Investigating the Content and Sources of Teacher Candidates’ Personal Practical Theories (PPTS)
By: Barbara Levin and Ye He
Levin, B.B., & He Ye (2008). Investigating the content and sources of preservice teachers’ personal practical theories
(PPTs). Journal of Teacher Education, 59(1), 55-68.
Made available courtesy of Sage Publications: http://www.sagepub.com/
***Reprinted with permission. No further reproduction is authorized without written permission from
Sage Publications. This version of the document is not the version of record. Figures and/or pictures
may be missing from this format of the document.***
Abstract:
Research on teachers’ (personal) theories and beliefs and their (practical) knowledge derived from experience,
whether held implicitly or stated explicitly as their personal practical theories (PPTs), indicates that such beliefs
can influence teachers’ classroom practices and, therefore, the opportunities that their students have for
learning. This study uses a content analysis of 472 self-reported PPTs collected from 94 prospective teachers to
develop a model of categories of beliefs, and describes the relationship between the content and sources of
teacher candidates’ beliefs, expressed as PPTs. The purpose of this study is to help teacher educators better
understand beliefs that teacher candidates bring to their teacher education program as we try to influence their
knowledge and practices.
Keywords: teacher education; preservice teachers; teacher beliefs; personal practical theory
Article:
Since the seminal work of Clark and Peterson (1986) was published, interest in the study of teacher thinking has
been a prominent field of inquiry in the research on teachers and teaching. Three categories of studies on
teachers’ thinking are evident in this body of research: (a) descriptions of the content of teachers’ thoughts, (b)
studies of teachers’ judgments and actions, and (c) research into the domains of teachers’ knowledge. Also,
many researchers have investigated teachers’ beliefs and theories and studied the practical tasks and contextual
nature of teachers’ work (Schwab, 1983). Taking the practical context into consideration, several researchers
focused their research on teachers’ practical knowledge (Clandinin, 1986; Elbaz, 1981, 1983) and practical
theories (Fenstermacher, 1986; Sanders & McCutcheon, 1986), and also studied the relationship between
teachers’ beliefs and actions (Clandinin, 1986; Elbaz, 1983; Pape, 1992).
Elbaz (1981) coined the term ―practical knowledge‖ and defined five sources of teachers’ practical knowledge:
situation, personal, social, experiential, and theoretical. Elbaz also described how the structure of teachers’
practical knowledge included rules of practice, practical principles, and images that guide actions. Other
researchers have used similar terms to describe analogous interactions between knowledge, beliefs, and
practices including such terms as ―personal practical knowledge‖ (Clandinin, 1986; Connelly & Clandinin,
1985), ―practical arguments‖ (Fenstermacher, 1986), ―practical theory‖ (Handal & Lauvas, 1987; Sanders &
McCutcheon, 1986), ―practical reasoning‖ (Fenstermacher, 1986), ―practical philosophy‖ (Goodman, 1988),
―theory of action‖ (Marland & Osborne, 1990), ―schema‖ (Bullough & Knowles, 1991), and ―personal practical
theories,‖ or PPTs (Cornett, Yeotis, & Terwilliger, 1990).
More than a decade ago, Frank Pajares (1992, 1993) argued that teachers’ beliefs should become an important
focus of educational inquiry. Since then, Virginia Richardson (1996, 2003) has summarized much of the
research about teachers’ beliefs, showing that prospective teachers’ prior beliefs influence what is learned
during their teacher preparation program by acting as a filter through which teacher candidates acquire and
interpret new knowledge. Because we know that teacher candidates’ beliefs influence their subsequent
judgments and actions in the classroom (Chant, 2002; Chant, Heafner, & Bennett, 2004), understanding more
about the content and the source of teachers candidates’ beliefs is essential for teacher educators, especially if
we want to try to influence or change their knowledge and practice (Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996) during
their teacher education program.
In this study, the content and the sources of 94 teacher candidates’ self-reported belief statements are identified
and categorized as the first stage in (a) determining the types of beliefs that teacher educators may be able to
influence and change during a teacher education program and (b) developing a model to show a way to catego-
rize beliefs and the relationship between the content and sources of teachers’ beliefs. The research questions
that guided this study are: What are the contents of teacher candidates’ beliefs as expressed in their written
PPTs? What are the sources of teacher candidates’ PPTs? What is the connection between the content of teacher
candidates’ PPTs and the sources of these beliefs?
