Journal of Science Teacher Education.

Accepted 09/05

Revealing Student Teachers Thinking through Dilemma Analysis

Vicente Talanquer, Debra Tomanek, and Ingrid Novodvorsky
Science Teacher Preparation Program. College of Science.
University of Arizona. Tucson, AZ 85721
Abstract
We explore the potential of dilemma analysis as
an assessment tool to reveal student teachers thinking and
concerns about their practice. For this purpose we analyze
the dilemma analyses completed by 22 student teachers
enrolled in our science teacher preparation program over a
period of four semesters. Student teachers dilemmas fall
into two main groups: dilemmas about student performance
and dilemmas associated with instructional decisions.
These dilemmas reveal a variety of concerns that student
teachers have about their work. In particular, concerns
about lack of student motivation and its consequences on
performance and instruction play a central role in student
teachers thinking. The recognition of common patterns of
thought in our student teacher thinking has made us reflect
on and re-evaluate important components of the curriculum
in our science teacher preparation program.

Introduction
One of the persistent challenges that our initial
science teacher preparation program faces is seeing what
our students are thinking while they are engaged in the
work of teaching. We find it much easier to identify what
our students do while engaged in this work. For example,
we can read their written lesson plans or observe them
teaching science lessons. Perhaps it is precisely because we
can more readily see these products and performances
rather than their thought patterns that we create so many
opportunities for preservice teachers to demonstrate their
teaching skills. However, demonstrating competence in
performing a set of teaching skills is a necessary, but by
itself insufficient, outcome of initial science teacher
preparation (Munby, Russell, & Martin, 2001). We also
need to assess our students abilities to think about the
multiple and complex components of teaching practice.
Assessing preservice teachers thinking about
teaching and learning has been one of the central tenets of a
comprehensive evaluation model we have implemented as
part of our science teacher preparation program. This nontraditional program offers all subject-matter and pedagogy
courses within the College of Science and has been
specifically designed to prepare undergraduate science and
engineering majors to become secondary school science
teachers (Talanquer, Novodvorsky, Slater, & Tomanek,
2003). Students enrolled in the program are required to
complete seven science education courses (including a onesemester student teaching experience), which address
central issues and ideas in teaching and learning science in
a secondary school setting. These courses also require
varying degrees of student involvement in highly-structured
field experiences in secondary school classrooms. The
content and structure of courses and field experiences is
periodically revised based on data collected using different
assessment tools.

During the past four years, we have worked on

the design and implementation of different assessment
instruments to gather data about our students subjectmatter, pedagogical, and pedagogical content knowledge at
different stages in the program. In this process, we have
faced the challenge of devising mechanisms for collecting
evidence of our student teachers abilities to: (1) identify
what their students have to think about in order to
understand a concept or idea, (2) analyze the degree to
which their students understand a scientific concept as
evidenced by their students work, (3) reflect on the
adequacy of their own scientific understanding based upon
their responses to their students questions, (4) think about
the point at which a students struggle with a problem
diminishes his/her motivation to solve it, and (5) decide at
which point in a class discussion they might effectively
insert ideas that move students to a higher level of
understanding. These abilities are not simple cognitive
activities and we certainly do not expect our student
teachers thinking about these actions to be anywhere near
that of expert teachers. However, the listed examples
represent a sample of the many cognitive components of
science teaching that we would at least like to see our
student teachers begin to think about.
In order to uncover our prospective teachers
thinking about teaching and learning during their student
teaching experience, we designed a set of assessment
instruments that ask them to analyze, discuss, and evaluate
their practices based on evidence collected in their own
classrooms. We refer to these instruments as lesson
analyses. Additionally, we ask student teachers to identify,
describe and critically reflect on a teaching dilemma they
have faced during the semester. This latter instrument,
which we call dilemma analysis, has proven to be very
useful in promoting critical reflection among student
teachers and in revealing important aspects of their thinking
about their work. In this paper we describe and discuss
what we have learned about our prospective science
teachers thinking by analyzing the dilemma analyses of 22
student teachers enrolled in our program over a period of
four semesters. In particular, we focus the analysis on the
nature of the dilemmas the students identified and the
concerns they expressed about their practice. Based on
these results, we analyze the potential of dilemma analysis
as a tool to assess student teacher thinking.
Grounding the Problem
Teacher knowledge, learning, and thinking are
difficult phenomena to study. The knowledge associated
with the complex activity of teaching has been described in
such ways as knowing-in-action (Schn, 1983),
pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987), and
personal or practical knowledge (Connelly & Clandinin,
1990; Elbaz, 1983). The way teachers develop their
knowledge has been described as experientially situated

