which a teacher makes decisions affecting student learning (Lampert, 1986). Dilemmas have also been used to assist other teachers in understanding their own practices and to characterize qualities of practicing teachersÕ interactive thinking. Tomanek (1996) used dilemma analysis to assist an experienced high school biology teacher to understand why he chose, as part of his biology curriculum, to teach about insects in ways in which he was not satisfied. The explication of his dilemma and the beliefs that grounded it allowed him to develop strategies that would ultimately lead to a more satisfying teaching practice. Marland and Osborne (1990) used an English teacherÕs self-reported dilemmas to characterize and make visible her ‘‘theories of action.’’ The teacherÕs dilemmas were a central component of her espoused theory about her practice. Her dilemmas revealed internal inconsistencies in the teacherÕs thinking and exposed conflicting values and beliefs. Dilemmas represent situations in classroom practice that are problematic for teachers and force them to make decisions based on competing values, beliefs, and practices. From this perspective, student teachersÕ analysis of self-reported dilemmas may not only be a useful tool for revealing the nature of their thinking. Dilemma analysis may also help characterize the nature of the perceived problems and concerns that student teachers have at this stage in their training. This type of information is of central value for teacher preparation as it can be used to assess the professional development of prospective teachers and to design learning opportunities to support and foster teacher growth. Research on preservice and beginning teachersÕ perceived challenges and problems (Evans & Tribble, 1986; Fuller, 1969; Fuller & Brown, 1975; Haritos, 2004; Kagan, 1992; Veenman, 1984) has identified three basic kinds of teachersÕ concerns: survival concerns, teaching situation concerns, and concerns about pupils (impact concerns). Survival issues refer to concerns about oneÕs adequacy as a teacher, class control, mastery of content, being liked by students, and meeting expectations of mentors, supervisors, and parents. Teaching situation concerns include concerns about teaching methods and materials, planning instruction, teaching performance, and limitations and frustrations of teaching situations. Concerns about pupils pertain to meeting the cognitive, social, and emotional needs of oneÕs students. The experience of becoming a teacher seems to involve coping with all these types of concerns, although their timetable of emergence and dominance remains unclear. Helping preservice teachers identify, analyze and address their concerns seems to improve their feelings of adequacy and forces them to modify and reconstruct their images of self as teacher (Kagan, 1992; Veenman, 1984).

REVEALING STUDENT TEACHERS THINKING

403

Methods Guiding Questions In this work we used the written analysis of student teachersÕ selfreported dilemmas as the data source to explore our preservice teachersÕ thinking and concerns about their teaching practices. The following questions framed the analysis: • What do student teachers identify as dilemmas in their teaching practice? • What self-reported concerns comprise the dilemmas? • What does dilemma analysis reveal about student teachersÕ thinking about their practices? Participants and Instrument The dilemma analysis instrument (Box 1) was administered to 22 student teachers in a secondary level science teacher preparation program at a large southwestern research university over four semesters. Five student teachers taught in middle school science classrooms and seventeen taught in high school science classrooms. The dilemma analysis was one of our instruments developed and implemented during the student teaching semester to uncover the preservice teachersÕ thinking; the dilemma analysis was the last of four assessment instruments administered during that period. The completion of this assignment, as well as the other three instruments, was a requirement of all student teachers participating in a weekly 1-h student teaching seminar. All of the student teachers had two weeks to

Box 1. Dilemma Analysis Instrument Identify a particular issue related to teaching or learning that has caught your attention during your student teaching and carefully analyze it. Select an important dilemma for you as a teacher that has made you reflect on the problem or that has forced you to make a decision. Build your analysis in a narrative form addressing the following questions: 1. What was the problem or dilemma? 2. Why was it important or relevant to you? 3. How did the dilemma emerge? How did it develop? 4. How did you try to solve the problem? What was the rationale for your decision? 5. How did the dilemma or problem influence your beliefs about teaching or learning? 6. What would you do the next time? The assignment should be clearly written and well organized. It should be composed on a word processor, with 1ÕÕ margins, single-line spacing and a letter font-size between 11 and 12 points. The narrative should not exceed 4 single-sided pages.