RELATED RESEARCH
Cornett et al. (1990) and Marland (1988) studied individual teacher’s PPTs and defined them as ―empirically
warranted claims-to-know about their own teaching practice.‖ For the purposes of this study, we proceed from
the premise that both teachers’ personal theories (their beliefs) and their practical knowledge (derived from
experiences) ultimately guide their actions in the classroom (Chant, 2002; Chant et al, 2004; Clandinin, 1986;
Cornett et al., 1990). Although we do not follow our participants into their classrooms to evaluate this claim,
earlier research cited above already makes this connection between teachers’ beliefs and actions. Also, though
we do not delve into more recent scholarship about teachers’ professional identity development (e.g., Beijaard,
1995; Beijaard, Meijer, & Verloop, 2004; Beijaard, Verloop, & Vermunt, 2000), we believe that identity
development is related, in part, to beliefs. Identity appears to be ever changing, influenced by social, cultural,
political, and historical contexts, agentic, positional, and socially constructed, which is also true of some beliefs
(Pajares, 1992). Although not the purpose of this study, reflection on and articulation of one’s beliefs in the
form of PPTs, plus identification of the sources of teachers’ expressed beliefs, may be useful for those inter-
ested in future studies of teacher identity and the process of identity development.
To date, very few studies of teachers’ beliefs have focused on the sources of teachers’ beliefs. Most studies
about teachers’ PPTs, which we argue are also a proxy for teachers’ beliefs, have been conducted by following
only a few teachers into the classroom (Chant, 2002; Cornett, 1990a, 1990b). The individualized and context-
based nature of teacher PPTs makes such analysis challenging to apply on a larger scale. Therefore, we posit
that presenting a model that describes the salient features and interactions among knowledge, beliefs, and
practices could be useful for helping teacher educators better understand their potential to influence teachers
candidates’ thoughts and actions at the preservice level.
In early studies about teacher beliefs, researchers concluded that beliefs cannot be changed by the ―weak
intervention‖ of a few years in a teacher preparation program (Richardson, 1996, 2003) and that what is learned
during teacher education ―washes out‖ once preservice teachers leave the university and become socialized in
the field (e.g., Kagan, 1992; Lortie, 1975; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). We also know that teachers’ beliefs
influence their judgments and actions in the classroom during and after student teaching (Chant, 2002; Chant et
al., 2004; Clandinin, 1986; Cornett, 1990a, 1990b; McCutcheon, 1992; Pajares, 1992, 1993; Pape, 1992; Ross,
1992; Ross, Cornett, & McCutcheon, 1992), which in turn influences the opportunities that their K-12 students
have to learn. However, very little empirical research has emerged about the sources of teachers’ beliefs, which
may be a factor in whether or not teacher candidates’ beliefs can be influenced during teacher education.
Several individual case studies have shown that teachers use their PPTs as their personal guiding theories in the
pre-active (planning), interactive (teaching), and postactive (reflective) stages of their teaching (Chant, 2002;
Clandinin, 1986; Cornett, 1990a, 1990b; Cornett et al., 1990; Pape, 1992). These researchers asked teachers
what guided their thinking about pedagogy or interpreted their beliefs from what teachers stated, said they
intended to do, or what they actually did during observations of their teaching (Chant, 2002; Chant et al., 2004;
Cornett, 1990a, 1990b; Cornett et al., 1990; Lundeberg & Fawver, 1993; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996,
2003; Tatto & Coupland, 2003). Other researchers have shown that the beliefs of both preservice and
experienced teachers expressed as their PPTs during a process called ―personal theorizing‖ drive pedagogical
decisions about teaching and learning of both novice and experienced teachers (Chant, 2002; Chant et al., 2004;
Cornett, 1990a, 1990b; Cornett et al., 1990; Ross et al., 1992). For example, Cornett and his colleagues
(Cornett, 1990a, 1990b; Cornett et al., 1990) studied how individual teacher’s PPTs describe how their beliefs
and knowledge are grounded in their (personal) experiences outside the classroom and their (practical)
experiences inside the classroom. The connection between teachers’ PPTs and their classroom practice is clear
in this earlier research. However, larger studies about PPTs, revealing the sources of teachers’ PPTs or beliefs,
and research with preservice teachers have been scarce.
