When Alanson Van Fleet visited his brother's home, he found his 8-year-old niece in her room, surrounded by dolls and poised by her own blackboard,

standing there with the chalk balanced perfectly in her fingers, and with the right tone of voice and facial expression, she was teaching; urging her doll students to pay close attention during this important lesson. She had "teacher" down pat.

Convincing research suggests that beliefs are the best predictors of individual behavior, and, in particular, that teachers' beliefs influence teachers' perceptions and judgments, which, in turn, affect classroom performance. Moreover, we know that beliefs are hardy and highly resistant to change, and we suspect that teacher education programs have a little impact on the entering perspectives of teacher candidates. If this is so, understanding the nature and role of the beliefs Miss Van Fleet will bring to teacher education is essential to understanding not only the choices and decisions she will make as a preservice teacher, but her future effectiveness as a professional in her own classroom.

Florio-Ruane and Lensmire cautioned that some of the beliefs teacher candidates bring to teacher education are incompatible with the educational hopes we have for them, a fear substantiated by some findings. For example, most preservice teachers believe that they already possess the attributes most important for successful teaching and that they will not have to face the problems faced by most classroom teachers. As part of this "unrealistic optimism," they also believe they will be better teachers than their peers. They emphasize and overvalue affective aspects of teaching and undervalue cognitive/academic ones. Some of their entering perspectives have been called insidious and dysfunctional.

Beliefs and the College Experience - Strangers and Insiders

Most students begin their college experience without well-developed preconceptions about their field of study. The confidence of "strangers" in the validity of their "thinking as usual" is first jarred by finding their new environment not at all what they are accustomed to. Medical students enter their first operating room; law students must become acquainted with a courtroom. The experience is can be akin to visiting a foreign country that does not speak your language or share your cultural heritage and practices. These places are new and unusual, and they must be understood and "defined." The process of accommodating new information and developing beliefs is thus gradual, one of taking initial steps, accepting and rejecting certain ideas, modifying existing belief systems, and finally adopting new beliefs. For these strangers, the process involves minimal conflict or threat, for they have slight allegiance to prior expectations or ties to former practices and habits.

Preservice teachers are "insiders" and need not redefine their new surroundings. They enter classrooms and meet people in colleges of education that seem to differ little from those they have long been familiar with. Even during their student teaching experience, they simply return to places of their past, complete with memories and preconceptions of days gone by, preconceptions that often remain largely unaffected by higher education. The process of belief change is difficult and threatening for insiders, for they have often made commitments to prior beliefs and see little reason to adjust them. Accommodating new information and adjusting existing beliefs under these familiar circumstances can be nearly impossible.

Ginsburg and Newman were troubled by the part this familiarity plays in the process of reproducing society. Most teacher candidates have had positive school experiences and bring to teacher education an identification with teaching that leads to the perpetuation of conventional practice and reaffirmation of the past. They do not envision themselves as agents for societal change, and they become teachers who are unable, or unwilling, to affect an educational system in need of reform. In essence, most become "apologists for or at least preservers of the status quo."

Colleges of education can hardly be held responsible for the development and hardiness of the beliefs that students bring with them. Nevertheless, we expect that teacher preparation programs, aware of the challenge at hand, will bring about the necessary conceptual change through reason and scholarship. This is not usually the case. The teaching that goes on in these programs is narrow, prescriptive training disguised with high ideals. Traditional orientations and practices crouch behind liberal and progressive facades, and the inability of teacher educators to create holistic learning environments has created a system where both professors and students often fail to reflect not only on what they know but on how or why they know it.

These practices dictate students' beliefs about the nature and purpose of learning. Preservice teachers are unaccustomed to being pushed intellectually to defend their ideas. When asked to justify an answer, defend a reason, or define a term--explore why they believe something is so--they are usually shocked and surprised. A preoccupation with performance measures, the required regurgitation of other people's research findings and beliefs, and the hidden agenda of their education programs often result in confused ideals and depersonalized scholarship. "Would preservice teachers be unsettled," Lasley asked, "by what they found if they were challenged to provide support for their beliefs about education and the classroom?"

When beliefs are left unattended, no instruction is likely to have much effect. Students simply incorporate new ideas into old frameworks. By understanding the "intuitive screens" through which new information is filtered, however, teacher educators can help their students understand the assumptions that influence their thinking and behavior. But how should teacher education approach the problem of identifying and affecting beliefs that Schutz tells us are usually unclear, incoherent, and inconsistent, and how shall it put students in possession of the tools necessary for self-understanding?

