MOTIVATION FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCE STUDENTS TO
BECOME A TEACHER
Where to focus on in recruiting new teachers?
Master thesis, Msc HRM
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
August 2009
Cynthia So Fan Lam
Supervisor University G.S. van der Vegt
Supervisors / field of study E. Canrinus
& M. Bruinsma
TABLE OF CONTENT
Abstract ……….. 3
1. Introduction……….. ………. 4
2. Theory and hypotheses ……….. ……… 7
2.1. Theory……… ……… 7
2.2. Extrinsic motivation as a predictor of choice for teaching as a career ……….. 8
2.2.1. Working conditions……….. ……… 9
2.2.2. Organizational structure ……… 10
2.3. Intrinsic motivation as a predictor of choice for teaching as a career ……… 11
2.4. Altruistic motivation as a predictor of choice for teaching as a career …..…………. 13
2.5. Task demand ……… 14
2.6. Choice for teaching as a career………... 15
2.7. Importance of motivation factors ……… 15
3. Methodology ……….. 17 3.1. Participants ………... 17 3.2. Procedure ………... ……….. 17 3.3. Measures ……… 18 3.4. Data analysis ………. 21 4. Results………. 21
4.1. Correlations and descriptive statistics ……… 21
4.2. Test of hypothesis ……… 22 5. Discussion ……… 24 5.1. Findings ……….. 24 5.2. Theoretical implications………. …………. 25 5.3. Practical implications………. 26 5.4. Limitations……….. 27
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research is to find out whether the interventions of the Dutch government to recruit new teachers match with the factors actually motivating student teachers. In order to answer this question, this paper examined which motivation factors influence students following the teacher education program at the Centre for Academic Learning and Teaching (UOCG) in choosing a teaching career. A sample of 46 students was tested. Four motivation factors have been discussed. These are extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation, altruistic motivation, and task demand. Moreover, this research investigates whether the importance of these motivation factors moderates the relation between the perceptions of students on the motivation factors regarding a teaching job and the teaching career choice. A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to test the
1. INTRODUCTION
Literature shows that in the early 1980’s the problem with a shortage in teaching staff caught up with many developed and developing countries (Farber, 1991). Nowadays, the teacher shortage is still a problem in the Netherlands. According to the ministry of education, culture and science (2007) it is expected that the teacher shortage is at its peak between 2010 and 2012. For the next 10 years it is expected that 75% of the teaching staff will leave the teaching occupation. This means a total of 47.000 jobs. The reason for this change is that many highly experienced and well educated teachers will retire. In addition, the attractiveness of other jobs because of the blooming economy made the teaching occupation less attractive (Ministry of OCW, 2006). As a consequence of the shortage of well educated teachers, the quality and performance of education is under pressure (Ministry of OCW, 2008). Therefore, it is important for pupils to attract and retain qualified teachers.
The shortage of well educated and motivated teachers will probably get larger, unless a teaching job can be made more attractive to graduates (Serow & Forrest, 1994). Teaching as a career does not seem attractive to many people. Reasons for this are for example: low wages (Hayes, 1990), low status (Hoyle, 1987, 1995; Poppleton, 1999) and highly demanding work (Watt & Richardson, 2007).
To improve the number of graduates choosing a job in teaching it is important to know what factors positively influence students enrolled in the teaching education program (from now on related to as student teachers) in becoming a teacher. Therefore, this paper
as: “To what extent do the interventions of the Dutch government meet the motivation factors of the students who are enrolled in the teaching education program?”
Motivation seems to be an essential part of the choice to become a teacher (Sinclair, Dowson, & Mcinerney, 2006). Therefore, motivation will be discussed first. Motivation is hardly a unitary phenomenon. Persons do not only have different levels of motivation, they have different kinds of motivation as well (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Different types of motivation addresses in this paper are: (1) extrinsic motivation (EM), (2) intrinsic motivation (IM), and (3) altruistic motivation (AM) (Olashinde, 1972; Lortie, 1975, Summerhill and Myrna, 1998; Yong, 1995), since these groups have been highlighted as the most important groups of reasons for deciding to teach (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992). In addition, task demand influences the choice of student teachers for a teaching career as well (Watt & Richardson, 2007). Therefore, this paper discusses these four motivation factors.
First, definitions of these motivation factors are given. EM refers to job elements not inherent to the work itself (Andrews & Hatch, 2002; Bastick, 2000; Kyriacou & Coulthard, 2000). In contrast, IM is defined as the motivation to perform an activity for itself, in order to experience the pleasure and satisfaction inherent in the activity (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989, Vallerand, 1997). Altruistic motives are those that govern an individual’s helping behavior that is beneficial to others, but requires self sacrifice (Kerr, Godfrey-Smith & Feldman, 2004). Al last, task demand refers to the perception of individuals of teaching as a highly demanding career in terms of entailing a heavy workload, and generally requiring hard work (Watt & Richardson, 2007).
Of these four motivation factors, IM and AM are the primary reasons to choose teaching as a career (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992; Brown, 1992; Hayes, 1990). Recent
knowledge, self development, and service to society. The first two are intrinsic, and the last reason can be categorized into altruistic motives.
To find out whether the interventions of the Dutch government fit the motivation factors of the student teachers, the interventions of the government are discussed. Main interventions of the government are: (1) strengthen the teacher occupation: status has to be higher and maintain the quality of the teacher occupation, (2) More professional school: to improve the position of the teachers by offering a better employee policy. Teachers should be more involved by having more rights to say, and teachers have to get more autonomy. The last important intervention is (3) a better reward system for education, performance and experience. Moreover, better career opportunities, and scholarship for extra training. The first two reasons can be categorized into IM, and the last intervention refers to EM.
The topic about motivation is discussed from different views. In this study two theories on motivation are integrated into a broader model. The first theory is about the expectancy-value theory. This theory is one of the major frameworks for motivation
(Atkinson, 1964; Lawler, 1973; Vroom, 1964). The second model is the integrative theoretical model, the FIT-Choice scheme by Watt and Richardson (2007). The FIT-Choice scheme describes the factors that student teachers identified as most important in their decision to teach. These two theories on motivation are discussed in chapter 2.1 and 2.7.
The following section focuses on three major issues. First, the theoretical background for the relation between the four motivation factors: (1) EM, (2) IM, (3) AM, and (4) task
2. THEORY AND HYPOTHESES 2.1 Theory
As mentioned in the introduction, the topic about motivation is discussed from different views. In this study two theories on motivation are integrated into a broader model. The first theory is about the expectancy-value theory.
