The teacher education in Denmark is an education that has been reformed again and again. In connection with the 2013 teacher training, admissions interviews were held with all applicants who have below 7.0 in upper secondary school average. The results of an evaluation study indicate that the admissions interviews have contributed to reducing the dropout from teacher training among students admitted via quota 2 (EVA, 2017). There is only motivation that says something with some certainty about the student teachers' dropout probability (EVA, 2017). Over time, there is a decreasing number of first-priority applicants for teacher training (apart from the year 2020), and there is a relatively high dropout rate from teacher training compared to other major professional training programs. It is therefore important to attract skilled and motivated students and to retain them in the education and in teaching.

With the 2013 reform of teacher training, a significant change followed in the relationship between vocational colleges and schools regarding the responsibility for student teachers' teaching practice. Until then, the teacher education program was responsible for the quality and quantity of the student teacher's practice, but after 2013 the school became an equal educational partner for the implementation of the student teacher's three practice modules. Since the reform, the schools have been obliged to draw up a plan, which the university of applied sciences must approve, for the content and structure of the student teacher's progress and results within the three modules, based on the modules' competence targets. The university of applied sciences' teachers supplement the guidance from the school's staff and participate in the investigation of student teachers' reflections on their practice module. However, available resources to ensure systematic contact between teacher educators from the vocational colleges and the schools' practice supervisors are not extensive.

This article focuses on study intensity. The use of time in higher education has in several countries become an increasingly important area in the debate about good education. The basis for the goal of increased study intensity is the desire for better teacher training (Goldhaber, 2019; Goldhaber, Liddle & Theobald, 2013). The quality of the teacher's work with teaching and guidance has a significant impact on student learning (Gansle, Noell & Burns, 2012; Chetty, Friedman & Rockoff, 2014).  Spending time in study work is a prerequisite for dedicated learning in campus-based teaching. For this reason, we argue that study intensity is an important prerequisite for campus-based teaching to work well.

The purpose of this article is to investigate what kind of factors are statistically associated with study intensity in the campus-based part of teacher education. In this article, study intensity means the student teacher's time spent on teacher training and indicates the sum of the student's activities devoted to their studies: lectures/ group teaching/ guest lecture, dialogue-based teaching, study groups and individual study work. There is an obligation to attend the internship, but not in the campus teaching. The study intensity can therefore vary from student to student. We limit ourselves to some factors that are partly about the student teachers' motivation and self-discipline, but also about how the student teachers perceive the demands and the pressure that the study gives. The latter is connected with the fact that the development group points to a changed learning culture so that all students experience being met with high expectations (through formal requirements, more teaching hours and feedback, etc.).We assume that a student teacher's study intensity depends on the student teacher's internal factors - motivation and self-discipline - as well as how the student teacher perceives the demands made.

This study is part of a research project that studies the quality dimensions of teacher education in the Nordic countries. In order to investigate and test the four hypotheses, we have carried out a quantitative questionnaire survey. The questionnaire was sent to Danish student teachers at vocational colleges in 2017. The analyzes are based on responses from 1224 student teachers from four different campuses in Jutland. In the survey, student teachers responded on a seven-point Likert scale. The indicators (Table 1) had previously been validated in a similar study in Norway and Finland

The coefficient for students' self-discipline is significant, and the value 0.31 indicates that the correlation between self-discipline and time-on-task is moderately strong. External academic pressure (han) is somewhat weaker (0.14) associated with study intensity, but still statistically significant. On the other hand, intrinsic motivation is only weakly (0.06) associated with study intensity. The coefficient for self-determined extrinsic motivation is also weak (0.03). Neither the coefficient for intrinsic motivation nor extrinsic motivation is significantly related to study intensity. A main result of this study is that the students' self-discipline stands out by being clearly statistically linked to the students' study intensity (time spent in study work). External academic pressure is somewhat more weakly associated with study intensity than self-discipline, but it is there. Since much of the teaching takes place in teacher-led teaching, the individual teacher in the campus teaching has opportunities to build relationships with the student teachers. This relationship can be useful for student teachers to make an effort to fulfill the teacher educator's expectations of high study intensity (Kim & Schallert, 2011). In other words, this relationship may have an impact on whether student teachers' self-discipline is triggered in critical moments when student teachers may be tempted to low effort. Therefore, we believe that strategies to strengthen relationships and create closeness between teacher and student can be useful strategies to increase study intensity. Self-discipline can also be seen as a characteristic of the individual student teacher. On the other hand, there are several studies that show that self-discipline can be practiced and that it is influenced by how student teachers perceive the requirements of an education. A limitation is that we do not have variables dealing with the quality of campus teaching itself. We acknowledge this limitation and suggest that this be part of future research.

Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(5), 28-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718403500507 Baumeister, R., & Tierney, J. (2011). Willpower: Rediscovering the greatest human strength. Penguin. Blickle, G. (1996). Personality traits, learning strategies, and performance. European Journal of personality, 10(5), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199612)10:5<337::AID-PER258>3.0.CO;2-7 Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1069-1077. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1069 Bruch, S. K., & Soss, J. (2018). Schooling as a formative political experience: Authority relations and the education of citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 16(1), 36-57. https://doi 10.21913/jps.v5i1.1483 Calderhead, J. (1991). The nature and growth of knowledge in student teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(5-6), 531-536. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(91)90047-S Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Rockoff, J. E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. The American Economic Review, 104(9), 2633-2679. https://doi: 10.1257/aer.104.9.2633 Diseth, Å., Mathisen, F. K. S., & Samdal, O. (2020). A comparison of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation among lower and upper secondary school students. Educational Psychology, 40(8), 961-980. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1778640 Duckworth, A. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. Scribner. EVA (2017). Effekten af optagelsessamtaler på læreruddannelsen. Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut. Gansle, K. A., Noell, G. H., & Burns, J. M. (2012). Do student achievement outcomes differ across teacher preparation programs? An analysis of teacher education in Louisiana. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 304-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112439894 Gettinger, M. (1986). Issues and trends in academic engaged time of students. Special Services in the Schools, 2(4), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1300/J008v02n04_01 Goldhaber, D. (2019). Evidence-based teacher preparation: Policy context and what we know. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(2), 90-101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118800712 Goldhaber, D., Liddle, S., & Theobald, R. (2013). The gateway to the profession: Assessing teacher preparation programs based on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 34, 29-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.01.011 Grossman, P. L. (1989). Learning to teach without teacher education. Teachers College Record, 91(2), 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146818909100201 Hampson, S. E. (2012). Personality processes: Mechanisms by which personality traits “get outside the skin”. Annual review of psychology, 63, 315-339. https://doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100419 Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2020). Education, knowledge capital, and economic growth. The economics of education, 171-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815391-8.00014-8 Kim, M., & Schallert, D. L. (2011). Building caring relationships between a teacher and students in a teacher preparation program word-by-word, moment-by-moment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(7), 1059-1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.05.002 Kline, R. B. (2005). Principle and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guildford Press.