Motivations to Teach: Psychometric
Perspectives Across the First Semester of
Teacher Education
CATHERINE SINCLAIR
MARTIN DOWSON
DENNIS M. MCINERNEY
University of Western Sydney
Many studies have investigated preservice teachers’ motivations to teach. However,
few studies have (a) used robust measurement methodologies to test the psychometric
properties of instruments measuring motivations to teach, (b) attempted to measure
changes over time in preservice teachers’ motivations to teach, or (c) attempted to
assess the effects that relevant variables such as age or gender may have on temporal
changes in motivations to teach. This study sought to address these perceived deficits
in the literature. Results indicate that the instrument developed in this study was
reliable and valid across two waves of data collection, that preservice teachers’ motivations to teach changed across the course of their first semester of teacher education,
and that, in some cases, these changes were related to the age of preservice teachers.
WHY MOTIVATIONS TO TEACH MATTER
A worldwide shortage of teachers is currently developing, and specific geographic and subject-area shortages are already commonplace in many
Western nations. These shortages are typically attributed to the resignation
of qualified practicing teachers, the retirement of an aging teaching labor
force, and falling enrollments in teacher education programs (O’Connor,
1999; Preston, 1997). With respect to the first of these attributions, for
example, recent research in the U.S. context (e.g., Association for Curriculum Supervision and Development, 2003; Ingersoll, 2003) suggests that
present teacher shortages are not the result of too few teachers per se.
Rather, it appears that there are a sufficient number of trained teachers, but
that many qualified teachers are leaving the profession because of job dissatisfaction, ‘‘burnout,’’ or other non-retirement-related reasons. Despite
this, it is also the case that attracting new candidates to, and retaining these
Teachers College Record Volume 108, Number 6, June 2006, pp. 1132–1154
Copyright r by Teachers College, Columbia University
0161-4681
Motivations to Teach
1133
candidates within, the teaching profession is critical. Unfortunately, two key
incentives—money and status—that may address issues of both teacher attraction and teacher retention are not as readily available to teaching as they
are to other competing professions. There is little that teachers or policy
makers can do about the salary structure or status of teaching in the short
term. What is possible, however, is identifying other incentives (or motivations) that may attract people to teaching and retain them once they are
there.
Attracting and retaining candidates for teaching is not just important for
the profession; it is also important for financial and personal reasons. For
example, the financial costs (just to the preservice teacher, not the actual
costs to government) of teacher education are considerable. In Australia, for
example, where this study was conducted, it costs approximately
$US15,000 per annum in government fees, books, and other academic
expenses to complete a teacher education course. In personal terms, teacher education ‘‘costs’’ a 4- or 5-year commitment to a teacher education
course before a recognized qualification to teach is gained. This money and
time is obviously not put to best use if teacher candidates drop out of the
profession before or soon after they enter it as qualified teachers. Thus, if it
were possible to identify motivations that were associated with completion
of teacher education courses and retention in the profession after graduation, this would clearly be advantageous from financial, personal, and
professional points of view.
Not only is it important to attract candidates to and retain candidates
within teaching but also to attract the ‘‘right’’ candidates to teaching. The
‘‘right’’ candidates presumably will be those who engage deeply in their
preservice preparation and their subsequent professional lives. This engagement may be demonstrated, for example, when preservice teachers
attend and actively participate in lectures and tutorials, ask meaningful
questions, enter into substantive conversations with peers and university
lecturers, reflect on their experiences on campus and in their practicum
schools, think deeply about their assignments, and change their beliefs and
practices throughout their courses and as they become teachers.
Not all preservice teachers engage in their teacher education courses in
the manner described above. Recent findings from the motivation psychology literature (e.g. Pintrich, 1990) suggest that the differing quality and
level of preservice teachers’ engagement in their teacher education courses
may be related to motivation constructs. For example, the motivation literature has examined relationships between motivation constructs, such as
students’ motivational goals, self-efficacy, self-concept, and attributions, and
their performance and engagement in teacher education courses (e.g.,
Martin & Dowson, in press; Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2003). What has not
been examined to date, however (at least not within a robust psychometric
1134
Teachers College Record
framework), are the effects that specific entry motivations may have on the
quality of preservice teachers’ engagement in teacher education courses.
Finally, preservice teachers’ engagement in their teacher education
courses probably will be indicative (although not perfectly) of their engagement in their professional lives (Jordell, 1987; Steen, 1988). Identifying entry motivations, then, may have implications for both teacher
education and continuing teacher practice. A prerequisite for investigations of engagement at either the pre- or postqualification stages is the basic
identification and measurement of motivations to teach.
PRACTICAL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM MOTIVATIONAL
PSYCHOLOGY
The motivational psychology literature (e.g., Dowson & McInerney, 2003;
McInerney, Maehr, & Dowson, 2004) suggests that salient motivations determine (a) what activities people do or don’t engage in (attraction), (b) how
long they engage in these activities (retention), and (c) the depth to which
they engage in these activities (concentration). In terms of teaching and
teacher education, motivations may therefore determine whether potential
candidates elect to teach, how long candidates remain in teacher education
and, subsequently, the teaching profession, and the extent to which teaching undergraduates and graduates engage with concentrate on their profession.
Identifying motivations associated with attraction, retention, and concentration may have important practical outcomes. For example, if it was
possible to identify a range of factors that attracted people to teaching as a
profession (their initial or entry motivations to teach), then it could be
possible for teacher education providers and courses to appeal to those
motivations. In this way, the attractiveness of teacher education courses may
be maximized.
Similarly, one potential reason that people drop out of teaching and
teacher education courses is that their motivations may be insufficient to
sustain their involvement in teacher education or practice. For example, the
demanding nature of preservice teachers’ practicum experiences, particularly their early practicum experiences, often cause preservice teachers to
evaluate and reevaluate their commitment to teaching. As a result, it is not
uncommon for them to drop out of teacher education courses when faced
with the realities of their first teaching practicum. Dropping out suggests
that, at some level of consciousness, a reevaluation of commitment to teach
has occurred. It is reasonable to suggest that part of this reevaluation may
involve a reexamination of entry motivations to teach and a determination
that these motivations are insufficient to counterbalance the ‘‘reality check’’
Motivations to Teach
1135
(perceived negative characteristics) of initial teaching experiences. Thus, a
preservice teacher who enters teaching primarily because he or she perceives that ‘‘teaching is an easy profession’’ may experience a substantial
decrement in motivation, and hence drop out, if and when he or she discovers that teaching is not an easy profession!
