Teacher education and the choice to enter the teaching profession: A prospective study

Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1619e1629

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Teacher education and the choice to enter the teaching profession: A prospective study Isabel Rots a, *, Antonia Aelterman a, Geert Devos a, Peter Vlerick b a b

Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium Department of Personnel Management, Work & Organizational Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 14 October 2009 Received in revised form 15 March 2010 Accepted 4 June 2010

This two-wave survey study aimed at testing a hypothetical model of teacher education graduates’ decisions about whether or not to take a teaching position upon graduation. The model focuses on the relationship between teacher education and graduates’ choice on job entrance. Using path analysis and logistic regression, this model was tested in a sample of student teachers (n ¼ 436), subsequently graduates (n ¼ 251) of teacher training for secondary education. The results validate the relationship between teacher education variables and nearly graduates’ intention to enter the teaching profession. Furthermore, this intention proves an imperative predictor of graduates’ actual entrance. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Teaching profession Pre-service teacher education Path analysis Teaching commitment Entrance into the teaching profession

1. Introduction Several Western countries show a recurring shortage of teachers (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2005). It is believed that this shortage is caused by three main factors: too few candidates are entering teacher education (recruitment problem), too many teachers are leaving the teaching profession after a short period of time (attrition problem), and a considerable proportion of teacher education graduates do not enter the teaching profession (job entrance problem). In this article we focus on the problem of job entrance. Some authors attempt to explain the phenomenon of graduates not entering the teaching profession in terms of the labour market and the economy (Guarino, Santibañez, & Daley, 2006; OECD, 2005). The teaching profession competes with other potential first jobs, particularly for graduates who are qualified to teach at secondary schools. This is surprising, as it can be assumed that most student teachers start their teacher education with a more or less explicit motivation to become teachers. It is possible that experiences during teacher education are partly responsible for a graduate’s choice not to enter the profession. Indeed, research indicates that most student teachers experience a praxis/reality shock when they encounter the

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ32 9 264 62 58; fax: þ32 9 264 86 88. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (I. Rots), [email protected] (A. Aelterman), [email protected] (G. Devos), [email protected] (P. Vlerick). 0742-051X/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.013

complexity of a classroom during their practical training. For some student teachers, this praxis/reality shock is sufficiently severe to terminate their teaching career aspirations before graduation (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005; Cole & Knowles, 1993; Sinclair, 2008). However, empirical research on the relationship between teacher education and (nearly) graduates’ choice whether or not to enter the teaching profession is scarce. This study presents a hypothetical model to explain this aspect of career decision making and subsequently summarises the design and results of an empirical study to test this model in a sample of student teachers (subsequently graduates) in Flanders (Belgium). 2. Theoretical framework The theoretical framework for this study is based on the social learning theory of career decision making (Krumboltz, 1979; Mitchell & Krumboltz, 1996). This theory identifies the interaction between genetic factors, environmental conditions, learning experiences, cognitive and emotional responses, and performance skills that lead to certain career decisions. Chapman (1983) applied Krumboltz’s social learning theory of career decision making to the teaching profession in order to describe and explain the retention/attrition of beginning teachers. According to this model, teacher retention (i.e., teacher education graduates who enter and remain in the teaching profession) is a function of (a) teachers’ personal characteristics (e.g., gender, age), (b) educational preparation (e.g., the adequacy of the teacher preparation programme and student performance in the

1620

I. Rots et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1619e1629

teacher education programme), (c) initial commitment to teaching, (d) the quality of the first employment experience, (e) professional and social integration into teaching (e.g., a person’s values, competencies, and accomplishments), and (f) external influences (e.g., employment climate). Empirical validation of this model (Chapman, 1984; Chapman & Green, 1986; Grady, 1990; Ruhland, 2001, 2002) suggests that early teacher attrition is not only related to the school context or employment climate: the roots of teacher attrition are to be found in variables such as initial commitment to teaching and the quality of first teaching experiences. Recent research building on Chapman’s model focused on the particular relationship between teacher education variables and graduates’ choice (not) to enter the teaching profession. Rots and Aelterman (2008, 2009) have observed that this relationship persists even when other antecedents of teacher education graduates’ intention (not) to enter the teaching profession are included in the model (i.e., motivation for teaching when starting teacher education and employment opportunities). These findings hold across different types of teacher training and suggest that teacher education can have a meaningful impact on graduates’ entrance into the teaching profession by reinforcing teaching commitment. More specifically, faculty supervision and mentor support during practical experiences in schools were found to be positively related to graduates’ teaching commitment and their intention to enter the teaching profession. However, the post hoc nature of these studies may have invoked response bias, as the data were collected shortly after graduates completed their teacher education. Moreover, the cross-sectional research design did not test time-ordered relationships among variables. Based on these limitations, the present study extends the research of Rots and Aelterman (2008, 2009) in three ways:

offers a more specific application of Chapman’s (1983) model as it focuses on the importance of teacher education for graduates’ entrance into the teaching profession. The core of the model connects learning experiences related to teacher education and the resulting cognitive and emotional responses and performance skills (see Krumboltz, 1979; Mitchell & Krumboltz, 1996) that lead to the intention (not) to enter the teaching profession. It is acknowledged that a number of variables influencing job entrance are not represented in this model (e.g., job search behaviour, perceived working conditions of available jobs). However, the effect of these variables is beyond the scope of the present study. Building on the model of Chapman (1983), a distinction was made between (1) initial motivation for teaching, (2) teacher education, (3) integration into teaching, (4) teaching commitment, and (5) external influences. Furthermore, intention to enter teaching was included in the model. 2.1. Initial motivation for teaching Research on students’ reasons to opt for teacher education indicates that student teachers differ in their motivation to finally enter the teaching profession upon graduation (Jarvis & Woodrow, 2005; Kyriacou, Hultgren, & Stephens, 1999; Roness & Smith, 2009). Most student teachers start their teacher education with a more or less explicit motivation to become teachers. Nonetheless, a minority of students primarily regard teacher education as a way to earn a degree that offers a wide variety of job opportunities, including those outside teaching. It is likely that students’ initial motivation to study teacher education is related to their entrance into the teaching profession after graduation. 2.2. Teacher education

(1) A prospective study design is adopted building on two data collection phases e one before and one after graduation e to strengthen the construct validity of the variables measured. (2) With this prospective research design, the predictive relationship between nearly graduated student teachers’ intention to enter the teaching profession and their actual entrance into the profession is tested. (3) A larger sample of student teachers from one type of teacher training is used (i.e., teacher training for lower secondary education in Flanders). The larger sample enables us to control for personal and contextual factors and to use split-sample cross-validation methods. However, the present study does not aim to investigate the effects of specific teacher education programmes on graduates’ choice on job entrance. Rather, in keeping with Krumboltz (1979) theory, we examine the relationship between (nearly graduated) student teachers’ perception of their experiences during teacher education and their choice whether or not to enter the teaching profession upon graduation. In accordance with the social learning theory of career decision making, student teachers interpret their (learning) experiences in teacher education in various ways, leading them to make unique generalisations about themselves and their teacher education. These so-called “self-observation generalisations” (perceptions, which can be more or less accurate) are considered to be the key to understanding their choice whether or not to enter the teaching profession. Fig. 1 represents the hypothetical model for the present study, which integrates findings of previous research on the direct and indirect relationship between teacher education and teacher retention. This model is grounded in the social learning theory of career decision making (Krumboltz, 1979; Mitchell & Krumboltz, 1996) and the model of Chapman (1983). However, our model