METHOD
Participants
For this study, written PPTs were collected from a total of 94 postbaccalaureate teacher candidates enrolled in a
graduate-level course about the interaction of classroom management and instruction at a regional university in
the southeastern United States during the fall semester in 2002, 2003, and 2004. Participants were recruited
from teacher candidates enrolled in this course because the personal theorizing process (Chant, 2002; Chant et
al., 2004; Cornett, 1990a, 1990b; Cornett et al., 1990) matched the course goals and was useful for these teacher
candidates as they articulated their beliefs about and plans for classroom management and instruction prior to
student teaching. Among the participants, 14 were male and 80 were female. The majority were White (n = 77),
and most of the participants were nontraditional preservice teachers (n = 78) working on their M. Ed. degree (n
= 91) leading to an elementary-grade teaching license. Eighty-three percent of the participants had already
participated in an average of 140 hours of field experiences prior to writing their PPTs but had not yet
completed their student teaching. The remaining participants were lateral-entry teachers who had their own
classrooms (14%), although a few (3%) were not in classrooms yet or had left the classroom to attend graduate
school full-time. All data were analyzed after the participants had completed this course.
Data Sources
All participants were asked to explicitly identify their PPTs in writing following the procedures outlined by
Cornett (1990a, 1990b) and Chant et al. (2004). This assignment required everyone to (a) list, define, elaborate,
and justify the beliefs, or PPTs, that guide their teaching; (b) provide examples of what their PPTs would look
like in action in the classroom; and (c) identify the sources of each of their PPTs. The rubric emphasized
completion of these three parts of the assignment, but the content or quality of beliefs expressed as PPTs was
not evaluated. Each participant stated and described four to seven PPT statements, yielding a total of 472 unique
PPTs collected during three semesters. For example, 1 participant’s PPTs were as follows:
1. Wonder is the fuel that drives discovery and must be creatively inspired by educators if they wish to
fulfill a lifetime love of learning.
2. Children should be encouraged to be active seekers of solutions to problems, old and new.
3. Energy and enthusiasm elevate the learning process.
4. Purposeful assignments and meaningful objectives motivate students.
5. Establishing a sense of self through a positive environment.
Participants’ written descriptions elaborating each of their PPTs, including self-identification of the sources of
each PPT, were the sole data source for this study.
Data Analysis Procedures
A content analysis of all 472 PPTs was conducted to identify categories to describe the content of the PPTs.
Content analysis investigates the thematic content of text and serves as a basis of inference (Cohen & Manion,
1994). Initially, both researchers conducted manual coding of each PPT from the first year of data collection to
identify words, phrases, or word-phrase clusters for purposes of this analysis. The researchers created a
dictionary to cluster words and phrases into conceptual categories for purposes of further coding and counting.
Preliminary categories were modified and refined jointly by the researchers based on the data from the second
and third year of this study to establish linkages and relationships between and among emerging categories. The
steps used during data analysis for this study (Harry, Sturges, & Klinger, 2005) are described next, and a map of
these steps is provided in Figure 1.
Level 1 (data segmentation). To bring meaning, structure, and order to these data, the entire data set was first
segmented based on the research questions and the nature of the document data into (a) the content of PPTs
statements and (b) the description of their sources.
Level 2 (initial coding). Fifteen codes were identified for PPT statements and 10 for PPT sources based on the
results of our initial open coding. These initial categories were generated from participants’ original responses
in their PPT statements and discrepancies in labels were resolved through negotiation between the two
researchers. A constant comparison approach was used during the initial coding. Each coding strip was
constantly compared to content coded under the same and different codes to see whether another code would
apply. Once all the PPT statements were successfully coded, the code ―other‖ was eliminated, leaving 13 codes
for further categorizing.
Level 3 (categorizing). To identify the relationship among the initial codes, the researchers compared the
coding labels to the related literature. Four new upper-level categories were identified that seemed similar to the
four commonplaces of teaching described by Schwab (1983): the curriculum (what) that is taught by the teacher
(who) to the students (whom) in the classroom (where). However, in these data, the category of curriculum
(what) was renamed instruction (how) because the PPTs that these participants described were more about
instructional strategies as ways to deliver the curriculum than the content of the curriculum. Table 1 shows
examples of the content of each of the 13 categories of PPTs and also shows how these were combined and
collapsed into four major sets of beliefs about instruction, teachers, the classroom, and students.