Other preservice teachers also experience this reality check but do not
drop out. This suggests that their entry motivations may be more stable in
the face of the inevitable stresses of practicum. Thus, a preservice teacher
who enters teaching as a result of a genuine desire to work with children or
adolescents would presumably be more sustainably motivated than one
motivated by the perceived ease of teaching.
STABILITY OF MOTIVATION AS A FACTOR IN PRESERVICE
TEACHER RETENTION
We have argued so far that understanding motivations to teach may be
important for attracting candidates to, retaining candidates within, and engaging candidates in, the teaching profession. This is true at both the preservice and in-service levels. However, we do not assume that motivations to
teach will be stable across time. Rather, we suggest that entry motivations to
teach may change substantially over time, particularly in response to the
‘‘real-life’’ teaching experiences that constitute preservice teachers’ practicum experiences. We also suggest that changes in motivations to teach may
be associated with retention. For example, if a preservice teacher’s motivation shifts away from perceptions that teaching is an easy profession and
toward a desire to work with young people, then his or her retention may
be enhanced. Conversely, a preservice teacher who is unable to shift his or
her motivation away from teaching being an easy profession may be more
likely to drop out in the face of persistent reminders to the contrary. Thus,
what we term motivational flexibility, and particular motivations, might also be
associated with retention. A prerequisite for determining whether this is the
case is understanding that shifts in motivations do occur across time. This
study aims to determine whether motivational changes were evident among
one cohort of preservice teachers.
POTENTIAL USEFULNESS OF MOTIVATIONS-TO-TEACH
INSTRUMENTATION
One of the key outcomes of this research will be the development of an
instrument to measure preservice teachers’ motivations to teach. A legitimate question concerns how this instrument might be used in professional
(as distinct from research) settings. Possible answers to this question follow.
1136
Teachers College Record
1. Using the instrument to assist potential teacher education candidates
(such as senior secondary school students) in identifying their motivations to teach. This identification may assist potential candidates to appropriately self-evaluate their commitment and suitability for teaching.
As a result, information from the instrument may facilitate more appropriate choices of teaching as a career among potential candidates.
2. Using the instrument to assist teacher educators to identify preservice
teachers’ motivations to teach. This identification may assist teacher educators in providing appropriate counseling and related support to preservice teachers, particularly at critical phases such as entry to teacher
education courses, or before, during, or after practicum experiences. For
example, if preservice teachers are running out of reasons to be committed to teaching, they may need to discuss their interface with the
teaching profession with university staff or peer mentors. These staff and
mentors may benefit from knowledge of salient motivations espoused by
preservice teachers.
3. University-based teacher educators might also find motivations to
teach identified by the instrument useful in their interactions with
mentoring and supervising teachers in schools. For example, university
teacher educators might alert school-based educators (in general terms)
to the key types of motivations that particular cohorts of preservice
teachers may bring to their practicum experiences. This information may
in turn assist school-based educators in providing more targeted support
for preservice teachers.
4. Finally, although the instrument in this study is designed with preservice teachers primarily in mind, it may also be of use to existing
teachers, particularly beginning teachers. A means of identifying motivations to teach may assist teachers to reflect on their predispositions and
reactions to various teaching and teaching-related situations. This reflection may in turn assist teachers in maintaining or adjusting their
approaches to teaching, thus enhancing their engagement and retention
in the profession. Schools may also use the instrument to provide additional school support or professional development opportunities to
teachers.
MOTIVATIONS TO TEACH
The literature (e.g., Allard, Bransgrove, Cooper, Duncan, & MacMillan,
1995; Berg, Reno, & Coker, 1992; Crow, Levine, & Nager, 1990; Serow,
Eaker, & Forrest, 1994; Stiegelbauer, 1992; Su, 1994; Weiner, Swearingen,
Motivations to Teach
1137
Pagano, & Obi, 1993; Whately, 1998; Yong, 1995; Zimpher, 1989) suggests
several motivations that teacher aspirants may hold when entering preservice teacher education. These motivations include (a) ‘‘love’’ of, or desire
to work with, children or adolescents; (b) the perceived worth or value of
teaching to others; (c) a desire to help other people; (d) dissatisfaction with a
previous career; (e) the perceived benefits or convenience of teaching (attributable to factors such as work schedules, work hours and vacations, and
salary); (f) the perceived relative ease of entry into teacher education
courses or the job of teaching itself; (g) intellectual reasons, such as a love of
learning or teaching, a love of a particular subject area (the latter more
likely reported by secondary teachers), the desire to impart knowledge, and
so on; (h) the influence of others, such as family members, former teachers,
or members of the community; (i) the status of teaching, including the
opportunities that teaching provides for career or social advancement; and
(j) the opportunities that teaching provides for satisfying interpersonal interactions with others.
The literature also suggests that variations in motivations to teach may
exist between different groups of teacher aspirants, such as women (Allard
et al., 1995), minority groups (Dilworth, 1991; Gordon, 1993), those with
differing levels of academic achievement (Hart & Murphy, 1990; Weiner et
al., 1993; Whately, 1998), those with different nationalities (Yong, 1995),
and second-career teachers (Crow et al., 1990; Serow, 1993). It is important
to note that for the present study, age may also be a factor in differentiating
between motivations to teach. Specifically, mature-aged preservice teachers,
regardless of whether they are second-career teacher aspirants, may have
substantially different motivations to teach than those coming to tertiary
teacher education courses immediately from high school. This perspective
is congruent with Zimpher’s (1989) meta-analysis of motivation-to-teach
studies, which reported that motivation to enter teaching has changed
across the decades.