404

TALANQUER, TOMANEK, & NOVODVORSKY

construct their dilemma analyses, which were then evaluated by teacher preparation faculty to provide individual feedback about strengths and weaknesses of the written work. The perceived problems and concerns described in the different dilemmas analyses were subsequently discussed in a follow-up 1-h seminar. After the first semester of administering the instrument we started using one session of the student teaching seminar to describe and discuss specific examples of science teacher dilemmas (Tomanek, 1996). This session was designed to help students discriminate between simple problematic situations that can be resolved by principle application or other routine measures, and dilemmas that involve competing values and beliefs and for which there is not necessarily a ‘‘right’’ solution. Procedures The current study employed qualitative research procedures based on content analysis of the 22 written dilemma cases and constant comparison analysis for emerging patterns (Bogdan & Biblen, 1992; Miles & Huberman, 1994). First, the three authors independently read the analyses and summarized the central topic of each dilemma. These summaries were compared and discussed until consensus was reached about representative dilemma descriptions, and whether more than one student teacher dilemma could be categorized with the same topic (the different dilemma topics are shown in Tables 1 as column 1). A second independent round of reading was completed to identify specific and major areas of concern reflected in each of the dilemma analyses. For example, one student teacherÕs dilemma topic (Id) involved ‘‘questioning her teaching because of studentsÕ lack of motivation to complete work.’’ Although she described a series of specific problems and challenges, such as the high percentage of students with low grades for not completing homework, her concerns seemed to fall under three major categories: student success, student motivation, and instructional decisions. The major categories of concerns identified by the authors for each dilemma analysis were again the subject of comparison and discussion until consensus was reached (the major categories of concerns are shown in as the top row in Table 1). Upon agreement on the dilemma topics and major categories of concerns, we returned repeatedly to the written dilemma analyses to search for common patterns of thought, student teacher beliefs, perceived teaching constraints, and dilemma resolution strategies. These analytical steps were taken in order to reveal the nature of student teachersÕ thinking about their practices. We also extracted excerpts to verify our assertions or justify our claims. In this process, dilemma topics and categories of concerns suffered constant adjustments and our interpretations of major trends in student teachersÕ thinking were reshaped.

Dilemma topics

Im

Il

Ik

Ij

Ii

Ih

Ig

Id, Ie, If

Ia*, Ib* Ic*

Questioning their role in the retention of students Questioning to what level to support students that do not care about school Questioning their teaching due to studentsÕ lack of motivation to complete work Questioning his ability to reach out and motivate students Questioning whether to give ‘‘a break’’ to students that are chronically absent Questioning the educational systemÕs tolerance for lack of student accountability Questioning the lack of school support in dealing with problematic students Questioning whether academic expectations match students abilities Questioning how to build a productive relationship with a disrespectful student Questioning whether student tardiness should be handled by teachers or administrators

Group I: Dilemmas Associated with Student Performance and Success.

Student teacher ID

X

X

X

XXX

XX X

SM

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

XXX

XX X

T & CM

X

XXX

XX X

SS & A

Major categories of concern

X

X

X

X

XX

SE & SW

X

XX

C&I

SL & U

Dilemma Topics and Major Categories of Concerns Associated with Student TeachersÕ Dilemmas (SM—Student Motivation; SS & A—Student Success and Achievement; T & CM—Task and Classroom Management; SE & SW—Student Emotional and Social Wellbeing; C & I—Curriculum and Instruction; SL & U—Student Learning and Understanding)

Table 1

REVEALING STUDENT TEACHERS THINKING 405

Dilemma topics

Questioning whether to award grades for completion or student understanding Questioning what activities may be better in promoting student understanding Questioning the value of re-teaching topics versus coverage of the curriculum Questioning how to design lessons at the appropriate level of academic challenge Questioning content organization to better promote student understanding Questioning what topics to teach and how in-depth to teach them Questioning whether or not students should have books available to take home X

XXX

SM

X

SS & A

X

T & CM

Major categories of concern

X

SE & SW

X

XXX

X

X

X

X

X

C&I

X

X

X

X

X

SL & U

Student teachers are identified with a label based on their dilemmaÕs topic group (I or II) and a distinct letter. Student teachers placed in a middle school (grades 7–8) are marked with an asterisk (*). An X denotes whether concerns in a given category were found in a student teacherÕs dilemma.