2.2.1. Faculty support The first teacher education variable is the adequacy of the support or supervision provided by the faculty of the training institute (‘faculty support’). Several scholars have argued that supervision represents a key-element in student teachers’ personal and professional development (see Caires & Almeida, 2007). Moreover, research has shown that faculty support is positively related to graduates’ perception of teacher education preparation, their teaching commitment (Rots, Aelterman, Vlerick, & Vermeulen, 2007), and their entrance into the teaching profession (Stokking, Leenders, De Jong, & Van Tartwijk, 2003). 2.2.2. Mentor support Next, newly certified teachers usually perceive practical experiences in schools as the most powerful component of teacher preparation (Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2002). To facilitate learning during these field experiences, student teachers are supervised by mentor teachers. There is a growing body of empirical evidence to suggest that mentoring practices can promote increased retention of novice teachers (Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, & Tomlinson, 2009; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Wang & Odell, 2002). Since support from mentors during student teaching might have a comparable effect (Rots et al., 2007), the variable ‘mentor support’ was included in the hypothetical model. 2.2.3. Teacher education preparation Another teacher education variable is the extent to which (nearly graduated) student teachers feel their teacher education programme has prepared them for the demands of teaching. Several researchers have observed a positive correlation between teacher education graduates’ feelings about their preparation for the teaching profession and their plans to remain in teaching

I. Rots et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1619e1629

teacher education

integration into teaching

(learning experiences)

(performance skills)

mentor support

1621

teacher efficacy teacher education preparation

professional orientation learner-oriented beliefs

faculty support

teaching commitment (cognitive & emotional response)

initial motivation for teaching (learning experiences) external influences (environmental conditions) employment opportunities

intention to enter the teaching profession (career decision)

significant others in education job alternatives (for actual first job)

entrance into the teaching profession (career decision)

Note: Italicized words in parentheses indicate the relationship of components of the model to the more general tenets of the Social Learning Theory of Career Decision Making (Mitchell & Krumboltz, 1996).

Fig. 1. Hypothetical model to explain graduates’ entrance into the teaching profession.

(Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002; LaTurner, 2002; Zientek, 2007). Hence, the variable ‘teacher education preparation’ was included in the hypothetical model. 2.3. Integration into teaching An important element in the model of Chapman (1983) is the professional and social integration of teachers into the teaching profession. This refers to people’s self-perceived values, competencies, and accomplishments as a teacher. In this study, integration into teaching comprises student teachers’ self-rated skills and abilities as a teacher (‘teacher efficacy’), their professional orientation, as well as their general educational beliefs. 2.3.1. Teacher efficacy Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) defined a teacher’s efficacy belief as “a judgment of his/her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among those students who may be difficult or unmotivated” (p. 783). Teacher efficacy has been related to teachers’ perception of the relevance of their teacher preparation (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002) as well as to enthusiasm for teaching, teaching commitment, and retention in teaching (see Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007; Woolfolk Hoy & Burke Spero, 2005). 2.3.2. Professional orientation In the hypothetical model, we incorporated a second aspect of integration into teaching: student teachers’ professional orientation. Hoyle (1980) distinguished between a restricted professional orientation and an extended professional orientation. The restricted professional orientation has its focus on the classroom. These teachers are mainly concerned with teaching methods, their

own didactic behaviours, and the subject matter. The extended professionals, however, are concerned with professional collaboration and locate their classroom teaching in a broader educational context. They also aim to function as members of a school team. van Veen, Sleegers, Bergen, and Klaassen (2001) stated that contemporary educational reforms, innovations, and governmental policies carry the underlying assumption that students’ learning goes beyond the responsibility of individual teachers. This implies that a restricted professional orientation is no longer relevant. In Flanders, for instance, the educational government imposes teacher education to pursue the development of basic competencies (initial competencies of graduates) which refer to an extended view of professionalism (Aelterman, 1998). Furthermore, van Veen et al. (2001) observed that collaboration, which is an essential feature of the extended professional orientation, affects the level of motivation and job satisfaction among teachers. Therefore, we assumed that student teachers with a more extended professional orientation show higher teaching commitment and may be more inclined to enter the teaching profession. 2.3.3. General educational beliefs The third aspect of integration into teaching refers to student teachers’ general educational beliefs. Educational beliefs are generally described on the basis of two prototypical ideologies: (1) teacher- or subject-matter-oriented beliefs, and (2) learneroriented beliefs. The first orientation places a strong emphasis on imparting knowledge of the subject matter and on the qualification of students; the latter emphasises the process of student learning and the personal development of students (see e.g., Hermans, van Braak, & Van Keer, 2008; Meirink, Meijer, Verloop, & Bergen, 2009). Currently, scholars, as well as governmental policies and reforms, advocate education that promotes students’ active

1622

I. Rots et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1619e1629

and self-regulated learning and that is oriented towards broad and harmonious development (Hermans et al., 2008; Lunenberg, Korthagen, & Swennen, 2007; Meirink et al., 2009). Accordingly, (student) teachers are expected to endorse a learner-oriented approach to teaching and learning. For instance, the basic competences as set out by the Flemish government reflect an extended view of professionalism and a learner-oriented approach to teaching and learning (Aelterman, 1998). Hence, as educational policies (in Flanders) emphasise a learner-oriented education, we assumed a positive relationship between the level of student teachers’ learner-oriented beliefs and their choice to enter the teaching profession upon graduation. 2.4. Teaching commitment In line with Coladarci (1992), teaching commitment was defined as a student teacher’s degree of psychological attachment to the teaching profession. In line with the social learning theory of career decision making (Krumboltz, 1979; Mitchell & Krumboltz, 1996), teaching commitment is considered to be a cognitive and emotional reaction to student teachers’ learning experiences in teacher education and the resulting (self-perceived) values, competencies, and accomplishments as a teacher. The expression of high teaching commitment is found in nearly qualified teachers who are motivated, willing to learn, have a passion for the job, and a sense that teaching is a worthwhile and positive career choice in which they can have an impact on the lives of students (Day, Sammons, Stobart, Kington, & Gu, 2007). Several studies have confirmed the importance of teaching commitment for beginning teacher retention (e.g., Billingsley, 2004; Day, Elliot, & Kington, 2005; Tait, 2008; Weiss, 1999). 2.5. External influences 2.5.1. Employment opportunities and job alternatives Research suggests that when the general economy is strong and graduate unemployment is low, fewer graduates choose for a teaching career (OECD, 2005). Correspondingly, when general economic conditions worsen, teaching becomes a more attractive job choice. Therefore, student teachers’ perception of ‘employment opportunities’ (measured shortly before graduation) and graduates’ perception of readily available ‘job alternatives’ for their actual first job (measured shortly after their job entry) were included in the hypothetical model. 2.5.2. Significant others who work(ed) in education Another external variable proposed in previous research concerns the influence of significant others (i.e., family members or close friends) who are teachers (Malderez, Hobson, Tracey, & Kerr, 2007; Manuel & Hughes, 2006; Sinclair, 2008). In order to explore the potential effect of this variable, ‘(not) having significant others who work(ed) in education’ was included in the hypothetical model. 2.6. Intention to enter teaching The intention to leave or stay in the teaching profession is a frequently used variable in research on teacher retention. It is considered a valid predictor of subsequent choices and actions (e.g., Billingsley, Carlson, & Klein, 2004; Singh & Billingsley, 1996; Weisberg & Sagie, 1999). This is in line with the behavioural intention models (e.g., Theory of Reasoned Action; Theory of Planned Behaviour) which assume that a person’s specific behaviour is partly predicted by his/her intentions (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).