FRAME OF REFERENCE AND QUALITY OF MOTIVATION
We hypothesize, following research by Marsh with respect to self-concept
(e.g. Marsh, 1986, 1990), that motivations of any kind, including motivations to teach, may be externally or internally referenced. Externally referenced motivations refer to motivations that primarily involve people or
conditions external to individuals. For example, doing something for money may be construed as an externally referenced motivation because the
money attached to a task or occupation is a condition external to the person. Similarly, doing something because others think that the task or activity
is a good idea represents an externally referenced motivation because the
1138
Teachers College Record
impetus for the task or activity is attributed to forces (in this case, the
influence of others) outside the person. Conversely, internally referenced
motivations refer to motivations in which the impetus to initiate, persist, and
engage deeply in the task or activity primarily is attributed to the beliefs,
values, and perceptions of the individual. For example, doing something
‘‘just because I like it’’ (i.e., for reasons of personal interest or satisfaction) is
an internally referenced motivation. So too, the desire to help others is an
internally referenced motivation because the desire is located within the
individual, even if the desire is expressed in relationships with others.
In addition to the frame of reference for a motivation, motivations may
also be categorized on the basis of the extent to which they promote lasting
and effective engagement in a task or activity (e.g., Ames, 1992; Barker,
Dowson, & McInerney, 2002). Thus, motivations may be either adaptive or
maladaptive. Adaptive motivations are motivations that facilitate deep and
lasting engagement in a task or activity. For example, the motivation to
engage in a task or activity for reasons of intellectual stimulation would be
expected to assist a person’s cognitive engagement in that activity. This is
because an individual would presumably perceive intellectual stimulation
(the goal of the motivation) to arise from cognitive engagement (versus
disengagement) in the task or activity. Conversely, maladaptive motivations
are motivations that facilitate disengagement from, or ‘‘shallow’’ (i.e., superficial) engagement in, tasks or activities. For example, the motivation to
engage in an activity because the activity is thought to be ‘‘easy’’ would be
expected to negatively affect a person’s long-term persistence in that activity, especially if he or she finds that the activity is actually more difficult
than estimated.
Table 1 categorizes each of the motivations to teach in this study in terms
of its hypothesized frame of reference and adaptiveness, or otherwise.
MEASURING MOTIVATIONS TO TEACH
Although motivations to teach may be identified relatively easily, few published instruments with established psychometric properties exist to measure these motivations. In fact, in a review of the literature, we were able to
find only one published study (Ferrell & Daniel, 1993) that attempted to
measure the validity of a motivation-to-teach instrument, the Orientations
for Teaching Survey (OTS), in a psychometric context. At the time of writing, we are aware of no other instruments, extant in the literature, designed
to measure motivations to teach.
This instrument displayed some desirable psychometric properties (e.g.,
high factor loadings and relatively low cross-loadings) in the cited study.
However, this study used methods to determine these properties, chiefly
Motivations to Teach
1139
Table 1. Scales and sample items from the Modified Orientations to Teach Survey
(MOTS)
Scale
Working with
Children
Worth of
Teaching
Intellectual
Stimulation
Ease of Entry/
Work
Dissatisfaction
Frame of
Reference
Quality of
Motivation
Sample Item
Internal
Adaptive
I would like to work with children.
Internal
Adaptive
Internal
Adaptive
External
Maladaptive
External
Maladaptive
Teaching is an important
profession.
Teaching is an intellectually
stimulating occupation.
Teaching is an easy job to
train for.
I was dissatisfied with work I had
done in other fields.
Teaching offers me a good
opportunity for career
advancement.
Teaching gives me a chance to
help the less fortunate.
I like the work hours and
vacation time.
My parents thought that it would
be a good career for me.
Teaching gives me an opportunity
to meet a lot of people.
Career
External
Considerations
Adaptive
Help Others
Internal
Adaptive
Conditions
External
Maladaptive
Influence of
Others
Patterns of
Interaction
External
Maladaptive
External
Adaptive
exploratory factor analyses (EFAs), that have been largely superseded in
recent psychometric studies by more robust methodologies, such as confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs; e.g., Dowson & McInerney, 2004; McInerney, Marsh, & McInerney, 1999). Thus, there is scope for further
validation of the OTS using more robust and contemporary measurement
methodologies.
Because CFA procedures are typically more stringent than EFA procedures (Kaplan, 2000; Kelloway, 1998), CFAs usually result in many more
items from given scales being found to be psychometrically inappropriate.
These items need to be deleted for the scales as a whole to demonstrate
sufficient validity. For this reason, in the present case, we hypothesized that
if the OTS items were tested using CFA procedures, then at least some, and
maybe many, items that were found to be psychometrically appropriate in
the initial Ferrell and Daniel (1993) study may not prove to be so in a CFAbased study. For this reason, it would be prudent to supplement the original
OTS items with further items designed to measure the same constructs as
the OTS.
Finally, the meaning of items in any survey may change across contexts.
For this reason, it is important to determine whether items developed in
1140
Teachers College Record
one context are appropriate for use in other contexts. In the present
case, the OTS was developed in a North American context for use
with North American preservice teachers. We, however, were concerned
with developing an instrument (or modifying an existing instrument) that
could be used in Australian contexts. For this reason, the face validity of
items in the OTS had to be considered before the survey could be administered.
CHANGES IN MOTIVATIONS TO TEACH OVER TIME
Although a substantial amount of literature has addressed factors that initially motivate people to become teachers, much less is known about
changes to those motivations over time. Such changes may initially be attributable to a growing awareness of what teaching actually involves, as
opposed to what teaching is thought to involve at the beginning of a teacher
education course. This growing awareness may be particularly attributable
to teacher aspirants’ practicum experiences in schools (Rushton, 2001;
Steen, 1988). Whatever the case, potential changes in teacher aspirants’
motivations to teach are important, not least because of the loss of resources
involved when teacher aspirants drop out of teacher education courses.
Additionally, there are significant losses to the profession in the early years
of teaching (Billingsley & Cross, 1992; Shann, 1998). These may also be
attributable, at least in part, to the appropriateness of teacher aspirants’
motivations to teach. For these reasons, a developing knowledge about how
preservice teachers’ motivations to teach may change over time would appear to be important for both preservice and in-service retention rates (see
also Allard et al., 1995; Barnabe & Burns, 1994; Davis & Wilson,
2000; Dilworth, 1991; Oliver, Bibik, Chandler, & Lane, 1988; Pennington,
1995).
