Assessing the professional identity of primary student teachers: Design and validation of the Teacher Identity Measurement Scale

Studies in Educational Evaluation 64 (2020) 100822

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Studies in Educational Evaluation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/stueduc

Assessing the professional identity of primary student teachers: Design and validation of the Teacher Identity Measurement Scale☆

T

Fadie Hannaa,b, , Ron Oostdama,b, Sabine E. Severiensc, Bonne J.H. Zijlstraa ⁎

a

Research Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Centre for Applied Research in Education (CARE), Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands c Department of Psychology, Education and Child Studies, Faculty of Social Science, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands b

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Second-order factor analysis Identity theory Teacher identity Primary student teachers Measurement scale

This study aimed to design and validate the Teacher Identity Measurement Scale (TIMS) for assessing primary student teachers’ professional identity. Based on identity theory and a systematic review into quantitative instruments of teacher identity, teacher identity was decomposed in four first-order constructs: motivation, selfimage, self-efficacy, and task perception. This resulted in a measurement scale consisting of 46 items. The factorial design was examined by administering the TIMS to first- and second-year primary student teachers. In phase 1, involving 17 students, qualitative scale development methods were used to assess the construct validity. In phase 2, its second-order factor structure was tested and confirmed among a sample of 211 students. In phase 3, this structure was cross-validated among a new sample of 419 students. The instrument may contribute to understanding primary student teacher’s professional development and can be used as a tool to support the process of developing a professional teacher identity.

1. Introduction Both researchers and teacher educators in the field of primary teacher education recognize the importance of supporting the teacher identity of student teachers (cf. Nias, 2002). Research shows that teachers with a strong and stable teacher identity deal better with professional identity tensions (e.g. Hong, Greene, & Lowery, 2017; Pillen, den Brok, & Beijaard, 2013), provide better guidance to the socialization process of school children (Nias, 2002), and cope more rapidly with occurring social and curricular educational developments (Lasky, 2005). Additionally, various researchers suggest that a solid teacher identity results in higher emotional involvement and enthusiasm at school (Rots, Aelterman, Devos, & Vlerick, 2010; Zembylas, 2003). To provide support for the development of the professional identity (Nias, 2002), teacher education could benefit from a quantitative instrument for assessing student teachers’ professional identity. Such an instrument can be used to explore developmental patterns in teacher identity among student teachers and may function as a pedagogical tool to provoke discussion with and among student teachers about their professional development. Over the last two decades at least, 20 instruments have become

available (Hanna, Oostdam, Severiens, & Zijlstra, 2019a), most instruments have been designed and piloted within secondary education (e.g., Hasinoff & Mandzuk, 2005; Masoumpanah & Zarei, 2014). As a result, existing tools are less suited to assess the professional identity of primary teachers' teachers and to design appropriate support for this specific target group (Hanna et al., 2019a). Although the overall psychometric properties of existing instruments are considered acceptable to good, none of them measure teacher identity itself directly and present a comprehensive score of teacher identity (Hanna et al., 2019a). For instance, the questionnaire of Canrinus, Helms-Lorenz, Beijaard, Buitink, and Hofman, (2012) investigates teacher identity by analyzing how four indicators—self-efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation, and commitment—are related to each other, whereas the instrument of Beijaard, Verloop, and Vermunt, (2000) assesses whether the domains didactical, pedagogical, and subject matter expertise are associated with each other. However, the capability of these instruments to measure the second-order construct teacher identity remains unclear (Hanna et al., 2019a). As a result, it is difficult for researchers and practitioners to evaluate, present, and discuss this construct as parsimonious as possible (cf. Little, 2013).

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Corresponding author at: Research Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 15776, NL-1001 NG Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail address: [email protected] (F. Hanna). ☆ ⁎

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.100822 Received 21 March 2019; Received in revised form 16 September 2019; Accepted 7 October 2019 0191-491X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Studies in Educational Evaluation 64 (2020) 100822

F. Hanna, et al.

1.1. Conceptualization of teacher identity

1.3. Present study

Teacher identity has been conceptualized from various perspectives, including Erikson’s theory of identity (Friesen & Besley, 2013), Bourdieu’s theory of social capital (Hasinoff & Mandzuk, 2005), and the possible selves theory (Chong & Low, 2009). Each perspective resulted into different terminology, such as role anticipation, occupational values, and feelings of intrinsic satisfaction. Similar to recent qualitative studies (e.g., Van der Want et al., 2018), the identity theory perspective (Brenner, Serpe, & Stryker, 2018; Burke & Stets, 2009) was used in the present study to understand the nature of teacher identity. Unlike used theories, identity theory explicitly supports quantitative measures of teacher identity and the possibility to conceptualize teacher identity as a second-order construct. At the heart of identity theory lies the idea that teacher identity is pre-existing and, as such, that it is not entirely self-generated and/or new. The process of developing a teacher identity results from an “ongoing and organized context and learning about the organization through socialization” (Burke & Stets, 2009, p. 34). This socialization provides the contours of what it means to be a teacher. Student teachers create professional identities that more or less already existed, and are to a large extend comparable to that of their peers. Professional teacher identity is considered as a role identity (cf. Brenner et al., 2018), the part of an individual that takes on, becomes and preserves the role of a teacher (cf. Burke & Stets, 2009). Teacher identity is understood as a socially shared and coherent set of meanings that define the particular professional role of teachers. In other words, each meaning reflects a small part of what teacher identity is. In general, these meanings can be any psychological construct—e.g., beliefs, attitudes—as long as they have the potential to guide teacher's behavior, thoughts, or emotions.

The first aim of this study was to design and validate the Teacher Identity Measurement Scale (TIMS) which is an instrument intending to measure the professional identity of primary student teachers. Such an instrument can be used by researchers, for instance, in repeated quantitative measurements to expose patterns in the development of professional identity among student teachers. This offers possibilities to examine relations between teacher identity and other constructs, such as professional identity tensions (Hong et al., 2017) and emotional involvement (Nias, 2002). These relations have been theoretically hypothesized, but not yet investigated empirically (e.g., Hanna, Oostdam, Severiens, & Zijlstra, 2019b). Knowledge about the development of teacher identity in relation to other constructs may also be of interest for primary teacher education institutions to support their students. To date, primary teacher education institutions mainly relied on knowledge obtained by studies carried out within a secondary education setting, rather than research focusing on teacher identity within primary school settings (Nias, 2002). When institutions for primary teacher education are able to support and manage the development of their student’s teacher identity this may increase their learning and enthusiasm for the profession (Nias, 2002), which in time, may decrease the risk of burnout and dropout during training or shortly after graduating (Hong, 2010). Burnout and dropout are in many other Western countries jeopardizing the quality of education (Den Brok, Wubbels, & Van Tartwijk, 2017). The second aim of this study was to contribute to the empirical debate about teacher identity by suggesting that teacher identity is made up of the underlying domains motivation, self-image, self-efficacy, and task perception (Author et al., 2019a). Although not explicitly referring to identity theory, previous research has investigated various set of meanings—also referred to as components, dimensions, domains or indicators (e.g., Beijaard et al., 2000; Canrinus et al., 2012; Cheung, 2008; Schepens et al., 2009). However, whereas different meanings of teacher identity have been distinguished, it is not clear to what extent they are related to and collectively represent the second-order construct teacher identity (Hanna et al., 2019a). In the present study, therefore, both first-order correlations and second-order factors of various meanings representing teacher identity were evaluated. For assessing primary student teachers’ professional identity, the Teacher Identity Measurement Scale (TIMS) was designed and validated. Following identity theory, teacher identity was finally decomposed in four relevant domains: motivation, self-image, self-efficacy, and task perception. Established methods for scale development were followed (e.g., DeVon et al., 2007; Kline, 2011). In a first phase, the construct validity of the instrument was qualitatively examined. In phase 2, its second-order factor structure was tested among a sample of 211 students. In phase 3, this structure was cross-validated among a new independent sample of 419 student teachers.