Journal of Science Teacher Education. Accepted 09/05

and domain-specific (Carter, 1990), metaphor-based
(Munby, 1986; Tobin, 1990), narrative (Connelly &
Clandinin, 1990), and dilemma-based (Lampert, 1985).
There has been disagreement in the field on how
phenomena such as teacher knowledge and learning can
best be studied. Similarly, different methods of inquiry for
studying teacher thinking have also been disputed,
particularly those methods that involve teacher selfreporting. Self-reporting by teachers in studying teacher
thinking has been criticized by educational psychologists as
being unreliable and with limited validity (Nisbet &
Wilson, 1977). However, this criticism has been challenged
by other researchers (Ericsson & Simon, 1980) and a
variety of powerful self-reporting research methods have
since appeared in the literature such as think aloud,
stimulated recall, or journal keeping (see Clark and
Peterson, 1986). To address the criticism related to
reliability and validity, researchers using self-reporting
methods now rely on reports of recent, rather than long past
events and use specific, rather than vague probes that may
require much inference on the teachers part. The findings
indicate that the more recent and well-remembered the
event, the more reliable and valid the data generated from
these techniques.
Self-reported teaching dilemmas have proven to
be useful tools in studying teachers thinking about their
practices. We define teaching dilemmas in this paper as
problem spaces created in the minds of teachers as they
engage in the practice of teaching. Teaching dilemmas are
often accompanied by dissatisfaction with the
consequences of a teachers past decisions or anxiety about
a decision that is yet to be played out in real classroom
time. Lampert (1985) and Lortie (1975) found dilemmas to
be such common elements of teachers practices that they
have described the activity of teaching largely in terms of
dilemma management. The analysis of dilemmas has been
used by teacher-researchers to reveal and understand their
own teaching beliefs, to develop strategies to change them
(Tomanek, 1994), and to understand the multiple goals and
constraints within which a teacher makes decisions
affecting student learning (Lampert, 1986). Dilemmas have
also been used to assist other teachers in understanding
their own practices and to characterize qualities of
practicing teachers interactive thinking. Tomanek (1996)
used dilemma analysis to assist an experienced high school
biology teacher to understand why he chose, as part of his
biology curriculum, to teach about insects in ways in which
he was not satisfied. The explication of his dilemma and
the beliefs that grounded it allowed him to develop
strategies that would ultimately lead to a more satisfying
teaching practice. Marland and Osborne (1990) used an
English teachers self-reported dilemmas to characterize
and make visible her theories of action. The teachers
dilemmas were a central component of her espoused theory
about her practice. Her dilemmas revealed internal
inconsistencies in the teachers thinking and exposed
conflicting values and beliefs.
Dilemmas represent situations in classroom
practice that are problematic for teachers and force them to
make decisions based on competing values, beliefs and
practices. From this perspective, student teachers analysis
of self-reported dilemmas may not only be a useful tool for

revealing the nature of their thinking. Dilemma analysis

may also help characterize the nature of the perceived
problems and concerns that student teachers have at this
stage in their training. This type of information is of central
value for teacher preparation as it can be used to assess the
professional development of prospective teachers and to
design learning opportunities to support and foster teacher
growth. Research on preservice and beginning teachers
perceived challenges and problems (Fuller, 1969; Fuller &
Brown, 1975; Veenman, 1984; Evans & Tribble, 1986;
Kagan, 1992; Haritos, 2004) has identified three basic
kinds of teachers concerns: survival concerns, teaching
situation concerns, and concerns about pupils (impact
concerns). Survival issues refer to concerns about ones
adequacy as a teacher, class control, mastery of content,
being liked by students, and meeting expectations of
mentors, supervisors and parents. Teaching situation
concerns include concerns about teaching methods and
materials, planning instruction, teaching performance, and
limitations and frustrations of teaching situations. Concerns
about pupils pertain to meeting the cognitive, social, and
emotional needs of ones students. The experience of
becoming a teacher seems to involve coping with all these
types of concerns, although their timetable of emergence
and dominance remains unclear. Helping preservice
teachers identify, analyze and address their concerns seems
to improve their feelings of adequacy and forces them to
modify and reconstruct their images of self as teacher
(Veenman, 1984; Kagan, 1992).

Methods
Guiding Questions
In this work we used the written analysis of
student teachers self-reported dilemmas as the data source
to explore our preservice teachers thinking and concerns
about their teaching practices. The following questions
framed the analysis:

What do student teachers identify as dilemmas in

their teaching practice?

What self-reported concerns comprise the

dilemmas?