PURPOSE
The purposes of the present research were to (a) determine, in the context
of confirmatory factor and related analyses, the psychometric properties of
a modified and expanded instrument designed to measure students’ motivation to teach, and (b) use data gathered by this instrument to measure
changes in preservice teachers’ motivations to teach over time, and how
these changes may be related to the ages of preservice teachers.
As indicated, we hypothesized that mature-aged students (those over 25
years of age, n 5 35) would respond differently than younger students
(those under 25 years of age, n 5 63) at both Times 1 and 2.
Motivations to Teach
1141
METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
Participants in the study were 98 first-year preservice teachers studying at a
large public university in Sydney, Australia. These students were enrolled in
a 4-year teacher education course and undertook practicum experiences in
elementary schools for 1 day each week during the first semester of their
course while concurrently studying teaching on campus throughout the rest
of the week. They also undertook a 1-week block practicum experience at
the end of the semester.
The number of participants represented the entire first-year cohort of
preservice teachers at one campus of the university. The age of participants
ranged from 18 to 45, with a mean of approximately 26 years. A total of 84
(85%) females and 13 males participated in the study. Most participants
(n 5 89) were from Anglo Australian backgrounds, with most other students
coming from Middle Eastern and Asian backgrounds.
INSTRUMENTATION
The Modified Orientations to Teach Survey (MOTS) was designed to
measure Australian preservice teachers’ motivations to become teachers.
More specifically, the MOTS was designed to measure the 10 specific motivations to teach. Thus, items in the MOTS were clustered around perceptions that teaching (a) provides opportunities to work with children; (b) is a
worthy and worthwhile occupation; (c) is an occupation that provides intellectual stimulation; (d) is an easy occupation and an easy occupation into
which to gain entry; (e) provides an alternative to previously dissatisfying
employment; (f) is a ‘‘good’’ career or may provide other options for career
change or advancement; (g) provides opportunities to help others; (h) is an
occupation with good ‘‘conditions’’ (e.g., holidays) attached to it; (h) is an
occupation valued or recommended by ‘‘significant others’’ (e.g., parents or
friends); and (i) provides varied opportunities for working autonomously
and with others.
The MOTS comprises 80 items measuring these 10 motivations to teach.
A total of 58 of these items were drawn from the original OTS developed by
Ferrell and Daniel (1993). These items were included in the MOTS because
they measured the constructs of interest in this study and because there is
some evidence for their validity in the cited study. Moreover, we did not
wish to develop new items to measure the constructs of interest if valid items
were already published.
Despite this decision, evidence concerning the psychometric properties
of the OTS items is limited because (a) this validity derives from exploratory
1142
Teachers College Record
factor analytic (EFA) approaches to item and construct validation rather
than from more robust confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) procedures, and
(b) the OTS items were only tested with samples drawn from the United
States. Hence, there is some question as to whether the items may demonstrate appropriate psychometric qualities when used in other contexts
(such as, in the present case, among Australian preservice teachers).
For these reasons, it was prudent to (a) modify the wording of some of
the OTS items in order to incorporate wording more appropriate in Australian contexts, (b) supplement the original OTS items with 22 items of our
own construction, and (c) test the psychometric properties of the 80 MOTS
items using a CFA approach.
With respect to (a), for example, item 46 of the OTS, ‘‘I decided to enter
teaching because I was told about a scholarship or tuition reimbursement
program available to persons entering teacher education programs’’ was
changed to ‘‘I decided to enter teaching because I was told about a scholarship or some other financial support available to people entering teacher
education programs.’’ This change was made because Australian undergraduate students, including the preservice teachers in this study, are not
required to pay particular tuition fees. In addition, the word people rather
than persons is more commonly used in the Australian context.
All items in the MOTS used a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Table 1 includes a list of the scales comprising
the MOTS, and a sample item from each scale.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE MOTS
All participants gave their active consent to participate in the study prior to
its administration. The MOTS was then administered twice during the
participants’ first year at the university—once at the beginning and once
near the end of the semester, approximately 5 months apart. Participants
completed the MOTS as an entire cohort during normal lecture/tutorial
time on both occasions. The response rate to the MOTS on both occasions
was 100%. A research assistant, rather than the researchers who may have
also been teaching the participants in their course, administered the instrument. This strategy allowed the researchers to standardize the delivery
of the MOTS and attempted to remove any perception on the part of
students that nonparticipation would affect their progress in their course.
CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS
CFAs assess item and scale validity by determining the extent to which
variations in and between observed indicators (items) are caused by underlying constructs (Fleishman & Benson, 1987). The specific degree to
Motivations to Teach
1143
which variation in and between indicator variables can be explained by
latent (underlying) factors determines the fit of CFA measurement models.
The first step in establishing the fit of a CFA model is to examine the
model’s estimated parameters. The parameters of a CFA model include (a)
factor loadings (relationships between items and factors), (b) factor correlations (relationships between factors and factors), (c) squared item correlations (the amount of variance associated with each item that may be
attributed to underlying factors), and (d) error variances or ‘‘uniquenesses’’
(the amount of variance associated with each item not explained by underlying factors).
The values for each of these parameters should be permissible (i.e., there
should be no impossible values such as negative item or factor variances).
FIT INDICES
Researchers have developed a variety of methods for assessing model fit
(Bandalos & Benson, 1990; Marsh, Balla, & Hau, 1996). These methods
involve the use of a variety of goodness of fit indices that typically assess how
closely a covariance or correlation matrix reproduced from a hypothesized
model matches a matrix generated from actual data. If the two matrices are
consistent with one another, then the goodness of fit indices will be large
(close to 1), and the hypothesized model can be considered a plausible
explanation for the data.
There is considerable debate in the literature as to which of these indices
are appropriate for measuring model fit and in what situations (Kaplan,
2000; Kelloway, 1998; Mueller, 1996; Pedhazur & Pedhazur Schmelkin,
1991). Despite disagreement as to the relative merit of various goodness of
fit indices, however, there is a general consensus that more than one of
these indices of overall model fit should be used to evaluate a given model.
In the present study, we use the goodness of fit index (GFI), the adjusted
goodness of fit index (AGFI), and the root mean square residual (RMSR) to
evaluate the fit of the CFA models that we tested. Ideally, values of the GFI
and AGFI should be greater than .90, and values of the RMSR should be
less than .05, if models are to be considered to fit the data well (Kaplan;
Mueller).
