Increasing globalisation, where people are inextricably linked and education transcends local boundaries, draws attention to the need for teachers to reflect on their knowledge, skills and attitudes in order to meet today's challenges. Teachers are increasingly expected to broaden their professional and global awareness through their own cultural and international experiences (Fuchs, Snyder & Tung, 2022; Mesker et al., 2018). Transnational professional awareness is becoming increasingly important, especially due to the growing diversity of societies. The European Commission (2020) also points to the need to increase the internationalisation of teacher education and to enable teachers to be more mobile. It is already known that, compared to other professions, teachers are still less likely to take the opportunity to go abroad, even though studies show that virtual exchanges alone can benefit teachers' general professional skills, teaching skills and student-centred approach (Nissen & Kurek, 2020).

On the basis of Wang and Klassens’ (2023) and Wang and Hall’s (2019) work, it seems plausible to assume that teachers' career choices, and thus decisions about whether to take advantage of internationalisation opportunities for professional development, are driven by teachers' values. Schwartz (1992) defines values as 'concepts or beliefs about desirable end states or actions that transcend particular situations, guide the selection or evaluation of actions and events, and are ordered by relative importance' as stable personal characteristics that guide behaviour and predict persistence (Schwartz, 1992, p. 4; Schwartz, 2017). Thus, utility values can be expected to influence teachers' career choices (e.g., retention, migration, or attrition) in general, as well as teachers' perceptions, particularly regarding their fit in the school environment, which further correspond to their subsequent (...) intentions and decisions." (Wang & Klassen, 2023, p. 4). Often, two main utility values are distinguished by asking to what extent teachers perceive their work as helpful in realising their personal and/or socially oriented utility values (Klassen et al., 2021; Watt & Richardson, 2007).  The personal utility value, such as job security, autonomy, or prestige, and/or (b) the social utility value, such as making a social contribution, helping students, or networking with colleagues. We can assume that teachers who are more socially oriented and whose decisions regarding professional development are driven more by social benefits are also more likely to show openness towards an experience abroad, while teachers for whom the realisation of personal goals is more important are less likely to have a mobility experience.

Thus, in this article, we analyse the relationship between teacher values and the use of international mobility. The analyses presented makes a contribution to discourses in which the question of the perceived benefits and importance (utilities) that influence teachers' career decisions, is highlighted as a research gap (Wang & Klassen, 2023, p. 3). Based on secondary analyses of data from the Teaching and Learning International Survey 2018 for 20 European participant countries, we investigate the following questions: 

Can differences in the frequency of use of international mobility be explained by social or personal utility values? Does a comparison of European education systems reveal different patterns of relationships?

For the analysis, we use data from the Teacher and Learning International Survey 2018 (TALIS 2018) for lower secondary school teachers working in 23 different countries, of which 20 are members of the European Education Council (nteacher=73080). We conduct descriptive statistics and linear regression analysis using the IEA IDB Analyzer and SPSS to ensure correct estimation of the measures, taking into account the complex sampling and study design. A sum score (0-5; MEU=0.75; SE=0.01) was calculated as a dependent variable, which reflects the frequency with which international mobility is utilised in various contexts (during studies, as a professional development, to accompany pupils, to establish school partnerships or as part of national or regional delegations). A combination makes sense, as the overall frequency of use was rather low (EU average for no mobility: 54 %) and there were country-specific differences in the focus of time use and organisational frameworks. At 75 %, short-term mobilities were the most common. As independent variables we use the following four scales, which were constructed by the international study management and checked with regard to their measurement properties and international comparability (see OECD, 2019). For each scale, the expectation maximisation algorithm was used to compute a scale score, with a standard deviation of 2.0 and a mean of 10 (see OECD, 2019): Personal Utility motivation to teach (MEU= 10,8; SE= 0,01; How important were the following for you to become a teacher?; 4 Items; e.g. “teaching was a secure job.” 4 categories; ωall countries > .7); Social Utility motivation to teach (MEU= 12,2; SE=0,01; How important were the following for you to become a teacher?; 3 Items; “Teaching allowed me to benefit the socially disadvantaged”; 4 categories, ωall countries > .7); To test the hypothesis regression models were calculated in which first the two utility scales were regressed separately (model 1) and then jointly (model 2) on the frequency of use of international mobility. Incomplete data records were removed (listwise deletion, the data loss can be rated as low (4%; nteacher=70025).

For model 2, we find significant regression coefficients for 14 countries: negative coefficients for personal utility motivation for 5 countries (Cyprus, Malta, Netherlands, Romania, Turkey); significant positive coefficients for social utility motivation for 9 countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden). No differences can be explained in 9 countries. Differences between different subgroups of teachers (e.g. modern language teachers vs. others). In all countries the model only explains little variance (R²< .05). Low overall mobility rates as well as the different operationalisation of mobility can be possible explanations. It is striking that personal utility values represent a pull factor, especially in contexts in which mobility is structurally associated with comparatively high costs. This suggests that social value orientations may only play a role in selected contexts. This is relevant as there are obviously other factors that can be considered as push and pull factors for mobility. Since it is repeatedly emphasised that experiences abroad go hand in hand with higher self-efficacy in multicultural classrooms, there is a need for research on possible correlations between utility values and mobilities in relation to self-efficacy experiences in multicultural classrooms. Other contextual factors, such as structural conditions in education, financial opportunities and reliance on financial support programmes, may also play a role.

European Commission (2020). Achieving a European Education Area by 2025 and Resetting Education and Training for the Digital Age. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/ detail/en/ip_20_1743 . Fuchs, C., Snyder, B. & Tung, B. (2022). “The value of mediation for task design and implementation in a US-China VE.” Journal of VE 5 (SI–IVEC2021): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.21827/jve.5.38197. Klassen, R. M., Rushby, J. V., Durksen, T. L., & Bardach, L. (2021). Examining teacher recruitment strategies in England. Journal of Education for Teaching, 47, 163-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2021.1876501 Mesker, P., Wassnik, H., Akkerman, S., Bakker, C. & Chen, D. (2018). Student teacher’s boundary experiences during an international teaching internship.” Cogent Education 5 (1): 1498577. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1498577. Nissen, E. & Kurek, M. (2020). The Impact of Virtual Exchange on Teachers’ Pedagogical Competences and Pedagogical Approaches in Higher Education. https://research.rug.nl/en/pub lications/the-impact-of-virtual-exchange-on-teachers-pedagogical-competence. OECD (2019), TALIS Starting Strong 2018 Technical Report, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0921466e-en. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65. Schwartz, S. H. (2017). The refined theory of basic values. In S. Roccas, & L. Sagiv (Eds.), Values and behavior (pp. 51-72). Springer. Wang, H., & Hall, N. C. (2019). When “I care” is not enough: An interactional analysis of teacher values, value congruence, and well-being. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, Article 102906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102906 Wang, H. & Klassen, R. M. (2023). Longitudinal relationships between teachers’ utility values and quitting intentions: A person-organization fit perspective, Teaching and Teacher Education, 127, Article 104109, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104109. Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P.W. (2007). Motivational factors influencing teaching as a career choice: Development and validation of the FIT-Choice scale. The Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 167e202. https://doi.org/10.3200/ JEXE.75.3.167-202