Pre-service teachers’ perceptions in beginning education classes

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.ta

�CorrespondiE-mail addre1In the Unite

Following this

Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 717–727

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Pre-service teachers’ perceptions in beginning education classes

Walter Fajet�, Manuel Bello, Suzette Ahwee Leftwich,Judith L. Mesler, Annis N. Shaver

School of Education Research, University of Miami, 1551 Brescia Avenue, Brescia Building, 135, Coral Gables, FL 33124, USA

Received in revised form 11 May 2004

Abstract

Based on research concerning the influence and persistence of beliefs about teaching that pre-service teachers

(students who are not yet teaching professionally) bring with them to their courses. This study used a survey and semi-

structured interview to ascertain what students in a beginning education course felt were the qualities and determining

characteristics of both good and poor teachers. Findings suggest that pre-service teachers conceive of teaching primarily

as a task involving affective, interpersonal relationships rather than a profession requiring a skilled and knowledgeable

practitioner. The findings of this study can be useful in the process of developing teacher education programs.

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pre-service teacher education; Higher education; Teacher education; Education majors; Teacher characteristics; Student

perceptions

(footnote continued)

teachers study another 4 years in a teacher education program

at a college or university. Although teacher training varies from

state to state and from institution to institution, students

preparing to become teachers, labeled pre-service teachers for

the purposes of this study, follow a course of study similar to

that of the students enrolled in the teacher education program

at the University of Miami, the context of this study. The

education program at this institution requires students to

complete 14 courses, including foundations, i.e., historical and

theoretical background of schooling, curriculum design, in-

structional methods, classroom management, and subject area

0. Introduction

Every child has at one time or another ‘‘playedschool.’’ By the time they reach college, moststudents have closely observed and scrutinizedteachers and their behaviors for at least 12 or 13years. These activities leave an indelible imprint onthe minds and hearts of most students as theydevelop folk theories about what it takes to be ateacher (Doolittle, Dodds, & Placek, 1993). It hasbeen widely recognized that pre-service teachers1

e front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

te.2005.05.002

ng author. Tel.: +1786 285 3794.

ss: [email protected] (W. Fajet).

d States, children attend school for 12 years.

general education, those who desire to become

classes. In addition to classroom instruction, students are

required to spend a minimum of 147h of field experience in

actual classroom settings before spending a full semester (4

months) as an intern or student-teacher teaching under

progressively less supervision.

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W. Fajet et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 717–727718

hold firm beliefs about the teaching professionlong before they enter the classroom and that theypersist throughout their teacher preparation andinto their early years of teaching. Consequently,examining pre-service teachers’ perceptions aboutteaching is important for evaluating how teacherpreparation programs can be structured in orderto best align prospective teachers’ strongly heldbeliefs with the pedagogical practices that they willneed to learn for their subsequent teaching careers.To this end, this study seeks to examine theperceptions of 62 pre-service teachers with respectto what they felt were the characteristics andqualities of good and poor teachers.

2Throughout the reviewed literature on prospective teachers’

perceptions, studies have inquired as to the subject’s beliefs

regarding the attributes and characteristics that good teachers

possess. Throughout the many studies however, the questions

were worded in slightly different ways. Researchers used

effective or competent to refer to teachers that would be

considered ‘‘good.’’ For the purpose of this study, ‘‘good

teachers’’ will be used to refer to educators who are deemed

effective and competent.

1. Review of literature

Research on pre-service teachers’ perceptionssuggests that teacher education courses do little toalter the perceptions students develop during their12 or 13 years of apprenticeship (i.e., theirelementary and secondary schooling; Bird, Ander-son, Sullivan, & Swidler, 1993; Doolittle et al.,1993; Doyle, 1997; Lermen, 1997). In fact, Holt-Reynolds (1992) found that students tend toaccept their own schooling experiences as proto-typical and generalizable toward the teachingprofession. Therefore, information obtained fromstudying these inherent belief systems can serve toinform curriculum development for teacher edu-cators.This phenomenon has been examined further

via meta-analyses across multiple studies (Kagan,1992; Pajares, 1992). After comparing 16 studies,Pajares concluded that the perceptions of pre-service teachers play a pivotal role in the way theyacquire knowledge during pedagogical training,even to the point of influencing the interpretationof course material. He also noted that theseperceptions can even affect the practices ofbeginning teachers. Likewise, Kagan noted thatpre-service teacher perceptions lie at the heart ofteaching, influencing interaction among teachersand professional growth, while remaining unrec-ognized by the teachers. The next step, asproposed by Kagan, is to bring pre-service