Challenging Students' Beliefs

Students do not always share their beliefs with their teacher educators, and so identification, influence, and understanding are difficult business. Indeed, one of the major problems with most of the recent literature on beliefs has been the failure of researchers to agree on a definition or even conception of teachers' beliefs. I have elsewhere attempted to deal with this problem (see Pajares, 1992). For purposes of this paper, however, preservice teachers' beliefs are defined as as the attitudes and values about teaching, students, and the education process that students bring to teacher education. Other researchers have called these beliefs entering perspectives or preconceptions.

Perhaps a college of education's first strategy might be simply to make beliefs important as features of preprofessional programs and legitimate sources of inquiry. Teacher educators can then work to explore, identify, and challenge beliefs by providing reasonable alternatives. These are not easy tasks in many colleges, where students' beliefs consistent with those of their teacher educators are reinforced and easily legitimated whereas inconsistent ones go unchallenged. Teacher educators often fail to encourage in their students the development of informed beliefs on critical educational issues, a practice that results in students retaining their entering beliefs and becoming teachers who, like people who do not understand the lessons of history, are condemned to repeat it.

Even when teacher educators understand the need to challenge students' beliefs, they often limit their efforts to challenging only those they consider inappropriate. The development of informed scholarship, however, requires that all educational beliefs undergo challenge, that all survive careful scrutiny and analysis. Challenge alters and destroys but also clarifies and strengthens. Teacher educators should challenge beliefs not simply to search and destroy but to encourage self-exploration, clarity, consistency, and commitment.

To this end, many have noted the role of reflection in helping individuals to identify their beliefs. Bandura suggested that self-reflection provides personal understanding and helps individuals evaluate and modify their own thinking. Indeed, he argued that self-reflection is the most distinctively human characteristic. When teacher education programs emphasize reflection and belief exploration, graduates are better able to resist custodial influences of schools. It is through reflection and challenge, however, that individuals turn from "what it is subjectively reasonable for them to believe," as Fenstermacher described it, "to what it is objectively reasonable for them to believe," and it is this emphasis on reflection that marks a difference between education and training.

People are unable to change beliefs they are unaware they possess, and they are unwilling to change those they are aware of unless they see good reason to do so. This requires that teacher educators first help students to identify their beliefs and then provide a curriculum focusing on belief exploration and alteration. Students are receptive to having their beliefs questioned and participating in controversy and confrontation when this is done in a scholarly and non-threatening manner. Any one teacher, course, or semester is insufficient for this challenge, however, and so it should become a focal point of a department or college and pervade a program's curricular foundation. This is difficult in colleges of education, where most programs lack a shared vision or theoretical rationale. Even field experiences, an important part of teacher education that offers splendid opportunities for personal inquiry, rarely involve explicit agendas to have student teachers confront their beliefs. As a result, they serve to reinforce the folkways of teaching.

Strategies to Affect Beliefs

How can teacher educators, in the face of such odds, hope to affect the beliefs of preservice teachers? Posner argued that if we are to avoid "the kind of inevitable indoctrination that occurs when neither the teacher nor the student is aware of his own fundamental assumptions," teacher educators will need to redefine curricular objectives. This involves developing in students an awareness of their fundamental assumptions, a demand for consistency among their existing beliefs, and a sense of the value of new beliefs. Some class activities should be designed to create cognitive conflict, and teacher educators should structure instruction to identify students' beliefs and the ways they resist accommodation. Evaluation techniques to assess belief change should also be explored.

To make new conceptions clearer and more plausible, attention should be given to the ways students filter new information. Six weeks into a child development course, one of my undergraduates confessed his belief that psychology was not only a waste of time but the source and creator of most of the problems of our modern world. "Have you always felt this way?" I asked. He had. And the more he learned about all those conflicting and contradictory theories and paradigms the more he reveled in the nonsense of it all. They can't even make up their own minds, he chortled. Where had I been? If I had known where he was "coming from" I might have given more attention to exploring the basis for his preconception and attempting to demonstrate the relevance of what he was "learning" and less to my obviously ineffectual efforts to regale him with matters of consequence.

