Choice as a Predictor of Motivation for Teaching in Urban Schools

• In Event: 34.035 - Teachers' Motivations and the Classroom: Relations Across Diverse Educational Contexts

Abstract

Purpose and Theoretical Framework
Previous research has shown that teachers are motivated to choose teaching for reasons of social contribution and an intrinsic enjoyment of teaching (Watt & Richardson, 2007; Fray & Gore, 2018). Teachers in urban schools face unique circumstances and challenges including larger class sizes, more behavioral issues, fewer support services, and higher-need students (Shernoff et al., 2011). This study sought to determine if teachers who chose to teach in a high-poverty, urban district differed in their motivation compared to teachers who did not choose to teach in the same district and if their motivations for teaching differed by their career persistence.

Methods
In-service K-12 teachers (N = 378) completed the short-form FIT Choice measure of teacher motivation, as well as measures of self-efficacy, administrative support, perceived drawbacks of teaching in an urban district (drawbacks), and perceptions of the district in which they teach (perceptions). The FIT Choice measure contains items measuring social utility value (SUV), personal utility value (PUV), and intrinsic value (IV). One item assessed their choice in teaching in an urban district (choice); two groups wanted to teach in the urban district (1 – [This district] was my first choice; 2 – I applied to [this district] after teaching in another district.) while two groups taught there by default (3 – I had no choice, no other district was hiring at the time; 4 – [This district] was my only choice, I had no other job offers.) An additional question asked teachers about their intention to stay in teaching.

Results
First, we conducted a one-way multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) using SUV, PUV, IV, self-efficacy, administrative support, drawbacks, and perceptions as the dependent variables and choice as the independent variable. The MANOVA was significant, F(40,1230.43)=1.67, p<.001, Wilks’ λ=.82, ηp2=.05. Follow-up post-hoc tests found differences in self-efficacy, perceptions, and drawbacks. The analyses revealed that those who chose to teach in an urban district had greater self-efficacy, more positive perceptions of teaching in their district, and fewer perceived drawbacks than those who had to teach there. Furthermore, a second one-way MANOVA using the same dependent variables and “intentions to stay in teaching” as the independent variable was also significant, F(9,881)=2.16, p=.02; Wilk’s λ=.95, ηp2=.02. Post hoc tests indicated that those who view teaching as a lifelong career choice have significantly more intrinsic value, greater self-efficacy, more positive perceptions of teaching in their district, and fewer perceived drawbacks than those who are not sure of their intentions to stay in teaching.

Significance
This study highlights the significance of choosing to teach in a high-poverty urban district and its relation to teachers’ motivation for teaching and perceptions of their environment. Greater emphasis could be placed on the benefits of teaching in urban areas in order to attract more motivated teachers to these districts. Future research should explore how and why teachers choose to teach in urban districts and sources of intrinsic value and self-efficacy specific to teaching in urban districts.

Authors

• Annette Ponnock, University of Maryland - College Park

• Brooke Y. Hoffman, Rowan University

• Will J. Jordan, Temple University

• Peshe C. Kuriloff, Temple University

• Danielle Sutherland, Michigan State University