| Summary: | The purpose of this study was to investigate the dilemmas pre-service
science teachers encounter in relation to their participation in a project
which sought to establish a constructivist and collaborative model of
teaching and learning. I also explored the strategies the pre-service
teachers implemented to manage the dilemmas they encountered, as well
as how they perceived those dilemmas to have influenced their teaching
practice and their personal philosophies of teaching and learning (PPoTaL).
Since the construct of voice was an important factor in this study, I used a
research method that I refer to as intercontext. This method has three major
components: stimulated linkage, reflexivity and the dialectical conversation.
To enact this research method, I conducted five interviews with each of the
six pre-service teachers over the 12-month period of their professional
preparation. In addition, I had many informal conversations with them and
observed them several times during their university and school practicum
experiences.
I argued that social constructivism provides a fruitful theoretical
framework to interpret the results of this study, because this orientation to
teaching and learning is based on the notion that knowledge is socially
constructed and mediated by.cultural, historical and institutional codes. In
this light, three broad dilemmas were identified in relation to the students'
experiences with the teacher education program's course content and
design and six dilemmas were identified in relation to the roles the
participants felt they needed to perform during their school practicum. The
variety of dilemmas the pre-service teachers encountered and the direct and
indirect strategies they implemented to manage those dilemmas could be
explained in terms of two overarching issues. The first had to do with the
difficulties associated with bridging the theory and practice of learning to
teach in two distinct communities of practice (i.e., in the university and the
school communities). The second general factor had to do with the type of
relationship the pre-service teachers established with their school advisor(s)
or/and faculty advisor; that is, from the the students' point of view they
wondered to what extent they could trust their advisors to allow them to take
the risks associated with asking questions, trying innovative approaches in
the classroom, and exploring their own teaching identity without any of these
reflecting negatively in their final evaluation reports. Finally, a number of
suggestions for practice and further research are provided.
|
|---|
