Almost any type of teacher education institutions are constructed upon two objectives besides such objectives as social enhancement. The first one is to equip students with theoretical knowledge of both pedagogy and content. The second aim is to provide students appropriate environments enabling to transfer their theoretical knowledge into experience. Unlike theoretical parts, providing experiences is considerably challenging both for students and teachers. Project-based instructional design practices, micro teaching experiences, etc. can be considered as opportunities to learn and practice spontaneously. As students gain knowledge and experience, they are supposed to become mature for teaching at real settings. That is why, the last academic year offers two courses named “School Experience”and “Teaching Practice”. While the former course requires the observation of the mentor teacher, the latter one requires preparing for a real class and teaching real topics within the real classroom. Such an exciting experience can be a valuable way either to evaluate oneself or to deal with the real surprises caused by imperfect settings of schools.

Introducing pedagogical information to information technology (IT) teachers is important, because their initial tool (computer) can become valuable for transfer of their constructivist pedagogical beliefs (Becker, 2000). This does not mean that IT teachers never believe in other pedagogical approaches, however, this time the computer can serve as an aim not as a tool. Moreover, espoused and enacted beliefs can differ from each other due to various barriers (Ertmer et. al, 2001), but there are cases surviving no matter how bas the barriers are (Ertmer et. al, 2012).

Unlike other teacher education departments, information technology teachers have been trained for instructional design practices in various fields. They can be considered as novice instructional designers in addition to being novice student teachers. Instructional design can be defined as “a construct that refers to the principles and procedures by which instructional materials, lessons, and whole systems can be developed in a consistent and reliable fashion” (Molenda, Reigeluth, &Nelson, 2003, p. 574). Dick and Carey (1996), Kemp, Morison, and Ross (1994), Seels and Glasgow (1997), and Willis and Wright (2000) are well-known instructional design models having different approaches like being linear or iterative. On the other hand, they are very close to ADDIE framework, i.e. their basic components have many aspects in common.

 Since there is a distinct line between being a novice and being an expert, their approaches to cases differs also (Perez & Emery, 1995; Harde, Ge, & Thomas, 2005). One reason for this situation can be the sophisticated nature of instructional design problems (Ertmer & Cennamo, 1995). Many studies clearly indicate that the models are used as reference but pursuing the whole steps or components is not observed in real settings (Rowland, 1992; Kirschner, Carr, van Merrienboer, & Sloep, 2002; Ertmer, York, & Gedik, 2009; Yanchar, South, Williams, Allen, & Wilson, 2010).

In the literature, there have been studies separately examining instructional design processes of novice designers and pedagogical beliefs of student teachers, but how they are linked is still unclear. In this study, it was aimed to describe how student teachers’pedagogical beliefs embodied through instructional design practices within real context.

Becker, H.J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: is Larry cuban right? Educational Policy analysis Archives, 8(51), 1-35. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction. 4th ed. New York, NY: Harper Collin. Ertmer, P. A., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ross, E. M. (2001). Technology-using teachers: comparing perceptions of exemplary technology use to best practice. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(5), 1-26. Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012) Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers and Education, 59(2), 423-435. Hardre´, P. L., Ge, X., & Thomas, M. K. (2006). A qualitative study of the development of instructional design expertise. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(4), 63–90. Kemp, J.E., Morrison, G.R., & Ross, S.M. (1994). Designing Effective Instruction. Merrill: New Jersey. Kirschner, P., Carr, C., van Merrienboer, J., & Sloep, P. (2002). How expert designers design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15, 86–104. Molenda, M., Reigeluth, C.M., & Nelson, L.M. (2003). Instructional design. In L. Nadel (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science (Vol 2, 574-578). London: Nature Publishing Group. Perez, R. S., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Designer thinking: How novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 80–95. Rowland, G. (1992). What do designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86. Seels, B. and Glasgow, Z. (1997). Making Instructional Design Decisions. Columbus, OH: Prentice Merrill. Willis, J. & Wright, K. E. (2000). A general set of procedures for constructivist instructional design: the new R2D2 model. Educational Technology, 40(2), 5–20. Yanchar, S. C., South, J. B., Williams, D. D., Allen, S., & Wilson, B. G. (2010). Struggling with theory? A Qualitative investigation of conceptual tool use in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 39–60.