The Influence of a Teacher Preparation Program on Preservice Social Studies Teachers' Beliefs: A Case Study

Abstract

This study sought to assess the influence of an intensive social studies teacher preparation program on the belief of a cohort of graduate preservice teachers. In particular, it sought to determine whether the participants' methods courses, field experiences and student teaching led to changes in their beliefs about teaching and learning social studies. The findings suggest that the experiences they had in their courses as well as in the schools both had a discernable impact. As they clarified their own beliefs, these preservice social studies teachers developed a favorable disposition to student-centered approaches to the teaching and learning of their subject.

Introduction

The transformation from college student to preservice social studies teacher often resembles an exciting, yet arduous, journey. It is a journey that is begun primarily thinking of oneself as a college student. As the journey into the teaching profession continues, the college student becomes a preservice teacher who begins to develop the self-image of a future social studies teacher. This study sought to assess the influence of an intensive social studies teacher preparation program on the beliefs of a cohort of graduate preservice teachers.

Nearly three decades ago, in his now classic sociological study Schoolteacher, Lortie (2004) argued that as a result of the many years they have spent in an “apprenticeship of observation,” preservice teachers come to their teacher preparation program with strong prior beliefs about teaching and learning. Consequently, teacher preparation rarely involves a dramatic conversion or transformation of perspectives as preservice teachers firm up the values and beliefs that will guide them as teachers. As this argument goes, rather than lay the basis for a reflective disposition towards their own teaching practices, preservice teachers typically dismiss teachings that challenge their beliefs as theoretical, impractical or simply wrong (Feiman-Nemser, Schwille, Carver, & Yusko, 1999; Lortie, 2004; Raths, 2001).

Nonetheless, other research indicates that while teacher preparation programs may not result in any dramatic changes in the beliefs preservice teachers hold, they do help them to become more reflective and effective teachers (Adler, 1998; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Dinkelman, 1999). In a recent review of the research, Wilson, Floden and Ferrini-Mundy (2002) argue that while teacher preparation course work does have some influence on preservice teachers' beliefs, study after study has shown that experienced as well as beginning teachers regard field work in the schools as a powerful — and sometimes the most powerful — component of their teacher preparation.

Featherstone (1992) observed that the students in her methods course were adamant about the fact that they would learn the most important lessons about teaching from actual classroom experiences rather than from their course work. Contrary to their opinion, however, she argued that learning from experience is “often a mixed bag,” and that teacher educators' attempts “to enlarge their students' ideas about teaching” can only be realized if they are placed in settings that allow them to act upon these new ideas (p. 4, 11). Toll, Nierstheimer, Lenski and Kolloff (2004) suggest that when students return from field experiences with completely different notions than those with which they left their methods courses, the answer is not to try to “wash [them] clean” (p. 164), but rather to model reflection, openness, and humility as an alternative way to assist preservice teachers in developing ways to live with and honor differences.

Although Patterson (2001) argues that no amount of modeling, mentor support, or peer interaction can make beginning teachers feel successful unless they are in a school environment that supports their beliefs, Raths (2001) suggests that teacher educators should shift their focus to strengthening their dispositions, which he defines as “a summary of actions observed” (Katz & Raths, 1985, p. 302). Defining beliefs as “pre-dispositions,” he argues that teacher educators should be in the business of “strengthening” dispositions, by modeling and through apprenticeship experiences, rather than trying to change beliefs (Raths, 2001, p. 7).

Acknowledging that it is “a murky concept,” Shussler (2005) suggests using a more comprehensive view of dispositions. She defines dispositions as “awareness, inclinations, and reflection related to [a person's] behavior and thinking” (pp. 5–6). Embracing the concept of “core qualities” used by Korthagen (2004), she and others in effect equate dispositions with beliefs by defining them as the “inner levels of a teacher's capacity” (Shussler, Stooksberry, & Bercaw, 2005, pp. 3–4).

As part of their teacher preparation program, preservice social studies teachers are required to complete course work in their academic content area as well as in education. While Wilson et al. (2002) argue that there is a lack of research on the effects of teachers' subject matter preparation more research has been done on the effects of pedagogical preparation. Much of this research, which has particularly focused on course work and field experiences, indicates that teacher preparation programs have little impact on what preservice social studies teachers believe (Adler, 1991; Armento, 1996; Dinkelman, 1999; Van 't Hooft, 2000). Angell (1998) argues that this impact depends on the degree of overlap in the messages that are conveyed in the program, and the individual's willingness to consider change when encountering cognitive dissonance. She suggests that preservice social studies teachers often accept evidence that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while they dismiss disconfirming evidence as unrealistic ideas that emanate from the ivory tower. Johnston (1990) found a partial and differential influence of a social studies methods course on the beliefs and teaching practices of her participants, and that this influence was interactive with their backgrounds, beliefs, personality, and experiences.