1.2. Domains of teacher identity Based upon a review study about instruments measuring teacher identity a set of meanings of teacher identity was identified (Hanna et al., 2019a). Despite the wide variety of conceptualizations and instruments of teacher identity, the review uncovered that some conceptualizations were similar or closely related. More specifically, the analysis of available instruments revealed that the following six domains represent the set of meanings for teacher identity: (1) motivation (Why am I teaching?; e.g., Starr et al., 2006), (2) self-image (How do I see myself as a teacher?; e.g., Abu-Alruz & Khasawneh, 2013), (3) selfefficacy (How capable do I believe I am to organize and perform my daily teaching activities?; e.g., Canrinus et al., 2012), (4) task perception (What is my task as a teacher?; e.g., Schepens, Aelterman, & Vlerick, 2009), (5) commitment (How committed am I to the profession; e.g., Cheung, 2008), and (6) job satisfaction (How satisfied am I with my job; e.g., Hong, 2010). For student teachers the domains job satisfaction and commitment can be considered as not meaningful. Job satisfaction refers to the way teachers feel about the school or institution they work for (Canrinus et al., 2012). The construct relates to an “emotional state” derived from a job experience at a particular school (cf. Menon & Athanasoula-Reppa, 2011). Given the fact that student teachers do not yet have an appointment, this domain is not meaningful in relation to their professional development. The domain commitment is often understood as being dedicated to the profession of being a teacher (cf. Abu-Alruz & Khasawneh, 2013). This domain mainly focuses on teachers’ commitment to the school or institute they are working. Since student teachers have explicitly opted for teacher education, commitment to the profession seems self-evident and commitment to an employer is not at issue. Substantially, commitment-related characteristics that can be considered important for the professional development of student teachers, such as engagement and willingness to become a teacher (cf. Nias, 2002; Stanley, Vandenberghe, Vandenberg, & Bentein, 2013), are generally not associated with commitment but with motivation (Hanna et al., 2019a).

2. Method 2.1. Participants and procedure This research involved data collection from two independent samples of primary student teachers. For the first data collection students were recruited from three primary teacher education institutions across the Netherlands. For the second data collection primary student teachers were recruited from four institutes, three of which are the same as in sample one. Managers of institutes were contacted in advance for permission to cooperate. All respondents—student teachers—that participated in this research provided informed consent. Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Review Board of the Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences. After reading and signing the informed consent, the measurement instrument was administered online during planned sessions at the institutions. The sessions were under the supervision of a 2

Studies in Educational Evaluation 64 (2020) 100822

F. Hanna, et al.

Table 1 Summary of samples’ characteristics. Sample 1 (absolute numbers and percentages)

Sample 2 (absolute numbers and percentages)

Academic year First Second

101 (48%) 108 (53%)

409

Sex Men Women

36 (17.2%) 173 (82.8%)

111 (26.5%) 308 (73.5%)

18% 82%

Educational background: Pre-university education Higher prevocational education Vocational education

89 (37.8%) 90 (43.1%) 40 (19.1%)

68 (16%) 252 (60%) 99 (24%)

10% 50% 40%

teacher educator and a researcher and took on average 20 min. Sample 1. In May and June 2017, we conducted a survey among 209 first- and second-year primary student teachers. This is approximately 78% of all first- and second-year student teachers in the three institutions. Most students who did not completed the measurement instrument were ill or had overlapping appointments. The sample characteristics—academic year, gender, and educational background—are presented in Table 1. In general, this first sample appeared to be representative in terms of sex (see Geerdink & de Beer, 2013). However, the percentage of pre-university graduates was three times higher than the national average of 10% (see Educational Council, 2013). This high percentage is explained by the fact that one of the three institutions is only accessible for students with a pre-university educational background. Sample 2. In November and December 2017, we conducted a second survey research among 419 first year student teachers. This was almost 70% of all first-year students of the four institutes. As in sample 1, absence was mainly due to illness or double appointments. In Table 1 the characteristics of the second sample are shown. Equal to the national average percentages, most student teachers—73.5%—of this sample are female (see Geerdink & de Beer, 2013). In this second sample, the percentage of pre-university graduates was one and a half times higher than the national average of 10%, whereas the percentages of vocational graduates were almost two times lower than the national average of 40% (see Educational Council, 2013). A reason for these differences might be found in the increasing effort of institutions in that particular year to attract more students with a pre-university graduate educational background, while at the same time current governmental policies make teacher institution less easily accessible for those with a

National average (percentages)

vocational educational background (cf. Snoek, Van der Rijst, Van Verseveld, Tigelaar, & Van Driel, 2015). 2.2. Measurement instrument Based on the outcome of the systematic review study (Hanna et al., 2019a), four of the six domains as identified, were ultimately included in the TIMS: motivation, self-image, self-efficacy, and task perception. For each domain items were selected from published and well-validated Likert-scale instruments applied in earlier research on teacher identity (see Appendix A in Hanna et al., 2019a). Two or three scales were selected to conceptualize the underlying theoretical construct of a particular domain of teacher identity to achieve good substantive coverage and to enable confirmatory factor analysis (cf. Little, 2013). In case no Dutch version of a measuring scale was available, items were translated into Dutch using the standard procedure of translation and back translation (cf. Sperber, 2004). If necessary, items were rephrased or adapted to the Dutch situation, or new items were added in order to measure certain aspects of teacher identity more accurately. We refer to Table 2 for an overview of the used scales and the modifications of these scales. Motivation was measured by eight items from the Dutch translation of the FIT-CHOICE scale (Watt & Richardson, 2007; translated by Fokkens-Bruinsma & Canrinus, 2012). This measurement instrument is most frequently used in international research on professional development of teachers and is widely validated along large cohorts in comparison with other available instruments (Richardson & Watt, 2016). The scale consists of an initial question ‘State briefly your main reason/s for choosing to become a teacher’ followed by several

Table 2 Overview of selected scales and modifications. Domains of teacher identity

Original instrument

Subscales

Modifications

Motivation (7-point Likert scale)

Dutch version of the FIT-Choice scale originally developed by Watt and Richardson (2007) and translated by Fokkens-Bruinsma and Canrinus (2012). Teacher identity in physicians scale originally developed by Starr et al. (2006).

Intrinsic Career Value (5 items) Working With Children (3 items) Global Teacher Identity (4 items) Belonging to a Community of Teachers (4 items) Efficacy for student engagement (4 items) Efficacy for instructional strategies (4 items) Efficacy for classroom management (4 items) Perception on education (10 items) Perception on teaching (8 items)

We added two items.

