Understanding Preservice Teachers' (PSTs') Attention to Disciplinary and Interpersonal Obligations While Navigating Classroom Dilemmas in Early Field Placements

• In Event: The Role of the Professional Obligations for Mathematics Teaching in Mathematics Teacher Education

Abstract

Purpose. Herbst and Chazan’s (2012) framework of professional obligations provides insights into how practicing teachers manage instructional dilemmas. Our research operationalizes their framework by (1) investigating the extent to which secondary pre-service teachers (PSTs) understand the professional obligations of mathematics teachers and (2) determining the obligations influencing PSTs’ decision making when they face instructional dilemmas during early field experiences.

Methods. In our collaborative, multi-year NSF-funded project across three universities, PSTs engaged in an early field experience where they planned, enacted, and reflected on lessons they taught in an entry-level university mathematics course with coaching and feedback from mathematics teacher educators (MTEs).

Data Sources. We conducted video-stimulated recall (VSR) interviews, where PSTs watched video clips of their teaching in the university mathematics course in which they faced an instructional dilemma as identified by MTEs. They then reflected on what the instructional dilemma was, their decision(s) in response to the instructional dilemma, and their justification for their decision(s).

Data Analysis. We analyzed the VSR interviews at each institution by identifying “clips:” instances of PSTs’ justification for their decision(s) in response to an instructional dilemma. We then assigned codes to the justifications the PSTs provided by identifying the professional obligation to which they seemed most beholden (primary) and the professional obligation that caused the difficulty in the decision-making process (secondary). After analyzing these clips, we developed an understanding of how PSTs attended to different obligations while addressing instructional dilemmas. We analyzed PSTs’ reasoning for their response(s) to the dilemma in the video clip for primary and secondary obligations.

Findings. Our analysis shows that PSTs balanced the conflict between the Disciplinary and Interpersonal obligations more than between any other pair of obligations. For example, a PST faced the dilemma of how to interpret the class’ silence in response to a question, leading them to make a remark about being prepared to cover content in different ways in response to the students’ understanding. Here, they interpreted the students’ silence as a potential sign of not understanding the content, attending to the class’ understanding (Interpersonal) against covering more content (Disciplinary). In clips where the Disciplinary obligation was the primary obligation, PSTs were often balancing their decisions against the Interpersonal obligation. An example of this type of dilemma occurred when a PST claimed that they knew students were not understanding the growth rate by observing students as they walked around the classroom. Here, they were concerned about the students’ lack of understanding of the content (Disciplinary) as mediated by the observed interactions in the classroom space (Interpersonal).

Significance. Based on our analysis, we found: (1) PSTs’ reflections on instructional dilemmas demonstrate their awareness of conflict between professional obligations of mathematics instructors and (2) PSTs are most influenced by the Disciplinary and Interpersonal obligations. These findings help the field to understand how PSTs think about professional obligations, particularly when the ambitious teaching practices (Lampert et al., 2013) they have learned in methods courses conflict with their experiences as mathematics students (Proulx & Bednarz, 2008).

Authors

• Kristen Bieda, Michigan State University

• Rileigh Luczak, Michigan State University

• Sheila Orr, Michigan State University

• Fran Arbaugh, The Pennsylvania State University

• Michelle Cirillo, University of Delaware