Yon and Passe (1990) found that there is a significant relationship between social studies methods courses and student teacher beliefs about teaching social studies. While the preservice social studies teachers in their study were not entirely able to implement planning and instructional practices that were encouraged in their methods course many of their beliefs remained intact throughout the student teaching experience. In fact, student teaching seemed to solidify and confirm the beliefs these preservice teachers brought to the experience. In another study, however, Passe (1994) found that due to differences in the quality of field experiences, the work of teacher education programs may in fact remain unapplied and eventually forgotten.

Other research indicates that many preservice teachers believe that their field experiences and student teaching are of much greater value to them than their methods courses. Ross (1986) found a widespread belief among the preservice social studies teachers in his study that personality characteristics are more important to success in the classroom than course work during teacher education. The participants in his study argued that their field experience gave them an opportunity to look beyond the superficial nature of their apprenticeship observation and gain a more realistic understanding of the nature and constraints of the teacher's job.

Research also indicates that the role of the cooperating teacher is especially important. Field experiences and student teaching often create tension between what preservice teachers have been taught in their methods courses and what they encounter in the field. Often preservice social studies teachers enter the classroom excited about trying out new approaches to teaching only to be constrained by their cooperating teachers (Fehn & Koeppen, 1998; Wilson et al., 1994). Owens (1997) found this to be especially true in elementary schools as nearly a third of the participants in his study reported that their cooperating teacher was not interested in teaching social studies.

The National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) (1994) maintains that a well-designed social studies curriculum engages students in historical inquiry in order to help them develop personal perspectives. According to NCSS, engaging students in historical inquiry will dispose them towards the kind of reflective thinking that is essential for democratic thought and action. Similarly, the National Center for History in the Schools (NCHS) (1996) emphasizes the importance of helping children develop their historical inquiry skills so they learn to consider the multiple perspectives of various peoples in the past by demonstrating how their differing motives, beliefs, interests, hopes, and fears influenced individual and group behaviors.

Levstik (1997) has argued that social studies teachers too often ignore a fundamental characteristic of historical inquiry by presenting a unitary, sanitized version of what happened in the past. Yeager and Davis (1995, 1996) and Yeager and Wilson (1997) found that there is often a disconnect between the way preservice social studies teachers are taught to “do” history with their students in their methods course and how they themselves were taught in their academic content courses. However, when the social studies methods course appeared to be a natural extension of the way preservice teachers had learned to engage in active inquiry in their college history courses, they were more reflective about their teaching and open to trying out new and active student-centered approaches in their own classroom.

Recently Van Hover and Yeager (2002) found a disconnect between professed beliefs and classroom practice when a beginning social studies teacher appeared to be paying lip service to the student-centered approaches to historical inquiry she had learned in her methods course. Gradwell (2003), on the contrary, described a novice social studies teacher who had developed a love of social studies during her childhood. She nonetheless credited her history course work, the social studies methods course, her student teaching experience, and in particular her cooperating teacher, for helping her develop strong student-centered beliefs about teaching social studies.

Method

Zeichner and Gore (1990) have argued that general education and academic specialization courses, methods and foundation courses, and field-based experiences constitute the major components of a teacher preparation program that may potentially influence the beliefs of preservice teachers. This study focused particularly on the methods courses, field experiences and student teaching that were part of an intensive teacher preparation program that emphasized active student-centered instructional practices.

The study involved an inductive process of discovering the world “as seen through the eyes of the participants” (Hutchinson, 1997, p. 124) and was begun without any prior expectations. Advocates of such an interpretative approach argue that this method is especially appropriate when a contemporary phenomenon is being studied in a naturalistic non-controlled setting (Merriam, 2001: Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994).

The participants in this case study were graduate students in an intensive, three-semester-long secondary social studies teacher preparation program at a large university in the southeastern United States. They included 8 male and 11 female preservice teachers. Thirteen were Caucasian, 3 African American, 1 Asian American, and 2 Hispanic. With the exception of one non-traditional student, all were in their early twenties. To protect their identity each participant was assigned a pseudonym.