teachers to a recognition and realization of theirperceptions.Specifically, pre-service teachers generally ex-

pect that their relationships with students will besimilar to the relationships they experienced withtheir own teachers. They feel that experience is thebest teacher, having experienced teaching vicar-iously for 12 or 13 years (Book, Byers, & Freeman,1983; Doyle, 1997; Holt-Reynolds, 1992). Pre-service teachers expect their teaching contexts tobe no different from their student contexts; there-fore, they see little to no reason to study pedagogy(Bird et al., 1993; Book et al., 1983; Doolittle et al.,1993; Holt-Reynolds, 1992), even interpretingmaterial presented in teacher training courses inways that support their own perceptions aboutteaching (Doolittle et al., 1993). Regardless of theform that teacher training takes, these perceptionspersist throughout the period of training andremain with new teachers well into their earlyyears of teaching (Doolittle et al., 1993; Griffin,1989; Lermen, 1997; Tabachnick & Zeichner,1984; Taylor & Sobel, 2001).Investigating pre-service teachers’ perceptions

about the specific qualities of good teachers2 iscritical to determining the extent to which teacherpreparation programs can affect their subsequentclassroom practice (Doolittle et al., 1993; Hollings-worth, 1989; Nespor, 1987; Witcher, Onwuegbu-zie, & Minor, 2001). One might reasonably expectthat pre-service teachers will perceive ‘‘good’’ oreffective teachers as vehicles for producing positivestudent outcomes; however, this is not the case. Infact, some research indicates that ‘‘meeting stu-dents’ needs’’ is generally rated low on scales thatlist characteristics of good teachers (Weinstein,1989, 1990), particularly for candidates enrolled inelementary education programs (Book et al.,1983). Rather than indicating the importance of

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W. Fajet et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 717–727 719

student outcomes, findings from numerous studiesinvestigating pre-service teachers’ perceptionsabout the characteristics of good teachers havegenerally fallen into two categories: professionalcompetence and affective qualities.

1.1. Professional competence

With respect to professional competence, goodteachers generally, are thought to have sufficientknowledge of the content area(s) in which they teach(Minor, Onwuegbuzie, & Witcher, 2000; Reed &Bergemann, 1992; Segall & Wilson, 1998; Skamp,1995; Weinstein, 1989, 1990; Witcher et al., 2001).Good teachers are further able to clearly imparttheir knowledge to their students (Minor et al.,2000; Reed & Bergemann, 1992; Segall & Wilson,1998, Skamp, 1995; Weinstein, 1989, 1990; Witcheret al., 2001). Witcher et al.(2001) incorporated thisability into one category entitled ‘‘competentinstructor,’’ which included other characteristicssuch as creativity (Weinstein, 1989, 1990), abilityto spark students’ interests (Skamp, 1995), andopenness to new teaching styles (Weinstein, 1989,1990). Another important quality of good teachersis their ability to use effective classroom manage-ment techniques (Minor et al., 2000; Maxson &Mahlios, 1994; Reed & Bergemann, 1992; Segall &Wilson, 1998; Weinstein, 1989, 1990; Witcher et al.,2001). Good teachers are also found to be ethical orfair (Minor et al., 2000; Weinstein, 1989, 1990;Witcher et al., 2001), well organized (Skamp, 1995;Weinstein, 1989, 1990), cognizant of their teachingmethodologies (Witcher et al., 2001), and aware oftheir students’ diverse needs (Gomez, 1994; Maxson& Mahlios, 1994; Weinstein, 1989, 1990). Skamp(1995) identified additional qualities such as en-couraging students to think for themselves, incor-porating experiments and hands-on approaches intothe curricula, providing overviews of new materialas well as linking it to previously taught concepts,constantly checking for students’ understanding,and eliciting students’ ideas about topics.

1.2. Affective qualities

Weinstein (1989) found that pre-service teachersgive greater importance to affective qualities. A

frequently cited affective quality of good teachersis being ‘‘student-centered’’ (Minor et al., 2000;Witcher et al., 2001). For example, they areoptimistic, supportive, patient (Skamp, 1995;Weinstein, 1989, 1990), kind, and caring (Wein-stein, 1989, 1990). Good teachers were alsodescribed as demonstrating enthusiasm for theprofession (Minor, Onwuegbuzie, & Witcher,2000; Reed & Bergemann, 1992; Segall & Wilson,1998; Weinstein, 1989, 1990; Witcher et al., 2001;).They structure their lessons in a way that makeslearning enjoyable (Maxson & Mahlios, 1994;Skamp, 1995), while maintaining high expecta-tions for their students (Reed & Bergemann, 1992;Segall & Wilson, 1998; Weinstein, 1989). They arealso personable (Minor et al., 2000; Weinstein,1989, 1990), and self-confident (Reed & Berge-mann, 1992; Segall & Wilson, 1998; Skamp, 1995).