The expectancy-value framework is the most comprehensive motivational model for explaining academic choices and career choices. Vroom’s (1964) Valence – Instrumentality – Expectancy Model (VIE model) has been the subject of numerous empirical studies. This paper focus on one component of this model, the force model ( ). According to the force model, choice is influenced by “expectancy” and “valence”. Expectancy refers to a subjective probability of an action or effort. In this paper the expectancies are the perception of the student teachers on the motivation factors related to the teaching career choice. Valence is defined as all possible affective orientations towards outcomes, and it is interpreted as the importance, attractiveness, desirability, or anticipates satisfaction with outcomes (Vroom, 1964). In this research “valence” refers to the importance of the motivation factors on the choice for teaching as a career. Paragraph 2.7 discusses “valence” more extensively.
In Eccles et al.’s (1983, 2005a) formulation of expectancy-value theory, values have emerged as the most powerful predictors of choices (e.g. Bong, 2001; Eccles et al. 1983; 1984). As specified by Wigfield & Eccles (1992), values differentiated into the
required completing it. These values are applied in the second model, the FIT-Choice scheme (Watt and Richardson, 2007).
This scheme describes the factors that student teachers identified as most important in their decision to teach. According to the FIT-Choice scheme, the following variables
influence the choice of a teaching career: intrinsic career value, personal utility value, social utility value, task demand, task return, self perception, fallback career, and prior teaching and learning experience. In this scheme Utility value is renamed as social utility, and attainment value is renamed as personal utility value (Watt & Richardson, 2007). Because this paper only investigates values, the first four variables (intrinsic career value, personal utility value, social utility value, and task demand) are discussed.
Other motivation researchers have assessed constructs related to the values mentioned above. Intrinsic value is a similar construct to IM (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991, Harter, 1981). Furthermore, social utility can be tied to the construct of AM. Personal utility value is a similar construct to EM (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Harter, 1981). Finally, the cost value component refers to task demand.
The FIT-Choice scheme only discusses individual constructs. However, organizational structure is believed to affect the behavior of organization members as well (Dalton; Todor; Spendolini; Fiedling & Porter, 1980). Therefore, organizational structure is added in this paper. This will be discussed in the section EM.
In conclusion, this paper investigates four motivation factors which can be categorized into EM, IM, AM, and task demand. Next section discusses these four motivation factors.
2.2 Extrinsic motivation as predictor of choice for teaching as a career
Wanous (1980) states that organizational attractiveness is important for occupational choice. Organizational attractiveness is seen as the fit between the person and the organization (Kristof, 1996). Furthermore, Schneider (1987) posited that individuals are differently
attracted to organizations as a function of their interests, needs, preferences, and personality. Several researchers have found that extrinsic rewards, such as salary, holidays, and job security are important factors in the choice of teaching (Bastick, 2000; Brown, 1992; Yong, 1995). These rewards are part of the working conditions. In addition, Dalton et al. (1980) believe that organizational structure affect the behavior of organization members as well. Therefore, next section discusses working conditions and organizational structure to asses EM.
2.2.1 Working conditions
Low salaries and employment conditions (OECD, 2005; Ramsay, 2000) make
teaching a less attractive career option for potential applicants (Kyriacou & Coulthard, 2000; Ramsay, 2000). Cable & judge (1994) and Rynes & Barber (1990) state that pay policies (reward) permitting organizations to implement pay systems that are attractive for applicants. In addition, these policies permit organizations to distinguish themselves from competitors (Bretz, Ash & Dreher, 1989). Therefore, reward will be discussed first.
Chivore (1988) found that factors belonging to the salaries category were the main attraction to teaching in Zimbabwe. So, salary may positively influence the choice for
teaching as a career. Moreover, besides the fixed salary, the Dutch government wants a better reward system for education, performance, and experience. Therefore, EM will be measured by salary, and by reward for good performance and reward that depends on the length of teaching experience as well.
Keith & Page, (1983) & Yong, (1995) found that teacher entrants have chosen the teaching career for reasons relating to quality of life issues. In addition, a teaching career will offer a secure job. Watt and Richardson (2007) called this personal utility. This refers to the extent to which individuals consider tasks to be important in terms of personal goals. The flexible working hours of a teaching career and the holidays that offer teachers more time for family and traveling are therefore discussed in working conditions.
Summarizing the literature discussed above, offering better working conditions will help a teaching career in becoming more attractive, which might have a positive influence on the choice of student teachers to become a teacher.
Organizational attractiveness is not only assessed by working conditions, but by organizational structure as well. This will be discussed in the next paragraph.
2.2.2. Organizational structure
The FIT-Choice scheme only discusses individual constructs. However, organizational structure is believed to affect the behavior of organization members as well (Dalton et al., 1980). By reducing bureaucracy, by freeing teachers to teach and by focusing on changing the cultural norms that sustain traditional working practices, it is postulated that job satisfaction of teachers will improve (Butt, Lance, Fielding, Gunter, Rayner, & Thomas (2005).
Therefore, besides working conditions, organizational structure has an influence on organizational attractiveness as well.
Four structural variables mentioned in an article written by Sherman and Smith (1984) will be used to measure organizational structure. These variables are standardization,
written policies and rules had been developed to cover activities and operations of the organization. Integration assesses the level of communication between members in the organization (Tichy, Tushman, & Fombrun, 1979). Finally, centralization refers to the extent to which decisions are made by higher levels of an organization (Oldman & Hackman, 1981).
In conclusion, the organization can be made more attractive to student teachers by offering better working conditions and by making the organizational structure more attractive. This might positively influence the choice of student teachers for teaching as a career. The hypothesis for extrinsic motivation is therefore formulated as:
Hypothesis 1a: The more individual student teachers are extrinsically motivated, the more they are willing to choose teaching as a career.
2.3 Intrinsic motivation as predictor of choice for teaching as a career
I hypothesize that the more individual student teachers are intrinsically motivated, the more they are willing to choose teaching as a career. Intrinsic motivation is measured by interest in and desire for teaching, status, and work content.
When individuals are interested in teaching and have a desire to teach, they will experience positive feelings from the work. IM is based on positive values a person instantly experiences from their work tasks(Deci, 1975, Deci & Ryan, 1985; Thomas & Tymon, 1997). These positive experiences serve to get an individual excited, involved, committed, and energized by their work (Thomas & Tymon, 1997). Moreover, these feelings reinforce employees’ self-management efforts and make work personally fulfilling. So, strengthening the task that influence IM helps to create positive feelings and experience (Thomas, 2000).
and the amount of respect reserved for teachers in each society (Biddle, 1995). Therefore, social status of teachers will be discussed.
In the international context, teachers appear to have relatively low status compared to their peers in other major professions. There are assumptions that this relatively low status may be attributable to such adverse social characteristics as lower social origin, female dominance, or the lower academic qualifications of teachers (Hoyle, 1987, 1995; Poppleton, 1999). Moreover, Biddle (1995) suggests that teachers do not attract as much respect as do other more secure professionals.
