Towards a better understanding of psychological needs of student teachers during field experiences

ABSTRACT

Field experiences aim at immersing student teachers in authentic work tasks and conditions of teachers. However, specific psychological needs of the teaching workforce are not considered when studying the fulfilment of student teachers’ psychological needs. This paper proposes a four-dimensional theoretical framework incorporating both basic and specific psychological needs. A diary study is presented, which measures the fulfilment of the hypothesised needs at five intervals during a ten-day field experience. The average fulfilment rates and development trends show differences among the four dimensions, suggesting the presence of lower- and higher-order needs. Significant correlations between need fulfilment and success indicators, such as learner satisfaction, learning gain, teacher self-efficacy and level of self-reflection, are also found. The results highlight the relevance of high rates of need fulfilment right from the start of the field experience.

KEYWORDS:

• Basic needs
• student teachers
• field experience
• pre-service teacher education
• professional development

1. Introduction

Teaching is a future-oriented and competence-based profession. It constantly sets new goals, poses new challenges and developmental tasks and hence demands continuing professional development of teachers (Alexander 2008; Reeve and Su 2014). Student teachers’ field experiences provide rich learning opportunities for developing competencies regarding present and future complex demands of teaching (Zeichner 2010). However, evidence suggests that these opportunities are not exhausted, partly due to the rather limited knowledge about the conditions that are beneficial for realising successful practical learning (Arnold, Gröschner, and Hascher 2014). According to Hascher (2012), relevant antecedents for successful learning involve several environmental (e.g. mentoring, feedback) and individual factors (e.g. emotion, motivation). Although successful professional development is argued to be fundamentally dependent on motivation (Alexander 2008; Barcelos 2016; Richardson and Watt 2018), there are scarce insights on the motivational side of practical learning in field experiences. Motivation predicts the extent and the quality of cognitive engagement and thus contributes to the development of skills and competencies and subsequently, achievement (Blumenfeld, Kempler, and Krajcik 2006). Although motivation is commonly viewed as connected to a series of complicated cognitive processes, which to date cannot entirely be explained by theoretical approaches (Han and Yin 2016), theoretical knowledge and empirical evidence are present on beneficial conditions and the relevant antecedents of motivation. For example, the self-determination theory (SDT) proposes that goals and values are integrated into a person’s self, representing one’s identity and regulating one’s behaviour accordingly (Deci and Ryan 2000). The deeper these goals and values are integrated into the self, the more the identification and the regulation of behaviour become possible. Environmental factors can influence the integration of values and goals into the self. However, these processes are deemed dependent on basic psychological needs and their fulfilment. Hence, when need fulfilment is realised, adaptation, adjustment and growth can be accomplished (Poom-Valickis et al. 2017). To a great extent, need fulfilment contributes to intrinsic and self-determined motivation, which in turn is perceived as necessary for deep and sustained learning processes and work engagement (Deci and Ryan 2008).

The fulfilment of basic needs in the workplace appears to be a highly relevant motivational resource for in-service teachers. It is shown as related to job engagement (Betoret, Lloret, and Gómez-Artiga 2015; Klassen, Perry, and Frenzel 2012), job performance (Ghazi and Khan 2013), flow and general life satisfaction (Olcar 2015). Need fulfilment also leads to lower levels of negative emotions when teaching (Klassen, Perry, and Frenzel 2012) and prevents burnout (Betoret, Lloret, and Gómez-Artiga 2015). It also mediates the relationship between stress exposure and degree of enthusiasm (Aldrup, Klusmann, and Lüdtke 2017). Furthermore, teachers who report high rates of need fulfilment tend to support their pupils’ learning more effectively (Taylor, Ntoumanis, and Standage 2008) and provide better opportunities to enhance their pupils’ need fulfilment (Pelletier, Se´guin-Le´vesque, and Legault 2002; Roth et al. 2007). Consequently, it can be argued that work conditions enabling the fulfilment of psychological needs also support productivity, quality and wellbeing in the teaching profession (Poom-Valickis et al. 2017).

Despite some evidence pointing to the significance of in-service teachers’ psychological needs and need fulfilment, only a few studies have investigated the conditions and the effects of psychological needs and need fulfilment, both of pre-service teachers and in pre-service teacher education. However, this issue appears to be an important area of research, as it has been shown that motivational factors (32%) and the use of learning opportunities (33%) account for the majority of the learning output of student teachers (Keller-Schneider 2016).

