| Although recommendations differ, groups as diverse as the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future and the Fordham Foundation agree that the traditional system of teacher preparation is inadequate (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Finn, Kanstoroom, & Petrilli, 1999). Reviews of research on how teachers learn to teach reveal the importance of using preservice teachers' beliefs as the basis for building better pedagogic practices and providing opportunities for collaboration and systemic, consistent support (Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998). The need for system-wide improvement is reflected in calls for aligning teacher education with K-12 reform, bringing coherence to components of teacher education programs, and coordinating teacher preparation and professional development (Goodlad, 1994; Lampert & Ball, 1999).;In this design study, the paradigm of systems thinking was used to guide a group of 12 preservice teachers with different disciplinary expertise through the process of developing curriculum based on a contemporary controversy, as their culminating project in an interdisciplinary methods course. Data collected by questionnaires, classroom observations, and post-course interviews revealed different values and beliefs related to their personal goals and subject matter expertise, which were reflected in their pedagogic commitments and attitudes towards interdisciplinary teaching and collaboration. In general, they revealed a basic understanding of the nature of systems, but with some important knowledge gaps and alternative conceptions; a range in dynamic thinking skills similar to those of graduate students at MIT, and a mixture of naïve and relatively sophisticated understandings about the nature of scientific models.;Interviews with five preservice teachers revealed generally positive responses to systems thinking, based on their perceptions that it supports holistic thinking, making connections, and seeking multiple causes and effects in complex problems. Science-based controversies were positively perceived as increasing student motivation, promoting deeper thinking, connecting disciplinary learning with relevant problems, and supporting authentic collaboration with other subject matter teachers. The greater positive responses to controversies may have been influenced by two prior course experiences with controversies. Novices may benefit from multiple encounters with discipline-crossing paradigms and methods, and multiple opportunities for adapting them to disciplinary and interdisciplinary content areas. |