In contrast, the study by Fwu & Wang (2002) found that teachers in Taiwan enjoy a relatively higher occupational status and an overall greater satisfaction with their jobs than their international counterparts. Therefore, I assume that a higher status of the teacher occupation will lead to more teacher candidates to choose teaching for their career.
Finally, theory suggests that intrinsic work motivation is primarily related to work content variables, such as job autonomy, skill variety and task significance, and the empirical evidence that supports the importance of these relationships (Hackman & Lawler 1971, Hackman & Oldham 1980, Fried & Ferris 1987, Tiegs, Tetrick & Fried, 1992). The FIT-Choice scheme did not discuss these variables. Since intrinsic motivation is related to these work content variables, I will add these variables into the integrated model.
Hackman & Oldman (1975, 1976, 1980) developed this theory into the Job Characteristic Model (JCM). According to the JCM, objective changes to a given job are expected to change how the worker perceives the job along five core job dimensions: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback from the job. The first three dimensions contribute to the meaningfulness of the work. Furthermore, “experienced responsibility” for work outcomes is linked to the presence of “autonomy” in a job. In
who reported higher levels of these five dimensions reported higher levels of satisfaction and internal work motivation. Therefore, IM is discussed more extensively by these five
dimensions in the next paragraph.
The first dimension, skill variety refers to the extent to which the job requires the employee to draw from a number of different skills and abilities as well as upon a range of knowledge. Secondly, task identity refers to the ability to complete the whole job from start to finish. After that, task significance involves the importance of the task. The fourth dimension, autonomy refers to the extent to which workers make decisions in the course of the job. Finally, feedback refers to the extent to which the job itself is able to provide feedback as to how well the worker is doing.
Summarizing the literature discussed above, increasing IM (which is determined by interest, status, and work content) will have a positive influence on individuals in choosing teaching for their career.
Hypothesis 2a: The more individual student teachers are intrinsically motivated, the more they are willing to choose teaching as a career.
2.4 Altruistic motivation as predictor of choice for teaching as a career
I hypothesize that the more individual student teachers are altruistically motivated, the more they are willing to choose teaching as a career.
Studies by Summerhill & Myrna (1998), Hayes (1990), and Robertson et al. (1983) in the United States, Doliopoulou (1985), in Greece and Goh & Atupthasamy (2001) in
Bastick, 2000; Kyriacou & Coulthard, 2000). Watt and Richardson (2007) mention this social utility value. This refers to how a task will be useful to an individual in the future.
I assume that when student teachers who have more social utility value, thus feeling they make a social contribution or give something back to the society in a social way (Book & Freeman, 1986; Brown, 1992; Lortie, 1975; Moran, Kilpatrick, Abbott, Dallat, & McClune, 2001), are more willing to choose teaching as a career.
Hypothesis 3a: The more individual student teachers are altruistically motivated, the more they are willing to choose teaching as a career.
2.5 Task demand as predictor of choice for teaching as a career
I hypothesize that the higher individual student teachers perceive teaching occupation as highly demanding, the less they are willing to choose teaching as a career.
Therefore, I expect that when the workload increases, the attractiveness of the teacher occupation will decrease. As a consequence of this, student teachers are less willing to choose teaching as a career.
Hypothesis 4a: The higher the task demand of the teaching occupation, the less student teachers are willing to choose teaching as a career.
2.6 Choice for teaching as a career
On the right of the conceptual model (see figure 1), the outcome variable “choice of student teachers for teaching as a career” is presented. This variable is defined as the choice of students enrolled in the teaching education program to choose teaching as their career after they have finished the education program.
2.7 Importance of motivation factors
In this study the expectancies are the four motivation factors (EM, IM, AM and task demand) leading to an outcome, choice for a teaching career. These expectancies are the “E” of the Vroom’s force model ( ). Taking into account the literature discussed so far, it seems that there is a linear relation between the perception of the motivation factors and choice for teaching as a career (hypotheses 1a, 2a, 3a and 4a).
According to Vroom’s force model motivation is not only influenced by expectancy, but by valence as well. As mentioned in 2.1, “valence” refers to the importance of the motivation factors on the choice for teaching as a career.
a teacher. The same conceptual framework has been adopted in the research of job satisfaction (McFarlin & Rice, 1992; Staples & Higgins, 1998). Rice et al. (1992) suggest that the
importance that an individual places on job satisfaction factors may have a significant impact on the influence of that factor on job satisfaction.
In conclusion, besides the hypotheses that proposed a linear relation between the motivation factors and the choice (hypotheses a’s), hypotheses with motivation factors as a moderator between the linear relation are formulated as well (hypotheses b’s). Therefore, it is possible to expect that the motivation factors will predict the choice for teaching as a career, but only when these factors are important to the individuals. The hypotheses about the importance of EM, IM, AM and task demand as moderators can be formulated as:
Hypothesis 1b: Importance of extrinsic motivation moderates the relation between perceptions of extrinsic motivation and choice for teaching as a career in such a way that the relation between perceptions of extrinsic motivation and choice for teaching as a career is positive only when importance is high. When importance is low, there will be no relation.
Hypothesis 2b: Importance of intrinsic motivation moderates the relation between perceptions of intrinsic motivation and choice for teaching as a career in such a way that the relation between perceptions of intrinsic motivation and choice for teaching as a career is positive only when importance is high. When importance is low, there will be no relation
as a career is positive only when importance is high. When importance is low, there will be no relation
Hypothesis 4b: Importance of task demand moderates the relation between
perceptions of task demand and choice for teaching as a career in such a way that the relation between perceptions of task demand and choice for teaching as a career is negative only when importance is high. When importance is low, there will be no relation. --- Insert Figure 1 --- 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 Participants
Participants are student teachers who follow the teaching education program at the University Centre for Learning and Teaching (UOCG), and who are registered for the year 2008 – 2009. These students registered for the education program to obtain a first grade certificate. A survey was carried out on 80 students. A total of 48 students filled in the questionnaire, 2 were filled in partially. So a total of 46 completed questionnaires were used for the research, leading to a response rate of 57, 5 %. 21 of the respondents were male, and 25 were female, the age range from 22 to 44, leading to an average of 27, 9.
3.2 Procedure
3.3 Measures
The questions in the questionnaire (see appendix 1) are based on the expectancy-value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 1992) and the FIT-Choice scheme (Watt & Richardson, 2007). The questionnaire included four parts. First, two general questions about age and gender. After these questions, 35 statements about the motivation factors were presented. These statements measure the perceptions of student teachers with respect to the several motivation factors. In addition, there were 4 statements about the choice for teaching as a career, to measure the dependent variable. Finally, 35 statements about the importance of the
motivation factors were included, which measure whether the importance of the motivation factors moderates between the perception of these factors and the choice for teaching as a career.