IIi

IIf, IIg, IIh

IIe

IId

IIc

IIb*

IIa*

Group II: Dilemmas Associated with Curriculum and Instructional Decisions

Student teacher ID

continued

Table 1

406 TALANQUER, TOMANEK, & NOVODVORSKY

REVEALING STUDENT TEACHERS THINKING

407

Results and Discussion What Do Student Teachers Identify as Dilemmas? All of the student teachers were able to describe and analyze at least one dilemma they experienced in their teaching practice. In some cases, the dilemma was the central focus of the analysis and thus easy to identify (for example, debating whether to re-teach an idea that the students did not understand or move on to the next topic). However, many student teachers struggled to identify their central dilemmas, which were embedded in the analysis of complex problems they did not know how to solve (such as ‘‘what to do about the low number of students turning in homework’’). In these cases, the student teachers seemed to conceive a dilemma as a problem in their teaching practice, which had a cause that was complex or difficult to identify, and whose resolution was not straightforward due to the presence of different constraints. Most of the dilemmas analyzed by the 22 student teachers were unique, as can be seen in the first column of Table 1. We identified seventeen different dilemma topics based on our interpretation of the problematic situation that made the student teachers question their practices. In some cases, close similarities existed between two or three of the dilemma analyses, which were then grouped under the same dilemma topic. Despite the large number of dilemma topics identified, our analysis resulted in a classification of dilemmas into two major groups: (a) Dilemmas associated with student performance and success (Group I); (b) Dilemmas associated with curriculum and instructional decisions (Group II). This classification is based on the nature of the most relevant and frequent concerns expressed by the student teachers in their dilemma analyses. Although there is some overlap in the nature of the concerns associated with these two types of dilemmas, the groups represent two very distinctive threads in our student teachersÕ thinking. We further discuss this result in the next sub–section. What Self-Reported Concerns Comprise the Dilemmas? The student teachersÕ analysis of their dilemmas revealed a variety of concerns about their students and teaching practices. These specific concerns can be classified into the following major categories: (1) student motivation, (2) student success and achievement, (3) task and classroom management, (4) student emotional and social wellbeing, (5) curriculum

408

TALANQUER, TOMANEK, & NOVODVORSKY

and instruction, and (6) student learning and understanding. No dilemma analysis included concerns from all six major categories. However, nearly all of the analyses involved more than one major category of concern, with some categories being more predominant than others. As shown in Table 1, student teachersÕ dilemmas associated with student performance and success (Group I) included a large proportion of concerns that fall within the following categories of concerns: student success and achievement, task and classroom management, and student emotional and social wellbeing. Dilemmas in group II focused mostly on concerns about curriculum and instruction, and student learning and understanding. Concerns about student motivation cut across dilemmas from both groups, although for fundamentally different reasons. We discuss this point in the next paragraphs where we summarize and discuss our results for each of the major categories of concerns identified in the two groups of dilemma analyses. Student Motivation. In this category we included concerns about studentsÕ intrinsic motivation to learn and succeed, as well as difficulties to engage studentsÕ interests. In particular, we found concerns about: • student apathy and lack of participation (Ia*, Ic*, Id, Ie, If , Ig, Ii); • lack of student concern over failing or not doing their work (Ia*, Id, Ie, If, Ig, Ij); • lack of student interest in classroom activities and learning (Id, Ie, If; IIf, IIg, IIh, IIi). The first two types of concerns were only found in dilemmas in group I, as illustrated by the following excerpts: ‘‘A problem that I encountered dealt with students that had lost their motivation and no longer cared about school, I had several students in my classes that simply did not want to be there so they refused to do any of the work...I was not sure what more to do to keep them engaged’’ (Ic*) ‘‘The topic of concern now is the fact that there are some students who are not motivated by the grades at all. Homework is never turned in because an F is perfectly acceptable to many of the students in these classes.’’ (Ie) Concerns about difficulties in engaging student interest were characteristic of dilemmas in group II: ‘‘A few weeks ago, in the middle of a review over balancing chemical reactions, a bright, curious, yet unmotivated student called out.

REVEALING STUDENT TEACHERS THINKING

409

‘‘Miss, why do we have to learn this?’’ I was stunned. I was not stunned by the question, which was valid despite its inappropriate timing. I was stunned by my own lack of proper response.’’ (IIh) Our results reveal that student teachers in both dilemma groups were concerned about the lack of student motivation and believed that they bore a large part of the responsibility for motivating students. However, while these concerns in Group I dilemmas were closely associated with preoccupation about the consequences of the lack of student motivation on achievement and task management, student motivation issues in Group II dilemmas were always linked to decisions about content and instructional activities. Student Success and Achievement. Included in this category were concerns related to students failing to meet academic expectations and the corresponding consequences on achievement. The category refers to concerns about students: • • • • •