During their first semester in the program the participants completed a middle school and high school social studies methods course. As part of each of these two methods courses they completed a field experience that lasted three weeks during which they observed in a cooperating teacher's classroom. In addition, they completed a course on classroom management as well as a course on integrating technology in the social studies. At the time of this study, the participants were in the second semester of their program during which they student taught and were enrolled in a weekly seminar taught by the author. During the same semester, they were also required to complete a course on reading in the content area as well as an independent study on exceptional student issues. Finally, to complete their teacher preparation program during the third semester, the participants were required to complete an additional course on perspectives in the social studies as well as a course on general curriculum theory.

Throughout the teacher preparation program, the instructors were committed to and modeled a student-centered approach to the teaching and learning of social studies. They encouraged the preservice teachers in this study to actively engage their students in historical inquiry. The program especially encouraged its preservice teachers to use primary documents as part of their regular instruction to help middle and high school students develop their own perspectives.

Data sources for this study consisted of questionnaires, interviews, and daily journals. Fifteen participants completed a questionnaire at the beginning of the semester, while 18 did at the end of the semester. Due to absences when the questionnaires were administered not all 19 participants were able to participate.

The first questionnaire included questions about the participants' personal background, why they decided to become a teacher, how others responded to that decision, what kind of teacher they hoped to be, whether they had any strong beliefs about teaching and learning social studies before they entered the program, whether they had gained any important ideas from their social studies methods courses and field experiences during the first semester and whether these had changed their beliefs, and what kind of new ideas about teaching social studies they hoped to use during their student teaching.

The second questionnaire, which the participants completed near the end of the semester but after they had finished their student teaching, included additional questions about whether their student teaching experience had changed their beliefs about teaching social studies, whether they had gained any new ideas about teaching social studies, whether during their student teaching they actually tried out some of the ideas they thought they would at the beginning of the semester, and what new ideas they had gained so far in their teacher preparation program they would like use as beginning social studies teachers.

All 19 preservice social studies teachers in this study kept a daily journal throughout their student teaching. Each participant was provided with a hardcover notebook in which they were asked to record and reflect on what they considered to be their major daily experiences. In order not to direct their entries, no other specific instructions were given about what to write. These journals offered a rich documentation of the experiences and inner thoughts these preservice social studies teachers had during the nine weeks they spent full-time in the classroom with their cooperating teacher.

To gain further insight into the participants' beliefs, four participants, each with a different gender, race and age background, were purposively selected for a taped interview both at the beginning and after the end of their student teaching. The interview questions were identical to those in the written questionnaires and provided an opportunity to delve deeper into these four participants' beliefs and their perceptions of their own experiences. After transcribing the interviews, each tape was destroyed in order to further protect the identity of the interviewees, who are briefly sketched next.

Henry was a Caucasian male in a successful business career. A non-traditional student, he had begun to question his career path and decided that teaching would offer him an opportunity for a new, more meaningful life. Lashay was an African American female who grew up in a large urban city. She had always expected to become a psychologist but after a life changing experience while teaching in Africa she decided to become a teacher. Lynette was a Hispanic female whose parents were immigrants from Cuba. She grew up in an urban community and stated that she often struggled academically as well as socially while in school because her parents were reluctant for the family to assimilate American culture. Paul was a Caucasian male who grew up in a white suburban community. While he originally came to the university to pursue a degree in landscape architecture, he decided to become a social studies teacher after meeting the program coordinator.

A limitation of this study is that the data are self-reported. However, to triangulate the findings I collected multiple kinds of sources at different times throughout the semester. Each time I first analyzed the data sources separately to identify initial themes. Next, I used the constant comparative method (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to determine common themes between the data sources. As a final step, to validate these common themes, I identified confirming as well as disconfirming evidence. Because of the qualitative nature of this study, however, the responsibility to transfer the findings resides with the reader rather than with the researcher (Merriam, 2001; Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994).

Finding

The questionnaires and interviews revealed no significant differences in the participants' responses to those questions that pertained to their background, the methods courses and field experiences. The analysis of the data suggested a sequential presentation of the participants' background, their perceptions of their methods courses, field experiences, and student teaching. Themes that emerged from the data were: lack of strong prior beliefs, gaining an appreciation of student-centered methods, mixed field experiences, and experimentation during student teaching.

