Student motivation in teacher learning groups

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview key elements of the TLGs in the four institutes (n = 55).

	Institute A n = 9 (response 45%)	Institute B n = 5 (response 26%)	Institute C n = 7 (response 39%)	Institute D n = 34 (response 55%)
Composition	Fourth-year students sometimes aided by a teacher educator in groups of three to five members	One group of five third-year students supported by self-selected teachers, teacher educators, researchers and experts	First- to third year students together with teachers, teacher educators and researchers in groups of maximum three students; 10 to 20 participants in total	Third-year students collaborating with teachers and teacher educators with a maximum of twelve students per group; 10 to 20 participants in total
Goals	Exchanging feedback and ideas related to subject of the minor	Developing answers to students’ individual research questions pertaining to innovative education	Collaborating on one research project centred around a question from educational practice	Collaborating on one research project centred around a question from educational practice.
Frequency	Twelve meetings	20 meetings	Six to eight meetings	Eight meetings; eight lessons were organised to prepare students for the TLG meetings
Duration	80 minutes	240 minutes	90–240 minutes	210 minutes
Guidance	Side-line support by teacher educators	Students take initiative inviting teachers, teacher educators, researchers and experts themselves	Leadership by teachers and a senior researcher in the lead of research activities	Supervised by teacher educators
Assessment	Portfolio conversation with teacher educators in which students reflected on their learning in the TLG	Practical- or research assignment that was assessed by teacher educators employing a rubric that fitted the personal learning question and the way in which this learning question had been answered	Based on a logbook, the students were assessed by teacher educators on how they spent their TLG hours as part of their portfolio	Assessment of final product; students’ social skills were assessed by teacher educators with an educational tool

Table 2. Example items and interview questions from the DSLQ and BPNSFS.

	Scale	Number of items	Example items questionnaire	Cronbach’s alpha	Example items interview
DSLQ	Practice integration	5	Agreements about testing group products in classroom practice	.89	In what way are the experiences in practice communicated within the TLG?
	Long term orientation and goals	3	Conversation about short and long term goals	.89	In what way are the TLG activities connected?
	Shared identity and equal relationships	5	Feeling of belonging to the group	.88	Which feelings characterise the members’ belongingness to the TLG?
BPNSFS	Autonomy	4	In my TLG, I have a sense of choice and freedom in the things I do	.71	To what extent do the activities of the TLG fit in with your own learning goals?
	Competence	6	In my TLG, I feel competent in what I do	.87	To what extent do you think you can achieve your learning goals within the TLG?
	Relatedness	7	I feel connected to my TLG	.88	To what extent do you feel free to express yourself in the TLG?

Table 3. Descriptive statistics (four-point Likert, 1 = not at all applicable till 4 = fully applicable) for social configuration and motivation. Means and standard deviations (between brackets) are provided.

		Institute A^a n = 9	Institute B^b n = 5	Institute C n = 7	Institute D n = 34	Kruskal-Wallis ** p < .05
Dimensions of Social Learning
	Practice integration**	3.35 (0.51)	3.00 (0.85)	2.29 (0.55)	2.68 (0.75)	.03
	Long term orientation and goals	2.33 (0.87)	2.67 (1.25)	3.14 (0.69)	2.95 (0.47)	.32
	Shared identity and equal relationships	3.35 (0.51)	3.40 (0.69)	3.14 (0.56)	3.19 (0.58)	.78
Motivation
	Autonomy	2.92 (0.43)	3.15 (0.89)	2.89 (0.48)	2.88 (0.58)	.90
	Competence	3.37 (0.39)	3.40 (0.80)	3.17 (0.37)	3.06 (0.55)	.35
	Relatedness	3.57 (0.37)	3.57 (0.52)	3.20 (0.51)	3.13 (0.53)	.07

^aFor dimensions of social learning n = 8.

^bFor dimensions of social learning n = 4.

Table 4. Correlations between social configuration and motivation separate for the four institutes.

Institute A (n = 9)	Practice integration	Long term orientation and goals	Shared identity and equal relationships
Autonomy	rτ = .038	rτ = −.043 Personal goals	rτ = .383 Autonomous choices regarding collaborating partners
Competence	rτ = −.039 New knowledge	rτ = −.082	rτ = .572* Scaffolding
Relatedness	rτ = .038 Sharing, support, and social skills	rτ = .039	rτ = .275 Equality in an informal atmosphere
Institute B (n = 5)	Practice integration	Long term orientation and goals	Shared identity and equal relationships
Autonomy	rτ = −.548 Autonomous choices regarding content	rτ = −.548	rτ = .000 Autonomous choices regarding collaborating partners
Competence	rτ = −.183 New knowledge	rτ = .183	rτ = .224
Relatedness	rτ = .000	rτ = .408	rτ = .224
Institute C (n = 7)	Practice integration	Long term orientation and goals	Shared identity and equal relationships
Autonomy	rτ = .-.108 Autonomous choices regarding content	rτ = .278 Personal goals	rτ = .629* Autonomous choices regarding collaborating partners
Competence	rτ = .000	rτ = .167	rτ = .514 Scaffolding
Relatedness	rτ = −.108	rτ = .056	rτ = .514
Institute D (n = 34)	Practice integration	Long term orientation and goals	Shared identity and equal relationships
Autonomy	rτ = .393** Autonomous choices regarding content	rτ = .083 Personal goals	rτ = .488** Autonomous choices regarding collaborating partners
Competence	rτ = .507** New knowledge	rτ = .026	rτ = .641** Scaffolding
Relatedness	rτ = .404** Sharing, support, and social skills	rτ = .155	rτ = .599** Equality in an informal atmosphere

* p < .05, ** p < .01, qualitative variables are shown in italics.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.