To test the hypotheses the Fit-Choice scheme developed by Watt and Richardson (2007) and Vroom’s force model (1964) were used as basis. Watt and Richardson (2007) developed statements that concerned the factors which influence the choice for teaching as a career. Items of the FIT-Choice scheme which were important for this research were used. These items concerned: intrinsic career value, personal utility value, social utility value and cost (task demand).
Motivation factors. Participants were asked to evaluate to what extent they agree with the statements about the teaching occupation. These perception questions were divided into 35 statements about EM, IM, AM and task demand. In addition, they had to evaluate statements about the importance of the motivation factors.
formalization, integration, and centralization. Sherman and Smith (1984)asked questions about the organizational structure in a church. These questions were applied to an
organization: (e.g. “There are many standardized processes within a school (organization), that is, planned meetings according to standard patterns”). Higher scores indicate that student teachers were more motivated by EM. Cronbach’s alpha was acceptable (Cronbach’s α = .75). The scores on the 13 items were computed into a mean score.
Intrinsic motivation. This variable was measured by 9 statements about IM. Watt and Richardson (2007) measured interest in and desire for teaching with statements like: “I am interested in teaching”. Furthermore, Hackman and Oldham (1980) developed the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) to measure the work content variables (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback from the job). I applied the questions used in the JDS to an (teaching) occupation, e.g. “The job of a teacher has a lot of variety” and “how important is it for you that a job offers variety?”. IM demonstrated acceptable internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = .75). The higher the score, the more intrinsically motivated the participants are. The scores on the 11 items were computed into a mean score.
Altruistic motivation. AM was measured by 4 statements from the FIT- Choice schema (Watt & Richardson, 2007). E.g. “Teaching will allow me to shape child and adolescent future” and “Teaching will allow me to influence the next generation”. AM demonstrated acceptable internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = .81). The higher the score, the more intrinsic motivated the participants are. The scores on the 4 items were computed into a mean score.
more participants feel that teaching require high task demand. The scores on the 4 items were computed into a mean score.
Choice. The dependent variable was measured by four items. 1) “I will be a teacher when I finished the teacher education”, 2) “I think I am still a teacher after three years”, 3) “I have thought well about becoming a teacher”, and finally 4) “I am satisfied with my choice regarding the teacher education”. The “choice” measure demonstrated acceptable internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = .76). Question 3 was deleted, because this item did not
discriminate well with the other items of the variable “Choice”. The scores on the other 3 items were computed into a mean score.
Importance. For measuring the importance of the motivation factors, the same questions with respect to the motivation factors were asked, but in the way of “how important”. For example for EM:“How important is it for you that a job is well paid?”. Appendix 1 shows all the statements grouped under the groups mentioned before.
The strength of agreement considering the statements on motivation factors were measured on a Likert – type scale ranging from “1” (strongly disagree) to “7” (strongly agree). The same scale was used for the questions concerning the importance of the
motivation factors, which range from “1” (totally unimportant) to “7” (very important). This likert scale is chosen, because Watt & Richardson (2007) used the same scale for the FIT-Choice scheme.
3.4 Data analysis
After the Cronbach’s Alpha was measured, the hierarchical regression analysis was conducted. This analysis took place in two steps. First, the variable “choice” was entered in the dependent variable block. In addition, standardized scores of the motivation factors and its importance were entered in the first independent block. In order to prevent multicollinearity between the independent variables, standardized scores were used. The second step was to enter the interaction between the “perception questions” and the “importance questions” in the second independent block (e.g. interaction between average extrinsic motivation and its importance).
4. RESULTS 4.1 Correlations and descriptive statistics
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and correlations between the variables of this study. Based on the mean of the importance questions, student teachers ranked
intrinsic motivation (5.15) the highest, followed by altruistic motivation (5.03) and finally extrinsic motivation (4.75). This confirms outcomes of the literature study in the first part. In additional, results show positive relations between the perception of the motivation factors and its importance (IM, AM and task demand), however there is no correlation for the perception of EM and its importance. In addition, as the results presented in table 1 show, several motivation factors correlate with each other. The strongest correlations were between the factors “importance of IM” with “importance of EM” (.64). Followed by the correlations between EM with IM (0.63), AM with EM (0.59), and EM with AM (0.55).
--- Insert Table 1
4.2 Test of hypothesis
To further investigate whether the importance of the motivation factors moderates the relation between the perceptions of the motivation factors and choice for a teaching career, a hierarchical regression analysis has been conducted. The results of this analysis are
summarized in table 2.
--- Insert Table 2
---
Table 2 presents the results of the hierarchical regression analysis. Hypothesis 1a stated that the more individual student teachers are extrinsically motivated, the more they are willing to choose teaching as a career. The results in table 2 support hypothesis 1a. The results for EM is significant (β = 0.32, p<0.05).
As table 2 shows, the results for IM is significant as well (β =0.37, p< 0.05). The results support hypothesis 2a. This hypothesis stated that the more individual student teachers are intrinsically motivated, the more they are willing to choose teaching as a career.
Contrary to my reasoning, AM does not seem to be relevant in explaining student teachers choosing teaching as a career. The results do not support hypotheses 3a, which stated that the more individual student teachers are altruistically motivated, the more they are willing to choose teaching as a career. The regression results for AM is not significant (β =-0.19, p > 0.05).
The results neither support hypothesis 4a, which stated that the higher the task demand of the teaching occupation, the less student teachers are willing to choose teaching as a career. The regression analysis results for task demand is not significant (β =-0.22, p>0.05).
as a career is positive only when importance is high. This hypothesis is not supported by the results. As can be seen in table 2, the result for the interaction variable (EM x Importance EM) is not significant (β =0.26, p>0.05).
Hypotheses 2b is concerned with the moderating effect of IM on the relation between the perception of IM and its importance. This hypothesis is also not supported by the results of the regression analysis. This hypothesis stated that importance of IM moderates the relation between perceptions of IM and choice for teaching as a career in such a way that the relation between perceptions of IM and choice for teaching as a career is positive only when
importance is high. As in table 2 is presented, the result for the interaction variable (IM x Importance IM) is not significant (β =0.81, p>0.05).
Hypotheses 3b is concerned with the moderating effect of AM on the relation between the perception of AM and its importance. According to the results of the regression analysis, AM is significant (β =0.07, p<0.05). Contrary to what I expected, it can be seen in figure 2 that the more important altruistic motivation is perceived, the less students will choose teaching as a career. This is strange, I will return to this problem in the discussion section.