CONGENERIC MEASUREMENT MODELS
Finally, it is possible and often preferable to test multiple factors in the
context of multifactor CFA models rather than in the context of singlefactor (congeneric) CFA models (Lee, Dunbar, Frisbie, & 2001; Mueller,
1996). However, if sample size restrictions do not permit this, congeneric CFA models are particularly useful (Holmes-Smith & Rowe, 1994).
1144
Teachers College Record
Moreover, congeneric models allow researchers who are exploring the
psychometric qualities of less well-documented items and scales to determine the qualities of these items and scales free from disturbance errors
associated with other factors (Mueller). Thus, in exploratory-type analyses,
congeneric models often provide ‘‘cleaner’’ information than multifactor
models.
In the present study, both the sample size and the exploratory nature of
the research indicated that the use of congeneric models was appropriate.
Specifically, this meant that, at both Time 1 (T1) and Time 2 (T2), 10
congeneric models corresponding to each of the 10 motivation-to-teach
scales were constructed. As indicated, we based the models at both times on
the factors identified in the previous OTS study. This was because the OTS
factors represented both a relevant and reasonably extensive range of
motivations to teach. The main measurement question for this study, then,
revolved around the extent to which the items in the MOTS measured the
OTS factors. This was an important question because, for reasons also outlined previously, new items needed to be added to the original OTS items,
and both the original OTS items and the new MOTS items needed to be
validated within a CFA framework. Thus, this research sought to build upon
the previous OTS research by retaining the factors from the original study,
while extending the previous study by more closely examining the validity
of the original OTS and new MOTS items used to measure the original
OTS factors.
At T1, modifications to the scales were made until a best fit was achieved
with a given number of items. These modifications were based on an examination of the parameters (factor loadings, uniquenesses, and so on) and
goodness of fit indices for each model. At T2, the best fitting models from
T1 were tested without alteration in order to determine whether the models
were ‘‘stable’’ (i.e., demonstrated good fit) from T1 to T2. Thus, the research employed a test-retest methodology to ascertain the appropriateness
of the models in the study.
REPEATED MEASURES ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Once the validity and reliability of scales have been established, the means
of these scales may be computed for use in further analyses. In the present
study, and on the basis of the results of the CFAs, we took the means of each
of the scales (i.e., the items measuring different motivations to teach). We
then used these means in a two-wave repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine whether participants’ responses indicated
changes over time in their motivations to teach. As indicated, we hypothesized that mature-aged preservice teachers (those over 25 years of age,
N 5 35) would respond differently than younger preservice teachers (those
Motivations to Teach
1145
under 25 years of age, N 5 63) at both T1 and T2. For this reason, we used
age (mature-aged vs. younger preservice teachers) as the grouping factor in
the repeated-measures ANOVAs.
RESULTS
SCALE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY
Table 2 reports the fit statistics and alpha reliabilities for each of the scales at
both T1 and T2.
Table 2 indicates that, with some exceptions, the scales demonstrated
good fit at T1 and T2 (i.e., the GFI and AGFI were above .90, and the
RMSR was below .05). The exceptions were with respect to (a) worth of
teaching, in which the AGFI and RMSR at T2 did not meet generally accepted criterion levels; (b) career considerations, in which the AGF1 at T1 and
the AGFI and RMSR at T2 did not meet criterion levels; (c) influence of
others, in which the AGFI and RMSR were marginally below criterion levels
at T1 and T2; and (d) patterns of interaction, in which the AGFI at T1 did not
meet the criterion level.
Despite these exceptions, 6 of the 10 scales (i.e., working with children,
intellectual stimulation, ease of entry/work, dissatisfaction, helping others, and conditions of employment) all demonstrated good fit on all indices at T1 and T2.
This suggests that these scales are particularly good measures of their respective constructs. Of the remaining scales, at least one measure of fit (and
usually two) at T1 and T2 met criterion levels.
CHANGES IN MOTIVATIONS TO TEACH OVER TIME
Table 3 records the results of the repeated-measures ANOVAs examining
the changes over time in preservice teachers’ motivations to teach. Specifically, Table 3 records the main effects for the differing motivations to teach,
preservice teachers’ age, and the interaction between these.
Before examining these effects, however, it is worth noting the overall
pattern of means in Table 3. The participants reported very strong motivations for teaching related to working with children, worth of teaching, intellectual
stimulation, and helping others. All means for these factors for both age groups
at both times were over 4.00. Means for working with others were also high
(approaching 4.00 in all cases). The participants reported less, but still moderately, strong motivations for teaching related to career considerations, conditions of employment, and influence of others. Conversely, ease of entry and work and
dissatisfaction with previous employment were not strong motivators. Means for
these factors were in the range of 1.44–1.64 and 2.12–2.64, respectively.
1146
Teachers College Record
Table 2. Scale fit statistics
Scale
Working w/
Children
Factor
Time Items Loadings
T1
T2
Worth of
Teaching
T1
T2
Intellectual
T1
Stimulation
T2
Ease of Entry/ T1
Work
T2
Dissatisfaction T1
T2
Standard
Errors
Squared
Multiple
Corrs.