Self-Image (5-point Likert scale) Self-efficacy (5-point Likert scale)

Dutch version of the teachers sense of self-efficacy scale originally developed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) and translated by Mainhard et al. (2008).

Task Perception (5-point Likert scale)

Dutch version of the Views on Education originally developed by Denessen (1999).

3

We translated the items from the English language to Dutch language. No modifications were made.

We rephrased the items to a more first person perspective.

Studies in Educational Evaluation 64 (2020) 100822

F. Hanna, et al.

statements to be rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not important; 7 = extremely important). From this instrument two subscales were selected—–‘intrinsic career value’ (n = 3) and ‘work with children’ (n = 3)—that cover most components of teacher motivation distinguished in quantitative studies into professional identity (Hanna et al., 2019a). The subscale ‘intrinsic career value’ covers the components ‘intrinsic interest value’ of Hong (2010) and ‘intrinsic value identity’ of Zhang, Hawk, Zhang, and Zhao (2016). The subscale ‘work with children’ covers the component ‘feeling intrinsic satisfaction’ of Starr et al. (2006). However, due to the relatively low reliability of the subscale ‘intrinsic career value’ in the Dutch context (α = 0.49; see FokkensBruinsma & Canrinus, 2012) some items were rephrased. For example, a statement ‘because I like teaching’ was rephrased in ‘because I like teaching on a primary school’. Furthermore, two statements were added to the intrinsic career value scale: ‘because I like to teach primary school children’ and ‘because I like to have my own class’. Therefore, in the current study the ‘intrinsic career value’ subscale consist of five items. Self-Image was measured by the Teacher Identity in Physicians Scale (Starr et al., 2006). This instrument emerged from our review as most reliable and most extensively validated compared to others (Hanna et al., 2019a). This instrument measures to what extent an individual perceives oneself as a teacher and consists of eight statements to be rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Two subscales were selected that cover components related to how and in what way individuals view and feel themselves as teachers: ‘Global Teacher Identity’ (n = 4) and ‘Belonging to a Community of Teachers’ (n = 4). Example statements concerning global teacher image and belonging to a community of teachers are respectively ‘I see myself as a teacher’ and ‘I feel part of a community of teachers’. Because there was no Dutch version available, the statements were translated from English to Dutch by two authors of this manuscript. Both translations were compared by two other researchers until consensus was reached. Finally, the statements were back translated to English by a native English speaker and checked by all authors. Self-efficacy was measured by the short version of the Teachers Sense of Self-efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001), which was translated into Dutch by Mainhard, Brekelmans, Wubbels, and den Brok, (2008). The instrument is widely used and validated in research on professional development of teachers in different countries (Zee & Koomen, 2016). The instrument consists of 12 items to be scored on a 5point Likert scale (1 = not at all ; 5 = very much) measuring the extent to which teachers believe in their capability to organize and execute daily teaching tasks (Bandura, 1997), divided over three subscales ‘engagement’ (n = 4), ‘instructional strategies’ (n = 4), and ‘classroom management’ (n = 4). Example items of these three subscales are respectively: ‘How much can you do to help your students value learning?’, ‘To what extent can you use a variety of assessment strategies?’, and ‘How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom?’. Task perception was measured by items from the instrument Views on Education (Denessen, 1999). Items measure beliefs of individuals about teaching and education on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree; 5 = totally agree). This instrument proved to be reliable and valid (Hanna et al., 2019a). Based on content analyses, the 50 statements were assigned to two subscales labelled ‘perception of education’ (‘I find order and discipline important in my classroom’) and ‘perception of teaching’ (‘In addition to my teaching duties, I also have a task as an educator’). This division is similar to aspects of task perception distinguished by researchers (e.g., Biesta, 2013; Kelchtermans, 2009). For each part, Denessen presents statements that are more or likely about ‘the way teachers define their job’ and ‘what they perceive as the purpose of education’. In this vein, the two most common task perceptions are covered, i.e., ‘perception of education’ and ‘perception of teaching’.

Subsequently, a choice was made between items that were similar in terms of formulation and/or content. The item that best captured the teacher belief was included. This resulted in ten items measuring perception of education and eight items measuring perception of teaching. Finally, following Canrinus’ suggestion (personal communication, November 16, 2016), the 18 statements were rephrased by using first person sentences due to her experiences in using the instruments among student teachers. On generally formulated questions such as ‘Most important task of education is to teach student social skills’ almost all students in her research responded totally agree, while an “I”-perspective formulation such as ‘I consider my most important task to teach students social skills’ provoked more pronounced discrimination in scoring patterns. In a follow-up phase, the complete first version of the TIMS was presented to a group of experts in the field of teacher education to evaluate the content, length, and comprehensiveness of the instrument (cf. DeVon et al., 2007). All experts reported that the selected four domains indeed collectively cover elemental sets of meanings concerning the professional identity of student teachers. One expert suggested to add the domain ‘professional agency’ often defined as “teacher’s capacity to critically shape their responses to challenging situations” (Biesta & Tedder, 2006, p.11). Otherwise stated, the concept agency denotes the quality of engagement of teachers with others and their environment and is not considered as an identity-related characteristic (cf. Priestley, Biesta, & Robinson, 2013). Additionally, the concept of agency is rather intertwined with constructs such as motivation and self-efficacy (see also the questionnaire of Heikonen, Pietarinen, Pyhältö, Toom, & Soini, 2017). Therefore, in concordance with the results of the systematic review of quantitative studies (Hanna et al., 2019a), agency was not included as a separate characteristic of teacher identity in TIMS. In a subsequent phase four student teachers were requested by cognitive interviewing to talk out loud about their thoughts during reading and answering items (cf. Desimone & Le Floch, 2004). The results revealed that most items were interpreted as intended. Only some items containing difficult words, such as interdisciplinary, were rephrased based on the feedback of the students. Finally, 13 student teachers completed the TIMS online without supervision and were asked to report on their levels of concentration during the administration (cf. Hertzog, 2008). To keep respondents concentrated a progress bar was added for enabling respondents to track their own progress. All students were able to complete the TIMS without supervision in about 15 min. These steps resulted in a 7- and 5-point Likert scale instrument consisting of 46 items representing four domains of teacher identity. 2.3. Data analysis 2.3.1. Exploring the factor structure of the TIMS In the previous phase, motivation, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and task perception were identified domains of teacher identity (see Fig. 1). To explore the construct validity of this model, we performed factor analysis using R version 1.1.453 (R Core Team, 2012) and the Lavaan package in version 0.5–20 (Rosseel, 2012). We conducted confirmatory factor analysis on the variance-covariance matrix—which was obtained from the mean scores and corresponding standard deviations of each indicator—to confirm whether each indicator loaded significantly on the expected factors: motivation, self-image, self-efficacy, and task perception. The validity of the secondorder model was subjected to the following three tests. First, a firstorder correlated model was tested, where the four factors were correlated but not governed by the common latent factor teacher identity. This model functioned as our unrestricted model. Second, we explored the fit of a second-order model—i.e., restricted model, where the four factors represent the second-order factor teacher identity. This secondorder model reflects the hypothesis that the underlying domains can be 4