--- Insert Figure 2
---
Table 2 presents the results of the moderation effect between the perception of work pressure and its importance. These results support hypothesis 4b, which stated that
as a career. When work pressure is not an important factor for student teachers, there is no relation between the perception of work pressure and choice for teaching as career.
--- Insert Figure 3
--- 5. DISCUSSION
5.1 Findings
The purpose of this research is to find out whether the interventions of the government to recruit new teachers match the factors actually motivating student teachers. In attracting new teachers it is important to know why student teachers want to become a teacher. Therefore, motivation to become a teacher seems to be an essential factor (Sinclair et al., 2006). This research investigated which motivation factors influence the choice for teaching as a career the most. In addition, it has been investigated whether the importance of a factor moderates on the relation between the perception of the motivation factors and its importance.
As table 1 show the mean of the motivation factors, student teachers evaluate IM as most important (5.15), second AM (5.03) and finally EM (4.75). As expected, results of the hierarchical multiple regression (table 2) show that both perceptions of EM and IM have a positive effect on the occupational choice of a student teacher. However, both EM and IM do not depend on the importance of these motivation factors. So, student teachers who
considered EM and IM not to be an important characteristic were also more willing to choose teaching as a career when the perception of EM or IM is high.
Contrary to my expectations, AM and task demand do not have any influence on the choice of becoming a teacher. However, there was an effect on the relation between
importance of task demand is low, there is no relation. Furthermore, figure 2 presents the moderation affect for AM. It can be seen that the more important AM is perceived, the less students will choose teaching as a career (see figure 2).This is strange, it is expected that the more important AM is perceived, the more student teachers will choose teaching for their career. This result might be explained by the small sample size (N=46).
5.2 Theoretical implications
The main contribution this research made to the understanding of the way student teachers choose for a career as teacher is the introduction of the moderating effect of the relative importance on one of the factors. Rice et al (1991) and Staples & Higgings (1998) researched this moderating effect on job satisfaction, but I could not find any study on a similar topic which examined whether the importance which a student teacher attributes to the motivation factors influence the choice of teaching as a career.
In order to fill this gap, I studied literature to identify what the most important motivation factors are in influencing teacher students to choose teaching as a career. As Watt and
Richardson (2007) state that different motivation factors influence teaching choice, I reduced these factors in three main headings. These are EM, IM and AM factors (Olashinde, 1972; Lortie, 1975; Summerhill & Myrna, 1998).
1987, Tiegs, Tetrick & Fried, 1992). Theory suggests that intrinsic work motivation is primarily related to work content variables, such as job autonomy, skill variety, task significance, task identity, and feedback from the job. Therefore these variables are also added into the integrated model.
After defining the motivation factors, it has been examined whether the importance that student teachers attribute to these motivation factors influence the relationship between the perception of the motivation factors on the teaching job and the choice for teaching as a career. As this research shows, two of the four motivation factors (altruistic motivation and task demand) show that the importance may have an influence on the teaching choice.
This research provides evidence that importance does have an impact on occupational choice for teaching. When an individual thinks the motivation factor is important, this person will base the decision on the perceptions of how much the desired factor(s) is (are) present at the organization. When the motivational factor is not important, it will not have any influence on the teaching choice.
5.3 Practical implications
In order to gain better view on how to recruit new teachers, the government should set interventions which fit the motivation factors which are important to new student teachers. As the government wants to offer a more professional school by offering better employee policy, she should carry on with this policy. When teachers are more involved, by having more rights to say, and having more autonomy, they will be more intrinsic motivated, which student teachers think that is the most important. In addition, the government wants to strengthen the teacher occupation, by increasing the status and maintaining the quality of the teacher
this research shows, the more student teachers are intrinsically motivated, the more they are willing to choose teaching as a career.
AM is also important for student teachers. Although results do not support the hypotheses on AM, this motivation factor seems to be important. The results of the
hierarchical regression analysis show that AM ranked as second important (see table 1). In addition, AM moderates the relation between the perception of AM and its importance, however, this relation is negative.
In an article written by Richardson & Watt (2006) the government tries to recruit new teachers through a campaign that portrays teaching as an intellectually demanding,
cognitively stimulating career that enables individuals to realize their abilities and talents. It might be useful that the government runs a campaign which focuses on altruistic motives, but only when this seems important for student teachers. The next section discusses the limitation of this research on AM.
Although, results show that EM is evaluated less important compared to intrinsic and altruistic motives, it is important as well. This research shows that the more individual student teachers are extrinsically motivated, the more they are willing to choose teaching as a career (hypothesis 1a). Therefore, the government can make the teaching occupation more attractive by offering a better reward system.
5.4 Limitations
that increasing levels of resources, staffing and better working conditions would make a significant contribution to a reduction in workload and an increase in job satisfaction for teachers.
Furthermore, the findings of this study can only be generalized to the students of the Teaching and Learning Centre Groningen (UOCG) who are enrolled in the education program to get a first grade certificate. In addition, the sample size was small (N = 46), therefore, it cannot be generalized to the other student teachers in other teacher training programs in the Netherlands. Moreover, the negative relation of the moderating effect of AM might be explained by the small sample (N=46). In order to make this research more reliable more students throughout the Netherlands have to fill in the questionnaire.
Finally, the shortages of teachers are not only teachers of secondary school, but also teachers of primary school. Literature states that there is a difference between teachers on primary and secondary schools. Book & Freeman (1986) showed different reasons for teaching according to elementary entering teacher candidates and secondary candidates. Therefore, this research could extend to primary schools as well to recruit new teachers.
5.5 Suggestions for further research
This study could be replicated to involve student teachers from other teacher education programs in other teacher training colleges in the Netherlands in order to provide further support for generalization of the findings. Researchers might also be interested to investigate the influence between the motivation factors, like the influence of better working conditions or status on workload.
However, the variable of prior experience on teaching choice scored an average of 4.77 on a 7 – point likert scale for the student teachers. More research on this variable could say more about the motives of student teachers to choose teaching as a career. In addition, it is also important to investigate the moderating effect of this variable.
REFERENCES
Adler, P.S. 1991. Workers and flexible manufacturing systems: three installations compared. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12: 447 – 460.
Andrews, P. & Hatch, G. 2002. Initial motivations of serving teachers of secondary mathematics. Evaluation and Research in Education, 16 (4):185–201.
Atkinson, J.W. 1964. An introduction to motivation. Princeton, N.J. Van Nostrand. Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. 2003a. Dual processes at work in a call centre: An application of the Job Demands-Resources model. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 12: 393-417.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., De Boer, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. 2003b. Job demands and job resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 62: 341 – 356.
Bastick, T. 1999. A three factor model to resolve the controversies of why trainees are motivated to choose the teaching profession. Biennial Cross Campus Conference in
Education, St. Augustine, Trinidad.
