Factors Influencing Entering Teacher Candidates’ Preferences for Instructional Activities: A glimpse into their orientations towards teaching

The present study was designed to identify and characterize the major factors that influence entering science teacher candidates’ preferences for different types of instructional activities, and to analyze what these factors suggest about teacher candidates’ orientations towards science teaching. The study involved prospective teachers enrolled in the introductory science teaching course in an undergraduate science teacher preparation program. Our analysis was based on data collected using a teaching and learning beliefs questionnaire, together with structured interviews. Our results indicate that entering science teacher candidates have strong preferences for a few activity types. The most influential factors driving entering science teacher candidates’ selections were the potential of the instructional activities to motivate students, be relevant to students’ personal lives, result in transfer of skills to non‐science situations, actively involve students in goal‐directed learning, and implement curriculum that represents what students need to know. This set of influencing factors suggests that entering science teacher candidates’ orientations towards teaching are likely driven by one or more of these three central teaching goals: (1) motivating students, (2) developing science process skills, and (3) engaging students in structured science activities. These goals, and the associated beliefs about students, teaching, and learning, can be expected to favor the development or enactment of three major orientations towards teaching in this population of future science teachers: “motivating students,” “process,” and “activity‐driven.”

[1]  Richard S. Prawat,et al.  Teaching for Understanding: Three Key Attributes. , 1989 .

[2]  P. Grossman.  The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education , 1990 .

[3]  M. Chi.  Quantifying Qualitative Analyses of Verbal Data: A Practical Guide , 1997 .

[4]  M. Engle.  Book Review: Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd Ed.) , 1999 .

[5]  C. Bereiter.  Toward a Solution of the Learning Paradox , 1985 .

[6]  Robert J. Yinger,et al.  Routines in teacher planning , 1979 .

[7]  J. Stenton,et al.  Learning how to teach. , 1973, Nursing mirror and midwives journal.

[8]  Peter W. Hewson,et al.  Analysis and Use of a Task for Identifying Conceptions of Teaching Science , 1989 .

[9]  Bayo Lawal,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis With Sas and Spss Applications , 2003 .

[10]  Heidi Kass,et al.  Chemistry teachers' functional paradigms , 1987 .

[11]  Hyun-Ju Park,et al.  Relationships between prospective secondary teachers' classroom practice and their conceptions of biology and of teaching science , 1999 .

[12]  Debra J Tomanek,et al.  A Stronger Role for Science Departments in the Preparation of Future Chemistry Teachers , 2003 .

[13]  Gaspar Sánchez,et al.  Science teachers' views and practices in planning for teaching , 1999 .

[14]  L. Quéré.  Cognition in Practice , 1996 .

[15]  W. Smith.  Teaching as a science. , 1997, Academic radiology.

[16]  J. Lagowski.  National Science Education Standards , 1995 .

[17]  C. Linder,et al.  Student-Teachers' Conceptions of Science, Teaching and Learning : A Case Study in Preservice Science Education , 1990 .

[18]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[19]  P. Hewson,et al.  Science teachers’ conceptions of teaching: Implications for teacher education , 1987 .

[20]  W. So.  A Study of Teacher Cognition in Planning Elementary Science Lessons. , 1997 .

[21]  J. Nespor.  The Role of Beliefs in the Practice of Teaching. , 1987 .

[22]  Richard J. Shavelson,et al.  Research on Teachers’ Pedagogical Thoughts, Judgments, Decisions, and Behavior , 1981 .

[23]  H. Borko,et al.  Research on Teachers' Decisions in Planning Instruction. , 1979 .

[24]  Richard S. Prawat,et al.  Teachers' Beliefs about Teaching and Learning: A Constructivist Perspective , 1992, American Journal of Education.

[25]  O. D. Jong,et al.  The Teacher Trainer as Researcher: Exploring the initial pedagogical content concerns of prospective science teachers , 2000 .

[26]  J. Shea.  National Science Education Standards , 1995 .

[27]  Norman G. Lederman,et al.  Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Construct and its Implications for Science Education , 2001 .

[28]  Nam-Hwa Kang,et al.  Learning to teach science: Personal epistemologies, teaching goals, and practices of teaching , 2008 .

[29]  Onno De Jong,et al.  The Development of Preservice Chemistry Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge , 2002 .

[30]  Anita Greenwood,et al.  Factors Influencing the Development of Career-Change Teachers' Science Teaching Orientation , 2003 .

[31]  Debra J Tomanek,et al.  Revealing Student Teachers’ Thinking through Dilemma Analysis , 2007 .

[32]  T. V. D. Valk,et al.  The Lesson Preparation Method: a way of investigating pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge , 1999 .

[33]  Thomas M. Dana,et al.  Using a Card-Sorting Task to Elicit and Clarify Science-Teaching Orientations , 2003 .

[34]  Debra J Tomanek,et al.  What do science teachers consider when selecting formative assessment tasks , 2008 .

[35]  Patricia J. Friedrichsen,et al.  Substantive-level theory of highly regarded secondary biology teachers' science teaching orientations , 2005 .

[36]  M. Rogers,et al.  Pre-service Primary Teachers' Planning for Science and Technology Activities: Influences and constraints , 2000 .

[37]  Valerie J. Caracelli,et al.  Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs , 1989 .