I determined that pre-service teachers participating in this study must have met specific criteria. These criteria included having
1. chosen teaching as an initial career,
2. participated in at least one methods course that included a field experience, and 3. little teaching experience that directly matches what they are currently studying.
In addition, the participants needed to be available to meet with the researcher for approximately 6 hours over a six week period outside of their university courses and often away from the building in which these classes were held. This stipulation excluded some pre-service teachers who were parents, had long distances to commute, or worked at full-time jobs outside of class.
These types of pre-service teachers were chosen for specific reasons. First, participants who have chosen teaching as an initial career and who have had little or no direct teaching experience have prior knowledge that is based on being a student rather a teacher. Although in any university education course there are a variety of backgrounds represented, it is this type of pre-service teacher that is particularly challenging. Older, more experienced pre-service teachers are more likely to have other life experiences from which preconceptions are developed. While these preconceptions may be interesting and probably influence their teaching in very strong ways, non-teaching influences are the focus of this study.
Second, it was important that these participants be involved in courses in which they have at least some contact with students. These pre-service teachers were involved in actually teaching students, rather than just observing. Through contact with students, other classroom teachers, and education university faculty, stories can potentially be generated. These were the stories that I wanted to hear.
Possible candidates were approached directly and asked if they would be interested in
participating. In all, 25 students were asked to participate in this study. I began with students I knew from prior teaching and then branched out to students they recommended. In all, fifteen students agreed to
44
participate. Seven of these were students with whom I had worked during various methods courses. All fifteen completed a data sheet to be sure they met the established criteria (see Appendix A for sample data sheet). Of these fifteen, two were eliminated because they did not meet the necessary criteria and three more were eliminated because they would not be available for the required amount of time needed to complete the study. These students were contacted and thanked for their offer to participate. From the pool of the remaining ten students, six were randomly selected. One of these six participants had to drop out because of conflicting personal commitments so a seventh participant was pulled from the remaining four unselected participants. All six of these participants completed all three interviews.
To clarify the purpose, scope, and process of the study for the participants, each participant was given a written abstract of the study (see appendix A). In this abstract, I stated that the study was designed to share stories about teaching and talk about how they think these stories help them learn to teach. The participants were also made aware that findings of this study would be used to highlight the role these stories play in how knowledge about teaching and learning is acquired in methods courses.
Additionally, in initial contacts with perspective participants, I made it clear that I would be doing all that I could to maintain anonymity for them and not divulge any positive or negative comments to any university teachers or administrators. I also made it very clear that the results of this study were for academic purposes only and not part of any university-sponsored curriculum or program review. Most of the participants indicated in this initial contact that the only reason they were participating was that they either knew through direct experience or by assurance by other pre-service teachers that I could be trusted. They also indicated that they felt they could be honest with me and that I would not judge their opinions. Sally, for example, in her initial interview said, “I heard you were very fair about people‟s opinions” (personal interview, line 10).
Furthermore, the abstract outlined how privacy and confidentiality would be maintained. Since students were selected randomly from a pool of possible participants and contacted privately, other class and faculty members would not know who was participating in the study unless the participant decided to disclose this information. To the best of my knowledge, no participant disclosed this to any faculty member. However, many participants did confide that they had shared the experience with other pre-
45
service teachers or family members. There did not seem to be any negative consequences of this for the study.
In addition to these steps, the standard practice of using pseudonyms instead of the participants‟ real names was used in this study. All identifying information within the stories themselves was also altered to conceal participant identity. Participants were asked to pick their own pseudonym in the initial interview. Four declined to do so and I selected one for each of those participants. All pseudonyms were known only to me and the participant. At no time during the group interview or subsequent contact with the participants did I use their pseudonym.
During the data analysis, it became quite clear that information about particular courses would have to be altered to conceal participant identity as well. Whenever practical, I eliminated the specific course content or identifying features of the university educators. For example, if the participant mentioned that the university educator taught a particular course by its university designated number, I stated a general course topic.
I felt that confidentiality and privacy were important because university students are particularly vulnerable and influenced by their fellow students, professors and professorial colleagues. It was important to me, therefore, to assure the students those rights of expression and privacy would be protected as much as possible.