In analyzing the sources of PPTs, the researchers noticed that the initial identified codes include both what
preservice teachers bring with them into teacher education from either their family, cultural, and religious back-
ground, their K-12 experiences, and what they learned from the coursework and fieldwork components of the
teacher education program. Three main upper-level categories for sources of PPTs were identified as (a) family
background and K-12 education prior to entry into teacher education, (b) observations or teaching experiences
during field experiences, and (c) coursework during teacher education. Table 2 displays the percentages of the
original 10 sources of participants’ beliefs (religious beliefs, family values, K-12 learning experiences, recent
teaching experience in field placements, observations during field placements, coursework, readings, theories,
and workshops attended) and shows how they were collapsed into three broad sources of PPTs.
Level 4 (exploring relationships). In this study, each PPT statement was linked by the participants to one or
more sources. The researchers were interested in determining what types of PPTs the participants attributed to
what types of sources. In other words, with an interest in the impact of teacher education on teacher candidates’
beliefs, the researchers wanted to explore what types of PPTs that certain source categories impact the most.
Level 5 (modeling). Because of the amount of data in this study, it is not easy to demonstrate the relationship
between 472 PPTs and their sources in a narrative fashion; therefore, we used the percentage of the PPTs in
relationship to their source categories to represent the linkage or the relationship between the data segments.
Based on these linkages, a model was developed to describe the interactions among the sources of teacher
candidates’ beliefs and the content of these beliefs, which is displayed on the left side of the model.
The personalized nature of the PPTs determines that the content, sources, and development of teachers’ PPTs
are individual-dependent and context-dependent (Chant, 2002; Chant et al., 2004; Cornett, 1990a, 1990b;
Cornett et al., 1990; Ross et al., 1992). Therefore, this generalized model may not apply directly to each
individual teacher. The purpose of building a model is (a) to present an overview of the prospective teachers’
self-reported content and sources of the PPTs, (b) to illustrate the relationship between the sources and content
of teachers’ PPTs and identify the potential impact of the teacher education program, and (c) to provide a
method and model for comparison of content and sources of PPTs in future research from teachers with various
experiences.
To manage, analyze, and report the relatively large amount of qualitative data in a systematic manner, computer
assisted qualitative data analysis (CAQDA) was applied in this study. Because of the textual nature of the data
and the hierarchical categorizing and searching required by the analysis procedure in this study, NUD*IST 6
(QSR International Pty. Ltd., 2003) was used for data analysis and Microsoft Access (2000) software was used
to manage and assist in the analysis of these data. NUD*IST 6 is a content-analysis package that allows
researchers to explore qualitative data to establish lexical and conceptual relations among words, to index text
files, and to conduct pattern matching and searching operations using Boolean co-occurrences of nodes (e.g.,
themes, concepts, categories, key words) identified in the text (L. Richards, 2005; T. J. Richards & Richards,
1991). In this study, NUD*IST 6 was used to explore and code the content of all PPTs and their sources. All
472 PPTs with identified sources were later entered into a database and given a code number. Participants’
names were not maintained in the database because the emphasis was on studying the content and sources of
multiple PPTs from similar cohorts of preservice teachers rather than on analyzing any one individual’s PPTs.
The final categories for the content and source of each PPT were entered and maintained in the Microsoft
Access database to allow for further sorting and counting.
FINDINGS
PPT Content Categories
As can be seen in Table 1, within the general category of ―who,‖ or the teacher, we identified 130 PPTs
combining four initial subcategories that addressed who teachers are and what they do with regard to (a)
organization and planning, (b) professional development, (c) teachers’ roles and responsibilities, and (d)
qualities of good teachers. In the category of ―how‖ the curriculum is taught, or the category of Instruction, 166
PPTs were combined from three subcategories that described ways to deliver and evaluate the curriculum
including (a) instructional strategies, (b) assessment, and (c) differentiation of instruction. In the category of
―where,‖ or the classroom, we combined 138 PPTs that were all related to the (a) general classroom environ-
ment, (b) teacher/student relationships, (c) mutual respect, (d) teacher expectations, and (e) classroom
management. Finally, only 38 PPTs referring to students were identified and put into one category, which
focused solely on the nature of student learning. Given that these 83% of the participants had 140+ hours of