Bastick, T. 2000. The measurement of teacher motivation: Cross-cultural and gender comparison. Annual Meeting of the Society for Cross-Cultural Research, New Orleans.
Biddle. B.J. 1995. Teachers’ role. International Encyclopedia of Teaching and
Teacher Education, (2nd ed.): 61 – 67. New York, Elsevier Science Inc.
Bong, M. 2001. Role of self efficacy and task-value in predicting college students’ course performance and future enrollment intentions. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 26: 553 – 570.
Bretz. R.D., Ash. R.A. & Dreher, G.F. 1989. Do people make the place? An examination of the attraction – selection – attrition hypothesis. Personnel Psychology, 42: 561 – 581.
Brookhart, S.M. & Freeman, D. J. 1992. Characteristics of entering teacher candidates.
Review of Educational Research, 62 (1): 37 – 60
Brown, M.M. 1992. Caribbean First – Year Teachers’ reasons for Choosing Teaching as a Career. Journal of Education for Teaching, 18 (2): 185 – 195.
Butt, G., & Lance, A. 2005. Secondary Teacher workload and job satisfaction: Do successful strategies for change exist? Educational Management Administration and
Leadership, Belmans, 33 (4): 401 – 422.
Butt, G., Lance, A. ,Fielding, A., Gunter, H. , Rayner, S. & Thomas, H. 2005. Teacher job satisfaction: lessons from the TSW Pathfinder Project. School Leadership and
Management, 25 (5): 455-471.
Cable, D.M. & Judge, T.A. 1994. Pay preferences and jog search decisions: A person – organization fit perspective. Personnel Psychology, 47: 317 – 348.
Calder, B.J. & Staw, B.M. 1975. The self-perception of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31: 71 – 80.
Carpenter, H.H. 1971. Formal organizational structural factors and perceived job satisfaction of classroom teachers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 460-465.
Chivore, B.S.R. 1988. A review of factors that determine the attractiveness of teaching profession in Zimbabwe. International Review of Education, 34 (1): 59 – 77.
Dalton, D.R., Todor, W.D., Spendolini, M.J, Fielding, G.J. & Porter, L.W.1980. Organization structure and performance: A Critical Review. Academy of Management
Review, 5(1),49-64.
Deci, E.L. 1975a. Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation ans self – determination in
human behavior. New York: Plemum
Deci, E. L., ConnelI, J. P. & Ryan, R. M. 1989. Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 580-590.
Deci, E.L., Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.C. & Ryan, R.M. 1991. Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Education Psychologist, 26: 325 – 346.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. 2001a. The job demands-resources model of burnout, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 499-512.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., De Jonge, J., Janssen, P.P.M. and Schaufeli, W.B. 2001b, Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control, Scandinavian
Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 27: 279-86.
Doliopoulou, E. 1995. The motives for the selection of the teaching profession by future kindergarten teachers and the factors which form their later opinion of their profession.
International Journal of Early Childhood, 27 (1): 28 – 33.
Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., et al. 1983. Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and
achievement motivation. San Francisco: Freeman.
Eccles, J.S., Adler, T.F. & Meece, J.L. 1984. Sex differences in achievement: A test of alternate theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46: 26 – 43.
Eccles, J. S. 2005a. Studying gender and ethnic differences in participation in math, physical science, and information technology. New Directions in Child and Adolescent
Eccles, J. S. 2005. Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Handbook of competence and motivation, New York: Guilford.
Farber, B.A. 1991. Crisis in education: stress and burnout in the American teacher. San Fransisco: Jossey - Bass Inc.
Feldman, R.S. 1993. Understanding Psychology (3rd ed.). USA: Mc Graw – Hill. Fwu, B.J. & Wang, H.H. 2002. The Social Status of Teachers in Taiwan.
Comparative Education, 38 (2):211-224. Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Fried, Y. & Ferris, G.R. 1987. The validity of the job characteristics model: a review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40: 214–249.
Gerhart, B. & Milkovich, G.T. 1990. Organizational differences in managerial
compensations and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 663 – 691. Goh, K.C. & Atupthasamy, L. 2001. Teacher education in Singapore: What motivates students to choose teaching as a career? National Institute of Education, Singapore.
International Educational research Conference. University of Notre Dame, Fremantle, Western Australia.
Hackman, J.R. & Lawler, E.E., 1971. Employee reactions to job characteristics.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 55 (3): 259–286.
Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R., 1975. Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (2):159–170.
Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R., 1976. Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250–279.
Harter, S. 1981. A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Motivational and informational components. Development Psychology, 17: 300 – 312.
Hayes, S. 1990. Students’ reasons for entering the educational profession. Research
Report. Oklahoma: North – Western Oklahoma State University.
Hoyle, E. 1987. Teachers' social backgrounds. The International Encyclopedia of
Teaching & Teacher Education. New York, Pergamon Press.
Hoyle, E. 1995. Social status of teaching. International Encyclopedia of Teaching
and Teacher Education (2nd ed.),58 – 61. New York, Elsevier Science Inc.
Jansen, E. & Bruisma, M. 2007. Duale trajecten en zij instroom; studiemotieven en ervaringen van studenten van de lerarenopleiding in hun praktijk. Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap.
Johnson, S. 1986. Incentives for teachers: What motivates, what matters. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 22(3): 54–79.
Kerr, B., Godfrey – Smith, P. & Feldman, M.W. 2004. What is altruism?. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19 (3).
Kristof, A.L. 1996. Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49: 1-49.
Kyriacou, C. & Coulthard, M. 2000. Undergraduates’ views of teaching as a career choice. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26(2):117–126.
Lawler, E.E. 1973. Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole.
Lievens, F., Decaesteker, C. & Coetsier, P. 2001. Organizational attractiveness for prospective applicants: A person – Organisation Fit perspective. Applied psychology: An
Lortie, D.C. 1975. School – Teacher: A sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Marshall, D. 1986. Student teachers motivations for choosing teaching as a career.
Teacher Education, 29:75–83.
McFarlin, D.B. & Rice, R.W. 1992. The Role of facet Importance as a Moderator in Job Satisfaction Processess. Journal of organizational behavior, 13 (1): 41 – 54.
Moran, A., Kilpatrick, R., Abbott, L., Dallatt, J. & McClune, B. 2001. Training to tach: Motivation factors and implications for recruitments. Evaluation & Research in
Education, 15: 17 – 32.
Mihans, R. 2008. Can Teachers lead teachers? Delta Kappan, 89 (10): 762-765. Nwagwu, N. 1981. The impact of changing conditions of service on the recruitment of teachers in Nigeria. Comparative Education. 17 (1), 81-94.
Olashinde, M.O. 1972. An analytic study of the Motives of Primary School Teachers for Choosing Teaching as a Career. Journal of Teacher Education, 23 (2).