Research findings further suggest the relevance of student teachers’ need fulfilment regarding their academic motivation and ability beliefs (Poom-Valickis et al. 2017), their learning success in classes and lectures (Filak and Sheldon 2003; Vermeulen et al. 2012), as well as during field experiences (Evelein, Korthagen, and Brekelmans 2008; Korthagen and Evelein 2016). However, field experience has proven to be a challenging research area, mainly because of the distinctive characteristics of practical learning (see McDonald et al. 2014).

On one hand, field experiences in schools during pre-service teacher education constitute a complex learning environment (Korthagen et al. 2001; Zeichner 2012), leading to the assumption that student teachers (being students) exhibit learners’ typical basic psychological needs, such as for autonomy, relatedness and competence (Deci and Ryan 2000). This conjecture is substantiated by some empirical findings that need fulfilment does not only vary alongside relevant teaching experiences but is also connected to student teachers’ teaching behaviour (Evelein, Korthagen, and Brekelmans 2008; Korthagen and Evelein 2016).

On the other hand, field experiences in schools during pre-service teacher education also constitute a complex practising environment (Hammerness et al. 2005; McDonald et al. 2014; Zeichner 2012), as learning goals are achieved by actively engaging in core teaching practices and subsequently reflecting on these experiences (Arnold, Gröschner, and Hascher 2014; Ball and Forzani 2009, 2011; Ball et al. 2009). This perception leads to the assumption that student teachers (being teachers) also exhibit the typical specific psychological needs that are relevant for the teaching workforce, such as the needs for security (Vasile, Margaritoiu, and Eftimie 2011), a thriving teacher–student relationship (Klassen, Perry, and Frenzel 2012) and self-actualisation (Mcneil et al. 2006; Palak and Papuda-Dolinska 2015).

Although it could be argued that the fulfilment of these specific needs might also be relevant for successful field experiences, this issue has never been investigated in pre-service teachers’ field experiences. Despite the clear presence of these two need-related facets of field experiences in pre-service teacher education, to date, no theoretical approach has merged basic and specific psychological needs in this context. Hence, needs and need fulfilment have not been examined in this regard. Indeed, such approach might be fruitful in several aspects. Knowledge on psychological needs and need fulfilment of student teachers during field experiences could not only guide the understanding of motivation, learning processes and beneficial conditions during field experiences. It could also inspire the development of interventions (e.g. mentor training programmes) and instruments (e.g. checklists, learner material) supporting the creation of need-fulfiling practical learning environments. This in turn could support the effectiveness of field experiences and subsequently of entire teacher education programmes, resulting in an enhanced preparation of pre-service teachers for the complex and changing demands of their profession.

This paper aims to add to the prevalently limited knowledge base about student teachers’ psychological needs in field experiences by presenting a theoretical framework, built on the central aspects of the theories of human motivation (Bess 1977; Deci and Ryan 2000; Maslow 1943) and incorporating psychological needs of both learner and teacher sides. With a diary study, evidence is gathered and evaluated testing basic assumptions of the theoretical approach.

2. Theoretical framework

Need fulfilment is described as key to understanding workplace-related motivation (Deci and Ryan 2014). It is shown as closely connected to more effective performance (Baard, Deci, and Ryan 2004) and high-quality performance (Deci and Ryan 2008). Hence, not only is understanding student teachers’ need fulfilment important for the motivational and the emotional aspects of practical phases, but it is also relevant for understanding and predicting practical learning processes and outcomes. For these reasons, the present approach seeks to integrate the needs of student teachers and of in-service teachers into one theoretical framework.

The research literature provides different approaches to studying basic needs of teachers and student teachers based on three established concepts of psychological needs (Bess 1977; Deci and Ryan 2000; Maslow 1943). From a complementary perspective, the individually studied aspects and concepts can be comprehensively subsumed under four need categories (see Table 1).

