**3. Methodology**

A qualitative and interpretative approach was used for analyzing student-teachers' didactic proposal, the research of own practice and professional learning.

#### **3.1. Data sources**

Data sources were the student-teachers' reports about the didactic proposal and their own research, which were publicly presented and discussed with two experts in Science Education, one expert in Physics and one expert in Chemistry. All the reports were publicly discussed between 2010 and 2016. These are personal and also public documents. Many researchers use written documents to access teachers' thoughts. For instance, Bolin used written diaries to access teachers' thoughts about teaching. This researcher required the teachers to write down their daily lessons plan and to justify their curricular decisions [30, 31].

The reports about the didactic proposal and their own research represent student-teachers decisions concerning didactic proposal and students' tasks. In this study, we analyzed 31 reports, of which 71% were written by female student-teachers.

#### **3.2. Data analysis**

Accessing meaning contained in data is a task of the researcher; in this study, meaning was explored after data collection [32]. According to Miles and Huberman, the process of analysis involves the interaction of three types of activities: reduction, representation and organization. In order to reduce all the information, we started with previously defined categories of analysis (research questions, didactic proposal, methods and procedures, and professional learning) [32], and after an initial categorization, we re-read the reports and through a method of constant questioning and comparison, we inductively created sub-categories [33]. These methods are appropriate to the goals of the study, that is, to understand the interpretations that student-teachers make about the curriculum, when they develop and put into action a didactic proposal, and to evaluate student-teachers' professional learning.