1.3. Previous methods

Researchers have examined pre-service teachers’perceptions about the characteristics of goodteachers using different methodologies. Some haveused questionnaires or surveys (e.g., Minor et al.,2000; Maxson & Mahlios, 1994; Weinstein, 1989,1990; Witcher et al., 2001; Minor), while othershave engaged students in open (Holt-Reynolds,1992) or semi-structured interviews (e.g., Skamp,1995; Weinstein, 1990). Weinstein (1990) usedboth methods; the survey was completed at thebeginning of the pre-service teachers’ introductorycourse and the interview was conducted at the endof the course in order to examine changes in theirperceptions. For the purposes of this study, wecombined all three methods (i.e., questionnaire,survey and semi-structured interview).

1.4. The present study

This study seeks to examine the perceptions heldby pre-service teachers relating to the qualities andcharacteristics of good teachers and, conversely,the qualities and characteristics of poor teachers.While several studies have been conducted thatshow what pre-service teachers perceive to be goodteacher traits (e.g., Wang, 1998;Yoder, 1992), fewhave been conducted to determine what pre-service

ARTICLE IN PRESS


teachers consider to be traits of poor teachers. Inparticular, this study sought to identify whetherthe reported traits of poor teachers inverselymirrored those of good teachers, aiming tocomplement and enrich the literature base. It isimportant for teacher educators to recognize theseperceptions in order to help pre-service teachersincorporate pedagogical theories and best prac-tices into their belief systems.The present study is part of the University of

Miami School of Education’s on-going project torevitalize and strengthen its teacher educationcurriculum. Given the persistence of the percep-tions that pre-service teachers bring with them totheir classes (Lermen, 1997; Taylor & Sobel, 2001)and the fact that many students maintain theseperceptions in spite of contradictory materialpresented to them throughout their coursework(Doolittle et al., 1993), the designers of the studywanted to develop a rich database outlining thespecific perceptions of its students. Findings of thisstudy will be used to refine the University’s teacherpreparation program in order to align prospectiveteachers’ preconceived perceptions with the peda-gogical aspects of the teacher education curriculawith hopes of affecting their teaching practice andultimately, student achievement. It is expected thatthese findings can not only inform this and otherteacher preparation programs, but also serve as abaseline for a longitudinal change study as theparticipants progress through their teacher educa-tion program.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

The participants of this study were studentsenrolled in the University’s introductory educationcourse, Sociological and Psychological Founda-tions of Education. Their major areas of concen-tration in education were science/secondaryeducation, humanities/elementary education, psy-chology/special education, music education, andhumanities/secondary education. The originalsample consisted of 120 beginning educationmajors. Due to attrition, a limited number of

researchers available to conduct the interviews,and different core requirements for music educa-tions students (n ¼ 17), final responses came from62 students.

2.2. Procedures

Data collection proceeded in three stages overthe course of one semester: (1) student question-naire, (2) on-line survey, and (3) interview.Participants completed the questionnaire duringthe first week of class. The second phase of thedata collection was the on-line survey, whichstudents completed by the third week of class.Students were then randomly assigned to research-ers for the interview phase of the study. Studentswere encouraged to ask questions about theirprogram of study and to express any concerns orissues they might have in their classes.

2.3. Instrumentation

A review of the literature on teacher perceptionsrevealed that questionnaires, surveys and open orsemi-structured interviews are the most commonlyused procedures for investigating this type ofresearch question, thus establishing the rationalefor using these instruments in this study. Questionsfor this study were developed to expand onprevious research that identified characteristics ofgood as well as poor teachers.

Questionnaire: The questions covered basicdemographic information such as address (electro-nic), telephone number, major, and area ofconcentration in education (see Appendix A).

On-line survey: The on-line survey served twopurposes: (1) It encouraged all of the students touse the class web site and become familiar with on-line procedures; and (2) It provided the researchteam clearly organized and concise data. Thesurvey consisted of 18 questions in variousformats: fill in the blanks, multiple choice, andshort answer/essay. Besides personal informationquestions, the students were also asked to describetheir personal experiences as teachers (e.g., tutor-ing, camp counselor, Sunday school), their ex-pectations for being a teacher, their best and worstteachers, and how they became interested in a

ARTICLE IN PRESS


particular level of instruction, (e.g., elementary,secondary, etc.; see Appendix B).