Studies in Educational Evaluation 64 (2020) 100822

F. Hanna, et al.

Fig. 1. Factor loadings for Teacher Identity. All loadings are significant at p < 0.001.

accounted by the overarching factor teacher identity. Third, we evaluated differences in fit and overall fit between the first-order correlated model and the second-order model. This comparison is possible because the second-order model is nested in the first-order correlated model (Little, 2013). Finally, to confirm the construct validity of the secondorder model, we cross-validated our final model in a new sample, following the same three steps. Maximum likelihood (ML) was used as estimator and several fit indices were applied to evaluate the appropriateness of model fit: chi-square test, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Standardized Root Mean Square residual (SRMR), with values ≤0.05 reflecting a close fit, and ≤0.08 a satisfactory fit (Kline, 2011), and CFI, with values ≥0.95 indicating close fit, and values ≥0.90 indicating acceptable fit (Bentler, 2007; Little, 2013). The standardized factor loadings are interpreted using the following guidelines for the size of the effect: negligible < 0.1 ≤ small < 0.3 ≤ moderate < 0.5 ≤ large (Cohen, 1992). A chisquare difference test was used to compare the models. A non-significant result indicates that the unrestricted model does not fit to the data significantly better than the model with restricted model and, therefore, the restricted model, which is the more parsimonious, is preferred (Little, 2013).

3. Results 3.1. Descriptive statistics Table 3 displays the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the indicators for the first sample. On average, student teachers reported high levels of ‘work with children’ and low levels ‘belonging to a community of teachers’. Students’ perceived levels of ‘global teacher identity’ were positively correlated with self-efficacy indicators, suggesting that there might be a relation between students’ image as a teacher and their capability to organize and perform their daily teaching activities effectively. Furthermore, Table 3 presents the reliability of the subscales, which range from 0.66 to 0.92. 3.2. Confirmatory factor analysis Table 4 displays the fit indices for the two models. In these models, three factors of teacher identity had two indicators and one had three indicators. Analyses of these factors in isolation revealed that all standardized factor loadings range between moderate to large (0.36–0.78) and were statistically significant (p < 0.01).

Table 3 Summary of means, standard deviations, and correlations. First-order factor

Indicator

ICV

WWC

GTI

BCT

ISS

ESE

CSE

TE

PIT

Motivation

Intrinsic career value (ICV) Work with children (WWC) Global Teacher Identity (GTI) Belonging to a Community of Teachers (BCT) Instructional Strategies Self-Efficacy (ISS) Engagement Self-Efficacy (ESE) Classroom Self-Efficacy (CSE) Perception of education (PE) Perception of teaching (PT)

1 0.505** 0.144* 0.205** 0.237** 0.253** 0.126* 0.249** 0.224**

0.431** 1 0.079 0.005 0.142** 0.122* −0.021 0.180** 0.200**

0.602** 0.364** 1 0.133* 0.297** 0.316** 0.248** 0.111* 0.095

0.413** 0.168* 0.550** 1 0.117* 0.081 0.086 0.016 0.166**

0.171* 0.154* 0.301** 0.302** 1 0.572** 0.405** 0.264** 0.185**

0.218** 0.178** 0.289** 0.323** 0.395** 1 0.378** 0.231** 0.211**

0.238** 0.151* 0.322** 0.198** 0.291** 0.158* 1 0.075 0.181**

0.193** 0.155* 0.205** 0.240** 0.139* 0.193** 0.016 1 0.432**

0.194** 0.146* 0.204** 0.189* 0.122* 0.113 0.070 0.419** 1

Descriptive statistics Sample 1

Mean Standard deviation α

6.12 0.60 0.71

6.32 0.81 0.92

3.21 0.37 0.73

3.19 0.38 0.76

3.56 0.51 0.66

3.68 0.49 0.69

3.59 0.65 0.83

3.78 0.44 0.75

3.92 0.34 0.66

Descriptive statistics Sample 2

Mean Standard deviation α

6.10 0.78 0.72

6.35 0.81 0.89

3.93 0.63 0.62

3.91 0.59 0.73

3.48 0.45 0.64

3.71 0.48 0.65

3.52 0.63 0.79

3.75 0.38 0.73

3.95 0.35 0.64

Self-Image Self-Efficacy Task Perception

Note. The correlations below the diagonal are for sample 1 (n = 211); The correlations above the diagonal are for sample 2 (n = 419). * significance is at p < 0.05. ** significance is at p < 0.001.

5

Studies in Educational Evaluation 64 (2020) 100822

F. Hanna, et al.

Table 4 Summary of fit statistics for the factor model of Teacher Identity in the first sample. la

X2 (df)

CFI

SRMR

RMSEA (90% CI)

Model comparison

Model 1 First-order correlated factor structure: Motivation, Self-Image, Self-Efficacy, and Objectives Model 2 Second-order factor structure: Teacher Identity; Motivation, Self-Image, Self-Efficacy, and Objectives

26.788(21)

0.981

0.040

0.036 (0.000-0.073)

2 vs. 1

31.537(23)*

0.972

0.049

0.042 (0.000–0.076)

3 vs. 2

Δ RMSEA

ΔCFI

ΔSRMR

–

–

–

–

4.749(2)

−0.006

−0.009

−0.009

2

Note. X 2 = chi-square; RMSEA = root mean squared error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; CFI = Comparative fit index. n = 209; 101 vs. 108. * Significance is at p < 0.001.

3.2.1. First-order correlated model The fit statistics of this model indicates a close fit with the data: χ2 (21, 209) = 26.788, p < 0.18; CFI = 0.981; SRMR = 0.040; RMSEA = 0.036 (CI [90%] = 0.000–0.073). All correlations were positive and statistically significant, varying in strength from weak (0.14, p < 0.05)—to moderate (0.31, p < 0.01). These results suggest that the factors—motivation, self-Image, self-efficacy, and task perception—might be governed by a second-order latent factor, i.e., teacher identity. To test this hypothesis a second-order factor model was tested.

Table 3 presents the reliability of the subscales, which range from 0.62 to 0.89. 3.2.4. First-order correlated model The first-order model produced similar fit statistics as in the first sample: χ2 (21, 419) = 50.530, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.961; SRMR = 0.041; RMSEA = 0.058 (90% CI [0.038–0.079]). Also, all correlations were positive and statistically significant, varying in strength from weak to strong.

3.2.2. Second-order model The second-order model produced a χ2 (23, 209) = 31.537, p < 0.11, and provided a close fit across all the fit criteria: CFI = 0.972; SRMR = 0.490; RMSEA = 0.042 (90% CI [0.000–0.076]. The second-order standardized loadings on teacher identity are 0.46 for motivation, 0.87 for self-image, 0.79 for self-efficacy, and 0.56 for task perception. All loadings were statistically significant (p < 0.001). The chi-square difference test between the models was not significant (Δ x 2 = 4.75, Δdf = 2, p < 0.09). This result suggests that the first-order correlated model does not fit to the data significantly better than second-order model. This result indicates that it is feasible to accept the second-order model as a better representation of teacher identity (cf. Kline, 2011).