completing and turning in class assignments (Id, Ie, If, Ih; IIa*); earning low grades (Ib*, Id, Ie, If, Ig, Ik; IIa*); failing the course (Ia*, Ib*, Ic*, Ij); missing class (Ia*, Ih, Ij); being responsible and accountable for their work (Ia, Ic, Id, Ie, If, Ih, Ii, Ij); • cheating the system (Ii, Ij). Nearly all of the concerns in this category were found in Group I dilemmas. Several of the dilemma analyses in this group revealed a sort of ‘‘reality shock’’ (Veenman, 1984) when student teachersÕ personal expectations confronted the realities of schools and classrooms. For example, one of the student teachers wrote that she was ‘‘stunned’’ by the lack of student motivation to succeed. Two other preservice teachers wrote: ‘‘In my regular chemistry class the situation was almost out of control. The amount of missing assignments was unbelievably high. Homework assignments had a turn in rate of about 50% for the quarter.’’ (Id) ‘‘The frustration I felt trying to accommodate students who were not willing to attend classes, unable to participate in classes, or to understand the class due to language barriers became almost unbearable as the semester progressed.’’ (Ij) However, the analysis of these types of concerns reveals that many of our student teachers have a quite narrow definition of student success. Most of the student teachers associate student success with the completion of academic

410

TALANQUER, TOMANEK, & NOVODVORSKY

work, and not with the demonstration of critical thinking and the development of studentsÕ understanding of central scientific concepts and ideas: ‘‘I want students to feel less frustration about concepts and assignments because I want them to turn more work so that they can succeed in science.’’ (If) As shown in Table 1, none of the student teachers with dilemmas associated with student performance and success (Group I) expressed clear concerns about student learning and understanding. For most student teachers with dilemmas in this group, studentsÕ success and achievement were detached from concerns about their own decisions about course content, learning goals, and instructional activities. Their analyses and reflections were mostly focused on how to make students complete their tasks and make them more accountable for their work. Thus, their thinking about instruction was bounded more by ideas about task management than by curriculum or pedagogical issues. Many of the student teachers with concerns in this category had dilemmas motivated by extreme cases of failure, such as students in danger of retention, missing most of the classes, or not turning in any homework. These types of situations seemed to contradict the student teachersÕ expectations and challenged some of their teaching beliefs as they felt compelled to make accommodations. Task and Classroom Management. Group I dilemmas included a significant number of concerns about encouraging and managing task completion. A small number of student teachers in this group also expressed concerns about individual student behavior and its impact on performance and achievement. We judged all these concerns to be related to task and classroom management. Thus, this category included concerns over: • stating clear and fair expectations and sticking to them (If, Ig, Ih); • providing enough opportunities to complete work (Ia*, Ib*, Ic*, Id, Ie, If, Ih; IIa*); • students off-task or ignoring the class (Ig, Il); • disruptive students (Ic*, Il); • tardiness (Im). The following excerpt is representative of this type of concern as found in Group I dilemmas, where many student teachers reflected on how to address lack of student work, commitment, or responsibility. None of these concerns were identified in Group II dilemmas. ‘‘So I had some mixed feelings of what I should do towards this problem of students failing the class. So I decided that I needed to do everything I could for the students that would help them learn

REVEALING STUDENT TEACHERS THINKING

411

and enable [them] to pass the class, except do the work for them....I do not want my students grades to fail, because they were not given enough opportunities to show their strengths.’’ (If) The results of our study suggest that many of our student teachers struggle to identify and isolate the boundaries of their responsibilities for student success and achievement. Their dilemmas reveal their attempts to more clearly define the kind of teachers they want to be. The student teachers think a great deal about issues like how far they should go to encourage students, how willing they should be to provide second ‘‘chances,’’ and how flexible they should be in allowing for students to exercise accountability for their own decisions and actions. In general, Group I dilemmas revealed a general tone of unhappiness and disappointment with regard to studentsÕ motivation and success in school, problems that they often attributed to studentsÕ home environments or failed school and educational policies but rarely to their own instructional decisions. The specific concerns about task and classroom management also indicate that a few student teachers worried about student behavior (Ic*, Ig, Il, Im). However, the dilemma analyses did not link these types of problems to their own curriculum and instructional decisions. They perceived the problems as the result of unsupportive family environments or inadequate school policies. StudentsÕ Emotional and Social Wellbeing. This group of concerns was largely focused upon individual students and the influence of school, family, and social environments. It included concerns about: • • • • • •

properly recognizing/praising/rewarding student work (Ia*, Ib*); properly recognizing/valuing student effort and participation (Ia*, Ib*; IIa*); family and social influences on student performance (Ia*, Ib*, Ih; IIa*); studentsÕ self-esteem (Ia*, Ib*); meeting individual needs (Ib*, If); building positive relationships with students (Ig, Il).