Interviews: The students in the course had achoice whether or not to participate in thisvoluntary interview process. The individual inter-views were conducted by the researchers who werenot the instructors of the course, therefore, it isreasonable to expect that the participants were atease and forthright with their responses. Open-ended interview questions were developed to probestudents about their survey responses. The inter-views followed a semi-structured format andallowed for more in-depth information gathering(Borg & Gall, 1989). Students responded to thefollowing probes: (1) What do you think are thecharacteristics of a good teacher? (2) What do youthink are the characteristics of a poor teacher?

2.4. Data analysis

Two of the researchers independently codedstudents’ responses by item. They then comparedtheir codes to revise and resolve any differences(Vaughn, Schumm, Klingner, & Saumell, 1995).After discussion, the two researchers agreed thatcodes with three or more ‘‘hits’’ indicated patternsand were thus considered reportable themes.Working together, the whole team grouped thethemes into five categories to further refine andclarify the data. (Klingner, Vaughn, Hughes, &Arguelles, 1999).

3. Findings

3.1. Characteristics of good teachers

When researchers posed the question, ‘‘What doyou think are the characteristics of a goodteacher?’’ or ‘‘How would you describe a goodteacher?’’ students’ replies were multifaceted. Fivethemes emerged from their responses: (1) affective:personal characteristics; (2) pedagogy/classroommanagement; (3) attitudes and behaviors towardstudents; (4) attitudes toward job/teaching ingeneral; and (5) knowledge of subject matter (SeeTable 1). The data are primarily presented asparaphrases; however, where appropriate, quota-

tions provide specific examples or illustrations ofthe grouped data.The most common theme was pedagogy/class-

room management (n ¼ 76). In general, studentsbelieved that good teachers are creative and makelearning enjoyable, fun, and interesting. Theyconsider the strengths and weaknesses of indivi-dual students during instruction, are aware ofstudents’ diverse backgrounds, and utilize multiplemethods to enable student learning. Furthermore,good teachers make the subject matter relevant totheir students’ lives; they teach effectively and holdhigh expectations for their students; they are strictyet praise their students’ efforts. As one studentdescribed, a good teacher is ‘‘one who makeslearning fun and interesting, uses different techni-ques and activities to teach, [and] keeps thingsfrom getting boring.’’ Another student agreed andfurther expressed that good teachers ‘‘use so manydifferent types of assignments and so many typesof media.’’The second most common theme was affective:

personal characteristics (n ¼ 72). Teachers whopossess certain affective characteristics were con-sidered ‘‘good.’’ Good teachers are enthusiastic,energetic, passionate, and motivating. They arecaring, patient, engaging, open-minded, fair,down-to-earth, and nice. They possess honestyand integrity. As one student reminisced about ateacher that she considered to be good,

My English teacher in eleventh grade alwaysexpected the best out of us. Nobody ever toldme, ‘I expect the best out of you.’ The inner cityschool where I went had violence and gangs andteachers got discouraged with so many kidsbeing violent, especially in middle school. Theteachers [said] ‘if you do your work, fine; if youdon’t, [fine].’ y The teachers were not tooenthusiastic. They weren’t sure I could do it.[But then] I got to Miss Hall in eleventh grade.Nobody had ever talked to us like [she did]. yShe made you feel confident; just that attitudeabout her, and she wasn’t an easy teacher. Butshe made it so interesting. Sometimes I felt like Iwas in college with her. It was just her attitudetoward us. She felt that we were bright and wefelt bright. After taking her class, many of us

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Frequencies

Characteristics of good teachers

Characteristics n

Affective: personal characteristics of a good teacher

Enthusiastic/energetic/passionate/motivating/

builds self-esteem

21

Caring 16

Patient 13

Engaging 9

Open-minded 4

Fair 3

Down-to-earth/nice 3

Possesses honesty/integrity 3

Affective: good teachers’ attitudes and behaviors

towards students

Relationships 9

� Having a personal relationship with eachstudent

3

� Someone who can be considered a ‘‘friend’’ 1

�Maintains balance between being a ‘‘friend’’ anda ‘‘teacher’’

3

� Gets along with students 1

� Friendly 1

Interested in students’ personal lives 7

Understanding 6

Approachable (i.e., students feel comfortable

talking with teacher)

4

� Sociable/personable 4

Relates to students 3

Knowledge of subject matter

Knowledgeable about subject matter 15

Effective teaching/classroom management

Makes learning enjoyable, fun, and interesting 20

Utilizes multiple methods to ensure all students

learn

11

Strict 7

Considers strengths and weaknesses of individual

students

7

Holds high expectations for students 6

Creative 6

Teaches effectively 6

Aware of students’ diverse backgrounds 6

Relates subject matter to students’ lives 4

Praises students 3

Good teachers’ attitudes toward job/teaching in

general

Professional (e.g., organized, hardworking,

dedicated, plans well, respectable)

13

Available for students 10


were enthusiastic about college. We need moreteachers like that, especially in inner city schools.