What does dilemma analysis reveal about student

teachers thinking about their practices?
Participants and Instrument
The dilemma analysis instrument (Box 1) was
administered to 22 student teachers in a secondary level
science teacher preparation program at a large southwestern
research university over four semesters. Five student
teachers taught in middle school science classrooms and
seventeen taught in high school science classrooms. The
dilemma analysis was one of our instruments developed
and implemented during the student teaching semester to
uncover the preservice teachers thinking; the dilemma
analysis was the last of four assessment instruments
administered during that period. The completion of this
assignment, as well as the other three instruments, was a
requirement of all student teachers participating in a weekly
one-hour student teaching seminar. All of the student
teachers had two weeks to construct their dilemma
analyses, which were then evaluated by teacher preparation

Journal of Science Teacher Education. Accepted 09/05

faculty to provide individual feedback about strengths and
weaknesses of the written work. The perceived problems
and concerns described in the different dilemmas analyses
were subsequently discussed in a follow-up one-hour
seminar.
After the first semester of administering the
instrument we started using one session of the student
teaching seminar to describe and discuss specific examples
of science teacher dilemmas (Tomanek, 1996). This session
was designed to help students discriminate between simple
problematic situations that can be resolved by principle
application or other routine measures, and dilemmas that
involve competing values and beliefs and for which there is
not necessarily a right solution.
Box 1. Dilemma Analysis Instrument.
Identify a particular issue related to teaching or learning
that has caught your attention during your student teaching
and carefully analyze it. Select an important dilemma for
you as a teacher that has made you reflect on a problem that
has forced you to make a decision. Build your analysis in a
narrative form addressing the following questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

What was the problem or dilemma?

Why was it important or relevant to you?
How did the dilemma emerge? How did it develop?
How did you try to solve the problem? What was the
rationale for your decision?
How did the dilemma or problem influence your
beliefs about teaching or learning?
What would you do the next time?

The assignment should be clearly written and well

organized. It should be composed on a word processor,
with 1 margins, single-line spacing and a letter font-size
between 11 and 12 points. The narrative should not exceed
4 single-sided pages.
Procedures
The current study employed qualitative research
procedures based on content analysis of the 22 written
dilemma cases and constant comparison analysis for
emerging patterns (Bogdan & Biblen, 1992; Miles &
Huberman, 1994). First, the three authors independently
read the analyses and summarized the central topic of each
dilemma. These summaries were compared and discussed
until consensus was reached about representative dilemma
descriptions, and whether more than one student teacher
dilemma could be categorized with the same topic (the
different dilemma topics are shown in Tables 1 as column
1).
A second independent round of reading was
completed to identify specific and major areas of concern
reflected in each of the dilemma analyses. For example,
one student teachers dilemma topic (Id) involved
questioning her teaching because of students lack of
motivation to complete work. Although she described a
series of specific problems and challenges, such as the high
percentage of students with low grades for not completing
homework, her concerns seemed to fall under three major
categories: student success, student motivation, and
instructional decisions. The major categories of concerns
identified by the authors for each dilemma analysis were

again the subject of comparison and discussion until

consensus was reached (the major categories of concerns
are shown in as the top row in Table 1).
Upon agreement on the dilemma topics and
major categories of concerns, we returned repeatedly to the
written dilemma analyses to search for common patterns of
thought, student teacher beliefs, perceived teaching
constraints, and dilemma resolution strategies. These
analytical steps were taken in order to reveal the nature of
student teachers thinking about their practices. We also
extracted excerpts to verify our assertions or justify our
claims. In this process, dilemma topics and categories of
concerns suffered constant adjustments and our
interpretations of major trends in student teachers thinking
were reshaped.

Results and Discussion

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

Journal of Science Teacher Education. Accepted 09/05

Table 1. Dilemma topics and major categories of concerns associated with student teachers dilemmas (SM- Student Motivation;
SS & A- Student Success and Achievement; T & CM- Task and Classroom Management; SE & SW- Student Emotional and Social
Wellbeing; C & I- Curriculum and Instruction; SL & U- Student Learning and Understanding).
Major Categories of Concern
Student
SS
T
Teacher
Dilemma Topics
SM
&
&
ID
A
CM
Group I: Dilemmas Associated with Student Performance and Success.
Ia*, Ib*
Questioning their role in the retention of students
XX
XX
XX
Ic*
Questioning to what level to support students that X
X
X
do not care about school
Id, Ie, If
Questioning their teaching due to students lack of XXX
XXX
XXX
motivation to complete work
Ig
Questioning his ability to reach out and motivate X
X
X
students
Ih
Questioning whether to give a break to students
X
X
that are chronically absent
Ii
Questioning the educational systems tolerance for X
X
lack of student accountability
Ij
Questioning the lack of school support in dealing X
X
with problematic students
Ik
Questioning whether academic expectations match
X
students abilities
Il
Questioning how to build a productive relationship
X
with a disrespectful student
Im
Questioning whether student tardiness should be
X
handled by teachers or administrators
Group II: Dilemmas Associated with Curriculum and Instructional Decisions.
IIa*
Questioning whether to award grades for
X
X
completion or student understanding
IIb*
Questioning what activities may be better in
promoting student understanding
IIc
Questioning the value of re-teaching topics versus
coverage of the curriculum
IId
Questioning how to design lessons at the
appropriate level of academic challenge
IIe
Questioning content organization to better promote
student understanding
IIf, IIg, IIh
Questioning what topics to teach and how in-depth XXX
to teach them
IIi
Questioning whether or not students should have X
books available to take home
Student teachers are identified with a label based on their
dilemmas topic group (I or II) and a distinct letter. Student
teachers placed in a middle school (grades 7-8) are marked
with an asterisk (*). An X denotes whether concerns in a
given category were found in a student teachers dilemma.
Shading is used to highlight the major categories of
concern that characterize each of the two groups of
dilemma topics.
What self-reported concerns comprise the dilemmas?
The student teachers analysis of their dilemmas
revealed a variety of concerns about their students and
teaching practices. These specific concerns can be
classified into the following major categories: (1) student
motivation, (2) student success and achievement, (3) task
and classroom management, (4) student emotional and
social wellbeing, (5), curriculum and instruction, and (6)

