The motivations for prospective students' decision to study for a teaching degree are an important predictor for the development of professional competence: In particular, intrinsic motivations for choosing a degree programme have proven to be statistically significant predictors of students' strategy use, study satisfaction (Künsting et al., 2013; Wach et al., 2016), lower burnout and higher career optimism (McLean et al., 2019), learning goal orientation, general pedagogical knowledge (König et al, 2018) as well as the quality of teaching in internships of student teachers (Biermann et al., 2018). Furthermore, in the long term they are also positively related to pedagogical competence and satisfaction in the teaching profession (Hanfstingl & Mayr, 2007).

For being able to understand these results more comprehensibly, often a distinction is made between intrinsic, extrinsic and altruistic study choice motivations (e.g. Brookhart & Freeman, 1992). In the meantime, there are also instruments that additionally differentiate between different intrinsic (e.g. subject-specific interest, pedagogical interest), extrinsic (e.g. job security, time for family) and altruistic (e.g. shape future of children, make social contribution) motivations for choosing teaching as a career (e.g. Pohlmann & Möller, 2010; Watt et al., 2012). Empirical studies harking back to this differentiation point out: In absolute terms, intrinsic and altruistic study choice motivations are more pronounced among student teachers than extrinsic ones (Glutsch & König, 2019; Lin et al., 2012; Pohlmann & Möller, 2010; Watt et al., 2012), although there are also significant differences between different countries (Goller et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2012) as well as between different subject domains of student teachers (Glutsch & König, 2019).

In addition to these results, cross-curricular studies, which also include students who are not studying for a teaching degree, document differences between the study choice motivations of students of different subjects, but usually only on the basis of single items (e.g. Neugebauer, 2013). However, there are no explicit studies on differences in the motivation of applicants for a teacher training programme compared to applicants for other programmes, which were conducted using standardised and reliable questionnaire scales. This article addresses this desideratum and discusses the following research question:

Do applicants for a teacher training programme differ in their study choice motivations from applicants for other study programmes?

In summer 2019, a sample of N=593 applicants at Leuphana University of Lueneburg (440 female, 108 male, 1 diverse, 44 not specified), aged between 17 and 37 years (M=20.04, SD=1.23), participated in a survey on study choice motivations. Of these, 253 candidates applied for a teacher training programme (hereafter “teachers”) and 340 for another study programme (hereafter: ''non-teachers''). Study choice motivations were assessed by a questionnaire (paper-pencil, with five-level Likert scales), which was based on the questionnaires to determine motivations for choosing a teacher training programme by Pohlmann & Möller (2010, FEMOLA) and Watt et al. (2012, FIT-Choice Scale). As these questionnaires are designed for student teachers, some wordings have been adapted (e.g. "later" instead of "as a teacher") so that students of all study programmes could answer them. In this way, the following scales were administered: Utility (“to be financially secure later”), make social contribution (“to make a worthwhile social contribution later"), subject-specific interest (“because I enjoy studying the contents of these subjects”), low difficulty of the study (“because this degree programme isn't so exhausting”), ability beliefs (“because I'm pretty good at these subjects”), career aspiration (“because I'm interested in a certain profession”), local and social influences (“because I believe that my family and friends think this course is the most suitable for me”). A principal component analysis of this questionnaire with varimax rotation yields seven factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, which confirms the theoretically assumed factors and explains 60% of the variance. The seven scales have (with one exception) a good reliability: Utility (6 items, Crombach’s α=.88), make social contribution (4 items, α=.85), subject-specific interest (4 items, α=.70), low difficulty of the study (3 items, α=.72), ability beliefs (2 items, α=.72), career aspiration (2 items, α=.76), local and social influences (4 items, α=.58). Due to the poor internal consistency, "local and social influences" is not considered further in the results.