Oldman, G.R. & Hackman, J.R. 1981. Relationships between organizational structure and employee reactions: Comparing alternative frameworks. administrative Science
Quarterly, 26, 66-83.
O’Reily, C.A. & Caldwell, D.F. 1980. Job Choice: The impact of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on subsequent satisfaction and commitments. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 65: 559 – 565.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2005. Teachers matter:
Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development.
Poppleton, P. 1999. Leading from behind: a comparative view of the proposed reform of teacher training, Journal of Educational for Teaching, 25 (3): 233 – 245.
Ramsay, G. 2000. Quality matters. Revitalising Teaching: Critical times, critical
choices. Report of the review of teacher education. Sydney: Australia: NSW Department of
Education and Training.
Richardson, P.W. & Watt, H.M.G. 2006. Who chooses teaching and why? Profiling characteristics and motivations across three Australian universities. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Teacher Education, 34 (1): 27 – 56.
Robertson, S., Keith, T. & Page, E. 1983. Now who aspires to teach? Educational
Researcher, 12 (6): 13 – 21.
Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25:54 – 67
Rynes, S.L. & Barber, A.E. 1990. Applicant attraction strategies: An organizational perspective. Academy of Management Review, 15: 286 – 310.
Sherman, J.D. & Smith, H. L. 1984. The influence of organizational structure on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 27 (4): 885 – 892.
Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437 – 453 Serow, R. & Forrest, K. 1994. Motives and circumstances: Occupational change experiences of prospective late – entry teachers. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10 (5): 555-563.
Sinclair, C., Dowson, M. & Mcinerney, D.M. 2006. Motivations to Teach: Psychometric Perspectives Across the First Semester of Teacher Education. Teachers College Record, 108 (6): 1132 – 1154.
Staples, D.S. & Higgins, C.A. 1998. A study of the impact of factor importance weightings on job satisfaction measures. Journal of business and Psychology, 13 (2).
Thomas, K.W. 2000. Intrinsic Motivation at Work: Building Energy and
Commitment, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
Thomas, K.W. & Tymon, W.G. Jr .1997. Bridging the motivation gap in total quality,
Quality Management Journal, 4 (2): 80-96.
Tichy, N. M., Tushman, M. L. & Fombrun, C. Social network analysis for organizations. Academy of Management Review, 1979, 4, 507 - 519
Tiegs, R.B., Tetrick, L.E. & Fried, Y. 1992. Growth need strength and context satisfactions as moderators of the relations of the job characteristics model. Personnel
Psychology, 43: 467–500.
Treiman, D.J. 1977. Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspective. New York, Academic Press.
Vallerand, R. J. 1997. Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Adv. Experiment. Soc. Psych, 29: 271–360.
Vrielink, S., Kloosterman, R. & Kessel, N. 2004. Arbeidssatisfactie in de loopbaan. Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap.
Vroom, V.H. 1966. Organizational choice: A study of pre- and post-decision processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1: 212 - 225.
Vroom, V.H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964.
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 (3): 167 – 202. Heldref Publications.
Wanous, J.P. 1980. Organizational entry, Recruitment, selection, and socialization of newcomers. Reading, MA: Addison – Wesley.
Yong, B. 1995. Teacher Trainees’ Motives for entering Into a Teaching Career in Brunei, Darussalam. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2 (3).
Electronic sources:
Ministry of Culture, Education & Science, 2007.
http://www.minocw.nl/actueel/nieuws/35225/Nota-Werken-in-het-Onderwijs-2007.html
Ministry of Culture, Education & Science, 2008.
http://www.leerkrachtvannederland.nl/download_actieplan
Ministry of Culture, Education & Science, 2009
FIGURE 1: CONCEPTUAL MODEL
(1a) Extrinsic Motivation Factors (+) - Working conditions
- Organizational structure
(1b) Importance of Extrinsic Motivation Factors
(2a) Intrinsic Motivation Factors (+) - Interest and desire
- Work content - Status
(2b) Importance of Intrinsic Motivation Factors
(3b) Importance of Altruistic Factors
(4a) Task Demand (-)
(3a) Altruistic Motivation Factors (+) - Make social contribution
(4b) Importance of Task Demand
FIGURE 2: Importance of AM as moderator between perception of AM and choice teaching as career Plots of interactions 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
FIGURE 3: Importance of work pressure as moderator between perception of work pressure and choice teaching as career Plots of interactions 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perceived as low Perceived as high Perceptions of work pressure
C h o ic e t e a c h in g a s c a re e r
TABLE 1
Means, standard deviation and Pearson correlations between study variables
TABLE 2
Results of Regression Analysis
Step Variable Model 1 Model 2
1 Perception EM .20 .32 * Importance EM -.12 -.15 2 Perception EM X .26 Importance EM R2 .05 .10 ∆R2 .05 1 Perception IM .36* .37* Importance IM -.20 -.18 2 Perception IM X .81 Importance IM R2 .10 .10 ∆R2 .00 1 Perception AM -.05 -.19 Importance AM .23 .23 2 Perception AM X .07* Importance AM R2 .04 .12 ∆R .08
1 Perception Work pressure - .21 -.22
Importance Work pressure -.02 .03
2 Perception work pressure X .05*
Importance work pressure
R2 .05 .13
∆R2 .08
APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE Beste student,
Ik studeer HRM aan de RUG en ik ben bezig met mijn Master Thesis. Ik schrijf over het docententekort in Nederland. Voor het Universitair Onderwijscentrum Groningen doe ik onderzoek naar de motivatie van de studenten die de lerarenopleiding volgen. Ik ga onderzoeken wat de motivatiefactoren van potentiële docenten zijn. Deze enquête maakt deel uit van dit onderzoek. Uw medewerking zal kunnen bijdragen aan meer inzicht in de oplossingen voor het docententekort in Nederland.
De enquête bestaat uit twee onderdelen. Het eerste onderdeel bestaat uit stellingen die betrekking hebben op motieven voor het
docentschap. Het tweede onderdeel bestaat uit vragen over de belangrijkheid van de motivatiefactoren. Geef aan in hoeverre u het met de stellingen eens bent en in hoeverre deze voor u van belang zijn. Uw antwoorden en gegevens zullen anoniem verwerkt worden. Voor een goed onderzoek vraag ik om uw medewerking. Het invullen van de enquête neemt ongeveer 10 minuten van uw tijd in beslag. U zou mij er enorm mee helpen. Ik vraag u vriendelijk de enquête in te vullen.
Voor vragen of meer informatie over het onderzoek kunt u een mail sturen naar C.S.F.Lam@student.rug.nl
Bij voorbaat hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking.
Met vriendelijke groet
Cynthia Lam
Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Wat is uw leeftijd? ……….. jaar
Geef aan in hoeverre u het met de volgende stellingen over motivatie eens bent.