SE
&
SW

C&I

SL
&
U

XX
X

XX

X
X

X
X

XXX
X

student learning and understanding. No dilemma analysis

included concerns from all six major categories. However,
nearly all of the analyses involved more than one major
category of concern, with some categories being more
predominant than others. As shown in Table 1, student
teachers dilemmas associated with student performance
and success (Group I) included a large proportion of
concerns that fall within the following categories of
concerns: student success and achievement, task and
classroom management, and student emotional and social
wellbeing. Dilemmas in group II focused mostly on
concerns about curriculum and instruction, and student
learning and understanding. Concerns about student
motivation cut across dilemmas from both groups, although
for fundamentally different reasons. We discuss this point
in the next paragraphs where we summarize and discuss

Journal of Science Teacher Education. Accepted 09/05

our results for each of the major categories of concerns
identified in the two groups of dilemma analyses.
Student motivation. In this category we included concerns
about students intrinsic motivation to learn and succeed, as
well as difficulties to engage students interests. In
particular, we found concerns about:

student apathy and lack of participation (Ia*, Ic*,

Id, Ie, If , Ig, Ii);

lack of student concern over failing or not doing

their work (Ia*, Id, Ie, If, Ig, Ij);

lack of student interest in classroom activities and

learning (Id, Ie, If; IIf, IIg, IIh, IIi).
The first two types of concerns were only found
in dilemmas in group I, as illustrated by the following
excerpts:
A problem that I encountered dealt with
students that had lost their motivation and no
longer cared about school, I had several students
in my classes that simply did not want to be there
so they refused to do any of the workI was not
sure what more to do to keep them engaged
(Ic*)
The topic of concern now is the fact that there
are some students who are not motivated by the
grades at all. Homework is never turned in
because an F is perfectly acceptable to many of
the students in these classes. (Ie)
Concerns about difficulties in engaging student
interest were characteristic of dilemmas in group II:
A few weeks ago, in the middle of a review over
balancing chemical reactions, a bright, curious,
yet unmotivated student called out. Miss, why
do we have to learn this? I was stunned. I was
not stunned by the question, which was valid
despite its inappropriate tuning. I was stunned by
my own lack of proper response. (IIh)
Our results reveal that student teachers in both
dilemma groups were concerned about the lack of student
motivation and believed that they bore a large part of the
responsibility for motivating students. However, while
these concerns in Group I dilemmas were closely
associated with preoccupation about the consequences of
the lack of student motivation on achievement and task
management, student motivation issues in Group II
dilemmas were always linked to decisions about content
and instructional activities.
Student success and achievement. Included in this category
were concerns related to students failing to meet academic
expectations and the corresponding consequences on
achievement. The category refers to concerns about
students:

completing and turning in class assignments (Id,

Ie, If, Ih; IIa*);

earning low grades (Ib*, Id, Ie, If, Ig, Ik; IIa*);

cheating the system (Ii, Ij).

failing the course (Ia*, Ib*, Ic*, Ij);