Rokeach suggested three strategies for inducing a state of inconsistency that may help foster belief change. First, preservice teachers might be encouraged to behave in a manner inconsistent with their attitudes and values, but this behavior should have positive results, or existing beliefs will be reinforced. Asking students to prepare and teach lessons in ways that conflict with the ways they believe these lessons should be prepared and taught and having them experience success with the new method increase the likelihood that conceptual inconsistencies will be recognized. Indeed, Guskey suggested that belief change follows, rather than precedes, change in behavior. A second strategy involves providing new information from significant others that is incompatible with students' existing beliefs. This helps induce a state of inconsistency and suggests that teacher educators should be perceived as significant others to better promote conceptual change. Finally, teacher educators can point out inconsistencies in the students' own belief systems, an activity made possible only if attention is given to the contents of that hardy but often tangled web. To accomplish this, teacher educators might assess and monitor students' beliefs as an ongoing part of the program.

A variety of techniques ban be used to encourage belief inquiry. McDiarmid uses "fastwrites" (brief, impromptu, and unproofed reactions to various topics) to assess his students' beliefs. Lasley suggests that students write narratives in support and refutation of educational issues from available evidence (research, interviews, observations) and once this is completed identify and label all the belief statements present in their narrative in terms of the strength of their own beliefs (support strongly, somewhat support, out-to-lunch, etc.). They should then be required to develop and defend their educational beliefs. Some instructors regularly use "thought cards" or require journals and diaries where they encourage students to identify and share their beliefs.

Goodman encourages the use of mini-ethnographic studies, and Edmundson uses case studies drawn from available field experiences, but with particular emphasis on critical examination of beliefs. Bondy and Davis, among others, suggest activities focusing on biography as a tool for helping students explore and understand preconceptions. Johnson and Johnson argued for a focus on structured controversy. Efforts to encourage reflection are essential, and Tabachnick and Zeichner's collection of specific suggestions, instructional units, and methods used by teacher educators to invite reflection in their students provides ideas along these lines.

The key, of course, is for belief exploration and challenge to guide curricula and practice. When education is limited to the presentation of information and acquisition of knowledge, no matter how entertainingly or creatively performed, we can hope for little more than the transmission of knowledge filtered by misconceptions and unexplored beliefs. When teacher educators are first informed by what students believe and why, and when the importance of belief is taken into account as information is presented and knowledge acquired, filters are exposed and pathways to informed scholarship cleared.

Good intentions do not guarantee results, and it is well to keep in mind Nisbett and Ross's perseverance phenomena, the view that most beliefs persist beyond the point where logic and reason suggest they are no longer useful. McDiarmid challenged the beliefs of mathematics students by arranging a visit to Mrs. Ball's third-grade classroom, a place that clashed with their preconceptions of how a classroom should be and how instruction should work. Students became strangers in an alien world that functioned in spite of its conflict with most of their established beliefs about the nature of knowledge and the role of the teacher. Many kept their beliefs intact by reconstructing what they experienced. They argued that Mrs. Ball's students were gifted (they were not) or that her knowledge of math or children was extraordinary.

The Role of Teacher Educators

What of teacher educators themselves? Posner insisted that "the teacher as clarifier of ideas and presenter of information is clearly not adequate for helping students accommodate new conceptions" and that two additional roles are in order. First, the teacher educator must take the role of adversary in the Socratic sense. The Socratic method, however, differs from teaching for conceptual change. The former endeavors to illuminate self-evident truths and create meaning through a process of questioning and clarifying; the latter attempts to illuminate belief inconsistencies and challenge conflicting beliefs. The purpose of the Socratic method is to help individuals arrive at truths already within them. Conceptual change helps individuals arrive at new truths by jarring the taken-for-granted conceptions that undermine the accommodation of new knowledge.

Teacher educators' second role is to become models of the thinking they seek to encourage, models that would

include a ruthless demand for consistency among beliefs and between theory and empirical evidence, a pursuit of parsimony among beliefs, a skepticism for excessive "ad hoc-ness" in theories and a critical appreciation of whether discrepancies between results may be in "reasonable agreement" with theory.

Clark wrote of teacher educators taking the "risky and exciting step of systematically studying their own practice," something for which few have either the appetite or desire. Self-reflection is time consuming and potentially demoralizing, a chore best defended to students under the old dictum of "Do as I say and not as I do." Yet the tangled domains of beliefs and folkways are as present in teacher educators as they are in students or teachers. Understanding the problem of entering perspectives as it relates to preservice education requires that teacher educators examine their own beliefs and implicit theories. Wilson wrote that looking in one's own mirror may be difficult, but "I have to model that mirror-gazing for my students, letting them watch me watch myself."