To conclude, the purpose of the present study is to test the hypothetical model depicted in Fig.1. The aim of this study is twofold: (1) testing the hypothesised relationships explaining nearly graduated student teachers’ intention to enter the teaching profession, and (2) testing the predictive relationship between nearly graduates’ intention to enter the teaching profession and their actual job entrance upon graduation (teaching profession or not). 3. Method 3.1. Sample and procedure In the present study, a prospective research design with two data collection phases was adopted. Data were collected among student teachers (subsequently graduates) of teacher training for lower secondary education in Flanders. This is a three-year programme organised as a professional bachelor course by institutes of higher education. It is a so-called ‘integrated teacher training’: subject matter training, didactics, and practical training in different schools are distributed throughout the three-year programme. Institutes of higher education organise the practical component in co-operation with schools in the form of pre-service training. During practical training, student teachers are supervised by mentors (cooperating teachers). Since the practical training is organised in different phases throughout the programme, student teachers are gradually introduced to the complexities of the job and to the corresponding responsibilities. Graduates are qualified to teach two or three subjects in secondary education. In the first phase of data collection (T1), 684 student teachers from six teacher training institutes were administered a questionnaire at the end of their teacher education programme. In total, 443 student teachers (response rate 64.77%) completed this questionnaire.1 Of this sample, 63.3% of the responding student teachers were female. Participants were on average 21.6 years old (SD ¼ 2.1). In the second phase of data collection (T2), all successfully graduated T1-participants were invited to complete a second (brief) questionnaire (time interval between data collections phases varied between three to six months). Participants in T2 were 66.9% women; the mean age was 22.0 years (SD ¼ 1.7). Of this sample 62.2% (n ¼ 156) had entered the teaching profession whereas 22.7% (n ¼ 57) had entered a non-teaching job and 15.1% (n ¼ 38) were (still) unemployed (e.g., job searching, further study). The retention rate between T1 (n ¼ 436) and T2 (n ¼ 251) was 57.57%. Assuming there is always drop-out in prospective studies, the critical issue is whether this drop-out results in bias. But after comparing participants who completed both T1 and T2 questionnaires to those who dropped out, the only significant difference that could be observed concerns respondents’ subject specialisation (classification based on van Veen et al., 2001): a significantly larger number of graduates qualified to teach one or more subject (s) related to social studies (i.e., geography, history, economics, social studies, or moral/religious education) participated at T2 (Chisquare ¼ 11.87, p ¼ .001) while significantly fewer graduates qualified to teach at least one expression subject (i.e., physical education or arts) participated at T2 (Chi-square ¼ 15.97, p < .001). Therefore the drop-out bias appears to be limited. 3.2. Research instruments To obtain measures related to the specific variables in the hypothetical model, either a new instrument was developed or an existing instrument was translated into Dutch.

1

An additional 7 students were excluded because of non-random missing data.

I. Rots et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1619e1629

In order to investigate the psychometric quality of each of these instruments, confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted. CFA allows for comparison of the data to a pre-specified model (factor structure) to determine the goodness of fit. In a CFA analysis, subjects’ responses to the items are analysed to see whether the sets of items could be grouped according to their originally intended structure to form their respective factors. For each of the instruments in this study, a separate CFA was conducted to validate the a priori factor structure of the specific instrument. Specific criteria were used to evaluate and modify the different (factor) models. Special attention was paid to the cross-loading of items on multiple factors, the regression coefficient of individual items, and the consistency with the theoretical framework underlying each instrument. For several instruments, items were deleted as a result of this process. Several fit indices were used to evaluate model fit: the c2 test, the comparative fit index (CFI), the nonnormed fit index (NNFI), the standardised root-mean-square residual (SRMR), and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA).2 The results of the different CFAs (see Table 1) indicated an acceptable to good fit of the obtained (factor) models with the data. 3.2.1. Initial motivation for teaching (T1) To measure the level of initial motivation for teaching, student teachers were asked to indicate the extent to which the purpose of becoming a teacher had influenced their decision to enter teacher education. This scale was based on an instrument of Derriks and De Kat (1993). Each of the items (e.g., “[I entered teacher education] because I wanted to be a teacher.”) was scored on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (no influence at all) to 6 (very much influence). 3.2.2. Teacher education preparation (T1) In Flanders, teacher training is not directed by a detailed national curriculum. Teacher training institutes have to prove that they pursue and attain the basic competencies as set out by the Flemish government. Therefore, in order to measure respondents’ perception of teacher education preparation, a scale was constructed based on the basic competencies of teacher training for lower secondary education. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they felt teacher education has prepared them to perform a set of tasks central to teaching. The items were scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all prepared) to 5 (very well prepared). In accordance with the theoretical classification of basic competencies (Aelterman, 1995), this instrument assesses preparation for responsibility towards the learners (i.e., ability to act as a coach of learning and developmental processes, as educator, as content expert, as organiser, and as innovatorresearcher) as well as preparation for responsibility towards the educational community (i.e., ability to act as partner of parents, as a member of a school team, as a partner of external bodies, and as a member of the educational community) and towards society (i.e., ability to act as a participant in culture). 3.2.3. Faculty support (T1) Student teachers’ perception of the support received from the faculty in their teacher education programme was measured by the Perceived Faculty Support Scale (Shelton, 2003). Shelton (2003) distinguished between support directed towards promoting a sense of competency and self-worth (i.e., psychological faculty

2 A small, non-significant chi-square value is expected if a model provides adequate fit to the data. Because c2 is highly sensitive to sample size, alternative fit indices have to be adopted. Recommended values of CFI and NNFI are those above .90 whereas the value of SRMR should be below .08. Furthermore, the value of RMSEA should be lower than .05 to demonstrate a close fit; values between .05 and .08 indicate a fair fit; values larger than .10 indicate a poor fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005).