This student’s teacher possessed qualities thatincreased students’ self-esteem and nurtured adesire for learning.Good teachers not only possess positive perso-

nal characteristics, but they convey certain atti-tudes and behaviors toward their students(n ¼ 33). Good teachers have personal relation-ships with their students and get along with them.They can be considered a friend yet maintain abalance between being a friend and a teacher.Describing a former teacher she considered to begood, one student said, ‘‘He was friendly, andhaving a personal relationship with the studentswas important [to him].’’ Good teachers are alsointerested in their students’ personal lives. ‘‘Theydo not make demands on you without knowingwhat you are going through, the environment youare living in, [and] how you grew up.’’ Further-more, good teachers were also found to beapproachable, sociable, personable, understand-ing, and relate well to their students. Specifically,good teachers are ‘‘well-rounded and have anunderstanding of different types of people becausethere are so many different kinds of people here inAmerica now.’’Students made 23 responses that fell into the

attitudes toward job/teaching in general theme. Goodteachers are professionals. In other words, they areorganized, hardworking and dedicated; they planwell and act in a respectable manner. One studentspecified that good teachers are available to theirstudents should they require further instruction.Good teachers ‘‘give [of their] time and effort.’’Interestingly, the least mentioned theme was

knowledge of subject matter. Of 219 characteristicsrelating to good teachers given by the respondents,only 15 emphasized the importance of knowledgeof subject matter. Good teachers ‘‘know theirmaterial’’ and project ‘‘an interest in the subject’’to their students.

3.2. Characteristics of poor teachers

When asked what they thought the character-istics of poor teachers were, the same five themes

ARTICLE IN PRESS


emerged: (1) affective: personal characteristics; (2)pedagogy/classroom management; (3) attitudesand behaviors toward students; (4) attitudestoward job/teaching in general; and (5) knowledgeof subject matter. The theme of attitudes and

behaviors toward students (n ¼ 57) emerged mostfrequently as the attribute that described a poorteacher (See Table 2). Students noted that poorteachers do not care or are not willing to helpstudents. As articulated by one student, ‘‘I’ve hadthe experience where the teacher just doesn’t carewhether you learn it or not. It’s just like, here’s thematerial—learn it.’’ Another student also ex-plained that, ‘‘a bad teacher is someone who isn’twilling to explain things or help students. When

Table 2

Frequencies

Characteristics of poor teachers

Characteristics n

Affective: personal characteristics of poor teachers

Rigid 10

Not personable 8

Boring 7

Not caring 7

Unfair 6

Passive 6

Impatient 5

Self-centered

Affective: poor teachers’ attitudes and behaviors

towards students

Doesn’t care about helping students 23

Reprimanding/condescending/mean/rude/

disrespectful/screams/bad temper

17

Negative/insulting feedback 10

Does not relate to/or interact with students 7

Knowledge of subject matter

Does not know about/or have interest in the

subject matter

8

Poor Teachers’ characteristics with regard to

teaching/classroom management

Does not utilize multi-method instruction 12

Poor classroom management 7

Does not explain things well 4

Disorganized/unprofessional 4

Poor teachers’ attitudes toward job/teaching

Does not enjoy teaching 17

you don’t understand, they don’t find the time tohelp after school.’’The second most frequent mentioned set of

attributes was the theme affective: personal char-

acteristics (n ¼ 52). Students felt that poor tea-chers exhibited personal characteristics such asbeing rigid, uncaring, boring and not personable.An example of this was given by one student whostated, ‘‘our teacher was a doctor, but he was sooverbearing. If you had a different perspectivethan him, then you were wrong.’’ Another studentdescribed an uncaring teacher who was ‘‘just plainmean.’’ I don’t think she even liked kids.y If youdon’t care about your students, why bother?’’ Athird student also mentioned that bad teachers‘‘are boring and have a monotone voice. There’sno motivation there.’’ Further elucidating thesepersonal attributes of deficient teachers was onestudent who described a poor teacher in theseterms, ‘‘This person had no people skills. Therewas no way for him to relate to the students. Ithink that people who are introverted or notsociable shouldn’t be teaching.’’Students also perceived poor teachers as having