1
12 n
26 n
27 n
1
12
26
27
37 n
65
66
72
37
65
66
72
17 n
18 n
30 n
41 n
53 n
17
18
30
41
53
52 n
.469
.617
.798
.337
.513
.401
.865
.513
.589
.856
.772
.491
.332
.936
.736
.336
.775
.452
.210
.440
.629
.598
.512
.435
.639
.749
.222
.116
.121
.130
.117
.115
.114
.130
.115
.102
.097
.098
.105
.107
.122
.115
.107
.087
.055
.073
.098
.071
.108
.110
.112
.107
.106
.093
.220
.381
.637
.114
.263
.160
.748
.263
.346
.773
.597
.241
.110
.877
.542
.113
.601
.204
.044
.194
.395
.357
.262
.189
.408
.561
.078
77
78
79
52
77
78
79
15 n
19 n
44 n
75
15
19
44
75
.435
.873
.660
.112
.924
.766
.620
.491
.255
.809
.733
.571
.067
.970
.619
.116
.201
.147
.108
.096
.098
.100
.146
.139
.148
.120
.108
.105
.119
.109
.353
.762
.436
.012
.854
.586
.384
.241
.065
.654
.538
.325
.004
.940
.383
n
GFI AGFIRMSR a
.982 .911 .044 .58
.999 .995 .010 .55
.993 .964 .024 .76
.949 .743 .089 .68
.982 .946 .040 .61
.973 .918 .046 .72
.995 .976 .020 .78
1.000 .998 .006 .65
.983 .917 .038 .64
.985 .926 .042 .79
Motivations to Teach
1147
Table 2. (Continued)
Scale
Career
Consideratation
Factor
Time Items Loadings
T1
T2
Help Others
T1
T2
Conditions
T1
T2
Influence of
Others
T1
T2
Patterns of
Interaction
T1
T2
33 n
36 n
47 n
48 n
33
36
47
48
2n
7n
8n
29 n
2
7
8
29
4n
5n
6n
35 n
4
5
6
35
10 n
42 n
45 n
74
10
42
45
74
51 n
54 n
55 n
63
51
54
55
63
.657
.608
.924
.633
.252
.548
.593
.654
.625
.556
.660
.297
.616
.568
.641
.299
.840
.789
.679
.444
.364
.699
.811
.601
.347
.775
.393
.763
.172
.747
.503
.891
.700
.739
.754
.461
.677
.870
.824
.278
Standard
Errors
.080
.123
.111
118
.126
.126
.129
.133
.125
.122
.127
.124
.093
.093
.062
.125
.108
.112
.106
.127
.112
.106
.107
.106
.160
.156
.149
.160
.110
.109
.106
.112
.102
.101
.101
.109
.096
.092
.093
.108
Squared
Multiple
Corrs. GFI AGFIRMSR a
.431
.369
.855
.401
.063
.300
.351
.428
.391
.309
.435
.088
.379
.323
.411
.089
.705
.622
.461
.197
.132
.489
.658
.362
.120
.601
.155
.582
.030
.559
.253
.754
.490
.547
.568
.212
.459
.757
.679
.077
.978 .891 .031 .79
.945 .726 .082 .60
.986 .930 .042 .52
.993 .967 .027 .55
.986 .932 .028 .78
.998 .989 .013 .71
.979 .896 .054 .66
.978 .892 .055 .66
.974 .871 .043 .75
.983 .917 .039 .74
Note: Items marked with an asterisk ( n) were drawn from the original OTS, some of
which were slightly modified according to the procedures outlined in the Method
section. Items without an asterisk were original items designed by the present authors. Only items at T1 are asterisked in order to eliminate duplication.
4.52
4.23
4.72
4.67
4.40
4.41
1.54
1.44
2.19
2.53
3.41
3.33
4.36
4.36
3.62
3.67
2.92
2.85
3.97
3.85
o 25
251
o 25
251
o 25
251
o 25
251
o 25
251
o 25
251
o 25
251
o 25
251
o 25
251
o 25
251
Workchd
.50
.51
.34
.43
.45
.36
.63
.41
.81
.85
.89
.88
.55
.45
.90
.88
1.00
.83
.63
.84
T1
SE
4.35
4.14
4.48
4.65
4.18
4.30
1.62
1.64
2.12
2.64
3.35
3.36
4.15
4.19
3.60
3.71
3.01
2.91
3.81
3.74
T2
M
.48
.57
.42
.34
.47
.41
.57
.41
.64
.75
.72
.57
.49
.53
.74
.68
.90
.85
.64
.65
T2
SE
3.47
1.18
.010
10.52
.022
.092
5.30
17.72
8.76
6.27
F
.066
.279
.920
.002
.883
.762
.023
.000
.004
.014
Sig.
ES
.036
.012
.000
.101
.000
.001
.053
.159
.085
.063
Motivation (M)
.582
.220
.304
.051
.043
8.67
.143
.573
.791
6.64
F
.447
.640
.583
.821
.837
.004
.707
.451
.376
.012
Sig.
Age (A)
.006
.002
.003
.001
.000
.084
.002
.006
.008
.066
ES
.110
.034
.188
.119
.402
1.77
1.23
1.85
6.01
.785
F
.740
.853
.666
.731
.528
.186
.269
.176
.016
.378
Sig.
MA
.001
.000
.002
.001
.004
.019
.013
.089
.060
.008
ES
Interaction Effects
Note: For all analyses, n 5 63 for theo25 year-old-group and n 5 35 for the 251group. Workchd 5 working with children;
Worth 5 worth of teaching; Intell 5 intellectual stimulation; Easy 5 ease of teaching; Dissat 5 dissatisfaction with precious employment; Career 5 career considerations; Help 5 helping others; Condition 5 conditions of teaching; Influence 5 the influence
of others; Workoth 5 pattern of interaction with others. ES 5 effect size; in this case, the partial eta-squared (Z2) for the effect in
question. The boldfaced figures indicate effects that are significant at the level indicated in the Sig. (‘‘Significance’’) columns of the
table.
Workoth
Influence
Condition
Help
Career
Dissat
Easy
Intell
Worth
T1
Age
Scale
M
Main Effects
Table 3. Repeated-measures ANOVAs (with age as the grouping variable)
1148
Teachers College Record
Motivations to Teach
1149
Reading across the Time 1 (Mean TI) and Time 2 (Mean T2) columns in
Table 3 shows main effects for motivation on working with children, worth of
teaching, intellectual stimulation, ease of entry/work, and helping others. With the
exception of ease of entry/work, both age groups showed a significant decline
in these motivations over time. Conversely, ease of entry/work showed a significant increase over time.
Reading down the Mean T1 and Mean T2 columns of Table 3 for each
motivation to teach shows main effects of age for working with children and
dissatisfaction with previous employment. Specifically, at both T1 and T2, older
preservice teachers reported weaker motivations to work with children but
stronger motivations as a result of previous employment dissatisfaction.
Finally, Table 3 shows interaction effects for worth of teaching. This interaction effect overrides the main effect of motivation for worth of teaching.
The interaction effect indicates that younger preservice teachers began (at
T1) with stronger motivations to teach based on the perceived worth of
teaching than older preservice teachers. However, this motivation had declined significantly by T2 so that, at T2, this motivation was weaker for
younger preservice teachers than older ones. Conversely, older preservice
teachers’ motivation to teach on the basis of the worth of teaching remained
essentially stable between T1 and T2.