1623

support) and support directed towards the achievement of tasks in order to reach the goals of academic success (i.e., functional faculty support). 3.2.4. Mentor support (T1) Based on the work of Zanting, Verloop, and Vermunt (2001) and Väisänen (2003), a perceived mentor support scale was developed. Respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot) how well different roles and tasks were reflected by their mentors during practical training. Zanting et al. (2001) theoretically identified six mentor roles: (1) coach, (2) information source, (3) evaluator, (4) promoter of a student teacher’s self-reflection, (5) introducing the student teacher to school life, and (6) promoter of the student teacher’s selfregulated learning. Since the factor analysis indicated a considerable overlap between theoretically distinct mentor roles, some roles were combined (see Table 1). 3.2.5. Teacher efficacy (T1) To gauge respondents’ teacher efficacy, we used the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Reliability and validity of this instrument have been demonstrated in earlier research (Klassen et al., 2009). This scale assesses a broad range of capabilities (across context, levels, and subjects) considered important in good teaching. The scale measures efficacy in student engagement, efficacy in instructional strategies, and efficacy in classroom management. 3.2.6. Professional orientation (T1) Professional orientation was measured using a scale developed by Jongmans and Beijaard (1997) which is based on Hoyle’s (1980) distinction between a restricted versus an extended professional orientation. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each statement (e.g., “Cooperation with other teachers is necessary to carry out teaching tasks in an adequate way.”) on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). 3.2.7. Learner-oriented beliefs (T1) The ‘General Educational Beliefs’ instrument of Denessen, Michels, and Felling (2000) was used to investigate the level of student teachers’ learner-oriented beliefs. This instrument focuses on two factors, mirroring two independent ideologies: (1) subject-matter-oriented beliefs (characterised by an orientation towards qualification, a focus on discipline, and an emphasis on achievement and good marks), and (2) learneroriented beliefs (characterised by an orientation towards personal and social development, an acknowledgment of students’ opinions and desires, and an emphasis on the importance of the learning process, for instance, in autonomous and co-operative settings). 3.2.8. Teaching commitment (T1) In accordance with the study of van Huizen (2000), we used a Dutch language scale to measure respondents’ teaching commitment. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with individual statements (e.g., “Working as a teacher provides satisfaction.”), on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). 3.2.9. Employment opportunities (T1) A scale composed of four items was constructed to measure student teachers’ perception of their employment opportunities. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each statement (e.g., “I am optimistic that I will find

1624

I. Rots et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1619e1629

Table 1 Overview of instruments and scales: number of items, Cronbach’s Alpha, and results of the confirmatory factor analyses (n ¼ 436).

a

c2 (df, p-value)

CFI

NNFI

SRMR

RMSEA

4

.86

4.249 (2, .119)

.997

.992

.014

.051

Teacher education preparation: responsibility towards learners responsibility towards educational community & society

15 8 7

.87 .80 .79

194.223 (89, <.001)

.939

.928

.046

.052

Faculty support: psychological support functional support

16 8 8

.93 .90 .85

356.973 (103, <.001)

.926

.914

.050

.075

Mentor support: coach & evaluator information source promoter of self-reflection & self-regulated learning introducing student to school life

15 3 3 6 3

.90 .70 .79 .80 .75

274.860 (86, <.001)

.924

.907

.053

.071

Teacher efficacy: in student engagement in instructional strategies in classroom management

11 3 4 4

.79 .67 .63 .76

125.302 (42, <.001)

.921

.897

.058

.068

Professional orientation

10

.82

105.777 (35, <.001)

.935

.917

.048

.068

General educational beliefs: subject-matter-oriented beliefs learner-oriented beliefs

208.180 (103, < .001)

.937

.926

.054

.048

6 10

.74 .81

Teaching commitment

6

.84

34.774 (9, <.001)

.971

.951

.032

.081

Employment opportunities

4

.63

11.817 (2, .003)

.968

.904

.035

.106

Intention to enter the teaching profession

4

.94

9.320 (2, .009)

.995

.986

.011

.092

Measure Initial motivation for teaching

Items

a good job after graduation.”) on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). 3.2.10. Significant others who work(ed) in education (T1) Student teachers were asked to indicate whether their parents, siblings, and/or partner work or have ever worked in education. 3.2.11. Intention to enter the teaching profession (T1) In order to assess student teachers’ current intention for job entrance, the items of the scale ‘initial motivation for teaching’ (based on Derriks and De Kat (1993), see above) were rephrased (e.g., “I entered teacher education because I wanted to be a teacher.” was rephrased as “I want to be a teacher.”). Each of the items was scored on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree). 3.2.12. Entrance into the teaching profession (T2) This was operationalised as the respondent’s first official job after graduation (teaching profession or not). 3.2.13. Job alternatives (T2) In line with the study of van Dam (2005), three items (a ¼ .79) in the T2-questionnaire referred to the perceived availability of alternative jobs for the respondent’s actual first job (e.g., “I could have easily gotten another job of equal value if I had wanted to.”). A four-point Likert scale was used ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 4 (totally agree). 3.2.14. Control variables Several personal and contextual characteristics were included as control variables. Most of these were gathered at T1: age, gender, the education type attended during secondary education (i.e., general, technical, arts, or vocational secondary education), having obtained other degrees or diplomas in higher education, having started but not completed another training prior to entering teacher education, the subject specialisation in teacher education,

and the particular teacher training institute. Furthermore, student performance data were obtained from the teacher training institute. 3.3. Data analysis 3.3.1. Path analysis In a first phase of data-analysis, structural equation modelling (path analysis) was used. Path analysis is a statistical method to test a priori structures and relations between variables. A theoretical or hypothesised model is tested statistically to determine the extent to which it is consistent with the data or how well it fits the data. If the goodness of fit is adequate, the plausibility of the postulated relations among the variables is strengthened; if the fit is inadequate, the tenability of the postulated relations is rejected (Byrne, 2001). To address our first research aim, path analysis was applied to test the pattern of hypothesised relationships between the variables measured at the first phase of data collection. The initial model being tested reflected the relationships presented in Fig. 1 (yet with ‘intention to enter the teaching profession’ as the dependent variable). Based on the model of Chapman (1983), this initial model was rather restricted. It focused on the straightforward relationships between the different variables and intention to enter teaching without taking into account all meaningful interrelationships between mediating variables or correlations between exogenous (independent) variables. A three step procedure was followed to carry out the path analysis with the AMOS 17.0 software. First, the data were randomly split into two subsets to obtain a calibration and a validation sample. Deletion of one multivariate outlier resulted in a calibration sample size of 217 and a validation sample size of 218. Second, using path analysis, the calibration sample was assessed for goodness-of-fit to the hypothesised model. The above mentioned well-established indices (the c2 test, the CFI, the NNFI, the SRMR, and the RMSEA) were used to assess model fit. Given inadequate fit, the model was respecified by including additional paths as