unsatisfactory pedagogy/classroom management

skills (n ¼ 27). Failure to use multiple methodsof instruction was cited by students as a negativeattribute. As one respondent explained, ‘‘badteachers just give work sheets and lecture all thetime. It’s like, O.K. read chapter 11 and answer thequestions.’’ Another student underscored this bystating, ‘‘a bad teacher teaches straight from thebook.’’ Poor classroom management was alsoidentified as an attribute of poor teachers. Onerespondent recalled a class in which the ‘‘studentsdictated the pace instead of the teacher being incontrol.’’The fourth most frequent characteristic of poor

teachers was the teacher’s attitudes toward job/

teaching in general (n ¼ 17). Numerous studentsspeculated that poor teachers do not ‘‘enjoy’’teaching. As one student interpreted, the teacherwas ‘‘just doing it to get the paycheck.’’Surprisingly, the characteristic of poor teachers

that respondents cited the least was lack ofknowledge of subject matter (n ¼ 8). Students mademention of teachers who did not know about orhave interest in the subject they were teaching.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


One student explained, ‘‘if the teacher doesn’tknow the subject matter, he can’t get the pointacross.’’

4. Discussion and conclusions

The results of the themed data were meant tobroaden the researchers’ understanding of theinherent perceptions of undergraduate educationstudents. A close examination of the findingsyielded interesting insights into what students feltwere the determining characteristics of a good orbad teacher. Upon consideration of the fivethemes, the researchers found that they could becategorized into one of two groups: the affectivedomain and the cognitive domain. For instance,themes that described amiability traits, personablebehaviors and/or attitudinal qualities were classi-fied as being affective characteristics. Conversely,characteristics that demonstrated professionalcompetence or acquired knowledge and skills werecategorized under the cognitive domain. In thisstudy, students cited characteristics in the affectivedomain twice as many times as cognitive char-acteristics when describing traits that made ateacher either good or bad (see Tables 1 and 2).Themes such as personal characteristics, attitudesand behaviors towards students, and attitudestoward job/teaching in general comprised 67% ofthe student’s responses. Characteristics in thecognitive domain, which consisted of effectiveteaching/classroom management skills and knowl-edge of subject matter, garnered only 33% of theresponses with knowledge of subject matter beingthe least cited attribute (n ¼ 23).These results corroborate similar findings in

previous studies of prospective teacher percep-tions, which found that pre-service teachers con-ceive of teaching primarily as a task involvingaffective, interpersonal relationships rather than aprofession requiring a skilled and knowledgeablepractitioner (Book et al., 1983; Minor et al., 2000;Weinstein, 1989 & 1990; Minor et al., 2000;Witcher et al., 2001). In light of what the researchsays about the influence of pre-service teacherperceptions, these findings may cause educationstudents to believe that a strong knowledge base in

pedagogy is not necessary in order to become acompetent teacher.It is particularly disconcerting that this and

previous studies (Minor et al., 2000; Weinstein1989, 1990; Witcher et al., 2001) have identified theimportance of pedagogical preparation and athorough knowledge of subject matter in beingan effective teacher as being less important thanaffective characteristics of teachers. Recent re-search on teacher education has shown a positiveconnection between teachers’ preparation in theirsubject matter and their performance and impactin the classroom. These studies suggest that thelack of a thorough understanding of subject mattercan impede good teaching (Darling-Hammond,2000; Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000; Guyton &Farokhi 1987; Monk, 1994). Similarly, researchon ‘‘pedagogical preparation,’’ which comprisesthe various courses that pre-service teachers take(e.g., theoretical foundations of education, learn-ing theory, instructional methods, and classroommanagement) have positive effects on teacherperformance and ultimately student achievement(Adams & Krockover, 1997; Darling-Hammond,2000; Felter, 1999; Grossman, 1989; Hawk, Coble,& Swanson, 1985).It appears from the findings of this study that

education majors underestimate the complexity ofteaching. Our results demonstrated that theyassign great importance to their personal char-acteristics and less importance to pedagogicaltraining. Teacher educators need to be aware ofthe research on student perceptions, which showsthat core beliefs tend not to change over time(Doolittle et al., 1993, Griffin, 1989, Tabachnick &Zeichner, 1984). Therefore, teacher educators needto understand the perceptions and belief structuresof teacher candidates in order to improve profes-sional preparation and teaching practices. Thefindings of this study were presented at a recentfaculty meeting of the University of Miami’sTeaching and Learning Department. Since then,several curricular changes that would address theissue of students’ preconceived perceptions havebeen discussed. For example, the institution isconsidering incorporating curriculum into theirbeginning teacher education courses that helpstudents bring their perceptions to a conscious

ARTICLE IN PRESS


level. Articulating and examining their perceptionsmay contribute to a better understanding of howthey view teaching as well as the skills they need toacquire to become a competent educator. Aspreviously demonstrated (Lasley, 1980), if studentsdo not examine their perceptions they will notbe open to current research-based practices.This is unacceptable given that the field ofeducation is a vibrant, rapidly growing field andmany of the perceptions the students hold may becounterproductive to good teaching (Gargiulo,2003).