3.2.5. Second-order model The output resulted in the following fit statistics: χ2 (23, 419) = 54.377 p < 0.001; CFI = 0.959; SRMR = 0.042; RMSEA = 0.057 (CI[90%] = 0.038–0.077). However, although the CFA converged, it showed an estimated correlation between self-image first-order factor and teacher identity second-order factor with a value > 1 (1.046)—i.e. Heywood case (Kline, 2011). Examination of the models’ modification indices (19.20) and identity theory (e.g., Burke & Stets, 2009) suggested that the Heywood case can be resolved by adding a correlation between motivation and self-image. The addition of a correlation between these two first-order factors resulted in similar fit statistics: χ2 (22, 419) = 53.002, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.959; RMSEA = 0.058 (CI [90%] = 0.038–0.078), SRMR = 0.042. To clarify if the first-order correlated model and second-order model are statistically similar, we evaluated the chi-square difference. The chisquare difference test between the models was not significant (Δ x 2 = 2.47, Δdf = 1, p < 0.12). This result suggests that the first-order correlated model does not fit to the data significantly better than second-order model. Therefore, we accepted the second-order model as

3.2.3. Cross-validating the second-order factor structure of the TIMS To verify the second-order factor structure of the teacher identity instrument obtained from the steps before, a CFA was performed on a second independent sample. Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the indicators for this sample and Table 5 displays the fit indices for the models of this second sample. Moreover,

Table 5 Summary of fit statistics for the factor model of Teacher Identity in the second sample. la

X2 (df)

CFI

SRMR

RMSEA (90% CI)

Model comparison

Model 1

50.539(21)

0.961

0.041

0.058 (0.038–0.079)

–

54.377(23)*

0.959

0.042

0.057 (0.000–.076)

53.002 (22)*

0.959

0.042

0.058 (0.038–0.079)

First-order correlated factor structure: Motivation, Self-Image, Self-Efficacy, and Objectives Model 2 Second-order factor structure: Teacher Identity; Motivation, Self-Image, Self-Efficacy, and Objectives Model 3 Second-order factor structure: Teacher Identity; Motivation, Self-Image, Self-Efficacy, and Objectives + Correlation

Δ RMSEA

ΔCFI

ΔSRMR

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

3 vs 1

3.537

0

0.002

0.001

2

Note. X 2 = chi-square; RMSEA = root mean squared error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; CFI = Comparative fit index. n = 419. * Significance is at p < 0.001. 6

Studies in Educational Evaluation 64 (2020) 100822

F. Hanna, et al.

second-order construct. In order to identify relevant domains of teacher identity a previously published systematic review was used (Hanna et al., 2019a). This resulted in six domains of teacher identity of which four were finally included in the TIMS: motivation, self-image, self-efficacy, and task perception. The relevance of these domains is not only reflected in this validation study, but also in the general literature. Different studies reported links between teacher identity and motivation (cf. Bilim, 2014; Watt & Richardson, 2007; Zhang et al., 2016), selfimage (cf. Nias, 2002; Olsen, 2008; Starr et al., 2006), self-efficacy (cf. Canrinus et al., 2012; Pendergast, Garvis, & Keogh, 2011; Zee, Koomen, & de Jong, 2018), and task perception (cf. Lamote & Engels, 2010; Nevgi & Löfström, 2015). These findings are also in line with the frequently mentioned self-understanding model of Kelchtermans (1994), which also distinguishes motivation, self-image, and task perception as components of teacher identity. This study provides an empirical approximation of how motivation, self-image, self-efficacy, and task perception are determinants of teacher identity, both separately and collectively. Because of these findings, a second-order model consisting of the four domains of teacher identity can be used as a conceptual framework for studying the development of teacher identity as well as the mediating and moderating relation with other constructs such as resilience and professional identity tensions.

Table 6 Inter-factor correlations among the four sets of meanings of Teacher Identity.

Motivaiton Self-Image Self-Efficacy Task Perception α Mean SD

Motivation

Self-Image

Self-Efficacy

Task Perception

1 .52** .31** .24** .84 6.20 0.67

1 .45** .28** .81 3.92 0.54

1 .17* .74 3.57 0.37

1 .74 3.85 0.31

Note. *significance is at p < 0.05, ** significance is at p < 0.001.

a better representation of teacher identity. All factor loadings were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Fig. 1 shows that the standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.41 to 0.91, for the second-order factor, which can be considered moderate to large. The strongest relation appears to be between self-image and teacher identity and motivation and teacher identity. The interpretation of a loading would be that with a one standard deviation increase in teacher identity motivation increases 0.64 standard deviation, self-image 0.91 standard deviation, self-efficacy 0.72 standard deviation, and task perception 0.45 standard deviation. Based on Little’s (2013) equation for converting covariances to correlations, our calculations suggest that the implied correlation between self-image and motivation can be considered small (r = 0.11). When it comes to the first-order factors the standardized loadings ranged from 0.43 to 0.86, which all are large effect size. There, the strongest relation seems to be between ‘intrinsic career value’ and motivation. Table 6 displays the correlation between the four first-order factors and their reliabilities. All correlations were positive and statistically significant, varying in strength from weak, e.g., between self-efficacy and task perception, to strong between motivation and self-image, supporting the convergent validity of this instrument for teacher identity. The first-order factors representing teacher identity showed acceptable to high reliability—between 0.84 and 0.74.

4.1. Limitations Even though we followed established methods for scale development (e.g., DeVon et al., 2007; Kline, 2011), some limitations should be addressed before the application of the TIMS. First, the selection of domains was solely based on most frequently used set of meanings by researchers in quantitative studies. While this approach, from an identity theory perspective, seems legitimate, it can be argued that the included domains should also have been substantiated from qualitative studies to verify the comprehensiveness of our conceptualization of teacher identity. A comparison of the four domains in TIMS with conceptualizations in qualitative research, such as the self-understanding model (Kelchtermans, 2009), reveals that certain domains are sometimes part of the construct of teacher identity and sometimes not. This suggest that further substantiation from qualitative research does not necessarily provide substantive guidance in determining the comprehensiveness of the construct teacher identity. Nevertheless, there will undoubtedly be other domains worth investigating, such as resilience (Bobek, 2002) or future time perspective (Peetsma, 2000). Second, our study was predominantly aimed at investigating the construct validity of the TIMS (cf. DeVon et al., 2007). Ideally, the development of such an instrument should also involve criterion validity—e.g., convergent and discriminant validity. For example, a future study could examine the relation between professional identity of students teachers and their study success or their quality of teaching. Although we have cross-validated the factor structure of the TIMS, more evidence is needed to further confirm the construct validity of the instrument and the applicability for further research and teacher education. Finally, it must be emphasized that both samples largely consisted of female primary student teachers, reflecting the unequal gender distribution in primary teacher education institutions and primary schools in the Netherlands (CBS Statline, 2018). This might limit the generalizability and applicability of the TIMS to populations in other countries. It is therefore important to replicate the findings of this research in various and more heterogeneous samples.