Research Emphasis and Directions

More than 10 years ago, Fenstermacher predicted that the study of beliefs would become the focus for teacher effectiveness research. Although understanding the beliefs human beings hold about themselves, about others, and about their world offers an excellent viewpoint from which to understand behavior, Fenstermacher's prediction has not come to pass. More recently, Pintrich predicted that teacher education will find beliefs its most valuable psychological construct, and Kagan observed "that this piebald form of personal knowledge lies at the very heart of teaching."

The most salient reason why research on the beliefs of preservice teachers has received scant attention is that we simply don't know what to do with them. Teachers' beliefs can be understood in the context of teaching practices and student outcomes, but as these are not in evidence during the preservice experience, the conceptions of teacher candidates have few referent points against which to be compared. We can study their entering efficacy or epistemological beliefs, for example, but we have little way of knowing how these will play once students become professional teachers. This would require longitudinal investigations, always an easy recommendation to make about educational inquiry.

Investigating the beliefs of teachers and making reasonable inferences from these findings to teacher candidates is useful, of course, but the beliefs of preservice teachers merit their own exploration. For instance, if it is true that beliefs influence the acquisition and interpretation of knowledge, the selection and definition of specific teaching tasks, and the interpretation of course content, then findings on the entering perspectives of preservice teachers may inform how they interpret and define important facets of their teacher education programs, information that would help teacher educators to determine program and curricular direction and avoid unintended outcomes. For example, if, as Weinstein found, preservice teachers really overemphasize affective student outcomes at the expense of cognitive ones, then teacher education programs should be structured to help students develop a more balanced view.

Schommer found that epistemological beliefs affect information processing strategies, including efforts at comprehension monitoring. Research on preservice teachers' beliefs can provide information on the cognitive processes they use to deal with classroom instruction--in essence, how beliefs influence instruction, and how students perceive and interpret their own learning. And if Bandura is correct that efficacy beliefs are the single strongest predictors of individual behavior, of the choices and decisions they make throughout their lives, then studying the efficacy beliefs of preservice teachers becomes an indespensable enterprise.

The nature and development of the beliefs that students bring to teacher education should be explored to better understand the roads these beliefs have traveled and the direction they are taking. The apprenticeship of observation, for example, has both personal and universal facets. All children grow up with a well-painted portrait of "teacher" and play "school" in various ways, but individual experiences and interpretations color these portraits in ways that form well-developed and hardy beliefs. Narrative and biography hold promise as research tools to help explain the process of developing beliefs. Munby's findings suggest that metaphors are used to generate, define, and solve problems and that metaphorical figures can offer insights into individuals' construction of their personal and professional reality.

There are many other interesting questions regarding preservice teachers' beliefs. Are there gender differences in the acquisition or development of entering perspectives? How do the beliefs of students choosing elementary, middle, or high school programs differ? What insights may be gained from exploring the beliefs of minority teacher candidates, and how do their preconceptions differ from those of others? Do the entering perspectives or epistemological beliefs of preservice teachers differ from those of non-education majors? from the established beliefs of teachers? of their teacher educators?

The development of teachers' sense of efficacy has been of interest to a number of researchers. Ashton and Webb, for example, discovered that teacher efficacy was related to several professional and academic outcomes, and they suggested that the study of preservice teachers' developing efficacy beliefs might offer insights into related conceptions and future perspectives and practices. Woolfolk and Hoy found preservice teachers' self-efficacy beliefs related to beliefs about student control. Others have discovered that self-efficacy beliefs about specific academic subjects are related to strength and level of academic outcomes such as interest, perseverance, and achievement.

One of the most fascinating and poorly understood phenomena in teacher education is the liberal transformation that preservice teachers are said to undergo while in academe and their return to more conservative orientations. If beliefs are as hardy and robust as findings suggest, it is likely there is a great deal more to this "shift" than has been explored, and that the phenomenon may be better understood in the context of belief research.

Personalizing the Challenge

I recall observing an undergraduate class in elementary education when, during a class discussion, a young teacher-to-be remarked that some children are just "thick" and simply cannot learn. I remember the startled countenance of the teacher educator and the silence that followed as she struggled to come to grips with such a disquieting comment. "Why do you think that?" the educator finally asked. Well, the student answered, because she simply could not get through, no matter how hard she tried, to several students in the class where she was assigned as part of her placement. The children were in fifth grade and could not even read. What was worse, they didn't seem to care or want to. And what was more, the real teacher could not get through to them either. Indeed, the real teacher had confided to her that the best that could be done, all that could be done, was simply baby sit them all day long.