DISCUSSION
INSTRUMENTATION
The CFA approach to the validation of scales in the present study is more
robust than the EFA approach used in previous studies (e.g., Ferrell &
Daniel, 1993). Using this approach, 6 of the 10 scales (working with children,
intellectual stimulation, ease of entry/work, dissatisfaction with previous employment,
helping others, and conditions of employment) showed excellent measurement
properties at T1 and T2. The remaining four scales (worth of teaching, career
considerations, influence of others, and patterns of interaction) demonstrated less
robust measurement properties. Despite this, all the remaining scales met
criterion levels on at least one goodness of fit measure at T1 and T2. These
results, taken together, indicate that the MOTS demonstrates good, if not
universally excellent, measurement validity.
PROFILING MOTIVATIONS TO TEACH
Participants reported strong motivations for teaching related to working with
children, worth of teaching, intellectual stimulation, and helping others. This is an
encouraging finding because these motivations seem to relate to the
1150
Teachers College Record
intrinsic worth of teaching. As such, these motivations might be expected to
be more stable across time than other, externally referenced, motivations
such as conditions of employment.
Conversely, ease of entry to the occupation and dissatisfaction with previous employment were not strong motivators. Thus, these preservice
teachers do not appear to be strongly motivated by negative reasons such as
work avoidance or dissatisfaction. Put another way, these preservice teachers appear to be positively attracted to the teaching profession rather than
negatively attracted to it, or positively repelled from another profession.
More generally, the results above appear to indicate a relatively clear
delineation between externally and internally referenced motivations to
teach and between negative and positive motivations to teach. Future studies (using, for example, factor analytic methodologies) could investigate
whether preservice teacher motivation can indeed be psychometrically categorized along one or both of these dimensions. This would be a useful
addition to the literature because motivations to teach have largely been
presented in the literature as unrelated singular dimensions. It may be,
however, that categories of motivations to teach can be used to construct
more parsimonious and equally explanatory models of motivations to teach.
CHANGING MOTIVATIONS TO TEACH OVER TIME
The changes over time with respect to several motivations to teach are
noteworthy because they demonstrate (a) that preservice teachers’ entry
motivations do change over time and (b) that where changes occur, they
typically do so in the negative direction. We speculate that these negative
changes in motivations to teach are attributable to participants’ experiences
of teaching during their first practicum (between the first and second waves
of data collection) and the way that they evaluated these experiences. Thus,
lowered motivations might be attributable to preservice teachers developing
a more realistic appraisal of teaching during their practicum. It may also be
that they encountered negative opinions about teaching expressed by supervising teachers or school communities during their practicum. These
negative appraisals may have also impacted their motivations to teach.
Whatever the case with respect to the speculations, it is clear that motivations to teach are not set in stone, and even across relatively short time
periods (in this case, one semester), motivations to teach may change significantly.
AGE DIFFERENCES IN MOTIVATIONS TO TEACH
There were relatively few reported age differences in motivations to teach
among this cohort of preservice teachers. Only 2 out of the 10 motivations
Motivations to Teach
1151
showed a significant main effect of age. These few differences may suggest
that age is not a very significant influence on these preservice teachers’
motivations to teach. However, speculating on the causes of these differences is interesting. At both times, the older group of preservice teachers
reported weaker motivations to work with children. It may be that matureaged preservice teachers are more likely to have had direct contact with
children—perhaps their own or those of their friends—and this may give
them a more realistic view of what it is like to work with children. Conversely, younger preservice teachers may have more idealistic visions of
children. With respect to dissatisfaction with previous employment, it makes
some intuitive sense that mature-aged preservice teachers are more likely to
have entered teaching because of dissatisfaction with a former career. This is
not least because these preservice teachers have had more time to have a
career, and so more time to experience dissatisfaction.
MOTIVATION AND AGE INTERACTION
There was only one significant interaction effect between age and motivation to teach, and it had to do with the worth of teaching: Younger preservice teachers reported a greater decline in this motivation than older
preservice teachers. This result may suggest that older preservice teachers
enter their preservice teaching course with more realistic and stable perceptions of the worth of teaching for themselves. Thus, negative experiences, or negative perceptions of others, regarding the worth of teaching
may differentially impact younger preservice teachers’ motivations. Conversely, older preservice teachers’ sense of the worth of teaching may be less
influenced by negative feedback from external sources than is the case for
younger preservice teachers.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
This study demonstrated that preservice teachers may exhibit a variety of
different motivations toward teaching and that these motivations can
change across the first semester of a preservice teacher’s teacher education
course. However, the relatively small sample size of this study may limit the
generalizability of its findings. Thus, future research with larger sample
sizes is warranted. In addition, on the basis of the results thus far, it would
be worthwhile to collect further waves of data to track changes in preservice
teachers’ motivations over the whole of their courses and even into the
beginning phase of their teaching careers. And although the instrument
used in this study displayed useful measurement properties, further
research will be able to substantiate (or otherwise) the psychometric properties of the MOTS with other samples.
1152
Teachers College Record
CONCLUSION
This study provides initial evidence for the validity and reliability of the
MOTS, demonstrates that preservice teachers’ motivation to teach do
change over time, possibly as a result of the reality of working with children
in schools, and indicates that there are some age differences in preservice
teacher motivations to teach. For these reasons, the present study provides
an initial empirical basis that may inform future psychometric studies on
preserve teachers’ motivations to teach.
References
Allard, A., Bransgrove, E., Cooper, M., Duncan, J., & MacMillan, M. (1995). Teaching is still a
good job for a woman’’: The influence of gender on career and life choices. South Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 23, 185–194.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 261–271.
Association for Curriculum Supervision and Development. (2003). The cost of teacher turnover
(Research Brief) Washington, DC: Author.
Bandalos, D., & Benson, J. (1990). Testing the factor structure invariance of a computer
attitude scale over two grouping conditions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50,
49–60.
Barker, K., Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. M. (2002). Performance approach, performance
avoidance, and depth of information processing: A fresh look at relations between students’
academic motivation and cognition. Educational Psychology, 22, 571–589.