Zeer mee
Zeer mee
De antwoordmogelijkheden variëren van 1 (zeer mee ONEENS) tot 7 (Zeer mee EENS) ONees EENS
Extrinsieke motivatie factoren 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Het docentschap verdient goed
4. Docenten worden naar hun prestaties beloond
5. Docenten worden op basis van hun ervaring beloond
6. Docenten hebben veel vrije tijd
7. Het beroep van docent biedt de mogelijkheid om veel te reizen
8. Als docent heb je de keus om overal te gaan wonen
9. Docenten krijgen gegarandeerd een baan
10. Het docentschap levert een betrouwbaar inkomen op
11. Het docentschap biedt voldoende scholingsmogelijkheden
Intrinsieke Motivatiefactoren
12. Het docentschap heeft een hoge status
13. Het docentschap is een gerespecteerd beroep
14. Docenten worden als ‘professionals’ gezien
15. Ik ben zeer geïnteresseerd in onderwijzen
16. Ik heb altijd al docent willen worden
17. Het docentschap biedt variëteit in het werk aan (verschillende taken, dmv verschillende vaardigheden)
18. Het docentschap staat docenten toe leerlingen te onderwijzen met als resultaat dat zij
na 1 jaar door kunnen gaan naar de volgende klas
19. Onderwijzen beïnvloed anderen op een belangrijke wijze
20.
Het docentschap geeft docenten de verantwoordelijkheid om te beslissen hoe en wanneer zij hun taken willen uitvoeren
21. Het docentschap biedt mogelijkheden aan dat docenten feedback op hun werk krijgen
22. Het docentschap biedt leidinggevende taken aan
Altruistieke Motivatiefactoren
23. Door het onderwijzen kan ik de waarden van kinderen en jongeren helpen vormen
24. Via het onderwijs kan ik de volgende generatie beïnvloeden
Zeer mee Zeer mee ONeens EENS Organisatie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27.
Binnen scholen zijn er veel gestandaardiseerde processen (bv geplande vergaderingen volgens vaste patronen)
28. Binnen scholen is er veel formalisatie ( bv. Docenten moeten zich veel aan geschreven regels houden)
29.
Binnen scholen is er veel integratie ( bv. Er is veel communicatie tussen docenten over taken m.b.t. het onderwijzen)
30. Scholen zijn gecentraliseerd ( beslissingen worden alleen op het hogere niveau genomen)
Geef aan in hoeverre u het met de volgende stellingen m.b.t. de werktaak eens bent
31. Ik vind dat het docentschap een zware werkdruk met zich meebrengt
32. Ik vind dat onderwijzen naast de officiële werktijden ook wat van mijn vrije tijd kost
33. Ik vind dat het docentschap hard werken betekent
34. Ik vind dat het docentschap veel inspanning vereist
Geef aan in hoeverre u met de volgende stellingen m.b.t. eerdere leer- en onderwijservaring eens bent.
35. Inspirerende docenten uit het eerdere onderwijs hebben invloed op mijn docentschapkeuze
36. Goede docenten als rolmodellen uit het eerdere onderwijs hebben invloed op mijn docentschapkeuze
37. Positieve leerervaringen uit het eerdere onderwijs hebben invloed mijn docentschapkeuze
Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen m.b.t. de keus voor het docentschap.
38. Ik ben van plan om na de lerarenopleiding docent te worden
39. Ik denk dat ik over 3 jaar (nog steeds) docent ben
40. Ik heb goed nagedacht om na de lerarenopleiding docent te worden
Dit onderdeel bestaat uit vragen over de belangrijkheid van de motivatiefactoren.
Geef aan in hoeverre de volgende motivatiefactoren voor u van belang zijn. De antwoordmogelijkheden variëren van
Zeer
Onbelangrijk Zeer
Belangrijk 1 (ZEER ONBELANGRIJK) tot 7 (ZEER BELANGRIJK).
Hoe belangrijk is het voor u dat: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
42. dat een baan goed verdient?
43. een baan naast het vaste salaris naar prestatie beloond wordt?
44. een baan naast het vaste salaris naar ervaring beloond wordt?
45. een baan veel vrije tijd biedt?
46. een baan u ruimte biedt om te gaan reizen?
47. een baan u toelaat om overal te kunnen gaan wonen?
48. u zekerheid heeft in uw baan?
49. een baan u een betrouwbaar inkomen oplevert?
50. een baan u voldoende scholingsmogelijkheden biedt?
Hoe belangrijk is het voor u dat:
51. uw beroep een hoge status heeft?
52. uw beroep gerespecteerd wordt?
53. u in uw beroep als "professional” wordt gezien?
54. u interesse hebt in uw baan?
55. u een baan hebt die u altijd al wilde hebben?
56.
een baan verschillende vaardigheden (kennis en vaardigheden m.b.t. onderwijzen) eist?
57. een baan de mogelijkheid biedt om een taak van begin tot eind af te ronden?
60. u binnen uw baan feedback op uw werk krijgt?
61. een baan leidinggevende taken aanbiedt?
62. een beroep u toelaat om waarden van kinderen en jongeren helpen vormen?
63. een beroep u toelaat om de volgende generatie te beïnvloeden?
64. een baan ervoor zorgt dat u iets voor de samenleving kunt betekenen?
65. u een baan hebt waarmee u met kinderen en/of jongeren kunt werken?
Zeer Zeer
Vragen m.b.t. de organisatie
ONbelangrijk Belangrijk
Hoe belangrijk is het voor u dat: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
66. de organisatie niet gestandaardiseerd is (bv. Dat er geen processen zijn vastgelegd)?
67. de organisatie niet te veel aan de geschreven regels houdt?
68.
binnen de organisatie goed tussen de leden gecommuniceerd wordt over de taken die uitgevoerd moeten worden?
69. u betrokken wordt bij belangrijke beslissingen?
Vragen m.b.t. werkdruk
70. een baan geen zware werkdruk met zich meebrengt?
71. een baan alleen de werktijden kost en niet ook nog eens uw vrije tijd?
72. een baan geen hard werk vereist?
73. een baan niet teveel inspanning vereist?
Vragen m.b.t. eerdere leer- en onderwijservaring
Hoe belangrijk is het voor uw keuze om docent te worden dat:
74. U zelf inspirerende docenten in het eerdere onderwijs heeft gehad?
75. U zelf goede docenten als rolmodellen in het eerdere onderwijs heeft gehad?
76. U zelf positieve leerervaringen in het eerdere onderwijs heeft gehad?
77. U inspirerende coaches heeft (gehad) tijdens de lerarenopleiding?
78.
U goede docenten als rolmodellen heeft (gehad) tijdens de stages op de lerarenopleiding?
79.