Nearly all of the concerns in this category were

found in Group I dilemmas. Several of the dilemma
analyses in this group revealed a sort of reality shock
(Veenman, 1984) when student teachers personal
expectations confronted the realities of schools and
classrooms. For example, one of the student teachers wrote
that she was stunned by the lack of student motivation to
succeed. Two other preservice teachers wrote:
In my regular chemistry class the situation was
almost out of control. The amount of missing
assignments was unbelievably high. Homework
assignments had a turn in rate of about 50% for
the quarter. (Id)
The frustration I felt trying to accommodate
students who were not willing to attend classes,
unable to participate in classes, or to understand
the class due to language barriers became almost
unbearable as the semester progressed. (Ij)
However, the analysis of these types of concerns
reveals that many of our student teachers have a quite
narrow definition of student success. Most of the student
teachers associate student success with the completion of
academic work, and not with the demonstration of critical
thinking and the development of students understanding of
central scientific concepts and ideas:
I want students to feel less frustration about
concepts and assignments because I want them to
turn more work so that they can succeed in
science. (If)
As shown in Table 1, none of the student teachers
with dilemmas associated with student performance and
success (Group I) expressed clear concerns about student
learning and understanding. For most student teachers with
dilemmas in this group, students success and achievement
were detached from concerns about their own decisions
about course content, learning goals, and instructional
activities. Their analyses and reflections were mostly
focused on how to make students complete their tasks and
make them more accountable for their work. Thus, their
thinking about instruction was bounded more by ideas
about task management than by curriculum or pedagogical
issues. Many of the student teachers with concerns in this
category had dilemmas motivated by extreme cases of
failure, such as students in danger of retention, missing
most of the classes, or not turning in any homework. These
types of situations seemed to contradict the student
teachers expectations and challenged some of their
teaching beliefs as they felt compelled to make
accommodations.
Task and classroom management. Group I dilemmas
included a significant number of concerns about
encouraging and managing task completion. A small
number of student teachers in this group also expressed
concerns about individual student behavior and its impact
on performance and achievement. We judged all these
concerns to be related to task and classroom management.
Thus, this category included concerns over:

missing class (Ia*, Ih, Ij);

being responsible and accountable for their work

(Ia, Ic, Id, Ie, If, Ih, Ii, Ij);

stating clear and fair expectations and sticking to

them (If, Ig, Ih);

providing enough opportunities to complete work

(Ia*, Ib*, Ic*, Id, Ie, If, Ih; IIa*);

Journal of Science Teacher Education. Accepted 09/05

students off-task or ignoring the class (Ig, Il);

disruptive students (Ic*, Il);

tardiness (Im).
The following excerpt is representative of this
type of concerns as found in Group I dilemmas, where
many student teachers reflected on how to address lack of
student work, commitment, or responsibility. None of these
concerns were identified in Group II dilemmas.
So I had some mixed feelings of what I should
do towards this problem of students failing the
class. So I decided that I needed to do everything
I could for the students that would help them
learn and enable [them] to pass the class, except
do the work for them.I do not want my
students grades to fail, because they were not
given enough opportunities to show their
strengths. (If)
The results of our study suggest that many of our
student teachers struggle to identify and isolate the
boundaries of their responsibilities for student success and
achievement. Their dilemmas reveal their attempts to more
clearly define the kind of teachers they want to be. The
student teachers think a great deal about issues like how far
they should go to encourage students, how willing they
should be to provide second chances, and how flexible
they should be in allowing for students to exercise
accountability for their own decisions and actions. In
general, Group I dilemmas revealed a general tone of
unhappiness and disappointment with regard to students
motivation and success in school, problems that they often
attributed to students home environments or failed school
and educational policies but rarely to their own
instructional decisions.
The specific concerns about task and classroom
management also indicate that a few student teachers
worried about student behavior (Ic*, Ig, Il, Im). However,
they dilemma analyses did not link these types of problems
to their own curriculum and instructional decisions. They
perceived the problems as the result of unsupportive family
environments or inadequate school policies.
Students emotional and social wellbeing. This group of
concerns was largely focused upon individual students and
the influence of school, family, and social environments. It
included concerns about:

properly recognizing/praising/rewarding student

work (Ia*, Ib*);
properly recognizing/valuing student effort and
participation (Ia*, Ib*; IIa*);
family and social influences
performance (Ia*, Ib*, Ih; IIa*);

on

student

students self-esteem (Ia*, Ib*);

meeting individual needs (Ib*, If);

building positive relationships with students (Ig,

Il).
This major category of concern was also
characteristic of Group I dilemmas and played a more
central role in the dilemma analyses from middle school
student teachers (four of the five middle school teachers
reported these types of concerns). Student teachers at this

level constantly emphasized the influence of family and

social environments in the performance of individual
students, and seemed to favor extrinsic rewards to improve
student achievement. The following excerpt illustrates our
assertion:
When it came time for progress reports I
realized that while student of the month
recognizes students that have improved or those
who are doing well and those involved in
athletics are often mentioned on announcements,
nothing is done to acknowledge those students
who are succeeding in academics. (Ia*)
The final two major categories of concerns,
curriculum and instruction and student learning and
understanding, were central to Group II dilemmas but only
marginally present in Group I dilemmas.
Curriculum and instruction. In this category we included
concerns about course content, instructional activities,
assessment tools, and teaching strategies. In particular, we
found concerns about:

what content to teach (IIe, IIf, IIg, IIh);

how in-depth to teach a topic (IIc, IIf, IIg).
making appropriate decisions about instructional
activities and assessment (Id, Ik; Iia*, IIb*, IIc,
IId, IIi);

nature and value of homework (Ie; IIa*);

