This paper presents the findings and implications of a qualitative research study that was conducted to analyze the two major reforms in pre-service teacher education in Turkey, in 1982 and 1998 on a continuum, from the perspective of Chaos Theory. The research questions that guided the study were drawn up in line with the principles and concepts of "chaotic transformation" approach in the relevant literature. The research questions were the following: 1) How did the 1982 restructuring relate to the 1998 restructuring? (2) What were the reasons for the anomalies that led to the 1998 restructuring? (3) How did the 1998 process of transformation work? (4) At which stage of the curve is the system now? (5) What are the possible paths the new model may evolve? The data sources in this qualitative research study were interviews and documents. The 28 participants of the interviews included some key decision-makers at related institutes and some academic staff at 8 different Education Faculties in Turkey. The written documents included some relevant reports, meeting minutes, the proceedings of some related conferences and panel discussions, research articles, and some relevant articles of four different newspapers in Turkey. A model of 'Change as Chaotic Transformation' was designed by the researcher as a theoretical framework. The data, subjected to a content analysis, revealed that the logic of chaotic transformation has significant implications in investigating and understanding the stability versus instability phases in pre-service teacher education affairs in Turkey; roughly 1950's - 1970 (evolution and stability), 1970's (disequilibrium and turbulence), 1982 - early 1990's ('forced stability'), and mid-1990's to 1998 (turbulence and transformation) are significant phases in this sense. In other words, the process of this three decade background presents a 3 phase pattern of conditions created by a dynamic interplay between and within external and internal components and these three phases are characterized by the logic of stability versus instability in line with the chaotic transformation model proposed by the researcher. However, the unique nature of the socio-political context for policy issues, especially the educational policy issues, in Turkey yields a kind of change process that does not truly fit into a chaotic transformation model, but verifies and adds to the assumptions of the theory. The assumption of the theory that turbulence is a source of bifurcation and self-organization, or that chaotic transformation follows instability, was not observed in the 1982 restructuring, due to the unique socio-political context of this change. However, the further anomalies created during the phase from 1982 to 1990's, due to absence of bifurcation and self-organization, are significantly indicative of what complications 'imposed stability' may create for a system at chaotic turbulence. From 1982 to 1990's the system was 'closed' or 'blind' to its own anomalies, as opposed to the assumption of chaos theory that turmoil equals to 'wake up' and 'self-inquiry.' On the other hand, the process of transformation in 1998 was 'self-organization' in chaotic terms, as it was drawn up from within the system and truly targeted the system anomalies in 'identity', 'resources' and 'governance', but not completely effectively as it lacked follow-up, failed to create external ownership for clarity and institutionalization of 'governance.' It could be predicted that an evolution or stabilization of the 1998 model may not be achieved in the future without institutionalized planning, managing and training, which seems to be lacking at this stage due to lack of clear governance. Added to this agenda is the threat from the environment that policy issues are highly political power- related issues in the country.