{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021243842364532018, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008620689655172414, 'mean_word_length': 5.86892177589852, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
THE INFLUENCE OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ BELIEFS ON LEARNING EXPERIENCES IN A LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING METHODS COURSE

This phenomenological case study examined the lived experiences of preservice agriculture teachers in a 16-week learner-centered teaching methods course. Fifteen senior level preservice teachers attending a land-grant Midwestern university one semester before an intensive 12-week student teaching internship were studied. Preservice teachers experienced a classroom culture that was dissimilar to the dominant teacher-directed university classroom culture to which they were accustomed. The study yielded two major findings. First, preservice teachers’ past experiences in agricultural education and epistemological beliefs of teaching and learning played a major part in their motivation and willingness to adapt to methods of instruction that were unfamiliar to them. Preservice teachers who had strongly held beliefs shaped by youth experiences in agricultural education and a view of learning based on the assumptions of teacher-directed instruction were unwilling to alter or change their methods of teaching to encompass a larger subset of learner-centered teaching methods. Second, preservice teachers, especially those who had strongly held beliefs shaped by previous experiences in agricultural education and behavioralist and cognitive views of learning, were unmotivated to learn and struggled to reflect critically on their own teaching and learning experiences. Introduction & Theoretical Framework Preservice teachers need to be prepared to meet the challenges helping prepare students for working and living in diverse communities. Modern industrial societies value a person who is willing and able to initiate and respond positively to change (Oreg, 2004). Educational researchers widely recognize the need to better understand the change process that leads to intellectual development of teachers (Stuart & Thurlow, 2000). Teacher change is illustrated in terms of learning, cognitive development, implementation of something new or different, affective change, and self study (Richardson & Placier, 2001). There are two predominant paradigms of teacher change. The classic paradigm—empirical rational strategy (Chin & Benne, 1969) suggests teachers pass through stages that are simply sequential, linear, and generally beneficial. This paradigm is grounded on the assumption that teachers as rational human beings and change agents will simply implement new instructional practices seemly instantaneously from teacher training experts. Conversely, the second paradigm—normative-reeducative strategy suggests a more flexible and innately conceptual development process (Richardson & Placier, 2001). This paradigm is based on phenomenological and hermeneutic assumptions of humans making sense of change situations. The change process is enhanced and shaped by teachers personally and deeply reflecting on their beliefs about teaching and learning and their practices in classrooms. Teacher change can be voluntary or naturalistic, based on developmental stages, or be a result of formal teacher preparation programs (Richardson & Placier, 2001). Although complex and difficult to understand, teacher change can be