This major category of concern was also characteristic of Group I dilemmas and played a more central role in the dilemma analyses from middle school student teachers (four of the five middle school teachers reported these types of concerns). Student teachers at this level constantly emphasized the influence of family and social environments in the performance of individual students, and seemed to favor extrinsic rewards to improve student achievement. The following excerpt illustrates our assertion: ‘‘When it came time for progress reports I realized that while student of the month recognizes students that have improved or those who are doing well and those involved in athletics are often men-

412

TALANQUER, TOMANEK, & NOVODVORSKY tioned on announcements, nothing is done to acknowledge those students who are succeeding in academics.’’ (Ia*)

The final two major categories of concerns, curriculum and instruction and student learning and understanding, were central to Group II dilemmas but only marginally present in Group I dilemmas. Curriculum and Instruction. In this category we included concerns about course content, instructional activities, assessment tools, and teaching strategies. In particular, we found concerns about: • what content to teach (IIe, IIf, IIg, IIh); • how ‘‘in-depth’’ to teach a topic (IIc, IIf, IIg). • making appropriate decisions about instructional activities and assessment (Id, Ik; Iia*, IIb*, IIc, IId, IIi); • nature and value of homework (Ie; IIa*); This category of concerns, more than any of the other categories, was focused on teacher decisions and actions, rather than on student attributes. The following excerpt illustrates a typical concern in this area: ‘‘One of the biggest dilemmas I had this semester was deciding what content to teach to my Systems Biology class. Included in that big dilemma were many smaller problems, like, ‘‘How in-depth should I teach this subject?’’ and ‘‘In what order should I teach the different human body systems?’’ and ‘‘How much time should I allow for each system?’’’’ (IIg) In general, concerns about the content and structure of lessons and activities (what to teach) were much more common than concerns about instructional models and strategies (how to teach). Although student teachers from all grade levels mentioned concerns within this category, struggles associated with curriculum and instruction played a more prominent role in the dilemma analyses of high school student teachers. In several cases, these dilemmas were associated with the existence of perceived external constraints such as required textbooks, vague state or national education standards, or limited resources. Student Learning and Understanding. Student teachersÕ interests in promoting student understanding, challenging student thinking, and assessing learning drove this category of concerns. It included concerns related to: • properly assessing student understanding (IIa*, IIa); • students not understanding scientific concepts or ideas (IIb*, IIc, IIe); • matching/challenging studentsÕ cognitive abilities (IId).

REVEALING STUDENT TEACHERS THINKING

413

This major category of concerns was only present in Group II dilemmas. As shown in Table 1, concerns about student learning and understanding only appear in association with discussions about curriculum and instructional activities. The absence of discussion about student performance or individual characteristics in this group of dilemmas suggests that student teachers who focused on these issues attribute little responsibility for learning to the students themselves. Only one student teacher out of the 22 (IIa*) built a dilemma analysis that acknowledged the close relationship between a teacherÕs curriculum and instructional decisions, and student performance and success in learning science. Interestingly, her dilemma focused on the widespread school practice of equating student success with completion of academic work rather than with demonstration of understanding: ‘‘...I donÕt think many of my studentsÕ grades are an accurate representation of their level of understanding...I was noticing that we were giving students a lot of busy work to do in class and out of class and then simply grading that work mainly based on completion of the assignment. We didnÕt really even look at the answers to see if they got them correct. We were more concerned with whether the students actually completed the assignment.’’ (IIa*)

What does Dilemma Analysis Reveal about Student TeachersÕ Thinking about their Practices? The analysis of the student teachersÕ self-reported dilemmas revealed some basic commonalities in our studentsÕ thinking that we would like to summarize and highlight. Role of Personal Beliefs. In general, student teachersÕ dilemmas were grounded on a set of personal beliefs about students and teaching. For example, student teachersÕ ideas of what it means to be a successful student (attending class, completing assignments, earning good grades) seemed to be the base of many of the concerns found in the Group I dilemmas. For some student teachers, confronting the dilemma resulted in changing some of their beliefs: ‘‘My view was very cut and dry. If you missed all of those days, you could make up any work that you missed, but that was it. No special deal or extra credit....My view came from the fact that I was a successful student when I was in high school because I never missed my classes and did all my work....Of course, I needed to look at this problem as a teacher and not as a former student.’’ (Ih)