I. Rots et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1619e1629

suggested by the AMOS-generated modification indices. Only theoretically meaningful paths were included in the respecified model. All non-significant predictors were deleted from the model. This resulted in a final model reflecting optimal goodness-of-fit indices. Third, this final model was tested for its replication across the validation sample. The focus of this cross-validation was to test for the invariance of all specified paths across the two independent subsamples. 3.3.2. Logistic regression analysis Based on the hypothetical model (see Fig. 1) and in accordance with our second research aim, in the second phase of data-analysis logistic regression analysis was used. This statistical technique allows to predict dichotomous categorical outcomes. In this study, it is used to determine the extent to which teaching graduates’ actual entrance into the teaching profession (dichotomous ‘first job’ factor: teaching profession or not) can be predicted from their intention to enter the teaching profession (as reported shortly before graduation), their perceived job alternatives, and the presence of significant others who work(ed) in education. Gender, age, the subject specialisation, and student performance in teacher education were included as control variables. A backward stepwise method was used to perform the logistic regression analysis. This approach starts with a complex model containing all variables of interest and sequentially removes non-significant variables. In the final multivariate model only variables with a p-value less than .05 were retained. 4. Results To obtain overall measures for the different constructs, composite scale scores were calculated. Using factor score weights, scale scores were derived as weighted sums of items and then were converted to 100 point scales. Each scale is a separate set of items; items do not overlap between scales. Table 2 summarises the descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients among all Likert scale variables in the study. 4.1. Path analysis Path analysis of the initial model in the calibration sample indicated that all paths were statistically significant, except for the paths between ‘significant others who work(ed) in education’ and ‘intention to enter the teaching profession’. Given the restricted nature of the initial model, the unsatisfactory goodness-of-fitindices (see Table 3) were not surprising. The incorporation of seven additional paths resulted in a clear improvement of the fit indices (i.e., initial motivation for teaching 4 faculty support; initial motivation for teaching 4 mentor support; learner-oriented beliefs / professional orientation; learneroriented beliefs / teacher efficacy; faculty support / learneroriented beliefs; mentor support / teacher efficacy; teacher efficacy / professional orientation). After deletion of the non-significant predictor ‘significant others who work(ed) in education’, the final model was obtained (see Fig. 2). This model showed acceptable model fit in the calibration sample and explained 56% of the variance in nearly graduated student teachers’ intention to enter teaching. Although this final path model shows significant relations between the variables, it is possible that one or more confounding variables (e.g., personal or contextual factors) may account for these results. To test for this possibility, the final path model was recomputed, including several personal and contextual factors as control variables (see above). Categorical control variables (e.g., gender, subject specialisation, particular training institute) were included as dummy variables. None of the control variables substantially affected the relationships

1625

between the variables in the final model. All path coefficients in the path model (see Fig. 2) remained statistically significant after controlling for these variables. Next, the final model that was developed on a random subsample of the data (calibration sample) was validated on the other mutually exclusive subsample (validation sample). Following a procedure outline by Byrne (2001), we conducted a multiple group analysis to test for the invariance of the final path model across the two independent subsamples.3 The results revealed that there were no significant differences in the path coefficients across samples (Chi-square ¼ 24.349, df ¼ 30, ns). Therefore, the causal structure of the final path model is shown to be statistically invariant across the two independent samples.

4.2. Logistic regression analysis In the second phase of data-analysis, backward stepwise logistic regression analysis was performed. One case was identified as an outlier and removed from the final analysis. Table 4 summarises the results of the final regression model. Three of the variables entered in the logistic regression analysis appeared to be significant predictors of actual entrance into the teaching profession. As expected, student teachers’ intention to enter the teaching profession (reported shortly before graduation) was the most powerful predictor of actual entrance (Wald (1) ¼ 32.996, p < .001). Also in line with our expectations, as respondents’ job alternatives increased, they were significantly less likely to enter teaching (Wald (1) ¼ 4.511, p ¼ .034). The subject specialisation in teacher education appeared to be another powerful predictor of actual entrance. Graduates qualified to teach at least one expression subject (i.e., physical education or arts) were less likely to enter the teaching profession (Wald (1) ¼ 14.511, p < .001). The odds were approximately 4.76 times lower. Interpretation of the odds ratio indicates that graduates qualified to teach expression subject(s) were 79% (1.0  .210 ¼ .79) less likely to enter the teaching profession than other graduates (see the OR in Table 4). The regression model proved to be both parsimonious and robust. The fit of the model was clearly better than the fit of a model containing no predictors (null model: c2 (3) ¼ 61.062, p < .001), indicating that the variables as set (i.e., intention to enter teaching, job alternatives, and subject specialisation) improved the accurate prediction of graduates’ actual first job (teaching profession or not). The fit was not worse than a model containing all variables (c2 (8) ¼ 9.609, ns). Furthermore, the HosmereLemeshow statistic reflected a non-significant value (p ¼ .653), indicating that the model had an acceptable fit. The robustness of our model was further investigated using two strategies. First, a forward stepwise strategy was conducted. This strategy yielded identical results. Second, the model was cross-validated using several random subsamples. The results for each analysis were largely comparable.

3 This procedure is outlined by Byrne (2001). From an omnibus test, which determined the goodness of fit for the two groups (samples) simultaneously, the fit was adequate (c2 (50) ¼ 122.807; CFI ¼ .947; NNFI ¼ .905; SRMR ¼ .074; RMSEA ¼ . 058). The fit of this initial multi group model provides the baseline value against which we compare a subsequent model in which equality constraints are specified. The change in chi-square value provides the basis for this comparison. Accordingly, to test for invariance of the final path model across the samples, we constrained all parameters in this model to be equal across groups (samples). Results revealed the constrained model to be well-fitting (c2 (80) ¼ 147.156; CFI ¼ .951; NNFI ¼ .945; SRMR ¼ .071; RMSEA ¼ .044). The difference in chi-square values between this test and the omnibus test (no equality constraints imposed) is 24.349, with 30 degrees of freedom. Since this test statistic is not statistically significant, the causal structure of the final path model is shown to be statistically invariant across the two independent samples.

1626

I. Rots et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1619e1629

Table 2 Means, standard deviations and Pearson correlation coefficients among the Likert scale variables (n ¼ 436). Variable

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1. Initial motivation for teaching 2. Mentor support 3. Faculty support 4. Teacher education preparation 5. Professional orientation 6. Teacher efficacy 7. Learner-oriented beliefs 8. Teaching commitment 9. Employment opportunities 10. Intention to enter teaching profession 11. Job alternativesa

e .21** .29** .29** .33** .28** .25** .40** .02 .63** .04

11

e .30** .49** .22** .39** .15** .27** .21** .20** .01

e .50** .39** .36** .34** .37** .14** .26** .05

e .42** .52** .30** .40** .10* .26** .00

e .44** .51** .48** .09 .31** .09

e .40** .44** .12* .35** .01

e .53** .01 .28** .09

e .05 .56** .06

e .19** .29**

e .18**

e

M SD

69.43 22.76

60.09 15.54

62.43 14.68

58.75 14.20

69.58 12.84

68.87 10.25

80.01 11.21

75.54 13.59

53.48 19.39

72.76 23.73

52.95 22.63

*p < .05; **p < .01. a n ¼ 213.