This category of concerns, more than any of the
other categories, was focused on teacher decisions and
actions, rather than on student attributes. The following
excerpt illustrates a typical concern in this area:
One of the biggest dilemmas I had this semester
was deciding what content to teach to my
Systems Biology class. Included in that big
dilemma were many smaller problems, like,
How in-depth should I teach this subject? and
In what order should I teach the different human
body systems? and How much time should I
allow for each system? (IIg)
In general, concerns about the content and
structure of lessons and activities (what to teach) were
much more common than concerns about instructional
models and strategies (how to teach). Although student
teachers from all grade levels mentioned concerns within
this category, struggles associated with curriculum and
instruction played a more prominent role in the dilemma
analyses of high school student teachers. In several cases,
these dilemmas were associated with the existence of
perceived external constraints such as required textbooks,
vague state or national education standards, or limited
resources.
Student learning and understanding. This category of
concerns was driven by student teachers interests in
promoting student understanding, challenging student
thinking, and assessing learning. It included concerns
related to:

properly assessing student understanding (IIa*,

IIa);

students not understanding scientific concepts or

ideas (IIb*, IIc, IIe);

Journal of Science Teacher Education. Accepted 09/05

matching/challenging students cognitive abilities

(IId).
This major category of concerns was only present
in Group II dilemmas. As shown in Table 1, concerns about
student learning and understanding only appear in
association with discussions about curriculum and
instructional activities. The absence of discussion about
student performance or individual characteristics in this
group of dilemmas suggests that student teachers who
focused on these issues attribute little responsibility for
learning to the students themselves. Only one student
teacher out of the twenty-two (IIa*) built a dilemma
analysis that acknowledged the close relationship between
a teachers curriculum and instructional decisions, and
student performance and success in learning science.
Interestingly, her dilemma focused on the widespread
school practice of equating student success with completion
of academic work rather than with demonstration of
understanding:
I dont think many of my students grades are
an accurate representation of their level of
understandingI was noticing that we were
giving students a lot of busy work to do in class
and out of class and then simply grading that
work mainly based on completion of the
assignment. We didnt really even look at the
answers to see if they got them correct. We were
more concerned with whether the students
actually completed the assignment. (IIa*)
What does dilemma analysis reveal about student teachers
thinking about their practices?
The analysis of the student teachers self-reported
dilemmas revealed some basic commonalities in our
students thinking that we would like to summarize and
highlight.
Role of personal beliefs. In general, student teachers
dilemmas were grounded on a set of personal beliefs about
students and teaching. For example, student teachers ideas
of what it means to be a successful student (attending class,
completing assignments, earning good grades) seemed to
be the base of many of the concerns found in the Group I
dilemmas. For some student teachers, confronting the
dilemma resulted in changing some of their beliefs:
My view was very cut and dry. If you missed all
of those days, you could make up any work that
you missed, but that was it. No special deal or
extra credit.My view came from the fact that I
was a successful student when I was in high
school because I never missed my classes and did
all my work.Of course, I needed to look at this
problem as a teacher and not as a former
student. (Ih)
..This has influenced my beliefs about teaching
to a great degreeI know that homework and
assignments are an important part of education. I
also know that students have to have a grade, but
I would like to believe that there is a better way
to assign those grades based on actual student
understanding rather than completion. (IIa*)
In other cases, the dilemma helped student teachers to make
more explicit and even consolidate existing beliefs:

This dilemma that I was faced with has also

reinforced the belief that students learn through
experiences. You can tell them and lecture them
all you want, they may be able to regurgitate
things to you, but most of them will not have
learned anything. (IIc)
Role of perceived constraints. Dilemmas also resulted from
student teachers confronting or learning to negotiate
perceived constraints on their practice. These constraints
tended to be perceived as external limitations or
restrictions, such as school administration policies, lack of
academic accountability, mandatory curriculum, required
textbook,
parental
irresponsibility,
intrinsically
unmotivated students, etc.
Since the students have to buy the textbook and
the lab book we are required to use them
frequently. The textbook is not well-written and
as the year has progressed I have grown to hate
this textbook.I want to explain concepts with a
different approach but then this tends to confuse
students when their book does it one way and I
do it a different way. (Id)
The recognition of these constraints created frustration, a
sense of helplessness, and disillusionment in student
teachers who did not feel capable of affecting the school or
family environments:
The results were sour to say the least. The
parents did not return calls or respond to the
progress reports send to home. The councilor
[sic] stated that the best he could do was to file a
transfer to study hall after the 20th unexcused
absence by an individual student. However, the
councilor [sic] indicated by his demeanor and
body language that this was not an encouraged
action. (Ij)
Many of the dilemmas revealed the student
teachers struggle to better define the limits of their
responsibilities based on their own beliefs about teaching,
their knowledge and perceptions about their actual students,
and the perceived constraints in their practice:
When first confronted with these students I was
shocked at how a teacher is supposed to handle
themThis made me think about how to
motivate these students when it seemed as though
they did not care about anything. Before I
thought there was a way to get to each students
underbelly where they would get some
motivation. However, I have seen that even with
all the effort I put forth some students do not
want it. I would not say I have settled with the
idea of students not wanting to succeed, but I
have realized I can only do so much.. (Ic*)
Role of extreme cases. Particularly in Group I dilemmas,
student teachers thinking seemed to be more focused on
extreme cases of unsatisfactory student performance than
on commonplace classroom events (10 of the 13 dilemmas
in Group I). This may be due to the intrinsic nature of the
assignment, which asks students to identify a dilemma that
many of them interpret as a problem in which a definitive
solution seems to be out of their hands; for example, the
problems of dealing with chronic tardiness without real
school support or helping students who are in danger of