Background

The preservice social studies teachers in this study offered a variety of reasons why they had decided to become teachers. While they generally liked such things as interacting with young students and keeping involved with the subject, as well as such ancillary rewards as a teacher's work schedule, clearly their most important motivator was being able to serve society and give back to the community. In his interview Paul described his decision to become a teacher as “an indescribable force” that was pulling him to become “an agent of social change,” while Henry wanted to leave “some kind of legacy.” Lashay simply “wanted to save the world,” whereas Lynette sought to “help the community because that is where [she] would be most needed.”

Most of the participants in this study argued they had no strong beliefs about teaching and learning social studies before they entered the teacher preparation program. While they knew they wanted to become teachers they had no clearly articulated framework of beliefs. In a typical response Paul indicated that he had “never really thought about it” and “just thought [he'd] teach, [and] that's it.” Nearly all responses from those who indicated they had some strong prior beliefs focused on the fact that there had to be ways to make the subject more fun and exciting for students than just using the textbook and having them complete worksheets. For example, Henry argued that “kids typically think that history is the worst, most boring out of all their subjects in school” and that he didn't want to be “that kind of teacher who gives” blah, blah, blah' lectures because that [is] why people hate history.”

Methods Courses

When the participants in this study were asked to identify important ideas they had learned about teaching and learning social studies in their methods courses during the first semester, their answers typically focused on having learned to use a variety of active, student-centered approaches to teaching social studies rather than lecturing and only using the textbook. They emphasized they had acquired, as Henry called it, “a whole toolkit of things to pull from” to engage students in social studies.

Except for one preservice teacher, all participants indicated in their questionnaires that their methods courses had influenced their beliefs about how to teach social studies. While four participants responded that the methods courses had helped them clarify rather than change their beliefs about the best way to teach social studies, ten participants explicitly commented they had gained an appreciation of student-centered methods. Yet, although they were strongly encouraged in their program to use primary documents and perspective-taking learning activities, only three participants made any explicit reference to engaging their students in historical inquiry. In addition, five participants suggested they had learned that there is an important connection between presenting engaging lessons and effective classroom management.

Henry suggested that his courses didn't “really have much impact on [his] beliefs,” but that they helped him “flesh out” ideas about classroom management and gave him a foundation in theories and methods that prepared him for student teaching. While, Lynette stated that most important lesson she learned from her methods courses was the “patience and understanding about kids” that one of her professors modeled, Paul indicated that he already knew what kind of teacher he wanted to be before the methods courses. He indicated that he “didn't have many ideas for methods [but that the methods courses] gave him several ideas to implement in the classroom, including using primary documents because they are an excellent tool to “reach students of nearly all learning styles.”

Field Experiences

For each of their two methods courses, the preservice social studies teachers in this study completed a field experience that lasted three weeks during which they spent half days in their cooperating teacher's classroom. In their questionnaires, they suggested that their field experiences provided them with an excellent introduction into the classroom. For example, Paul argued that it was “an absolutely necessary first step” and that he “would have felt terrified” to begin his student teaching without this experience. Similarly, Henry argued that, after having been “in an adult world for all of these years,” the field experience provided him with a “‘low threat’ kind of way to see what is going on in the classroom.” Furthermore, in the questionnaires, the participants stated that their field experiences taught them that it's necessary to be flexible and that lesson planning is imperative for managing time, having an organized classroom and keeping discipline problems to a minimum.

Most participants indicated that their field experiences reinforced that it is important to use a variety of teaching methods to engage the students, as they were being taught in their methods courses. In addition, several participants indicated they learned to appreciate the value of such practical skills as immediately learning all their students' names, writing notes on the board more often, speaking loudly, and providing more structure, especially for younger students.

Four participants indicated they felt their field experiences were simply too short to have changed their beliefs as they had only been allowed to observe the cooperating teacher teach. While one of these four participants described her cooperating teacher as uninspired, another indicated the field experience nonetheless gave him an opportunity to observe what worked and what didn't. Three other participants explicitly indicated the field experience had strengthened their beliefs about the effectiveness of student-centered activities, whereas others, such as Henry, indicated they had gained a “more realistic view of the world,” and learned that there is “no one magic way” to teach but rather that it should be balanced between teacher- and student-centered approaches.

Student Teaching

All 19 participants in this study kept a daily, often candid, journal of their daily student teaching experiences. These journals provided a rich documentation of their daily experiences and reflection. Furthermore, after they had completed their student teaching, the four interviewees in this study once again answered the same questions as during their first interview, in addition to new questions about their student teaching.