414

TALANQUER, TOMANEK, & NOVODVORSKY ‘‘..This has influenced my beliefs about teaching to a great degree...I know that homework and assignments are an important part of education. I also know that students have to have a grade, but I would like to believe that there is a better way to assign those grades based on actual student understanding rather than completion.’’ (IIa*)

In other cases, the dilemma helped student teachers to make more explicit and even consolidate existing beliefs: ‘‘This dilemma that I was faced with has also reinforced the belief that students learn through experiences. You can tell them and lecture them all you want, they may be able to regurgitate things to you, but most of them will not have learned anything.’’ (IIc)

Role of Perceived Constraints. Dilemmas also resulted from student teachers confronting or learning to negotiate perceived constraints on their practice. These constraints tended to be perceived as external limitations or restrictions, such as school administration policies, lack of academic accountability, mandatory curriculum, required textbook, parental irresponsibility, intrinsically unmotivated students, etc. ‘‘Since the students have to buy the textbook and the lab book we are required to use them frequently. The textbook is not well-written and as the year has progressed I have grown to hate this textbook....I want to explain concepts with a different approach but then this tends to confuse students when their book does it one way and I do it a different way.’’ (Id) The recognition of these constraints created frustration, a sense of helplessness, and disillusionment in student teachers who did not feel capable of affecting the school or family environments: ‘‘The results were sour to say the least. The parents did not return calls or respond to the progress reports send to home. The councilor [sic] stated that the best he could do was to file a transfer to study hall after the 20th unexcused absence by an individual student. However, the councilor indicated by his demeanor and body language that this was not an encouraged action.’’ (Ij) Many of the dilemmas revealed the student teachersÕ struggle to better define the limits of their responsibilities based on their own beliefs about teaching, their knowledge and perceptions about their actual students, and the perceived constraints in their practice:

REVEALING STUDENT TEACHERS THINKING

415

‘‘When first confronted with these students I was shocked at how a teacher is supposed to handle them...This made me think about how to motivate these students when it seemed as though they did not care about anything. Before I thought there was a way to get to each student ‘‘underbelly’’ where they would get some motivation. However, I have seen that even with all the effort I put forth some students do not want it. I would not say I have ‘‘settled’’ with the idea of students not wanting to succeed, but I have realized I can only do so much..’’ (Ic*)

Role of Extreme Cases. Particularly in Group I dilemmas, student teachersÕ thinking seemed to be more focused on extreme cases of unsatisfactory student performance than on commonplace classroom events (10 of the 13 dilemmas in Group I). This may be due to the intrinsic nature of the assignment, which asks students to identify a dilemma that many of them interpret as a problem in which a definitive solution seems to be out of their hands; for example, the problems of dealing with chronic tardiness without real school support or helping students who are in danger of retention and come from broken families. However, it is likely that these extreme cases were highlighted because they were the ones that most challenged the student teachersÕ values and beliefs about students and teaching, and involved situations that did not conform to their expectations: ‘‘This was an important problem to me because of its uniqueness. I had not yet come across a student during my student teaching that really did not like me. I have had trouble with students not liking the class or school altogether, but never someone who included me in the things they didnÕt like. I have never had a student that was also so adamant about not participating anymore and specifically trying to ignore the class.’’ (Ig) As student teachers acquire knowledge about students, extreme cases of unsatisfactory performance may be the ones that have a stronger impact on the process of modifying and reconstructing their personal images of self as teacher (Kagan, 1992). Strategies for Dilemma Resolution. Although concerns about student motivation and its impact on success and achievement were central to dilemma analyses in group I, middle school and high school student teachers thought differently about the origin of the problem and how to solve it. High school level student teachers often cited lack of accountability for completion of academic work as a central concern. Their suggestions for resolving dilemmas involving student success and motivation included:

416

TALANQUER, TOMANEK, & NOVODVORSKY

• re-thinking the structure and content of lessons, assessments, and assignments (Id, Ie, Ik); ‘‘I think in the future I need to go into the end of the school year with a plan to help keep students on track...Maybe some sort of big project or inquiry project would be good for the end of the year.’’ (Id) • increasing student accountability for participation and completion of work (Id, If, Ig, Ih, Ii, Ij); ‘‘When I have my own classroom, I will make policies and guidelines for the students to follow if they are absent for long periods at a time.’’ (Ih) Middle school student teachers more often cited studentsÕ low selfesteem and lack of parental involvement and support as a reason for low motivation. Their ideas for resolving dilemmas involving student motivation centered on: • offering more personal support and rewards for students (Ia*, Ib*); ‘‘I have started some reward programs that encourage and acknowledge good grades. I also have a top ten list posted in the classroom.’’ (Ia*) • enforcing rules that encourage more on-task behavior (Ic*); ‘‘...From the previous experience the students realized that it was better to follow a few simple rules and stay in the class than to have to write me papers instead.’’ (IIc*) In general, high school student teachers seemed to be inclined to deal with the problem of lack of student work through task management and instructional decisions, while their counterparts at the middle school level relied on extrinsic motivation and on providing emotional and social support for individual students. In addition to these common patterns of thought, the global analysis of our data allowed us to infer some basic constraints on our student teachersÕ thinking with important implications for science teacher education.

REVEALING STUDENT TEACHERS THINKING

417

Reduced Complexity. The clear distinction between the concerns that characterize dilemmas in groups I and II suggests that our student teachers tended to compartmentalize their thinking, and to reduce the complexities of teaching by focusing on a reduced number of variables. Thus, most student teachers who worried about low student achievement reduced the problem to issues related to student support, individual characteristics, and task management, neglecting the effect of their own instructional decisions. Those student teachers preoccupied with student learning focused most of their attention on content, and to a lesser extent, instructional activities and strategies, neglecting to reflect on student attributes or individual characteristics. The results of our study suggest the need to better prepare preservice teachers to recognize and manage the complex relationships among the different variables that influence teaching and learning. Mixed Concerns about Teaching and Pupils. Most of the concerns identified in the 22 dilemma analyses correspond to what in previous studies (Evans & Tribble, 1986; Fuller, 1969; Fuller & Brown, 1975; Haritos, 2004; Kagan, 1992; Veenman, 1984;) have been categorized as teaching situation concerns and concerns about pupils. Only two of our student teachers (Ig, Il)) included some survival concerns related to their adequacy as teachers and to doubts about being liked by students, and none of them mentioned issues related to class control. However, in our analysis we found it difficult to clearly differentiate between concerns related to teaching and those linked to the needs of students. For example, the preoccupation of many of the student teachers with their studentsÕ success and achievement in the Group I dilemmas involved thoughts and reflections about both their teaching decisions (task management) and their studentsÕ attributes. Even for dilemmas focused on concerns about curriculum and instruction (Group II), which can be categorized as the most teacher-centered, student teacher thinking was driven by the perceived need to motivate and engage students, or to impact student learning. Our study also suggests that the concerns about the studentsÕ emotional and social wellbeing, the category that most closely matches the idea of ‘‘concerns about pupils,’’ is associated with the level at which the student teachers are placed. In our case, middle school student teachers demonstrated a much larger degree of concern in this area than their high school counterparts. Whether this is due to the personal characteristics of the student teachers interested in a middle school placement, to the influence of the middle school culture, or to some other factor, remains unclear. We also recognize that our results should be taken cautiously given the small size of our sample. At all levels, student teachersÕ concerns about student motivation and emotional and social wellbeing were not matched by the same level of preoccupation for student learning and understanding, or for meeting the studentsÕ cognitive needs. In very few cases were student teachers