Journal of Science Teacher Education. Accepted 09/05

retention and come from broken families. However, it is
likely that these extreme cases were highlighted because
they were the ones that most challenged the student
teachers values and beliefs about students and teaching,
and involved situations that did not conform to their
expectations:
This was an important problem to me because of
its uniqueness. I had not yet come across a
student during my student teaching that really did
not like me. I have had trouble with students not
liking the class or school altogether, but never
someone who included me in the things they
didnt like. I have never had a student that was
also so adamant about not participating anymore
and specifically trying to ignore the class. (Ig)
As student teachers acquire knowledge about
students, extreme cases of unsatisfactory performance may
be the ones that have a stronger impact on the process of
modifying and reconstructing their personal images of self
as teacher (Kagan, 1992).
Strategies for dilemma resolution. Although concerns about
student motivation and its impact on success and
achievement were central to dilemma analyses in group I,
middle school and high school student teachers thought
differently about the origin of the problem and how to solve
it. High school level student teachers often cited lack of
accountability for completion of academic work as a central
concern. Their suggestions for resolving dilemmas
involving student success and motivation included:

re-thinking the structure and content of lessons,

assessments, and assignments (Id, Ie, Ik);
I think in the future I need to go into the end of
the school year with a plan to help keep students
on trackMaybe some sort of big project or
inquiry project would be good for the end of the
year. (Id)

increasing student accountability for participation

and completion of work (Id, If, Ig, Ih, Ii, Ij);
When I have my own classroom, I will make
policies and guidelines for the students to follow
if they are absent for long periods at a time. (Ih)
Middle school student teachers more often cited
students low self-esteem and lack of parental involvement
and support as a reason for low motivation. Their ideas for
resolving dilemmas involving student motivation centered
on:

offering more personal support and rewards for

students (Ia*, Ib*);
I have started some reward programs that
encourage and acknowledge good grades. I also
have a top ten list posted in the classroom. (Ia*)

enforcing rules that encourage more on-task

behavior (Ic*);
From the previous experience the students
realized that it was better to follow a few simple
rules and stay in the class than to have to write
me papers instead. (IIc*)
In general, high school student teachers seemed
to be inclined to deal with the problem of lack of student
work through task management and instructional decisions,
while their counterparts at the middle school level relied on

extrinsic motivation and on providing emotional and social

support for individual students.
In addition to these common patterns of thought,
the global analysis of our data allowed us to infer some
basic constraints on our student teachers thinking with
important implications for science teacher education.
Reduced complexity. The clear distinction between the
concerns that characterize dilemmas in groups I and II
suggests that our student teachers tended to
compartmentalize their thinking, and to reduce the
complexities of teaching by focusing on a reduced number
of variables. Thus, most student teachers who worried
about low student achievement reduced the problem to
issues related to student support, individual characteristics,
and task management, neglecting the effect of their own
instructional decisions. Those student teachers preoccupied
with student learning focused most of their attention on
content and, to a lesser extent, instructional activities and
strategies, neglecting to reflect on student attributes or
individual characteristics. The results of our study suggest
the need to better prepare preservice teachers to recognize
and manage the complex relationships among the different
variables that influence teaching and learning.
Mixed concerns about teaching and pupils. Most of the
concerns identified in the 22 dilemma analyses correspond
to what in previous studies (Fuller, 1969; Fuller & Brown,
1975; Veenman, 1984; Kagan, 1992; Evans & Tribble,
2001; Haritos, 2004) have been categorized as teaching
situation concerns and concerns about pupils. Only two of
our student teachers (Ig, Il)) included some survival
concerns related to their adequacy as teachers and to doubts
about being liked by students, and none of them mentioned
issues related to class control. However, in our analysis we
found it difficult to clearly differentiate between concerns
related to teaching and those linked to the needs of
students. For example, the preoccupation of many of the
student teachers with their students success and
achievement in the Group I dilemmas involved thoughts
and reflections about both their teaching decisions (task
management) and their students attributes. Even for
dilemmas focused on concerns about curriculum and
instruction (Group II), which can be categorized as the
most teacher-centered, student teacher thinking was driven
by the perceived need to motivate and engage students, or
to impact student learning.
Our study also suggests that the concerns about
the students emotional and social wellbeing, the category
that most closely matches the idea of concerns about
pupils, is associated with the level at which the student
teachers are placed. In our case, middle school student
teachers demonstrated a much larger degree of concern in
this area than their high school counterparts. Whether this
is due to the personal characteristics of the student teachers
interested in a middle school placement, to the influence of
the middle school culture, or to some other factor, remains
unclear. We also recognize that our results should be taken
cautiously given the small size of our sample.
At all levels, student teachers concerns about
student motivation and emotional and social wellbeing
were not matched by the same level of preoccupation for
student learning and understanding, or for meeting the
students cognitive needs. In very few cases were student