Student-Centered Activities

In general, as they were about to begin their student teaching, the participants in this study indicated they hoped to use many of the student-centered methods they had learned in their teacher preparation program. They hoped to be open to new experiences and, as Henry stated, “[tried] not to make up [their] mind about things” right away. In fact, the journals were resplendent with examples of how, without exception, all participants in this study experimented with implementing student-centered approaches. Three participants, however, wrote that they felt uncomfortable with engaging the students in group activities and struggled with balancing content and process. Yet, even their initial trepidation did not stop them from trying out the new approaches to teaching social studies they had learned in their teacher preparation program.

While the preservice teachers in this study did not disregard teacher-centered learning activities, they generally tried to make such approaches more engaging by accompanying their lectures with graphic organizers, guided notes and PowerPoint presentations. In addition, other methods they widely used to cover content consisted of such practical strategies as jigsaw, ‘think, pair and share,’ and ‘numbered heads.’

Although the teacher preparation program's strong emphasis on presenting multiple perspectives as an integral part of historical inquiry did not emerge as a significant theme in the questionnaires and interviews, the journals revealed an extensive use of primary documents. Indicative of the influence of the teacher preparation program, at different times during their student teaching, all participants in this study made a deliberate effort to present multiple perspectives to their students and engage them in developing their own interpretations. These numerous perspective-taking activities included the use of written primary documents, readings on different geographical regions, culture centers, photographs, cartoons, and audiovisual materials, as well as current events from newspapers, television, and the Internet.

In addition, the participants in this study often wrote about the many group projects in which they engaged their students, including oral presentations, role plays, mock trials, stock market simulations, creating historical brochures, alphabet books and posters, writing letters to the editor and elected officials, creating news broadcasts, analyzing and creating propaganda posters and cartoons, as well as analyzing contemporary song lyrics. Often these preservice social studies teachers were pleasantly surprised by their students' responses to these projects. In a typical entry, Lauren wrote that she felt “really good” when her students' presentations were surprisingly creative and one student told her that her group's news broadcast “was the coolest assignment ever.” The picture that emerged was that the participants' students often affirmed the value of these types of active student-centered activities.

Another common student-centered activity the preservice teachers in this study used regularly, although initially often with great difficulty, was classroom discussion. At times these unruly discussions were difficult to control as the students would not listen to each other's opinions, were disrespectful, or simply did not participate. However, the journal entries indicated that, as the participants in this study persevered, they discovered the need to discuss ground rules. They found that their students were especially eager to participate in meaningful discussions about such issues as Roe v. Wade, the President's State of the Union address, and the recent Columbia space shuttle disaster. Particularly the events that led up to the war in Iraq, which began during the last week of their student teaching, led to many lively discussions. Often amazed at their students' lack of factual knowledge, the participants nonetheless found them to be very passionate and opinionated.

Classroom Management

The journals further reveal that classroom management figured prominently among the participants' concerns, and that they learned many valuable lessons not only about their students but also themselves. They learned that their students could act worse when their cooperating teacher was not in the classroom, as Henry did one day when he “almost [experienced] a jail break.” They also learned that different classes act differently, and that sometimes it was the method of instruction or their own behavior that caused problems. They discovered that the week might start off with a ‘blue’ Monday and end with a ‘casual’ Friday, and that even the weather can have a profound impact. Often they also vacillated between being endeared to and appalled by their students' behavior. Consequently, on some occasions they felt reluctant to refer a student while on other occasions they felt proud of having done so.

Five participants in this study also had their first experience with students who cheated on a test or plagiarized an assignment. They found themselves to be reluctant to enforce consequences. As a result, some of these preservice teachers began to think beyond their own classroom management and reflect upon their own philosophy of discipline. For example, Paul illustrated this transformation when he stated that he “wasn't exactly in the mood to start dishing out zeroes for those [students he] caught.” Worried about having been too “relaxed” around his students, he sought to “find [a] medium between having fun and being serious.” Likewise, Lashay began to “demand respect” and argued that “there are a lot of things parents accept at home that [she] refuse[d].” She even complained about the dean at her school. Having referred a student for cheating and being told to call the parents, she became so frustrated with the “man's carelessness” that “if he [wouldn't] help [her] by taking appropriate action … [she would] just have to go to his boss.”

Unexpected Expectations

As their student teaching progressed, the participants began to experience the stress of a professional teacher's workload when they realized how much work teaching actually involved. Trying to keep up with her work, Amanda wrote in her questionnaire that “sometimes [she seemed] so disorganized” she felt “like Pigpen, but instead of walking around in a cloud of dirt, its papers.”

