Analysis on the Mismatch between Instructional Design and Teaching Practice of Pre-service Science Teachers in Teaching Practicum

교육실습에서 중등 예비과학교사들의 수업계획과 실제수업의 불일치 분석

  • Received : 2016.05.17
  • Accepted : 2016.06.03
  • Published : 2016.06.30


The purpose of this study is to analyze the mismatch between instructional design and teaching practice of pre-service science teachers and to investigate the cause of these mismatches. Twenty pre-service science teachers took part in teaching practicum for four weeks from Apr. 2015 to May 2015 and we analyzed their lesson plans and videos of these lessons. After that, we interviewed the pre-service science teachers in order to know the cause of these mismatches and additional informations. The main findings are as follows. First, in the introductory stage, we found more mismatch in the "attention and motivation stimulation" area than any other area. Many pre-service science teachers corrected their 'motivation practice' in different forms. Second, we found out that the most mismatch occurred in the evolving stage. Many pre-service science teachers added learning contents in "learning content presentation" area. Third, in the closing stage, many pre-service science teachers omitted the "leaning content summary" area in the lack of time. Fourth, the number of mismatches by internal factors is similar of by external factors. The mismatches by external factors were mainly by feedback of guidance teacher and change by students' response. In addition, we discussed the implications related to reflective mentoring program, importance of guidance teacher, importance of time management etc.


pre-service science teacher;teaching practicum;lesson plan;teaching practice;mismatch


  1. Ball, A. L., Knobloch, N. A., & Hoop, S. (2007). The instructional planning experiences of beginning teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(2), 56-65.
  2. Chung, A., Maeng, S., Lee, S., & Kim, C. (2007). Pre-service science teachers' areas of practice concern and reflections on the science classes in student-teaching. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 27(9), 893-906.
  3. Clark, C. M., & Dunn, S .(1991). Second-generation research on teacher's planning, intentions, and routines. In H. C. Waxman and H. J. Walberg(Eds.), Effective teaching: current research (pp.183-201). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
  4. Clark, C., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teacher's thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock(Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching (pp.255-296). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
  5. Davies, D., & Rogers, M. (2000). Pre-service primary teacher's planning for science and technology activities: Influences and Constraints. Research in Science and Technological Education, 18(2), 215-225.
  6. Eom, M., & Uhm, J. (2009). A survey on change of competency for pre-service teachers before and after teaching practicum. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 26(3), 491-508.
  7. Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting high school students' cognitive engagement and achievement: contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation. Educational Psychology, 29, 462-482.
  8. Guyton, E. & McIntyre, D. (1990). Student teaching and school experiences. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 514-534). NY: Macmillan.
  9. Kang, K. (2009). Analysis of difficulties experienced by pre-service secondary science teachers in student-teacher practice. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(5), 580-591.
  10. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
  11. Knowles, J. G., Cole, A. L., & Presswood, C. S. (1994). Through preservice teachers' eyes: Exploring field experience through narrative and inquiry. New York: Macmillan
  12. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  13. Moallem, M. (1998). An Expert teacher's thinking and teaching and instructional design models and principles: an ethnographic study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 46 (2), 37-64.
  14. Park, K., Bae, Y., & Kang, E. (2009). A case study on instructional design process of pre-service teachers in practice teaching. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 26(3), 169-197.
  15. Park, S., & Lee, B. (2012). Analysis of factors affecting high school science teachers' class compositions. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(5), 991-1006.
  16. Park, C., Min, H., & Paik, S. (2008). An analysis of pre-service science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge through the student-teacher practice. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(6), 641-648.
  17. Shrock, S. A. (1995). A brief history instructional development. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: past, present, and future (2nd ed.). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
  18. Yang, C., Lee, J., & Noh, T. (2014). The characteristics of lesson planning of pre-service secondary science teachers. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(2), 187-195.
  19. Yoon, H. (2004). Pre-service elementary teachers' difficulties in science lessons. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 23(1), 74-84.