4. Discussion The first objective of this study was to design and validate the Teacher Identity Measurement Scale (TIMS, see Appendix A) for primary student teachers. Based on a systematic review (Hanna et al., 2019a) domains of teacher identity were identified. To design and validate the instrument different established qualitative approaches were followed—expert validation, cognitive interviews, and a small pilot. Finally, to assess the psychometric quality of the instrument several analysis, including confirmatory factor analysis, were performed, involving 645 primary student teachers. Results provide support for the capability of the TIMS to obtain reliable and valid information about the teacher identity of primary student teachers. Specifically, the qualitative results suggest that content of TIMS is understandable, meaningful, and doable for primary student teachers, and quantitative results indicate that the four domains—motivation, self-image, self-efficacy, and task perception—are separate yet related factors teacher identity. The second aim of this study was to contribute to the literature about teacher identity from a theoretical and empirical point of view. Conceptualizing teacher identity is complex and challenging (cf. Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009; Henry, 2016). In the past, researchers—and for good reason—justified the dynamic and multifaceted complexity of the construct as a reason that qualitative assessment of teacher identity is more suitable than quantitative measurements (cf. Kelchtermans, 2009; Nias, 2002). In this study identity theory (e.g., Burke & Stets, 2009) is used to conceptualize the complex nature of teacher identity by focusing on domains—sets of meanings—that together represent the overarching

4.2. Implications for future research and practice For researchers and practitioners in the field of teacher education the TIMS might be a useful instrument. Researchers can use the instrument for gathering data on differences between primary student 7

Studies in Educational Evaluation 64 (2020) 100822

F. Hanna, et al.

teachers and discovering longitudinal patterns in the development of professional identity among primary (student) teachers. The TIMS may also be relevant for investigating differences between teacher education institutions, and the evaluation of their support in the development of teacher identity. Furthermore, future studies might concentrate on exploring the relation between professional identity of primary student teachers’ and professional identity tensions (Pillen et al., 2013). Whereas several researchers (cf. Smagorinsky, Cook, Moore, Jackson, & Fry, 2004) have suggested this relation, it has not yet been examined explicitly (Hanna et al., 2019b). Examining these relations may result in a better understanding of which professional identity tensions might occur during the process of becoming a teacher (Van der Wal, Oolbekkink-Marchand, Schaap, & Meijer, 2019). Additionally, the TIMS might also be applied in other research areas such as that of studentteacher relationships and teacher well-being. Two interesting questions in these areas could be which and how specific teacher identity profiles influence the quality of student-teacher relationships and well-being (Roorda, Jak, Zee, Oort, & Koomen, 2017). Primary teacher education institutions might apply the TIMS to modify their program content and services to student teachers’ need concerning the development of their teacher identity. By doing so, teacher education institutions might be better equipped to student

teachers’ needs which could increase their enthusiasm for the profession (Nias, 2002). Teacher educators can also use the TIMS as a pedagogical vehicle for discussing student teachers’ professional development as a part of a course focused upon teacher identity. For example, teacher educators can discuss the different domains of teacher identity to localize strengths and points of improvement in students teachers’ professional identity. Student teachers can also work independently with TIMS. For example, student teachers can use the domains of teacher identity to more consciously monitor their own development and evaluate their own professional development. 5. Conclusion The TIMS is specifically designed for primary student teachers. Teacher identity, conceptualized from an identity theory perspective, includes four underlying domains: motivation, self-image, self-efficacy, and task perception. The instrument, which is psychometric valid, can be used for research and educational objectives, by researchers and practitioners. Using the TIMS can be used to better understand the development of primary student teachers professional identity and can help teacher training institutions to support and strengthen the professional identity of their students.

Appendix A. TIMS, the set of meanings for teacher identity and corresponding items Meaning

Subscale

Motivation

Waarom wil je leerkracht worden? Omdat ik geïnteresseerd ben in het basisonderwijs. Omdat ik graag leerkracht wil zijn. Omdat ik het leuk vind om op een basisschool te werken. Omdat ik het leuk vind om les te geven aan leerlingen. Omdat ik het leuk vind om een eigen groep te hebben. Work With Children Omdat ik een baan wil waarin het werken met kinderen een rol speelt. (WWW) Omdat ik in een omgeving wil werken die kindgericht is. Omdat ik het leuk vind om met kinderen te werken. Global Teacher Identity Ik zie mezelf als een leerkracht. (GTI) Ik zou het lesgeven erg gaan missen als ik zou stoppen met mijn opleiding. Ik vind het leuk om zelf les te geven. Ik heb actief gezocht naar mogelijkheden om te werken in het basisonderwijs. Belonging to a community Ik praat vaak met medestudenten over het lesgeven. of teachers’ (BCT) Ik heb het gevoel dat ik uitmaak van een gemeenschap van leerkrachten. Ik vind het waardevol om te kunnen praten over onderwijs. Ik geniet ervan om mijn ideeën over onderwijs te delen. Instructional strategies Hoe goed lukt het om instructie aan te passen wanneer leerlingen iets (ISS) niet begrijpen? Hoe goed lukt het om vast te stellen wat leerlingen hebben begrepen van je uitleg? Hoe goed lukt het om de lessen af te stemmen op het juiste niveau van individuele leerlingen? Hoe goed lukt het om passende uitdagingen te bieden aan leerlingen die goed kunnen leren? Engagement Hoe goed lukt het om leerlingen het vertrouwen te geven dat zij hun (ESE) schoolwerk goed kunnen doen? Hoe goed lukt het om leerlingen te stimuleren door te denken op de geboden stof? Hoe goed het lukt het om leerlingen te motiveren om leren belangrijk te vinden? Hoe goed lukt het om leerlingen zelf nieuwe dingen te laten ontdekken? Classroom management Hoe goed lukt het om storend gedrag in de klas te beperken? (SCE) Hoe goed lukt het om leerlingen de regels van de klas te laten volgen?

Self-Image

Self-efficacy

Item - Dutch

Item - English

Intrinsic Career Value (ICV)

Why do you want to become an elementary teacher? Because I am interested in elementary education. Because I like being an elementary teacher. Because I like working in an elementary school. Because I like teaching. Because I want to have my own class. Because I want a job that involves working with children. Because I want work in a child-centered environment. Because I like to work with children. I see myself as an elementary teacher. I would miss teaching if I stopped the teacher training program. I truly enjoy teaching. I actively have looked for opportunities to work in elementary education. I frequently talk to peers about teaching. I feel part of a community of elementary teachers. I think it is valuable to be able to talk about education. I enjoy sharing ideas about teaching. How well can you implement alternative strategies in your classroom? To what extent can you gauge student comprehension of what you have taught? How much can you do to adjust your lessons to the proper level for individual students? How well can you provide appropriate challenges for very capable students? How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in schoolwork? How much can you do to help your students think critically? How much can you do to help your students value learning? How much can you do to foster student creativity?

How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? How well can you establish routines to keep activities running smoothly? Hoe goed lukt het om te voorkomen dat een paar leerlingen de sfeer in How well can you keep a few problem students from ruining de klas negatief beïnvloeden? an entire lesson? Hoe goed lukt het om aan leerlingen duidelijk te maken wat voor To what extent can you make your expectation clear about gedrag je van ze verwacht? student behavior?