Table 1. Literature review of studies on psychological needs of teachers and student teachers

Superordinate concept	Reference	Population	Need concept	Investigated relationships
Security needs	Vasile, Margaritoiu, and Eftimie (2011)	Teachers	Security needs (Maslow 1943)	Esteem needs (+)
Social needs	Evelein, Korthagen, and Brekelmans (2008)	Student teachers	Relatedness (Deci and Ryan 2000)	–
	Ghazi and Kahn (2013)	Teachers	Relatedness (Deci and Ryan 2000)	–
	Uzman (2014)	Student teachers	Relatedness (Deci and Ryan 2000)	Anxiety (-) Depression (-) Negative self (-) Somatisation (-) Hostility (-)
	Betoret, Lloret, and Gómez-Artiga (2015)	Teachers	Relatedness (Deci and Ryan 2000) Motivation to teach (Bess 1977)	Engagement (+) Burnout (-)
	Olcar (2015)	Teachers	Relatedness (Deci and Ryan 2000)	Flow (+) wellbeing (+)
	Korthagen and Evelein (2016)	Student teachers	Relatedness (Deci and Ryan 2000)	Lesson self-image (+) student image (+)
	Poom-Valickis et al. (2017)	Student teachers	Relatedness (Deci and Ryan 2000)	Intrinsic academic motivation (+) amotivation (-)
Self-affirmation needs	Reeve, Bolt, and Cai (1999)	Student teachers	Autonomy (Deci and Ryan 2000)	Student autonomy support (+) intrinsic motivation style (+)
	Pelletier, Se´guin-Le´vesque, and Legault (2002)	Teachers	Autonomy (Deci and Ryan 2000)	Student autonomy support (+) motivation to teach (+)
	Evelein, Korthagen, and Brekelmans (2008)	Student teachers	Autonomy, competence (Deci and Ryan 2000)	–
	Ghazi and Khan (2013)	Teachers	Autonomy, competence (Deci and Ryan 2000)	Academic performance
	Uzman (2014)	Student teachers	Autonomy, competence (Deci and Ryan 2000)	Anxiety (-) Depression (-) Negative self (-) Somatisation (-) Hostility (-)
	Betoret, Lloret, and Gómez-Artiga (2015)	Teachers	Autonomy, competence (Deci and Ryan 2000) motivation to teach (Bess 1977)	Engagement (+) Burnout (-)
	Olcar (2015)	Teachers	Autonomy, competence (Deci and Ryan 2000)	Flow (+) wellbeing (+)
	Korthagen and Evelein (2016)	Student teachers	Autonomy, competence (Deci and Ryan 2000)	Lesson self-image (+) Student image (+)
	Poom-Valickis et al. (2017)	Student teachers	Autonomy, competence (Deci and Ryan 2000)	Intrinsic academic motivation (+) Incremental ability beliefs (+) amotivation (-)
Self-actualisation needs	Palak and Papuda-Dolinska (2015)	Teachers	Self-actualisation needs (Maslow 1943)	–
	Arslan (2017)	Student teachers	Self-actualisation needs (Maslow 1943)	–

(+) indicates a positive correlation, (-) indicates a negative correlation, – indicates that no other constructs were investigated.

Based on the results of this literature review and on the additional knowledge about effective field experiences (as cited in the paragraphs below), the following four dimensions of psychological needs are identified as theoretically relevant for the context of practical learning in pre-service teacher education. The presented framework focuses on the practical phases of pre-service teacher education. Its value is to be seen in bringing together the basic needs of student teachers as both, academic learners and as practitioners into one comprehensive framework. While learner needs are derived from the general concept of basic needs (Ryan and Deci 2000), practitioners’ needs are derived from psychological needs of in-service teachers described with concepts from Maslow’s theory of human motivation (1943).

First, the need for introduction is rooted in basic security needs (Maslow 1943; Vasile, Margaritoiu, and Eftimie 2011) because it incorporates a person’s need for a safe, predictable and controllable (learning and working) environment. In contrast to the typical and well-known learning environments in pre-service teacher education (e.g. lectures and classes), field experiences can trigger a high level of insecurity. The underlying reason is the general unfamiliarity with the practical field (i.e. the actual school visited), as well as the ever-changing work conditions of teachers (Vasile, Margaritoiu, and Eftimie 2011). Hence, student teachers want to gain confidence and a sense of safety when moving to the field. They especially appear to strive for spatial, social, hierarchical and organisational orientation and guidance in practical learning environments (Kuzmic 1994; Sayeski and Paulsen 2012). Regarding student teachers’ achievements, research has shown that a proper introduction to the school as a place of working and learning strongly correlates with competence development (Schubarth et al. 2009). Fulfilled needs prevent novice teachers from leaving the occupation early (Ingersoll and Smith 2004) and even seem to have some impact on students’ achievements (Glazerman et al. 2010). Furthermore, the need for introduction resonates with the perception that support for introduction and induction is portrayed as a core role of mentors (Zanting, Verloop, and Vermunt 2001).

