Teachers' voices: A comparison of two secondary science teacher preparation programs

This dissertation, using cross-case qualitative methodology, investigates the salient and latent features of two philosophically different university-based secondary science teacher preparation programs. Written documents from the two programs and from the Salish I Research project provided the salient data. New teachers' interview transcripts provided the latent data. This study provides the opportunity to hear teachers voice their perceptions of preparation programs. Three questions were investigated in this research study. First, What are the salient features of two different secondary science teacher preparation programs? Second, What are the latent features of two different secondary science teacher programs as perceived by new teachers? Third, How do new secondary science teachers from different programs perceive their preservice programs? The last question incorporates teachers' perceptions of gaps and coherence in the programs and teachers' recommendations to improve their preservice programs.;Salient features of the programs revealed differences in the types of certification, and the amounts and types of required course work. Both programs certified teachers at the secondary science level, but only M program certified their teachers as elementary science specialists. Program M required more semester hours of education and science course work than Program S.;Although teachers from both programs perceived little coherence between their science and education courses, S-teachers presented a more fragmented picture of their education program and perceived fewer benefits from the program. Lack of relevance and courses that focused on elementary teaching were perceived as part of the problem. M-teachers perceived some cohesion through the use of cohorts in three consecutive semesters of science methods courses that provided multiple field experiences prior to student teaching. S-teachers did not perceive an organized philosophy of their program. M-teachers' perceptions of the philosophy of their program revolved about research based teaching. S-teachers reported more research experiences. S-teachers perceived better student-science faculty relationship, while M-teachers reported stronger student-education faculty relationships.;Teachers from both programs recommended more field experiences that resembled more closely the real life situations of teachers. They recommended smaller classes in both science and education courses. They suggested eliminating or altering courses that were not beneficial.