Journal of Science Teacher Education. Accepted 09/05

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

evidence to justify their claims, and to evaluate the impact

of their decisions and actions. Guided observations and
reflective practice in real contexts give preservice teachers
opportunities to test their teaching beliefs and evaluate their
teaching concerns before assuming full responsibility in a
secondary school classroom. However, the intensive field
experiences quite often expose our preservice teachers to
learning environments constrained by conditions that they
do not feel prepared to influence. Increasing our student
teachers readiness to impact learning environments and
their self-confidence to do so are major challenges that our
science teacher preparation program must address.
Despite the specificity or contextual nature of the
student teachers dilemmas discussed in this study, our
results and discussion indicate that dilemma analysis is a
useful tool to reveal student teacher thinking and the
concerns they have about their practice. It offers teacher
educators a valuable opportunity to explore and recognize
many of the personal beliefs and perceived constraints
guiding their student teachers thoughts, decisions, and
actions.

Acknowledgments
This work was partially supported by the National Science
Foundation (Grant No. DUE 0088046).

References
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research
for education (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Carter, K. (1990). Teachers knowledge and learning to
teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research
on teacher education (pp. 291-310). New York:
Macmillan.
Clark, C.M. & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers thought
processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (3rd. ed., pp. 255-296). New
York: Macmillan.
Connelley, F. M. & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of
experience and narrative inquiry. Educational
Researcher, 19(4), 2-14.
Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical
knowledge. New York: Nichols Publishing.
Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as
data. Psychological Review, 87, 215-251.
Evans, E. D. & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching
problems, self-efficacy, and commitment to teaching
among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational
Research, 80(2) 81-85.
Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental
conceptualization. American Educational Research
Journal, 6, 207-226.
Fuller, F. F. & Brown, O. H. (1975). Becoming a teacher.
In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education (Seventy-fourth
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Haritos, C. (2004). Understanding teaching through the
minds of teacher candidates: A curious blend of
realism and idealism. Teaching and Teacher
Education. 20, 637-654.

Journal of Science Teacher Education. Accepted 09/05

Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice
and beginning teachers. Review of Educational
Research, 62(2) 129-169.
Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach?
Perspectives on problems in practice. Harvard
Educational Review, 55(2), 178-194.
Lampert, M. (1986). Teaching about thinking and thinking
about teaching. In P. Taylor (Ed.), Developments in
curriculum studies (pp. 233-259). London: NFERNelson.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Marland, P. & Osborne, B. (1990). Classroom theory,
thinking, and action. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 6(1), 93-109.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data
analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Munby, H. (1986). Metaphor in the thinking of teachers:
An exploratory study. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
18, 197-209.
Munby, H., Russell, T. & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers'
knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson
(Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (4th ed., pp.
877-904). Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Nisbet, R. & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can
know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Psychological Review. 83(3), 231-259.
Schn, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How
professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching:
Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 57, 1-22.
Talanquer, V., Novodvorsky, I., Slater, T. F., and
Tomanek, D. (2003). A stronger role for science
departments in the preparation of future chemistry
teachers. J. Chem. Educ. 80, 1168-1171.
Tobin, K. (1990). Changing metaphors and beliefs: A
master switch for teaching? Theory Into Practice,
29(2), 122-127.
Tomanek, D. (1994). A case of dilemmas: Exploring my
assumptions about teaching science. Science
Education, 78 (5), 399-414.
Tomanek, D. (1996). Developing teacher reflection on
practice with practical inquiry. Reflect: The Journal of
Reflection in Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 27-35.
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning
teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54(2), 143178.

10