Second, regarding the concept of social needs (Maslow 1943) and the basic need for relatedness (Ryan and Deci 2000), the need for relatedness to teacher colleagues and students incorporates the striving for recognition as a professional faculty member and a relevant professional by the students. There are indications that student teachers depend on social support to identify with the teaching profession, which in turn supports them in effectively engaging in teacher education (Han and Yin 2016; Roth et al. 2007). Being treated as a faculty member (Ferrier-Kerr 2009; Wright and Bottery 1997; Zanting, Verloop, and Vermunt 2001) and building cordial personal and professional relationships with other teachers in the workplace are recognised as important factors for successful learning in field experiences (Abell et al. 1995). Student teachers want to know the feeling of being teachers and in this sense, do not want to be regarded and treated as freshmen. They explicitly seek equal footing with in-service teachers (Ashforth and Saks 1996; Beck and Kosnik 2002; Caires, Almeida, and Vieira 2012; Jardine and Field 1992; McNally et al. 1997). Concerning student teachers’ achievements, the satisfaction of their social needs is shown as positively related to their learning outcomes and competence development during practical phases of their education (Bach 2013; Bach, Besa, and Arnold 2014; Schubarth et al. 2009).

Likewise, meaningful contact with students plays an important role in student teachers’ self-perception (Hascher and Moser 2001). Moreover, a professional relationship with students is positively associated with job engagement and negatively associated with emotional pressure (Betoret, Lloret, and Gómez-Artiga 2015; Klassen, Perry, and Frenzel 2012). Research also suggests that a sound student–teacher relationship contributes to teachers’ identity development and the improvement of their classroom skills, such as the appraisal of teaching situations (Evelein, Korthagen, and Brekelmans 2008; van der Want et al. 2018).

Third, concerning the need for self-affirmation, the desires to feel self-confident, worthy, strong and capable (Maslow 1943) become relevant in a professional environment. The needs for autonomy and competence (Ryan and Deci 2000) come into play as student teachers tend to seek and choose adequate challenges and want to succeed in field experiences and practical learning (Caires, Almeida, and Vieira 2012; Forzani 2014; Poom-Valickis et al. 2017). They strive for an active and increasingly self-determined role in the school community (Mcneil et al. 2006) and want to contribute their share to the success of daily operations (Lalitpasan, Wongwanich, and Suwanmonka 2014). Moreover, pre-service teachers aim to master the typical tasks of teachers and want to develop their personal skills in performing core teaching practices (Ball et al. 2009; Caires, Almeida, and Vieira 2012). They also intend to build a positive self-image and boost their self-affirmation as teachers (Meyer and Kiel 2014). Student teachers tend to pursue mastery-oriented goals of teaching and hence are more willing to improve relevant competencies when autonomously motivated (Malmberg 2006; Roth et al. 2007).

Fourth, considering the corresponding concept of Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy, the need for self-actualisation incorporates the striving for solid impressions about the potential for self-actualisation in the work environment (Mcneil et al. 2006; Palak and Papuda-Dolinska 2015). Student teachers endeavour to properly estimate the extent to which they could fulfil their personal potential in the teaching profession (Kuzmic 1994). They want to explore the possibilities of success by engaging in their personal interests and reflecting on their motives and life themes on the job (Caires, Almeida, and Vieira 2012; Kuzmic 1994). Research confirms that effective and satisfied novice teachers report that their needs are fulfilled through personal contributions to the workplace (Oosterheert and Vermunt 2001).

3. Research questions

Field experiences in pre-service teacher education integrate the student (academic learner) and the teacher (practitioner) sides, both connected to motivational characteristics and their respective basic and specific psychological needs. However, previous studies have focused on the student side of practical learning by investigating basic psychological needs only. It has been shown that student teachers exhibit an overall moderate level of need fulfilment during a field experience, varying quite unsystematically over a 14-week period of student teaching. In fact, there is no linear development in any of the three need dimensions (autonomy, competence and relatedness). Additionally, significant relationships between the fulfilment of basic needs and teaching behaviour have been reported (Evelein, Korthagen, and Brekelmans 2008; Korthagen and Evelein 2016).