8

Studies in Educational Evaluation 64 (2020) 100822

F. Hanna, et al. Task perception

Perception of Education (PE)

Perception of teaching (PT)

In hoeverre ben je het eens met de volgende opvattingen? Ik zie het als mijn belangrijkste taak leerlingen een kritische houding tegenover de maatschappij bij te brengen. Ik zie het als mijn belangrijkste taak leerlingen sociale vaardigheden bij te brengen. Ik zie het als mijn belangrijkste taak om leerlingen kennis te laten maken met verschillende culturen en godsdiensten. Ik zie het als mijn belangrijkste taak om leerlingen waarden en normen over te dragen. Naast mijn onderwijstaak heb ik ook een opvoedende taak.

To what extent do you agree with the following views? I think it is my most important task to teach students a critical attitude towards society. I think it is my main task to teach students social skills.

I think it is my main task to introduce students to different cultures and religions. I think it is my most important task to transfer students’ values and norms. In addition to my teaching duties, I also have an educational task. Ik zie het als mijn belangrijkste taak om leerlingen te leren rekening I think it is my most important task to teach students to take houden met anderen. others into account. Ik geloof dat als leerlingen later veel willen bereiken dan moet ik ze nu I believe that if students want to achieve a lot later, I need to veel leren. teach now them a lot. Ik geloof dat als leerlingen veel leren op school zij later een kleinere I believe that if students learn a lot at school, they will later kans hebben om in de werkloosheid terecht te komen. have a smaller chance of being unemployment. Ik geloof dat leerlingen goed moeten leren op school zodat ze I believe that students should learn well at school so that they maatschappelijk ver schoppen. become social successful. Ik geloof dat een goede opleiding voor leerlingen de sleutel is tot I believe that good education for students is the key to for maatschappelijk succes. social success. Binnen de klas vind ik orde en discipline belangrijk. Within the classroom, order and discipline are important to me. Bij mij in de klas horen leerlingen stil te zijn en goed op te letten. In my class, students should be quiet and pay attention. Bij mij in de klas dienen leerlingen mij te gehoorzamen. In my class, students must obey me. Bij mij in de klas is het belangrijk dat leerlingen zich goed gedragen. In my class it is important that students behave well. Het is mijn taak om van leerlingen vooral inzet te vragen. It is my job to ask students for commitment. Ik vind het belangrijk om rekening te houden met de wensen van mijn I think it is important to take into account the wishes of my leerlingen. students. Bij mij in de klas vind ik het belangrijk dat kinderen inspraak hebben. In my class I think it's important that children have a say. Ik vind het normaal dat leerlingen ook kritiek hebben op mij als I think it's normal for students to criticize me as a teacher. leerkracht.

attritionin the Netherlands. Teachers and Teaching, 23(8), 881–895. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13540602.2017.1360859. Denessen, E. (1999). Opvattingen over onderwijs. Leerstof- en Leerlinggerichtheid InNederland. [Beliefs about education. content- and pupil-orientedness in the Netherlands]. Leuven, Belgium: Garant. Desimone, L. M., & Le Floch, K. C. (2004). Are we asking the right questions? Using cognitive interviews to improve surveys in education research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737026001001. DeVon, H. A., Block, M. E., Moyle‐Wright, P., Ernst, D. M., Hayden, S. J., Lazzara, D. J., et al. (2007). A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 39, 155–164. Retrieved from http://tx.liberal.ntu.edu.tw/. Educational Council (2013). Exploration being a teacher, March. the Netherlands: The Hague. Fokkens-Bruinsma, M., & Canrinus, E. T. (2012). The factors influencing teaching (FIT)choice scale in a Dutch teacher education program. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2012.700043. Friesen, M. D., & Besley, S. C. (2013). Teacher identity development in the first year of teacher education: A developmental and social psychological perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.06.005. Geerdink, G., & de Beer (2013). Meer mans. Leraren opleiden met oog voor diversiteit enkwaliteit. [More men. Training student teachers with eye for diversity and quality]. Appeldoorn, the Netherlands: Garant. Hasinoff, S., & Mandzuk, D. (2005). Bonding, bridging, and becoming a teacher: Student cohorts and teacher identity. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 51, 231–245. Retrieved from https://ajer.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca. Heikonen, L., Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Toom, A., & Soini, T. (2017). Early career teachers’ sense of professional agency in the classroom: Associations with turnover intentions and perceived inadequacy in teacher–student interaction. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 250–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2016. 1169505. Hanna, F., Oostdam, R., Severiens, S. E., & Zijlstra, B. J. (2019a). Domains of teacher identity: A review of quantitative measurement instruments. Educational Research Review, 27, 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.01.003. Hanna, F., Oostdam, R., Severiens, S. E., & Zijlstra, B. J. (2019b). Primary student teachers’ professional identity tensions: The construction and psychometric quality of the professional identity tensions scale. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 61, 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.02.002. Henry, A. (2016). Conceptualizing teacher identity as a complex dynamic system: The innerdynamics of transformations during a practicum. Journal of Teacher Education, 67, 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116655382. Hertzog, M. A. (2008). Considerations in determining sample size for pilot studies. Researchin nursing & health, 31, 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20247. Hong, J. (2010). Pre-service and beginning teachers’ professional identity and its relation to dropping out of the profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1530–1543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.003. Hong, J., Greene, B., & Lowery, J. (2017). Multiple dimensions of teacher identity development from pre-service to early years of teaching: A longitudinal study. Journalof Education for Teaching, 43, 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2017.

References Abu-Alruz, J., & Khasawneh, S. (2013). Professional identity of faculty members at highereducation institutions: A criterion for workplace success. Research in PostCompulsory Education, 18, 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2013. 847235. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman. Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issuesin the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640902902252. Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professionalidentity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 749–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00) 00023-8. Bentler, P. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 825–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.024. Biesta, G. (2013). Knowledge, judgement and the curriculum: On the past, present and futureof the idea of the Practical. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45, 684–696. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.798839. Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2006). How is agency possible? Towards an ecologicalunderstanding of agency-as-achievement. Learning lives: Learning, identity, and agency in the life course. Retrieved from Google Scholar. Bilim, I. (2014). Pre-service elementary teachers’ motivations to become a teacher and itsrelationship with teaching self-efficacy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 653–661. Bobek, B. L. (2002). Teacher resiliency: A key to career longevity. The Clearing House, 75, 202–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650209604932. Brenner, P. S., Serpe, R. T., & Stryker, S. (2018). Role-specific self-efficacy as precedent andproduct of the identity model. Sociological Perspectives, 61, 57–80. https://doi. org/10.1177/0731121417697306. Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. Oxford University Press. Canrinus, E. T., Helms-Lorenz, M., Beijaard, D., Buitink, J., & Hofman, A. (2012). Selfefficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: Exploring the relationshipsbetween indicators of teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Psychologyof Education, 27, 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0069-2. CBS Statline (2018). Werkzame beroepsbevolking. [Working population]. Retrieved fromhttp://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/. Cheung, H. Y. (2008). Measuring the professional identity of Hong Kong in-service teachers. Journal of In-Service Education, 34(3), 375–3390. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13674580802003060. Chong, S., & Low, E. L. (2009). Why I want to teach and how I feel about teaching—Formation of teacher identity from pre-service to the beginning teacherphase. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 8, 59. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10671-008-9056-z. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155. Den Brok, P., Wubbels, T., & Van Tartwijk, J. (2017). Exploring beginning teachers’