5. Discussion Using a prospective research design based on two phases of data collection, the present study extends previous research on the relationship between teacher education and graduates’ entrance into the teaching profession. Building on the theory of Krumboltz (1979), Mitchell and Krumboltz (1996), and the model of Chapman (1983), a hypothetical model was constructed to describe graduates’ intended and actual entrance into the teaching profession. A distinction was made between initial motivation for teaching, teacher education, integration into teaching, teaching commitment, and external influences. This model is an extension of the model developed in the study of Rots and Aelterman (2008, 2009) with three additional variables, i.e., ‘learner-oriented educational beliefs’ (as a component of integration into teaching) as well as ‘(not) having significant others who work(ed) in education’ and ‘job alternatives’ (as external influences). The present study aimed to test this hypothetical model in two phases: (1) testing the hypothesised relationships explaining nearly graduated student teachers’ intention to enter the teaching profession, and subsequently (2) testing the predictive relationship between nearly graduates’ intention to enter the teaching profession and their actual job entrance upon graduation. A combination of structural equation modelling (path analysis) and logistic regression analysis was used to test our hypothetical model in a sample of student teachers (subsequently graduates) of teacher training for lower secondary education in Flanders. Regarding our first research aim, multiple fit indices as well as the results of the cross-validation procedure revealed that, after some modifications, the path model reflected a good fit. More than half of the variance in intention to enter teaching (i.e., the teaching profession) could be explained (56%). None of the control variables

Table 3 Goodness of fit indices of the models in the calibration sample (n ¼ 217). Model

c2 (df, p-value)

CFI

NNFI

SRMR

RMSEA

Initial model Modified modela Final modelb

163.066 (41, <.001) 61.904(34, .002) 55.664 (25, <.001)

.812 .957 .953

.747 .930 .915

.136 .070 .074

.117 .062 .075

a Addition of 7 significant paths: initial motivation for teaching 4 faculty support; initial motivation for teaching 4 mentor support; learner-oriented beliefs / professional orientation; learner-oriented beliefs / teacher efficacy; faculty support / learner-oriented beliefs; mentor support / teacher efficacy; teacher efficacy / professional orientation. b Deletion of 1 non-significant path: significant others who work(ed) in education / intention to enter the teaching profession.

substantially affected the relationships between the variables in this final model. A comparison between the hypothetical model (see Fig. 1) and the final path model (see Fig. 2) of intention to enter teaching demonstrated notable consistency. Except for the relationship between ‘significant others who work(ed) in education’ and ‘intention to enter teaching’, all paths specified in the hypothetical model are statistically significant. Furthermore, next to allowing two pairs of exogenous variables to covary (initial motivation for support; initial motivation for teaching 4 faculty teaching 4 mentor support), five paths initially not specified in the hypothetical model proved to be meaningful and were added to the model (learner-oriented beliefs / professional orientation; learner-oriented beliefs / teacher efficacy; faculty support / learner-oriented beliefs; mentor support / teacher efficacy; teacher efficacy / professional orientation). The modification of the initial model mainly reflected the addition of relationships between mediating variables. Below we elucidate the most important relationships in the final path model. We describe the main findings with regard to the different categories of variables: (1) initial motivation for teaching and teaching commitment, (2) integration into teaching variables, (3) teacher education variables, and (4) employment opportunities. First, as expected, initial motivation for teaching and teaching commitment are clearly related to intention to enter teaching. Student teachers who started teacher education because they wanted to work as a teacher and those who report higher teaching commitment at the end of teacher education, are more likely to show higher intention to enter teaching at the time of their graduation. Moreover, consistent with the findings of Day et al. (2007), initial motivation for teaching is positively related to teaching commitment. Accordingly, initial motivation for teaching also shows an indirect association with intention to enter teaching, with teaching commitment as the mediating variable. Second, also the relationship between integration into teaching (as indicated by teacher efficacy, professional orientation, and learner-oriented beliefs) and intention to enter teaching was mediated by teaching commitment. Nearly graduated student teachers with a higher level of teacher efficacy, as well as those with a more extended professional orientation and those with stronger learner-oriented beliefs are more likely to show higher teaching commitment and subsequently a stronger intention to enter teaching. These findings suggest that a correspondence between one’s self-rated teaching abilities (i.e., sense of teacher efficacy), professional orientation, and educational beliefs with the demands of the teacher education programme (i.e., the basic competencies,

I. Rots et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1619e1629

1627

.20 R² =.37 mentor support

.34

.35

R² =.37

R² =.33 teacher efficacy .20 .19

.31 faculty support

teacher education .18 preparation .22 .42 .18

.18 .24

R² =.34 professional .17 orientation

R² =.10 .39 learner-oriented .26 beliefs

teaching commitment

.19 .31 .35

initial motivation for teaching

.53

R² =.56

intention to enter the teaching -.15 profession

employment opportunities

Note: Solid arrows indicate initially hypothesized relationships. Broken arrows indicate relationships that were added to the final model. All depicted relationships are significant at p < 0.05. Values represent standardised estimates as well as the explained variance for the endogenous variables (R 2) (n = 217). Fig. 2. Final model: results of the path analysis.

such as the extended view of professionalism and the learneroriented approach to teaching), strengthens graduating teachers in their choice for the teaching profession. Furthermore, teacher efficacy, professional orientation, and learner-oriented beliefs are regarded as components of integration into teaching. Therefore their interrelationship is obvious and justified a modification of our initial model by including theoretically (and statistically) meaningful relationships between these variables. The association between teacher efficacy and professional orientation suggests that nearly qualified teachers who feel more confident about their ability to promote students’ learning, are better able to focus on a more extended interpretation of their task as a teacher which in turn enhances their teaching commitment. Moreover, the relationship between learner-oriented beliefs and professional orientation seems theoretically justified (Bartlett, 2004; van Veen & Sleegers, 2006). Given their desire to provide the best possible educational opportunities for students, nearly qualified teachers with strong learner-oriented beliefs may be more concerned with professional collaboration and locating their classroom teaching in a broader educational context. Acknowledging a joint responsibility to implement learner-centered education, they aim to function as members of a school team. In line with Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, and Kurz (2008), we also added a relationship between learner-oriented beliefs and teacher efficacy. We assumed that student teachers holding learner-oriented beliefs feel more confident in engaging student interest, using appropriate instructional strategies, and managing students (reflected in a higher sense of teacher efficacy).

Third, consistent with our hypothetical model (see Fig. 1), faculty support, mentor support, and teacher education preparation showed a positive indirect association with intention to enter teaching. For each of these variables, the relationship is mediated by integration into teaching and by teaching commitment. Moreover, teacher education preparation appeared to be a mediating variable for the relationships of both faculty and mentor support with integration into teaching, teaching commitment, and ultimately intention to enter teaching. These results confirm the importance of adequate and sufficiently intensive supervision by the faculty of the training institute as well as support provided by mentors during practical training in schools. Both forms of support contribute to student teachers’ positive perception of teacher education preparation and consequently enhance their sense of teacher efficacy, extended professional orientation, and learner-oriented beliefs. Furthermore, our study suggests that faculty support in teacher education can serve as a role model for student teachers’ learneroriented beliefs. Moreover, the direct relationship between mentor support and teacher efficacy corresponds with research indicating the importance of interpersonal support for student/novice teachers’ efficacy beliefs (Fives, Hamman, & Olivarez, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007). This finding suggests that support from mentors helps student teachers to experience “mastery” (i.e., teaching accomplishments with students), “verbal persuasion” (e.g., encouraging feedback), and “vicarious experiences” (e.g., mentor as positive role model); all of which are potent sources of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997).