Teacher students and non-teacher students differ significantly in all measured study choice motivations (utility: t(588.59)=14.19, p<0.001; make social contribution: t(579.69)=6.04, p<0.001; subject-specific interest: t(461.40)=-5.04, p<0.001; low difficulty of the study: t(523.38)=2.74, p=0.006); ability beliefs: t(581)=7.17, p<0.001; career aspiration: t(433.54)=21.26, p<0.001). This corresponds to large effects for the motives "career aspiration" (Cohens’ d=1.54, teachers: M=4.87, SD=0.46, non-teachers: M=3.68, SD=0.94) and "utility" (d=1.12, teachers: M=3.85, SD=0.65, non-teachers: M=2.95, SD=0.90), average effects for "ability beliefs" (d=0.60, teachers: M=4.14, SD=0.57, non-teachers: M=3.79, SD=0.59) and small effects for "make social contribution" (d=0.48, teachers: M=4.43, SD=0.57, non-teachers: M=4.08, SD=0.83), "subject-specific interest" (d=-0.44, teachers: M=4.51, SD=0.46, non-teachers: M=4.69, SD=0.36) and "low difficulty of the study" (d=0.23, teachers: M=2.20, SD=0.68, non-teachers: M=2.05, SD=0.64). This study once again highlights that, in absolute terms, intrinsic and altruistic study choice motivations receive higher acceptance ratings from applicants for teacher training programmes than extrinsic ones. In comparison with other study programmes, this study also shows that the motivation of applicants for teacher training is based more on career aspirations and utility considerations (such as financial security and time for family) and less on subject-specific interests than among applicants for other study programmes. The results (relatively high professional and relatively low subject interest) should be discussed critically, especially with regard to the concrete contents and structures of university teacher training programmes in the interest of supporting the professional development of future teachers as good as possible.

Biermann, A., Dörrenbächer-Ulrich, L., Grassmé, I., Perels, F., Gläser-Zikuda, M., & Brünken, R. (2019). Hoch motiviert, engagiert und kompetent: Eine profilanalytische Untersuchung zur Studien- und Berufswahlmotivation von Lehramtsstudierenden: Nutzung von Lerngelegenheiten und Kompetenzen im Praktikum. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 1–13. Brookhart, S. M., & Freeman, D. J. (1992). Characteristics of Entering Teacher Candidates. Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 37–60. Glutsch, N., & König, J. (2019). Pre-service teachers’ motivations for choosing teaching as a career: Does subject interest matter? Journal of Education for Teaching, 45(5), 494–510. Goller, M., Ursin, J., Vähäsantanen, K., Festner, D., & Harteis, C. (2019). Finnish and German student teachers’ motivations for choosing teaching as a career. The first application of the FIT-Choice scale in Finland. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 235–248. Hanfstingl, B., & Mayr, J. (2007). Prognose der Bewährung im Lehrerstudium und im Lehrerberuf. Journal für Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung, 7, 48–56. König, J., Drahmann, M., & Rothland, M. (2018). Motivprofile von Studierenden zu Beginn der Lehrerbildung: Anwendung und Validierung eines personenzentrierten Ansatzes in Deutschland und Österreich. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 8(2), 153–171. Künsting, J., Billich-Knapp, M., & Lipowsky, F. (2013). Profiles of strain coping at the beginning of a teacher education program at the university. Journal for Educational Research Online, 4(2), 84–119. Lin, E., Shi, Q., Wang, J., Zhang, S., & Hui, L. (2012). Initial motivations for teaching: Comparison between preservice teachers in the United States and China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 227–248. McLean, L., Taylor, M., & Jimenez, M. (2019). Career choice motivations in teacher training as predictors of burnout and career optimism in the first year of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 204–214. Neugebauer, M. (2013). Wer entscheidet sich für ein Lehramtsstudium – und warum? Eine empirische Überprüfung der These von der Negativselektion in den Lehrerberuf. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 16(1), 157–184. Pohlmann, B., & Möller, J. (2010). Fragebogen zur Erfassung der Motivation für die Wahl des Lehramtsstudiums (FEMOLA). Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 24(1), 73–84. Wach, F.-S., Karbach, J., Ruffing, S., Brünken, R., & Spinath, F. M. (2016). University Students’ Satisfaction with their Academic Studies: Personality and Motivation Matter. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. 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.