With the aim of a more balanced concept, four differentiated psychological needs of student teachers during their field experiences are hypothesised on the basis of relevant theoretical concepts and a literature review (see Section 2).

The general approach of presenting a comprehensive theoretical framework and its evaluation by means of gathering empirical data is inspired by recent works from the field of teacher education (e.g. Ní Bhroin and King 2020; Ostinelli 2016; Van Meeuwen et al. 2018).

In the present study the assumptions are tested that for student teachers in practical phases of teacher education there are four distinct need dimensions, each significantly related to certain indicators of success of practical learning. For the purpose of gathering evidence regarding the hypothesised framework and based on the aforementioned findings, the following two explorative research questions are formulated:

1. How does need fulfilment develop in the course of a field experience with regard to the four dimensions of the proposed framework?

2. Does need fulfilment regarding the proposed framework relate to certain success indicators in practical learning?

4. Research method

To investigate the aforementioned research questions and to gain insights into the relevance and the fulfilment of the hypothesised needs, a diary study was carried out. In total, 106 student teachers were surveyed in a longitudinal study measuring their need fulfilment at five intervals (days 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9) in the course of a ten-day field experience. A two-day interval was chosen to obtain sufficient information without burdening the participants with a daily request, which could have led to a lower quality of the collected data (Ida et al. 2012).

The study was conducted at the University of Erfurt, Germany. Similar to most German universities and as regulated by federal law, Erfurt offers an academic pre-service teacher education programme under a consecutive bachelor’s–master’s degree system. However, in contrast to many other universities, Erfurt takes a very systematic approach to practical learning by incorporating ten practical phases (short- and long-term types) over the course of the bachelor’s and the master’s studies. The practical phases begin with orientational field experiences fostering perspective shifts and self-reflection. They later proceed to developing skills and competencies, culminating in a highly demanding and complex long-term practicum at the end of the master’s studies (Protzel, Dreer, and Hany 2017). This study was conducted during an early, obligatory and self-organised internship in school, which was prepared and followed up through lectures and workshops at the university. The major goals of this practical phase consist of an observation-based exploration of the central work tasks and the conditions of teachers, as well as an adoption of the perspective of in-service teachers. Student teachers are required to write a ten-page closing report reflecting on their practical experiences. This kind of orientational field experience is quite common in pre-service teacher education programmes throughout Germany.

4.1. Participants and procedure

In total, 106 (85 females) student teachers with an average age of 20.2 years (SD = 6.15) participated in the study, reporting their data at all intervals. The participants were at the end of the third or the fifth semester of their bachelor programme, leading to the Master of Education programme for primary education (n = 72) or secondary education (n = 34) at the University of Erfurt. They visited different self-chosen schools all over the federal state of Thuringia for a two-week duration.

4.2. Instruments

The participants were surveyed using a paper-and-pencil diary with concise instructions about when to record specific data. Altogether, the diary consisted of three sections. The schedule and the instruction for data recording for the first and the last sections were provided during preparatory and follow-up workshops. The data regarding the second section were recorded individually during the field experience. The first section logged general and demographic data prior to the practical phase.

In the second section, the student teachers recorded their need fulfilment on four subscales (see Table 1), repeated at five intervals (at the start of days 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9). They were then asked to complete an identical form at the end of the respective survey days. The items were based on an adapted and complemented version of the work-related basic need satisfaction scale (Van den Broeck et al. 2010) and were piloted (N = 380) in four previous studies (e.g. Stotzka and Hany 2016). The revisions led to a functional, economical and change-sensitive instrument. Table 2 contains examples of items in the final instrument, as well as descriptive data about the present study sample. The items were answered on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = fully applies to 5 = does not apply.

