10 SES 04 E, Cooperative learning and Career Satisfaction
Many countries experience a growing demand for qualified teachers in the years to come, with a teaching force being increasingly unstable and with low retention rates among beginning teachers (Ingersoll, Merrill & Stuckey, 2014; Roness & Smith, 2010; Tiplic, Brandmo & Elstad, 2015). Thus, the recruitment of capable candidates in teacher education and the retention of teachers in the profession are significant priorities. On this background there is a need for further research on student teachers’ motivation for choosing to teach. Insights into motivations for entering the teaching profession are of particular significance because these motivations are essential in explaining why (student) teachers decide to stay or leave teacher education or the teaching profession (Bruinsma & Jansen, 2010; Roness, 2011; Watt & Richardson, 2007, 2012). Research on student teachers’ career motivations could also be of importance for teacher education programmes, for instance by assessing the connection between student teachers’ motivations and the working realities in schools (Meijer, Graaf, & Meirink, 2011). Research on teacher motivation may thus help to prevent loss of commitment to the profession (Bruinsma & Jansen, 2010).
In this study we aim to investigate motivations for teaching among student teachers in university based teacher education. In particular we investigate the relationship between various motivations for teaching and satisfaction with the choice of teaching as a profession using student teachers from two different teacher education programmes as informants. In a longitudinal study on Australian student teachers in graduate-entry teacher education Watt & Richardson (2008) reported that the motivations which relates strongly to high satisfaction levels include altruistic motivations, the intrinsic value individuals attach to teaching, and the self-evaluation of their teaching-related skills (Watt & Richardson, 2007). We take this as a point of departure and pose the following research question: Are there differences in student teachers motivations and satisfaction levels between student teachers from a post graduate teacher education programme and student teachers from a five-year integrated programme?
We use the Factors Influencing Teaching (FIT)-Choice framework and the related FIT-choice scale as a starting point for the investigation of the relationship between motivations and satisfaction among our sample of student teachers. The FIT-Choice framework and scale is internationally acknowledged; since the first studies in Australia, the FIT-Choice scale has been translated and tested with scalar invariance established in an initial four-country comparison (Watt et al., 2012), and it has been validated in a number of countries (for a summary see Watt & Richardson, 2012).
The FIT-Choice framework is based upon Expectancy-value motivational theory (Eccles, 2009), social cognitive career theory (Lent, Lopez, & Bieschke, 1993), and key findings in international research on student teachers’ career motivations (Watt & Richardson, 2007; Watt et al., 2012). In line with EVT, the FIT-Choice model introduces three main value classes (intrinsic value, personal utility value, and social utility value) and self- and task-perceptions that are related to the choice of teaching. Intrinsic value refers to the enjoyment of and interest in teaching. Personal utility value refers to extrinsic motivations such as job security, job transferability, and time for family. Social utility value refers to altruistic motivations like shaping the future of children and adolescents, enhancing social equity, and making a social contribution. Individuals’ perception of their teaching abilities is also a part of this model. As an outcome variable, the model presents satisfaction with the choice of teaching (Watt & Richardson, 2007, 2012).
We collected the data by means of questionnaires distributed during lectures at the University of Oslo. The data were collected during the course of 2014. The sample consists of 635 student teachers; 400 student teachers attending the post graduate certificate in education (PGCE) programme and 235 student teachers attending the five-year integrated teacher education programme. The participants range in age from 23 to 57 years (M = 28.46, SD = 8.46). With regard to gender, 413 (65%) participants are female and 218 (35%) male, while 4 participants did not report gender. We present both groups’ mean scores for the FIT-Choice factors, followed by multiple regression results. Beta coefficients are reported, as the aim of the analyses is to compare the relative contribution of predictor variables in explaining satisfaction with choice of teaching as a profession.
Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of the included variables for both student groups. The difference in means were statistically significant for Satisfaction with choice (p<.05), Personal utility value (p<.01), and Social utility value (p<.01). In table 2, we show the results from the regression analyses. For both the five-year integrated teacher education programme and the one year PGCE programme the social utility value factor (altruistic motivation) and intrinsic motivation are significant predictors of satisfaction with the choice of teaching as a profession (see table 1). However, social utility value (altruism) is the most important predictor in the model for PGCE students, whereas intrinsic motivation is most important for student teacher attending the five year integrated programme. In addition we found that an increase in the personal utility value factor (extrinsic motivation) predicts lower satisfaction for the student teachers in the integrated teacher education programme, however, this does not apply to PGCE students. Further, our results show that gender and age are of no importance to satisfaction in our data material. Table 1. Means and standard deviations of the variables in the study. PGCE Integrated programme Mean SD Mean SD Satisfaction with choice 5.5 1.132 5.7 1.185 Ability 5.5 .979 5.5 .994 Personal utility value 4.0 1.113 4.2 1.085 Intrinsic motivation value 5.9 1.063 5.9 1.079 Social utility value 5.1 1.116 5.4 .987 Table 2. Motivational predictors of satisfaction with choice of teaching as a profession among PGCE and integrated programme students. Satisfaction with choice PGCE (β) Integrated programme (β) Gender -.02 -.07 Age .01 -.03 Ability .13 * .10 Personal utility value .08 -.17 ** Intrinsic motivation value .26 ** .33 ** Social utility value .39 ** .28 ** Adj. R2 .35 .32 F 35.97 18.31 d.f. 393 222
Bruinsma, M., & Jansen, E. P. (2010). Is the motivation to become a teacher related to pre‐service teachers’ intentions to remain in the profession?. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), 185-200. Lent, R. W., Lopez, F. G., & Bieschke, K. J. (1993). Predicting mathematics-related choice and success behaviors: Test of an expanded social cognitive model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42(2), 223–236. Meijer, P. C., de Graaf, G., & Meirink, J. (2011). Key experiences in student teachers’ development. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 17(1), 115-129. Roness, D., & Smith, K. (2010). Stability in motivation during teacher education. Journal of Education and Teaching, 36(2), 169–185. Tiplic, D., Brandmo, C., & Elstad, E. (2015). Antecedents of Norwegian beginning teachers’ turnover intentions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45(4), 451-474. Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2007). Motivational factors influencing teaching as a career choice: Development and validation of the FIT-Choice scale. Journal of Experimental Education, 75(3), 167–202. Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2012). An introduction to teaching motivations in different countries: Comparisons using the FIT-Choice scale. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 185–197. Watt, H. M. G., Richardson, P. W., Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Beyer, B., Trautwein, U., & Baumert, J. (2012). Motivations for choosing teaching as a career: An international comparison using the FIT-Choice scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 791–805.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.