Barnabe, C., & Burns, M. (1994). Teachers’ job characteristics and motivation. Educational
Research, 36, 171–185.
Berg, J. O., Reno, T. R., & Coker, W. (1992). Motivation factors for careers in teaching. North
Central Association Quarterly, 66, 541–545.
Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L. H. (1992). Predictors of commitment, job satisfaction, and intent
to stay in teaching: A comparison of general and special educators. Journal of Special Education, 25, 453–471.
Crow, G. M., Levine, L., & Nager, N. (1990). No more business as usual: Career changers who
become teachers. American Journal of Education, 98, 197–223.
Davis, J., & Wilson, S. M. (2000). Principals’ efforts to empower teachers: Effects on teacher
motivation and job satisfaction and stress [Electronic version]. Clearing House, 73(6),
349–353.
Dilworth, M. E. (1991). Motivation, rewards, and incentives (Trends and Issues Paper No. 3)
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED330692).
Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. M. (2003). What do students say about their motivational goals?
Towards a more complex and dynamic perspective on student motivation. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 28, 91–113.
Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. M. (2004). The development and validation of the Goal Orientation and Learning Strategies Survey (GOALS-S). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 290–310.
Ferrell, C. M., & Daniel, L. G. (1993). Construct validation of an instrument measuring teacher career
motivations (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher
Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED365719)
Motivations to Teach
1153
Fleishman, J., & Benson, J. (1987). Using LISREL to evaluate measurement models and scale
reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 925–939.
Gordon, J. A. (1993). Why did you select teaching as a career? Teachers of color tell their stories. East
Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED383653)
Hart, A. W., & Murphy, M. J. (1990). New teachers react to redesigned teacher work. American
Journal of Education, 98, 224–250.
Holmes-Smith, P., & Rowe, K. J. (1994, January). The development and use of congeneric measurement models in school effectiveness research: Improving the reliability and validity of composite and
latent variables for fitting multilevel and structural equation models. Paper presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement. Melbourne, Australia.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching
and Policy, University of Washington.
Jordell, K. O. (1987). Structural and personal influences in the socialization of beginning
teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 165–177.
Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling, (Vol. 10). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kelloway, K. E. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lee, G., Dunbar, S. B., & Frisbie, D. A. (2001). The relative appropriateness of eight measurement models for analyzing scores from tests composed of testlets. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 958–975.
Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (in press). A relational conceptualization of academic motivationand achievement-related theory, current issues, and practice. Review of Educational Research.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism:
A model of self-protection from a longitudinal perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 1–36.
Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference
model. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 129–149.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). The influence of internal and external frames of reference on
the formation of math and English self-concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82,
107–116.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau., K. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A
clarification of mathematical and empirical properties. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E.
Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modelling: Issues and techniques (pp. 315–354).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McInerney, D. M., Maehr, M. L., & Dowson, M. (2004). Motivation and culture. In C. D.
Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Applied Psychology, 2, (pp. 631–639). St Louis MO: Elsevier.
McInerney, V., Marsh, H. W., & McInerney, D. M. (1999). The designing of the Computer
Anxiety and Learning Measure (CALM): Validation of scores on a multi-dimensional measure of anxiety and cognitions relating to adult learning of computer skills using structural
equation modelling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 451–470.
Mueller, R. O. (1996). Basic principles of structural equation modelling. New York: SpringerVerlag.
O’Connor, M. (1999). Why don’t students want to be teachers? Education Review, 3(3), 15.
Oliver, B., Bibik, J. M., Chandler, T. J. L., & Lane, S. L. (1988). Teacher development
and job incentives: A psychological view. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7,
121–131.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Pedhazur Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated
approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pennington, M. C. (1995). Work satisfaction, motivation, and commitment in teaching English as a
second language. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED404850)
1154
Teachers College Record
Pintrich, P. R. (1990). Implications of the psychological research on student learning and
college teaching for teacher education. In R. Houston (Ed.), The handbook of research on
teacher education (pp. 826–857). New York: Macmillan.
Preston, B. (1997). Teacher supply and demand to 2003: Projections, implications and issues. Canberra: ACDE.
Rushton, S. P. (2001). Cultural assimilation: A narrative case study of student-teaching in an
inner-city school [Electronic version]. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 147–160.
Serow, R. C. (1993). Why teach?: Altruism and career choice among non traditional recruits to
teaching. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26(4), 197–204.
Serow, R. C., Eaker, D. J., & Forrest, K. D. (1994). ‘‘I want to see some kind of growth out of
them’’: What the service ethic means to teacher-education students. American Educational
Research Journal, 31, 27–48.
Shann, M. (1998). Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban middle
schools. Journal of Educational Research, 92(2), 67–73.
Steen, T. B. (1988). Looking for commitment to teaching: Suggestions for teacher education.
QUEST, 40, 74–83.
Stiegelbauer, S. (1992). Why we want to be teachers: New teachers talk about their reasons for entering
the profession. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED348867)
Su, J. Z. (1994). Who will teach our children: Implications for the teaching profession. The
Professional Educator, 16(2), 1–10.
Weiner, L., Swearingen, J., Pagano, A., & Obi, R. (1993). Choosing teaching as a career: Comparing
motivations of Harvard and Urban college students. East Lansing, MI: National Center for
Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED357013)
Whately, A. (1998). Gifted women and teaching: A compatible choice? Roeper Review, 21(2),
117–125.
Yong, B. C. S. (1995). Teacher trainees’ motives for entering into a teaching career in Brunei
Darussalam. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 275–280.
Zimpher, N. (1989). The RATE project: A profile of teacher education students. Journal of
Teacher Education, 40, 27–30.
CATHERINE SINCLAIR is senior lecturer in education at the University of
Western Sydney, Australia. Her primary research interests are in teaching
and teacher education.
MARTIN DOWSON is postdoctoral research fellow at the Self-Concept
Enhancement and Learning Facilitation Centre of the University of Western Sydney. His primary research interests are in the psychometrics and the
psychology of motivation.
DENNIS M. MCINERNEY is professor of psychology at the Self-Concept
Enhancement and Learning Facilitation Centre of the University of Western Sydney. His primary research interests are in the psychology of motivation and cross-cultural psychology.