4.1. Limitations and further research

The original sample consisted of 120 pre-serviceteachers in a beginning education course. Due toattrition and a limited number of researchersavailable to conduct interviews, the final numberof respondents who were able to complete both thesurvey and the interview was 62. It can be arguedthat the group of students who dropped out mayhave had different characteristics and/or percep-tions from those who completed the study. Thisstudy was conducted during the first semester ofthe students’ teacher training. Therefore, it ispossible that student responses were predomi-nantly affective in nature because they lack theinsights and language to describe the character-istics in more professional terms. Besides a lack ofprofessional knowledge, the subjects of this studyalso have a lack of field experience. Research hassuggested that field experiences and internship(student teaching), when done under close super-vision at schools that are well-coordinated with theeducational perspectives of the teacher educationprogram, have shown to significantly shift theattitudes of teacher candidates (Grisham, Laguar-dia, & Brink, 2000; Johnston, 1994). Unfortu-nately, research to the contrary also indicates thattoo often, when student teachers become over-whelmed with the challenges of learning to teach,they revert to teaching how they were taught,which sometimes means that they teach in waysquite different from what they learn in theirteacher preparation programs (Eisenhart, Behm,& Romagnano, 1991). For these reasons, conduct-ing a longitudinal study over the course of a four-

year training with the same students would beuseful to identify whether or not their precon-ceived perceptions about teaching change as theirknowledge and clinical experience increases.Moreover, such a longitudinal study would alsohelp to inform an entire program not just onecourse. The implications of this research are thatteacher education programs should considercourses that will help pre-service teachers recon-struct and modify their preconceived perceptionsabout teaching, in hopes that it will promoteprofessional growth.

Appendix A

Questionnaire

1.
What do you think are the characteristics of agood teacher/ How would you describe a goodteacher?
2.
What do you think are the characteristics ofpoor teachers?
Appendix B

On-line survey

Questions:

1.
What is your name? 2. What is your student I.D. number? 3. What is your major? (If undecided, write‘‘undecided’’)
4.
What level are you?a. Freshmanb. Sophomorec. Juniord. Seniore. Other
5.
Please provide us with your mailing address. 6. Please provide us with your home telephonenumber.
7.
If you live on campus, please provide us withyour dormitory address.
8.
If you live on campus, please provide us withyour dormitory telephone number.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


9.
What knowledge or experience do you hope togain from your courses in education in theTeaching and Learning department?
10.
Please list and describe the types of schoolsyou have attended. (parochial, public, private,experimental, military, Montessori, homeschooling)
11.
What experience do you have working withchildren? Include tutoring, camp counseling,Sunday school, etcetera.
12.
Please summarize in a couple of sentences,your experience using computers.
13.
Did any person, event or experience influenceyour decision to study education? If so, pleaseexplain how.
14.
Describe the best teacher you have everknown. Why do you think that person was agood teacher?
15.
Describe the worst teacher you have everknown. Why do you think that person wasnot a good teacher?
16.
What do you think will be the greatestchallenge for you becoming a teacher?
17.
What level of teaching are you interested in?a. Early childhoodb. Elementaryc. Middle Schoold. High Schoole. College or University
18.
Why did you become interested in this level ofinstruction?
References

Adams, P. E., & Krockover, G. H. (1997). Beginning science

teacher cognition and its origins in the preservice science

teacher program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

34, 633–653.

Bird, T., Anderson, L. A., Sullivan, B. A., & Swidler, S. A.

(1993). Pedagogical balancing acts: Attempts to influence

prospective teachers’ beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Educa-

tion, 9(3), 253–267.

Book, C., Byers, J., & Freeman, D. (1983). Student expectations

and teacher education traditions with which we can and

cannot live. Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 9–13.

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An

introduction (5th ed). New York: Longman.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student

achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational

Policy Analysis Archives, 8, http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/

2000.

Doolittle, S. A., Dodds, P., & Placek, J. H. (1993). Persistence

of beliefs about teaching during formal training of pre-

service teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,

12, 355–365.

