Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Many teacher educators have recently implemented inquiry based instructional practices into their programs (Crawford Foss Klein, 1996 Klein M (1996) The possibilities and limitations of constructivist practice in pre‐service teacher education in mathematics Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia Google Scholar, 1997 Klein, M. (1997). Looking again at the ‘supportive’ environment of constructivist pedagogy. Journal of Education for Teaching, 23(3): 277–292. Taylor Schuck, 1996 Schuck, S. (1996). Reflections on the dilemmas and tensions in mathematics education courses for student teachers. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 24(1): 75–82. [Taylor Tillema Tillema & Knol, 1997 Tillema, M and Knol, W. (1997). Collaborative planning by teacher educators to promote belief changes in their students. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 3(1): 29–46. [Taylor & Francis Online , Google Scholar). One reading of why this may be so, relying on and made visible through a poststructuralist analytic lens, is (a) that perhaps the pre‐service teachers’ ability to act in inquiry‐based, generative ways in the classroom does not necessarily follow from, but is produced or constituted in, teaching/learning interactions in school and teacher education, and (b) it may be that pedagogic practices in teacher education unintentionally and invisibly reproduce old epistemologies and ontologies that support knowledge transmission and teacher authority over student authored engagement and construction of ideas. In this paper the premise of a rational, autonomous agent of change on which so much of current practice is based is challenged, and the possible implications for teacher education discussed.
Mary Klein (Mon,) studied this question.