Table 4 Predicting graduates’ actual entrance into the teaching profession. Results of the logistic regression analysis (n ¼ 212). Variable

B

SE

Wald

df

p

OR

OR1

95% CI

Qualified to teach expression subject(s) Job alternatives Intention to enter the teaching profession Constant

1.563 .408 1.231 1.643

.410 .192 .214 .257

14.511 4.511 32.996 40.945

1 1 1 1

.000 .034 .000 .000

.210 .665 3.425

4.762 1.504

.094e.468 .456e.969 2.250e5.212

Note. B ¼ regression coefficient; SE ¼ standard error; Wald ¼ Wald statistic; OR ¼ odds ratio; OR1 ¼ inverse odds ratio; 95% CI ¼ 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio. Model Chi-square ¼ 61.062, p < .001; 2 Log likelihood ¼ 185.761; HosmereLemeshow Goodness-of-fit test ¼ 5.950, p ¼ .653; Nagelkerke R2 ¼ .36.

1628

I. Rots et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1619e1629

Fourth, the anticipated (negative) relationship between employment opportunities and intention to enter teaching is also confirmed. This is in line with evidence that a strong labour market may decrease the motivation to opt for a teaching job (OECD, 2005). Regarding our second research aim, logistic regression analysis was performed. We were able to identify and develop a parsimonious and robust statistical model predicting graduates’ actual job entrance (teaching profession or not). As expected, student teachers’ intention to enter teaching (reported shortly before graduation) clearly predicts their actual entrance upon graduation. Next, the presence of job alternatives appears to be negatively related to graduates’ entrance into teaching. Finally, qualifying to teach an expression subject (i.e., physical education or arts) reduces the odds of entrance into teaching by almost a fifth. This may be due to the fact that there are fewer teaching jobs available in physical and arts education. 6. Conclusion To conclude, the present study underpins our hypothetical model regarding teacher education graduates’ intended and actual entrance into the teaching profession. A key contribution of this study to current literature is the fact that a prospective research design was adopted that builds on two data collection phases. This helped us guarantee construct validity of the variables measured and allowed us to test the predictive relationship between nearly graduates’ intention to enter the teaching profession and their actual job entrance. Moreover, the consideration of several control variables as well as cross-validation procedures verified the robustness of the results. However, there are some limitations to this study. First, although the response rate at T1 (63.74%) and the retention rate between the two time periods of data collection (57.57%) were adequate and drop-out bias seems limited, it is not clear why a proportion of respondents declined to (re)participate. Second, there are factors outside the teacher education setting that additionally affect the (intended) entrance into the teaching profession. Certain decisive factors might go beyond the influence of teacher education institutes (e.g., job search behaviour, working conditions of available jobs, and geographical influences). Third, path analysis was based on cross-sectional data and therefore limits the ability to make causal inferences. In accordance with our research aim and driven by both theoretical predictions and the results of recent empirical research, in this study the relationships between initial motivation for teaching, teacher education, nearly graduates’ integration into teaching, teaching commitment, and intention to enter teaching were approached in a unidirectional way, from the former to the latter. We estimated a specific hypothetical model which provided an acceptable fit to the data. Nevertheless, because our study relies on cross-sectional data, we warn against rigid causal interpretations. Particularly, the interpretation of the relationship between ‘initial motivation for teaching’ (when starting teacher education) and both ‘teaching commitment’ and ‘intention to enter teaching’ (shortly before graduation) requires caution. Since these questions were asked at the same time, it is possible that current teaching commitment and intention to enter teaching affect recollections about prior motivation for teaching. Future longitudinal research is needed to further explore the direction of the relationships found in this study. Fourth, since this study does not include differences candidates bring to their teacher education programme (e.g., in teaching skill or in general feelings of efficacy) we cannot distinguish programme effects. However, this study does show that student teachers’ (perception of) experiences during teacher education (e.g., faculty support, mentor support, and teacher education preparation) is positively related to their

teaching commitment and intention to enter the teaching profession as reported shortly before graduation. By controlling for the training institute (included in the analysis as five dummy variables) we ensured that these relationships in our final path model were not an artefact of the specific teacher education programme. Despite these limitations, the present study adds to previous research by validating the relationship between teacher education variables and (nearly graduated) student teachers’ teaching commitment and intention to enter the teaching profession, even when initial motivation and labour market factors are taken into account. Moreover, our results offer empirical evidence that student teachers’ intention to enter the teaching profession (as reported shortly before graduation) is an imperative predictor of their actual entrance. Certainly, it is not only important to support student teachers in acquiring the ‘technical’ knowledge and skills of teaching. Becoming a teacher is also an emotional experience (Bullough & Young, 2002; Hayes, 2003; Zembylas, 2003). During teacher education, and particularly during the practical training, student teachers’ sense of self as teacher is challenged (Bullough & Young, 2002). The guidance, support, follow-up, and feedback from teacher educators and mentors are particularly important in order to help student teachers “navigate the inevitably emotionallycharged process of becoming a teacher” (Malderez et al., 2007, p. 242) and to maintain their confidence, self-efficacy, and teaching commitment. Therefore, these findings have important implications for teacher education and lend further support to calls for the effective selection, preparation, and formal recognition of mentors, and for the consistent professional development opportunities for teacher educators. Finally, following Rinke (2008), an elaboration of these quantitative findings with in-depth qualitative research is recommended (e.g., case studies of student teachers with both low and high intention to enter the teaching profession) in order to contextualise the factors identified as important. It would be particularly interesting to develop a better understanding of student teachers’ sense-making of experiences and interactions during teacher education and how this affects their motivation for the teaching profession and their intention to enter this profession. References Aelterman, A. (1995). Academische lerarenopleiding: De ontwikkeling van een curriculumconcept als antwoord op maatschappelijke uitdagingen en een verruimde professionaliteitsopvatting [Academic teacher training: The development of a curriculum concept as response to the social challenges and an extended professionalism]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ghent University. Aelterman, A. (1998). Het beroepsprofiel van de leraar: Een instrument in de kwaliteitszorg van de overheid. [The professional profile of the teacher: An instrument in the quality care of the government]. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsrecht & Onderwijsbeleid, 3, 170e176. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179e211. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company. Bartlett, L. (2004). Expanding teacher work roles: a resource for retention or a recipe for overwork? Journal of Education Policy, 19, 565e582. Billingsley, B. S. (2004). Special education teacher retention and attrition: a critical analysis of the research literature. Journal of Special Education, 38, 39e55. Billingsley, B. S., Carlson, E., & Klein, S. (2004). The working conditions and induction support of early career special educators. Exceptional Children, 70, 333e347. Brouwer, N., & Korthagen, F. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 42, 153e224. Bullough, R. V., Jr., & Young, J. (2002). Learning to teach as an intern: the emotions and the self. Teacher Development, 6, 417e431. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Caires, S., & Almeida, L. S. (2007). Positive aspects of the teacher training supervision: the student teachers’ perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 515e528.