How does one battle "real" teachers? Of more immediate concern to that educator, how does one battle the entering preconceptions, the perceived experiences, and the developing misconceptions of real students? And what does one do when these beliefs and experiences are not simply ill-perceived consequences of their growing professional and formal educational perspectives but deeply entrenched personal, individual experiences and enculturated beliefs that are part of self and identity? The rest of the class discussion dealt with whether the real teacher had reflected on the problems of her students and on her perceptions of her own practices and whether the preservice teacher had herself reflected and had carefully read the readings that dealt with children's learning and the nature and responsibilities of teaching. These are laudable concerns, to be sure. More difficult, uncomfortable, and confrontational to explore, and therefore avoided, were the student's own personal conceptions, deeply rooted convictions, and individual experiences of "thickness."

Maxine Greene wrote that teacher education has a responsibility to pose to its students fundamental questions not only about education but about society. Asking students to "reflect" on their beliefs strictly from the perspective of education or self as future teacher allows them to divorce that perspective from the larger contexts of self, society, and culture and to examine their educational beliefs in a vacuum. When this divorce of self from educational self is allowed to occur, students can examine divisive social issues and questionable educational practices from the safe and detached perspective of an isolated context or a future that is not yet at hand. Educational beliefs can then easily, if mindlessly, appear to "change," so that we are all, teacher educators, preservice teachers, and researchers, fooled into thinking that old and inappropriate beliefs have been challenged and removed and new, progressive, more effective ones are firmly in place--hence apparent shifts. There are new strands in the web of our belief system, but they are flimsy, unconnected, and peripheral. The old and hardy strands, the entering perspectives, remain central and remain strong.

Yet this is what too often occurs in even the most well-intentioned of education classrooms. Issues that touch on personal conviction and deeply held assumptions are skirted, perhaps because the confrontation between teacher educator and student on the subject of what beliefs shall be deemed appropriate can be an uncomfortable one. A regrettable tolerance for moral relativism is surely one cause for this intellectual paralysis, as Sirotnik discovered. Another may be a lack of expertise in understanding the process of belief change, in knowing what to do once the student and insidious belief have been engaged. It is, after all, dangerous to wade into deep waters if one cannot swim. To deal with this, teacher educators often adopt the safe practice of pretending to challenge a belief that students may acquire as a future teacher rather than the insidious one already present, albeit subtly camouflaged.

It is not possible to write about beliefs without in some way conjuring up the ghosts of manipulation, of political correctness, or of intellectual indoctrination. There is something inherently Machiavellian in trying to change someone else's "thoughts." Brookhart and Freeman's suggestion that beliefs be categorized as "teachable" or "non-teachable" and "appropriate" or "inappropriate" and that inappropriate, non-teachable preconceptions of teacher candidates be assessed and made part of the admissions criteria for teacher education programs is alarming, as is their call for these programs to "be explicitly designed to foster appropriate teachable beliefs." Colleges of education are not, should not be, in the Orwellian business of evaluating and labeling beliefs for purposes of entrance to programs and indoctrination once admitted. I argue this not from a perspective of moral relativism, for I am convinced that all excellent teacher educators have reasonably clear understandings of what constitute appropriate educational beliefs, understandings that are based on personal experience and reliable literature and that form the core of their instructional agenda. We all have our belief agenda.

The argument is not one of belief unanimity or theoretical indoctrination, however, but of belief attention, exploration, and challenge, all of which can take place in what Habermas described as an "ideal speech situation" and Buchmann called the "conversation"--the marketplace of ideas where candid communication flourishes in a democratic forum and reason and scholarship help students understand and alter their self-discovered conceptual anomalies. We ought to be interested in the beliefs of preservice teachers not because we wish these future educators to share similar, appropriate conceptions, but because the nature and importance of individuals' beliefs is such that they must be a focus of the dialogue in teacher education if there is to be any hope of budging mental structures long solidified and deeply rooted. And, of course, because we are finding that some beliefs that teachers hold are both a hindrance to their effectiveness in the classroom and damaging to their students. We might be very hesitant to visit a dentist, however competent, who believed that pain is healthy and its tolerance a great virtue, or select a judge who believed that all defendants are guilty else they would not be there in the first place. It is no different in education. We need not all share the same beliefs, but ones such as "some children are just plain thick" or "what I do doesn't make much difference anyway" should be confronted if they are to be left at the preservice door before students enter the profession. Teacher educators must be painfully aware that once closed, that door seldom opens again.

Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bondy, B., & Davis, S. C. (1991, April). Shaping a personal theory of reading instruction: Influences within and outside of a teacher preparation program. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Brookhart, S. M., & Freeman, D. J. (1992). Characteristics of entering teacher candidates. Review of Educational Research, 62, 37-60.

Brousseau, B. A., & Freeman, D. J. (1988). How do teacher education faculty members define desirable teacher beliefs? Teaching & Teacher Education, 4, 267-273.

Buchmann, M. (1987). Teaching knowledge: The lights that teachers live by. Oxford Review of Education, 13, 151-164.

Clark, C. M. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions of research on teaching thinking. Educational Researcher, 17(2), 5-12.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath.

Edmundson, P. J. (1990). A normative look at the curriculum in teacher education. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 717-722.

Fenstermacher, G. D. (1979). A philosophical consideration of recent research on teacher effectiveness. In L. S. Shulman (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 6, pp. 157-185). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.

Fenstermacher, G. D. (1986). Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 37-49). New York: Macmillan.

Floden, R. E. (1985). The role of rhetoric in changing teachers' beliefs. Teaching & Teacher Education, 1, 19-32.

Florio-Ruane, S., & Lensmire, T. J. (1990). Transforming future teachers' ideas about writing instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22, 277-289.

Ginsburg, M. B., & Clift, R. T. (1990). The hidden curriculum of preservice teacher education. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 450-468). New York: Macmillan.

Ginsburg, M. B., & Newman, K. K. (1985). Social inequalities, schooling, and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 49-54.

Goodman, J. (1988). Constructing a practical philosophy of teaching: A study of preservice teachers' professional perspectives. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4, 121-137.

Greene, M. (1986). Philosophy and teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 479-504). New York: Macmillan.

Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.

Guskey, T. R. (1989). Attitude and perceptual change in teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 439-453.

Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society (T. McCarthy, Trans). Boston: Beacon Press.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). Classroom conflict: Controversy vs. debate in learning groups. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 237-256.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1988). Critical thinking through structured controversy. Educational Leadership, 45(8), 58-64.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27, 65-90.

Lasley, T. J. (1980). Preservice teacher beliefs about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 31(4), 38-41.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mayer, R. H., & Goldsberry, L. (1987, April). The development of the beliefs/practice relationship in two student teachers. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.

McDiarmid, G. W. (1990). Challenging prospective teachers' beliefs during early field experience: A Quixotic undertaking. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 12-20.

Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38.

Munby, H. (1986). Metaphor in the thinking of teachers: An exploratory study. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 18, 197-206.

Munby, H. (1987). Metaphor and teachers' knowledge. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 377-385.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 317-328.

Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

O'Loughlin, M., & Campbell, M. B. (1988, February). Teacher preparation, teacher empowerment, and reflective inquiry: A critical perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New Orleans.

Parsons, J., & Beauchamp, L. (1985). The hidden curriculum of student teacher evaluation. ERIC document 261 983.

Pintrich, P. R. (1990). Implications of psychological research on student learning and college teaching for teacher education. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 826-857). New York: Macmillan.

Porter, A. C., & Freeman, D. J. (1986). Professional orientations: An essential domain for teacher testing. Journal of Negro Education, 55, 284-292.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.

Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504.

Schutz, A. (1970). On phenomenology and social relations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Sirotnik, K. A. (1990). On the eroding foundations of teacher education. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 710-716.

Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1984). The impact of the student teaching experience on the development of teacher perspectives. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 28-36.

Tabachnick, R. B., & Zeichner, K. (Eds.). (1991). Issues and practices in inquiry-oriented teacher education. London: The Falmer Press.

Van Fleet, A. (1979). Learning to teach: The cultural transmission analogy. Journal of Thought, 14, 281-290.

Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54, 143-178.

Weinstein, C. S. (1988). Preservice teachers' expectations about the first year of teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4, 31-40.

Weinstein, C. S. (1989). Teacher education students' perceptions of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 53-60.

Wilson, S. M. (1990). The secret garden of teacher education. Phi Delta Kappan, November, 204-209.

Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91.

Zeichner, K. M., & Tabachnick, R. T. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher education 'washed out' by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 7-11.

xxx (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.

Pajares, F. (1993). Preservice teachers' beliefs: A focus for teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 15(2), 45-54.