Another area in which these participants learned valuable lessons was their expectations of their students' academic abilities. Surprised by who did and did not complete assignments, they often felt disappointed by their students. Some found part of their “idealism shattered,” as Andrew wrote in his journal, especially after grading tests that made him “want to cry or throw up, or both.” Yet, there were also times when they were amazed by their students' accomplishments. For example, on one such occasion, Paul admitted that he “did not realize there was so much talent and enthusiasm.”

Social Justice

While many participants in this study indicated that the most important motivator to enter the teacher preparation program was being able to serve society and give back to the community, only a few of these preservice teachers made any further specific references to this broad goal. Most notably, two African American participants found themselves in difficult circumstances with regard to their own background. For example, after being accused by her predominantly African American students of “acting white,” Lashay decided the time had come to “educate the masses” about their own heritage. Shocked that they “did not know who these people were” she introduced them to the debate between W.E.B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington. A Black History Month assembly, which focused on traditional African American icons such as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, only further infuriated her because “our public schools are giving our kids a watered down version of their history and the sad part is that they aren't even aware of it.”

Consistent with the teacher preparation program's goals, a few participants explicitly stated they intended to teach their students the value of critical thinking and help them develop the skills they would need to become informed citizens and more aware of and involved in the world around them. For example, Paul defined his role as a social studies teacher to be that of “an agent of social change” whose job it should be to “alert kids to some of the pretty serious things going on in the world.” One notable example how he tried to accomplish this was a lesson unit in which he helped his students organize a mock UN Security Council in which, one week prior to the actual vote, they had to represent a current member country to the council, present its position on the imminent U.S. declaration of war against Iraq, and cast its vote on the war resolution.

Collegiality

A final theme that emerged from the journals was the participants' interactions with their cooperating teachers. The journals included numerous entries suggesting the cooperating teachers gave the preservice teachers in this study “free reign” to experiment with the new methods they had learned in their teacher preparation program. Although few and brief, typical complimentary entries indicated that the cooperating teachers were supportive of and eager to work with these preservice teachers. For example, Lynette stated that her cooperating teacher made her “feel at home,” “made room for her in his class,” “gave [her] a desk,” and even complimented her on having “a lot a patience, which he [did] not.”

Four of the 19 participants in this study, however, experienced significant conflicts with their cooperating teacher about which they wrote extensively in their journals. While Ellen described her cooperating teacher as amazing, extremely intelligent and caring, she also found him to be intimidating and condescending. On one occasion, he even “flipped out on [her] in front of the students.” Even with this apparent lack of support, she finished her student teaching realizing that in the future she would have to work and interact with different personality types. Gordon wrote in his journal that he was particularly dismayed by his cooperating teacher's ability to drone on about a particular topic and his constant interference. Referring to this teacher as “Prince Valiant,” they learned to get along once they got used to each other's different styles of teaching. According to Jere, his directing teacher dictated the lessons and material that he had to teach and showed little to no understanding of struggling students. At the end of the nine weeks he was required to continue his student teaching by “doing [more of] ‘her’ lessons.” And even though his university observer complimented him on the quality of a student-centered lesson he developed, his cooperating teacher gave him a negative final evaluation. Finally, although she successfully completed her student teaching, Renee expressed a strong dislike of her cooperating teacher's lecture-style approach to teaching, his lack of moving around among the students in classroom, and having to “listen to him all day” talk about his personal life. In summary, all participants in this study were able to successfully complete their student teaching, and, except for one preservice teacher, ultimately negotiate a collegial relationship with their cooperating teacher.

Reflection

At the end of their student teaching, twelve of the eighteen participants who completed the questionnaire indicated that their student teaching had influenced their beliefs about teaching and learning social studies. Most of their responses focused on helping students make meaningful connections between social studies content and their own personal lives.

In general, the participants in this study reiterated that the student teaching experience had improved their ability to build rapport with students, increased their confidence being around students and made them feel more comfortable with the subject content. For example, in his interview, Paul indicated that student teaching had confirmed a lot of what he had learned in his courses, such as the importance of using primary documents. He also argued that he was “a different person now,” and that he had “grown up a lot [during his student teaching] “as far as the transition out of college life and into the real world,” and that perhaps now it was time to “leave some of [his college] friends behind.”

Fourteen of the 18 participants indicated in their questionnaire that during their student teaching they did in fact use several of the ideas they had said they would. Only two participants indicated they did not because they were not allowed to by their cooperating teacher. As is clear from their journal entries and indicated in their questionnaires, most participants used nearly every opportunity they had to “try a lot of the stuff' they had learned in their teacher preparation program. For example, Andrew wrote that the point of student teaching was “to find out what works for you.”