I. Rots et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1619e1629 Chapman, D. W. (1983). A model of the influences on teacher retention. Journal of Teacher Education, 34, 43e49. Chapman, D. W. (1984). Teacher retention: the test of a model. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 645e648. Chapman, D. W., & Green, M. S. (1986). Teacher retention: a further examination. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 273e279. Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 323e337. Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (1993). Shattered images: understanding expectations and realities of field experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 457e471. van Dam, K. (2005). Employee attitudes toward job changes: an application and extension of Rusbult and Farrell’s investment model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 253e272. Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: how well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 286e302. Day, C., Elliot, B., & Kington, A. (2005). Reform, standards and teacher identity: challenges of sustaining commitment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 563e577. Day, C., Sammons, P., Stobart, G., Kington, A., & Gu, Q. (2007). Teachers matter: Connecting work, lives and effectiveness. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Denessen, E., Michels, C., & Felling, A. (2000). Opvattingen over onderwijs: een onderzoek naar de validiteit en betrouwbaarheid van een meetinstrument. [The content and dimensional structure of attitudes towards education]. Pedagogische Studiën, 77, 193e205. Derriks, M., & De Kat, E. (1993). Onedele motieven voor een edel beroep? Een studie naar de motieven om te kiezen voor een hogere pedagogische opleiding. [Ignoble motives for a noble profession? A study of the motives to choose for a higher pedagogical training]. Pedagogische Studiën, 70, 17e27. Fives, H., Hamman, D., & Olivarez, A. (2007). Does burnout begin with studentteaching? Analyzing efficacy, burnout, and support during the student-teaching semester. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 916e934. Grady, T. (1990). Career mobility in agricultural education: a social learning theory approach. Journal of Agricultural Education, 31, 75e79. Guarino, C. M., Santibañez, L., & Daley, G. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: a review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76, 173e208. Hayes, D. (2003). Emotional preparation for teaching: a case study about trainee teachers in England. Teacher Development, 7, 153e171. Hermans, R., van Braak, J., & Van Keer, H. (2008). Development of the beliefs about primary education scale: distinguishing a developmental and transmissive dimension. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 127e139. Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring beginning teachers: what we know and what we don‘t. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 207e216. Hoyle, E. (1980). Professionalization and deprofessionalization in education. In E. Hoyle, & J. Megarry (Eds.), World yearbook of education 1980: Professional development of teachers (pp. 42e54). London: Kogan Page. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1e55. van Huizen, P. (2000). Becoming a teacher: Developing of a professional identity by prospective teachers in the context of university-based teacher education. Utrecht: Utrecht University. Jarvis, J., & Woodrow, D. (2005). Reasons for choosing a teacher training course. Research in Education, 73, 29e35. Jongmans, C. T., & Beijaard, D. (1997). De professionele oriëntatie van leraren en hun betrokkenheid bij het schoolbeleid. [Teachers’ professional orientation and their involvement in school policy-making]. Pedagogische Studiën, 74, 97e107. Klassen, R., Bong, M., Usher, E., Chong, W., Huan, V., Wong, I., et al. (2009). Exploring the validity of a teachers’ self-efficacy scale in five countries. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 67e76. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. Krumboltz, J. D. (1979). A social learning theory of career choice. In A. M. Mitchell, G. B. Jones, & J. D. Krumboltz (Eds.), Social learning theory and career decision making (pp. 19e49). Cranston, RI: Carroll Press. Kyriacou, C., Hultgren, Å., & Stephens, P. (1999). Student teachers’ motivation to become a secondary school teacher in England and Norway. Teacher Development, 3, 373e381. LaTurner, R. J. (2002). Teachers’ academic preparation and commitment to teach math and science. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 653e663. Lunenberg, M., Korthagen, F., & Swennen, A. (2007). The teacher educator as a role model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 586e601. Malderez, A., Hobson, A. J., Tracey, L., & Kerr, K. (2007). Becoming a student teacher: core features of the experience. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30, 225e248. Manuel, J., & Hughes, J. (2006). ‘It has always been my dream’: exploring preservice teachers’ motivations for choosing to teach. Teacher Development, 10, 5e24.

1629

Meirink, J. A., Meijer, P. C., Verloop, N., & Bergen, T. C. M. (2009). Understanding teacher learning in secondary education: the relations of teacher activities to changed beliefs about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 89e100. Mitchell, L. K., & Krumboltz, J. D. (1996). Krumboltz’s theory of career choice and counseling. In D. Brown, & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and development (3rd ed.). (pp. 233e280). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retraining effective teachers. Paris: OECD Publishing. Rinke, C. R. (2008). Understanding teachers’ careers: linking professional life to professional path. Educational Research Review, 3, 1e13. Roness, D., & Smith, K. (2009). Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) and student motivation. European Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 111e134. Rots, I., & Aelterman, A. (2008). Teacher training for secondary education and graduates’ entrance into the teaching profession. Educational Studies, 34, 399e417. Rots, I., & Aelterman, A. (2009). Teacher education graduates' entrance into the teaching profession: Development and test of a model. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24, 453e471. Rots, I., Aelterman, A., Vlerick, P., & Vermeulen, K. (2007). Teacher education, graduates’ teaching commitment and entrance into the teaching profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 543e556. Ruhland, S. K. (2001). Factors that influence the turnover and retention of Minnesota’s technical college teachers. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 26, 56e76. Ruhland, S. K. (2002, April). An examination of secondary business teachers’ retention factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Shelton, E. N. (2003). Faculty support and student retention. Journal of Nursing Education, 42, 68e76. Sinclair, C. (2008). Initial and changing student teacher motivation and commitment to teaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 79e104. Singh, K., & Billingsley, B. S. (1996). Intent to stay in teaching: teachers of students with emotional disorders versus other special educators. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 37e47. Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41, 681e714. Stokking, K., Leenders, F., De Jong, J., & Van Tartwijk, J. (2003). From student to teacher: reducing practice shock and early dropout in the teaching profession. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26, 329e350. Tait, M. (2008). Resilience as a contributor to novice teacher success, commitment, and retention. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35, 57e75. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783e805. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944e956. Väisänen, P. (2003, June). The preferred and observed roles of mentors and peerstudents in the supervision of teaching practice: A multimethod approach. Paper presented at the bi-annual meeting of the International Study Association on Teachers and Teaching (ISATT), Leiden, The Netherlands. van Veen, K., & Sleegers, P. (2006). How does it feel? Teachers’ emotions in a context of change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38, 85e111. van Veen, K., Sleegers, P., Bergen, T., & Klaassen, C. (2001). Professional orientations of secondary school teachers towards their work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 175e194. Wang, J., & Odell, S. J. (2002). Mentored learning to teach according to standardsbased reform: a critical review. Review of Educational Research, 72, 481e546. Weisberg, J., & Sagie, A. (1999). Teachers’ physical, mental, and emotional burnout: impact on intention to quit. Journal of Psychology, 133, 333e339. Weiss, E. M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and first-year teachers’ morale, career choice commitment, and planned retention: a secondary analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 861e879. Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002). Teacher preparation research: an insider’s view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 190e204. Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Burke Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: a comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343e356. Woolfolk Hoy, A., Hoy, W. K., & Kurz, N. M. (2008). Teacher’s academic optimism: the development and test of a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 821e835. Zanting, A., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2001). Student teachers’ beliefs about mentoring and learning to teach during teaching practice. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 57e80. Zembylas, M. (2003). Emotional teacher identity: a post structural perspective. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9, 213e238. Zientek, L. R. (2007). Preparing high-quality teachers: views from the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 959e1001.