Teachers' Motivations to Teach: An Expectancy-Value Theoretical Framework and Longitudinal Empirical Findings

• In Event: A Decade of Teacher Motivation Research: Looking Back and Looking Forward

Abstract

Purpose and Theoretical Framework
We frame our presentation around the three guiding questions addressed by each paper in this symposium. Drawing on data spanning 15 years/four time points, we elaborate beginning teachers’ motivations to teach and how these differ across contexts; identifiable motivational profiles and how they differ according to demography and context; and how initial teaching motivations predict to later teacher/student outcomes.
Initial motivations were measured by the FIT-Choice Scale (introduced by Authors, 2003), developed to assess the primary motivations of teachers to teach, grounded in Eccles’ et al. (1983) expectancy-value theory. It taps “altruistic”-type motivations emphasized in the teacher education literature as well as more personally utilitarian and intrinsic motivations, ability-related beliefs and the negative motivation to teach as a “fallback”. Theory and measures are first presented, then comparative findings across more than 15 cultural settings to discover how context matters for teacher motivation. Longitudinal findings reveal how motivations matter for early-career Australian teachers.

Methods
In addition to our large-scale studies in Australia, the US and the UK, others have expanded upon this research across more than 10 countries. We examine differences in motivations to teach in light of cultural and career features, then present longitudinal findings from Australian data tracking the experiences of 688 teachers since entry to teacher education (of the 1643 who qualified to teach, 97 had quit teaching/never taught; thus 48% retention 1-7 years after initial qualification).

Results and Discussion
Use of the FIT-Choice Framework enabled comparisons across international studies. Regarding the three guiding questions:
(1) Teachers' expectancy-value motivations were important for their later professional engagement, behaviours and burnout. Outcomes were consistently predicted by a subset of initial motivations (positively by ability, intrinsic value, social utility value, and negatively by fallback career) in structural equation models. Personal utility values were not predictive, contrary to popular belief that these might be “unworthy” motivations. Motivations were moderately stable from entry to teacher education up to 8 years’ teaching. Different motivational profiles were identified by hierarchical cluster analysis (Australian/US/UK samples) attributable to career pathway structures. Individuals with most positive-seeming profiles were intriguingly those most psychologically vulnerable.
(2) Motivations core to choosing the teaching profession were ability motivations and intrinsic value (primary predictors in the underpinning expectancy-value model), which were highest-rated, but lower in collectivist cultures where career choice may be less based on individual interests/abilities. “Altruistic” social utility values were lower in more egalitarian cultures, where perceived need to achieve social equity is likely lower. Personal utility values were moderate, and lower than intrinsic, ability or social utility motivations. Fallback career was rated low, revealing teaching to be a career of choice. It seems there are “core” teacher motivations, and context shapes prominence of individualistic, collectivistic, or personally utilitarian motivations.
(3) Before simple application of our findings to selection into teacher education, key questions for future research concern contextual moderators and mediators affecting motivations—particularly those which may frustrate beginning teachers’ positive initial motivations to teach, and, whether motivations are amenable to intervention.

Authors

• Helen M.G. Watt, The University of Sydney

• Paul W. Richardson, Monash University