418

TALANQUER, TOMANEK, & NOVODVORSKY

concerned with or thinking about their students struggling with a scientific concept or idea, holding misconceptions, or failing to transfer their knowledge. From the curricular and instructional points of view, only five of the student teachers questioned their teaching practices based on concerns about student understanding. This result may not be surprising based on previous research that indicates that these concerns tend to develop later in a teacherÕs career, once standardized procedural routines are mastered (Kagan, 1992). However, for us it raised the question of whether we could realistically focus our preservice teachersÕ attention on student understanding, a major theme in our science teacher preparation program. Implications for Our Program The identification, description, and analysis of dilemmas reveal a variety of student teachersÕ concerns about students, schools, and teaching and learning. Although some student teachers had difficulties identifying dilemmas, we found dilemma analysis to be a powerful assessment instrument for our science teacher preparation program. In our case, it uncovered common patterns of thought among student teachers, revealed many of the beliefs and perceived constraints guiding their decisions and actions, highlighted strengths and weaknesses in their problem analysis and resolution strategies, and made us aware of basic sources of unhappiness and disappointment in their practices. The revelation of common themes in our student teachersÕ thinking and their lack of reflection on critical areas of their practices have driven us to make some curriculum and instructional changes in our science teacher preparation program in recent semesters. For example, our study revealed the need to increase our focus on assessment of student understanding in several of our courses, including the student teacher seminar. These courses now emphasize the need to recognize and assess different dimensions of student understanding, to collect and analyze evidence of student learning, and to use this data to guide teaching practices. Additionally, the study and analysis of the link between instructional decisions and the creation of a productive student learning environment has been intensified as a core focus of another of our courses. The results of the present study also strengthened our conviction to more closely involve mentor teachers in the preparation of prospective teachers, creating opportunities for mentors to reflect on the importance of making more visible to student teachers the ways in which student learning guides their daily decisions and actions. We have also begun to discuss how to best address our student teachersÕ acute concerns about student motivation and success, and their disillusionment and unhappiness with the realities of the classroom. Up to this point our approach has been to offer a variety of field experiences prior to

REVEALING STUDENT TEACHERS THINKING

419

student teaching, totaling more than 100 h of observation, co-teaching, and teaching in different secondary school classrooms. The hope is that exposure to diverse school and classroom environments will help our preservice teachers acquire more realistic views and knowledge about studentsÕ aptitudes, interests, and problems. Work in the field is always accompanied by structured tasks, such as the dilemma analysis, which asks students to critically reflect on their work, to collect evidence to justify their claims, and to evaluate the impact of their decisions and actions. Guided observations and reflective practice in real contexts give preservice teachers opportunities to test their teaching beliefs and evaluate their teaching concerns before assuming full responsibility in a secondary school classroom. However, the intensive field experiences quite often expose our preservice teachers to learning environments constrained by conditions that they do not feel prepared to influence. Increasing our student teachersÕ readiness to impact learning environments and their self-confidence to do so are major challenges that our science teacher preparation program must address. Despite the specificity or contextual nature of the student teachersÕ dilemmas discussed in this study, our results and discussion indicate that dilemma analysis is a useful tool to reveal student teacher thinking and the concerns they have about their practice. It offers teacher educators a valuable opportunity to explore and recognize many of the personal beliefs and perceived constraints guiding their student teachersÕ thoughts, decisions, and actions. Acknowledgment The National Science Foundation (Grant No. DUE 0088046) partially supported this work.

References Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Carter, K. (1990). TeachersÕ knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291– 310). New York: Macmillan. Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. (1986). TeachersÕ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255– 296). New York: Macmillan. Connelley, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 2–14. Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. New York: Nichols Publishing.

420

TALANQUER, TOMANEK, & NOVODVORSKY

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251. Evans, E. D., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy, and commitment to teaching among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 80(2), 81–85. Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 207–226. Fuller, F. F., & Brown, O. H. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education (Seventy-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Haritos, C. (2004). Understanding teaching through the minds of teacher candidates: A curious blend of realism and idealism. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 637–654. Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129–169. Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55(2), 178–194. Lampert, M. (1986). Teaching about thinking and thinking about teaching. In P. Taylor (Ed.), Developments in curriculum studies (pp. 233–259). London: NFER-Nelson. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Marland, P., & Osborne, B. (1990). Classroom theory, thinking, and action. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(1), 93–109. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Munby, H. (1986). Metaphor in the thinking of teachers: An exploratory study. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 18, 197–209. Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). TeachersÕ knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (4th ed., pp. 877–904). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Nisbet, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 83(3), 231–259. Scho¨n, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22. Talanquer, V., Novodvorsky, I., Slater, T. F., & Tomanek, D. (2003). A stronger role for science departments in the preparation of future chemistry teachers. Journal of Chemical Education, 80, 1168–1171. Tobin, K. (1990). Changing metaphors and beliefs: A master switch for teaching?. Theory Into Practice, 29(2), 122–127.

REVEALING STUDENT TEACHERS THINKING

421

Tomanek, D. (1994). A case of dilemmas: Exploring my assumptions about teaching science. Science Education, 78(5), 399–414. Tomanek, D. (1996). Developing teacher reflection on practice with practical inquiry. Reflect: The Journal of Reflection in Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 27–35. Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54(2), 143–178.