Finally, when asked what kind of new ideas they hoped to use as a beginning social studies teacher, the participants once again expressed the importance of using a variety of student-centered approaches. Without elaborating how they would do so, three participants explicitly wrote they intended to engage their students in historical inquiry.

Discussion

This study sought to assess the influence of an intensive student-centered social studies teacher preparation program on the beliefs of a cohort of preservice teachers. The findings suggest that the experiences the participants in this study had in their teacher preparation program significantly influenced their beliefs about how to teach and learn social studies. Four major themes emerged from the data:

First, the participants in this study entered their teacher preparation program without any strong prior beliefs about teaching and learning social studies other than the notion there had to be a better way than direct instruction. This offers social studies teacher educators a unique opportunity to influence preservice teachers' beliefs by helping them clarify their own dispositions towards student-centered approaches.

Second, these preservice teachers argued that their methods courses influenced their beliefs. While most of the participants suggested they had learned to appreciate a variety of student-centered approaches, they equated ‘beliefs’ with teaching methods. However, because the methods teachers use may well be an expression of deeply-held beliefs, it is important to explicitly address preservice social studies teachers' philosophy of education in their preparation program as well. Only when they have a clear understanding of their own philosophy of social studies education will preservice teachers be able to make a meaningful connection with the methods they use to teach their subject.

Third, context determined whether the participants believed their field experiences influenced their beliefs. This emphasizes the need for social studies educators to have clear expectations not only for their preservice teachers but their cooperating teachers as well. Only when everyone has a clear understanding of the goals of the field experience will preservice social studies teachers be able to make meaningful connections between their coursework at the university and their experiences in the classroom.

Fourth, most participants in this study argued that their student teaching experience influenced their beliefs. As they experimented with many of the student-centered ideas they had learned in their teacher preparation program, they learned many other things as well about what it means to be a professional teacher. Student teaching offers a unique opportunity for preservice social studies teachers to try out student-centered approaches, such as engaging students in historical inquiry. The student teacher should be offered the opportunity to develop and teach student-centered lessons. In consultation with the cooperating teacher, social studies teacher educators should use this opportunity to specifically require that their preservice teachers teach such lessons and reflect how effectively they accomplished their task.

Because of their teacher preparation program the preservice teachers in this study were inclined to try out many of the student-centered ideas they had learned. Although they had been strongly encouraged to do so, engaging students in historical inquiry did not emerge as a significant and explicit theme in the participants' questionnaires and interviews. Nonetheless, their journals indicate that perspective taking and using primary documents made up a significant part of the lesson activities in which they engaged their students. Nearly all journals contained entries which revealed these preservice teachers actively engaged their students in historical inquiry. This indicates they were inclined to use student-centered approaches to such an extent they no longer deemed it necessary to elaborate.

Therefore the findings in this study suggest that a teacher preparation program can make a difference. Teacher educators can influence the beliefs preservice teachers hold about teaching and learning social studies. While the context of field experiences and student teaching determines their actual experience, the findings in this case study suggest that a teacher preparation program can favorably dispose its preservice teachers towards adopting student-centered approaches as part of their repertoire.

While it will indeed be a “murky” endeavor (Schussler, 2005), further research is needed into how to most effectively encourage preservice social studies teachers to use student-centered approaches and when they actually decide to do so. Additional research into what determines whether such an inclination persists once they have completed their teacher preparation program will also be important. Meanwhile, social studies teacher educators must continue to model humility while helping their preservice teachers clarify their own beliefs, open their minds to new approaches to teaching and learning, and encourage them to become reflective practitioners (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Toll et al., 2004; Schussler, 2005).

References

Adler

S. A.

(1991). The education of social studies teachers. In Shaver

J.P.

(Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 210-221). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Angell

A.V.

(1998). Learning to teach social studies: A case study of belief restructuring. Theory and Research in the Social Education, 26(4), 509-529.

Armento

B.J.

(1996). The professional development of social studies educators. In Sikula

Buttery

Guyton

(Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 485-502). New York: MacMillan Library Reference, USA.

Darling-Hammond

(2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166-173.

Dinkelman

(1999). Critical reflection in a social studies methods semester. Theory and Research in Social Education, 27(3), 329-357

Fehn

Koeppen

K.E.

(1998). Intensive document-based instruction in a social studies methods course and student teachers' attitudes and practice in subsequent field experiences. Theory and Research in Social Education, 26(4), 461-484.