Doyle, M. (1997). Beyond life history as a student: Preservice

teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning. College

Student Journal, 31(4).

Eisenhart, M., Behm, L., & Romagnano, L. (1991). Learning to

teach: Developing expertise or rite of passage? Journal of

Education for Teaching, 17, 51–71.

Felter, M. (1999). High school staff characteristics and

mathematics test results. Educational Policy Analysis

Archives, 7, http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n9.html.

Gargiulo, R. (2003). Special education in contemporary society

an introduction to exceptionality. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher

certification matter? High school teacher certification status

and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 2000(2), 129–145.

Gomez, M. L. (1994). Teacher education reform and prospec-

tive teachers’ perspectives on teaching ‘‘other people’s’’

children. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(3), 319–334.

Griffin, G. A. (1989). A descriptive study of student teaching.

Elementary School Journal, 89, 343–364.

Grisham, D. L., Laguardia, A., & Brink, B. (2000). Partners in

professionalism: Creating a quality field experience for

preservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 21(4),

27–40.

Grossman, P. L. (1989). Learning to teach without teacher

education. Teachers College Record, 91, 191–207.

Guyton, E., & Farokhi, E. (1987). Relationships among

academic performance, basic skills, subject matter knowl-

edge, and teaching skills of teacher education graduates.

Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 37–42.

Hawk, P. P., Coble, C. R., & Swanson, M. (1985). Certification:

It does matter. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 13–15.

Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in

learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal,

26(2), 160–189.

Holt-Reynolds, D. (1992). Personal history-based beliefs as

relevant prior knowledge in course work. American Educa-

tional Research Journal, 29(2), 325–349.

Johnston, S. (1994). Experience is the best teacher; Or is it? An

analysis of the role of experience in learning to teach.


Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief.

Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65–90.

Klingner, J.K., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M.T., & Arguelles, M.E.

(1999). Sustaining research-based practices in reading: A 3-

year follow-up. Remedial and Special Education, 20(5),

263–74,87.

Lasley, T. J. (1980). Preservice teacher beliefs about teaching.


Lermen, S. (1997). The psychology of mathematics teacher

learning: In search of theory. In: E. Phekonnen (Ed.),

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/2000

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/2000

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n9.html

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Proceedings of the 21st international meeting of the interna-

tional group for the psychology of mathematics education, 3

( pp.200-207). Lahti, Finland.

Maxson, M., & Mahlios, M. (1994). Images of teaching: Entry

level preservice teachers describe their beliefs about teaching

and children. The Professional Educator, 17(1), 1–18.

Minor, L. C., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Witcher, A. E. (2000,

November). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of characteris-

tics of effective teachers: A multi-stage mixed methods

analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

Mid-South Educational Research Association, Lexington,

KY.

Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary

mathematic and science teachers and student achievement.

Economics of Education Review, 3, 125–145.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational

research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of

Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.

Reed, A. J., & Bergemann, V. E. (1992). In the classroom: An

introduction to education. Guilford, CT: Dushkin.

Segall, W. E., & Wilson, A. V. (1998). Introduction to education:

Teaching in a diverse society. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Merrill.

Skamp, K. (1995). Student teachers’ conceptions of how to

recognize a ‘‘good’’ primary science teacher: Does two years

in a teacher education program make a difference? Research

in Science Education, 25(4), 395–429.

Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1984). The impact of

student experience on the development of teachers’ perspec-

tives. Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 28–36.

Taylor, S. V., & Sobel, D. M. (2001). Addressing the

discontinuity of students’ and teachers’ diversity: A

preliminary study of pre-service teachers’ beliefs and

perceived skills. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(4),

487–503.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Klingner, J., & Saumell, L. (1995).

Students’ views of instructional practices: Implications for

inclusion. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3),

235–248.

Wang, A. (1998). Developing a measuring instrument to study

perceptions of good college teaching from a cross-cultural

perspective. Oxford, OH: Miami University ERIC NO:

ED429472.

Weinstein, C. (1989). Teacher education students’ preconcep-

tions of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2),

53–60.

Weinstein, C. (1990). Prospective elementary teachers’ beliefs

about teaching: Implications for teacher education. Teach-

ing and Teacher Education, 6(3), 279–290.

Witcher, A., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Minor, L. C. (2001).

Characteristics of effective teachers: Perceptions of pre-

service teachers. Research in the Schools, 8, 45–57.

Yoder, J. H. (1992). In search of good teaching: Percep-

tions of teachers in Botswana. Fresno, CA: Fresno Pacific

College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED358050).

Documents

Pre-service teachers’ perceptions in beginning education classes