9

Studies in Educational Evaluation 64 (2020) 100822

F. Hanna, et al.

Studeren als recht of voorrecht. Wie is er gebaat bij selectie aan de poort? [Studying a right or a privilege. Who benefits from selection at the gate?]. TH&MA, 2(15), 61–63. Retrieved from http://www.themahogeronderwijs.org/. Sperber, A. D. (2004). Translation and validation of study instruments for cross-cultural research. Gastroenterology, 126, S124–S128. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2003. 10.016. Stanley, L., Vandenberghe, C., Vandenberg, R., & Bentein, K. (2013). Commitment profiles and employee turnover. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82, 176–187. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.01.011. Starr, S., Haley, H. L., Mazor, K. M., Ferguson, W., Philbin, M., & Quirk, M. (2006). Initial testing of an instrument to measure teacher identity in physicians. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 18, 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328015tlm1802_5. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0742-051X(01)00036-1. Van der Wal, M. M., Oolbekkink-Marchand, H. W., Schaap, H., & Meijer, P. C. (2019). Impact of early career teachers’ professional identity tensions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 80, 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.01.001. Van der Want, A. C., den Brok, P., Beijaard, D., Brekelmans, M., Claessens, L. C. A., & Pennings, H. J. M. (2018). Changes over time in teachers’ interpersonal role identity. Research Papers in Education, 33(3), 354–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522. 2017.1302501. Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2007). Motivational factors influencing teaching as a career choice: Development and validation of the FIT-choice scale. Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 167–202. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.75.3.167-202. Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86, 981–1015. https://doi.org/ 10.3102/0034654315626801. Zee, M., Koomen, H. M., & de Jong, P. F. (2018). How different levels of conceptualization and measurement affect the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and students’ academic achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 55, 189–200. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.09.006. Zembylas, M. (2003). Emotions and teacher identity: A poststructural perspective. Teachers and Teaching, 9, 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600309378. Zhang, Y., Hawk, S. T., Zhang, X., & Zhao, H. (2016). Chinese preservice teachers’ professional identity links with education program performance: The roles of task value belief and learning motivations. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 573. https://doi.org/10. 3389/fpsyg.2016.0057.

1251111. Kelchtermans, G. (1994). De professionele ontwikkeling van leerkrachten basisonderwijsvanuit het biografisch perspectief [The professional development of elementaryteachers from the biographical perspective]. Leuven: University Press. Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message: Self‐understanding,vulnerability and reflection. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15, 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875332. Kline, R. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. In M. Williams (Ed.). Handbook of methodological innovation. Thousand Oask, CA: Sage. Lamote, C., & Engels, N. (2010). The development of student teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02619760903457735. Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 899–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.003. Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford. Mainhard, M. T., Brekelmans, J. M. G., Wubbels, T., & den Brok, P. J. (2008). Leraren in eennieuwe klas: de eerste maanden van een nieuw schooljaar [Teachers in new classes: The first month of the school year]. Pedagogische Studiën, 85(3), 157–173. Masoumpanah, Z., & Zarei, G. R. (2014). EIL, Iranian teachers’ professional identity andperception of professional competence. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1100–1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.522. Menon, M. E., & Athanasoula-Reppa, A. (2011). Job satisfaction among secondary schoolteachers: The role of gender and experience. School Leadership & Management, 31, 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2011.614942. Nevgi, A., & Löfström, E. (2015). The development of academics’ teacher identity:Enhancing reflection and task perception through a university teacher developmentprogramme. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 46, 53–60. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.01.003. Nias, J. (2002). Primary teachers talking: A study of teaching as work. Oxford, UnitedKingdom: Routledge. Olsen, B. (2008). How reasons for entry into the profession illuminate teacher identity development. Teacher education quarterly, 35, 23–40. Retreieved from https://files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ831706.pdf. Peetsma, T. T. (2000). Future time perspective as a predictor of schoolinvestment. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 44, 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 713696667. Pendergast, D., Garvis, S., & Keogh, J. (2011). Pre-service student-teacher self-efficacybeliefs: An insight into the making of teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 4. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n12.6. Pillen, M. T., den Brok, P. J., & Beijaard, D. (2013). Profiles and change in beginningteachers' professional identity tensions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.04.003. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2013). Teachers as agents of change: Teacheragency and emerging models of curriculum. In M. Priestley, & G. J. J. Biesta (Eds.). Reinventing the curriculum: New trends in curriculum policy and practice (pp. 187– 206). London: Bloomsbury Academic. R Core Team (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. ISBN 3900051-07-0.Retrieved fromVienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/. Richardson, P. W., & Watt, H. M. (2016). Factors influencing teaching choice: Why DoFuture teachers choose the career? International handbook of teachereducation. Singapore: Springer275–304. Roorda, D. L., Jak, S., Zee, M., Oort, F. J., & Koomen, H. M. (2017). Affective teacher–Student relationships and students' engagement and achievement: A metaanalytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement. School Psychology Review, 46, 239–261. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0035.V46-3. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. Rots, I., Aelterman, A., Devos, G., & Vlerick, P. (2010). Teacher education and the choice toenter the teaching profession: A prospective study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1619–1629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.013. Schepens, A., Aelterman, A., & Vlerick, P. (2009). Student teachers’ professional identity formation: Between being born as a teacher and becoming one. Educational Studies, 35, 361–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690802648317. Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., Moore, C., Jackson, A. Y., & Fry, P. G. (2004). Tensions inlearning to teach: Accommodation and the development of a teaching identity. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 8–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022487103260067. Snoek, M., Van der Rijst, R., Van Verseveld, M., Tigelaar, D., & Van Driel, J. (2015).

Fadie Hanna has a Master of Science degree in Educational Sciences from the University of Amsterdam, he is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Child Development and Education and the University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Education, Centre for Applied Research in Education (CARE), Amsterdam, the Netherlands; email: [email protected]. His research interest include teacher identity and professional identity tensions. Ron Oostdam, PhD, is professor of Education and research Director of the Centre for Applied Research in Education (CARE) of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (AUAS). He is also professor of Education at the Research Institute of Child Development and Education of the University of Amsterdam (CDE/UvA). His main research topics include differentiation in learning and instruction, cognitive processes for language learning, L2 learning, (early) literacy development, parental involvement and support, teacher training, test anxiety and learning potential. Many of his research projects include preschool, primary, secondary and higher education. Sabine Severiens is professor of Education at the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam. The main theme in her scientific work is educational inequality. One of the focal points in her current work is teaching in classrooms with students from diverse backgrounds and strengthening professional capacity in this particular area. She teaches in the bachelor and master Educational Sciences program and supervises a group of Ph.D. students. She is also the scientific head of the Knowledge workplace Rotterdam Talent, an expertise network in which the municipality and the university collaborate to improve the quality of schools in Rotterdam. Bonne Zijlstra is an Assistant Professor at the Research Institute of Child Development and Education of the University of Amsterdam. He specializes in general research methods and statistics, social network analysis, multilevel modelling and estimation methods.

10