Featherstone

(1992). Learning from the first years of classroom teaching: The journey in, the journey out. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.

Feiman-Nemser

Schwille

Carver

Yusko

(1999). A conceptual review of the literature on new teacher induction. East Lansing, MI: National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching.

Gradwell

J.M.

(2003, November). Teaching with primary source documents: A case study of a novice social studies teacher. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the College and University Faculty Association of the National Council for the Social Studies, Chicago, IL.

10.

Hutchinson

S.A.

(1997). Education and grounded theory. In Sherman

R.R.

Webb

R.B.

(Eds), Qualitative research in education: Focus and methods (4th ed., pp. 123-140). London: The Falmer Press.

11.

Johnston

(1990). Teachers' backgrounds and beliefs: Influences on learning to teach in the social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 18(3), 207-233.

12.

Katz

L.G.

Raths

J.D.

(1985). Dispositions as goals for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1(4), 301-307.

13.

Korthagen

F.A.J.

(2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 20(1), 77-97.

14.

Levstik

L.S.

(1997). “Any history is someone's history”: Listening to multiple voices from the past. Social Education, 61, 48-51.

15.

Lortie

D.C.

(2002). School-teacher: A sociological study (2nd ed). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

16.

Merriam

S.B.

(1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

17.

Miles

M.B.

Huberman

A.M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

18.

National Council for History in the Schools . (1996). National standards for history. Los Angeles: National Center for History in the Schools.

19.

National Council for the Social Studies . (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies.

20.

Owens

W.T.

(1997). The challenges of teaching social studies methods to preservice elementary teachers. The Social Studies, 88, 113-120.

21.

Passe

(1994). Early field experience in elementary and secondary social studies methods courses. Social Studies, 85(3), 130-133.

22.

Patterson

N.C.

(2001, April). Better than nothing is how much? Induction teachers' changing conceptions of student learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

23.

Raths

(2001). Teachers' beliefs and teaching beliefs. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 3(1). Retrieved December 8, 2005, from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v3nl/raths.html

24.

Ross

E.W.

(1986, November). Becoming a social studies teacher: Teacher education and the development of preservice teacher perspectives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the College and University Faculty Association of the National Council for the Social Studies, New York, NY.

25.

Schussler

D.L.

(2005, April). Defining dispositions: Wading through murky waters. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, QC.

26.

Schussler

D.L

Stooksberry

L.M.

Bercaw

L.A.

(2005, April). Conceptualizing dispositions: Intellectual, cultural and moral domains of teaching. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, QC.

27.

Stake

R.E.

(1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

28.

Thornton

S.J.

(1991). Teacher as curricular- instructional gatekeeper in social studies. In Shaver

J.P.

(Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 237-248). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

29.

Toll

C.A.

Nierstheimer

S.L

Lenski

S.D.

Kolloff

P.B.

(2004). Washing our students clean: Internal conflicts in response to preservice teachers' beliefs and practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(2), 164-176.

30.

Van Hover

S.D.

Yeager

E.A.

(2002, November). “Making students better people?” A case study of a beginning history teacher. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the College and University Faculty Association of the National Council for the Social Studies, Phoenix, AZ.

31.

Van''t Hooft

Mark

. (2000, November). Making theory-practice connections in a social studies methods course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the College and University Faculty Association of the National Council for the Social Studies, San Antonio, TX.

32.

Wilson

S.M.

Floden

R.E.

Ferrini-Mundy

(2002). Teacher preparation research: An insider's view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 190-204.

33.

Yeager

E.A.

Davis

O.L.

Jr. (1995). Between campus and classroom: Secondary student-teachers' thinking about historical texts. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 29(1), 1-8.

34.

Yeager

E.A.

Davis

O.L.

Jr. (1996). Classroom teachers' thinking about historical texts: An exploratory study. Theory and Research in Social Education, 24, 146-166.

35.

Yeager

E.A.

Wilson

E.K.

(1997). Teaching historical thinking in the social studies methods course: A case study. The Social Studies, 88, 121-126.

36.

Yin

R.K.

(1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks,CA: SAGE Publications.

37.

Yon

Passe

, (1990). The relationship between the elementary social studies methods course and student teachers' beliefs and practices. Journal of Social Studies Research, 14(1), 13-24.

38.

Zeichner

K.M.

Gore

J.M.

(1990). Teacher socialization. In Houston

W.B.

Haberman

Sikula

(Eds.). Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 329-348). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.