Table 2. Measurement of need fulfilment and descriptive data

Need fulfilment	Item example (6 items each)	M	SD	α
Introduction	I have a good orientation in the school buildings and the school grounds.	1.84	.60	.79-.87
Relatedness	In school, I can talk with people about things that really matter to me.	1.72	.53	.83-.86
Self-affirmation	I have the feeling that I can even accomplish the most difficult tasks of a teacher.	2.21	.70	.81-.91
Self-actualisation	The tasks I have to do during the field experience are in line with what I really want to do as a teacher.	2.15	.70	.73-.88

The third section of the diary aimed at recording success indicators subsequent to the field experience (see Table 3). Among them were the general indicators learner satisfaction and learning gain, as well as the specific indicators shift from student’s to teacher’s perspective and teacher self-efficacy. The latter indicators were explicit goals of the investigated field experience. Self-reports were collected during a follow-up workshop, which was held several days after the practical phase.

Table 3. Measurement of success of practical learning and descriptive data

Indicator	Instrumentation	M	SD	α
Learner satisfaction: individual characteristics	4 items derived from the students’ learning satisfaction questionnaire (Topala and Tomozzi 2014)	1.39	.74	.77
Learning gain	9 items derived from an adapted version of a learning gain measure (Rovai et al. 2009)	1.37	.57	.80
Shift from student’s to teacher’s perspective	4 items based on a theoretical model of perspective shifts in teacher education (Rißmann, Feine, and Schramm 2013)	1.40	.67	.79
Teacher self-efficacy	10 items by Schmitz and Schwarzer (2000)	1.78	.48	.82
Level of self-reflection	Grades based on the hierarchical model of reflective writing (Imhoff 2006)	2.47	.96	-

Additionally, the level of self-reflection was measured using the grades received by the student teachers in their closing report. By the fourth week after the follow-up workshop, they had to submit a mandatory ten-page written report reflecting on practical experiences regarding their professional development. The papers were rated by the university staff with experiences in school teaching, using an assessment matrix based on a hierarchical model of reflective writing (Imhoff 2006). The possible grades ranged from 1 = highest level to 5 = lowest level of self-reflection.

5. Findings

The data analysis focused on the research questions. The missing data were handled using a full-information maximum likelihood estimation. This allowed the use of all available data, which would reduce the bias in parameter estimation resulting from missing data and would increase statistical power (Enders 2010). The preparatory steps further consisted of a confirmatory factor analysis, which showed a satisfying model fit for the four dimensions (CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.5) and affirmed all scales as distinct constructs. Medium-level, statistically significant intercorrelations of the dimensions were also found at all intervals (r_min = 0.47, r_max = 0.71).

The analysis on the average level of need fulfilment revealed medium to high fulfilment rates for all four dimensions. Notably, the needs for self-affirmation and self-actualisation exhibited lower average fulfilment rates when compared with the needs for introduction and relatedness (see Table 2).

Regarding the development of need fulfilment (research question 1), ANOVAs with repeated measures showed a significant gain in need fulfilment during the ten-day field experience. Figure 1 visualises the development of the average need fulfilment in the course of the practical experiences in the four dimensions.

Figure 1. Development of need fulfilment over time

The direct comparison of the need fulfilment at the first and the last intervals showed large-sized effects for all four dimensions (Cohen 1992). The introduction dimension showed the largest gain in need fulfilment (F(4,244) = 63.08, p < 0.001, d_t1t5 = 1.23), followed by relatedness (F(4,241) = 47.74, p < 0.001, d = 0.68, d_t1t5 = 0.99), self-affirmation (F(4,236) = 45.23, p < 0.001, d_t1t5 = 0.90) and self-actualisation (F(4,204) = 16.25, p < 0.001, d_t1t5 = 0.70). A visual comparison of the four graphs suggests quite similar linear developments from the second interval (day 3) onwards. However, the starting points partly differed significantly. Further analysis of these differences revealed the effects of familiarity. The student teachers who chose a familiar school¹ for their field experience showed higher fulfilment rates regarding the need for introduction on day 1 (n = 71, M = 2.20, SD = 0.85), in contrast to those student teachers who chose an unfamiliar school (n = 35, M = 2.72, SD = 0.81). The difference (d = 0.62) was statistically significant (F(4, 288) = 2.91; p < 0.05) at the first interval (day 1) but could no longer be observed from the second interval (day 3) onwards.

The relationships between need fulfilment and success in practical learning (research question 2) were tested by computing the correlations between a score in need fulfilment (day 1 + day 3 + day 5 + day 7 + day 9) and success indicators (see Table 4). The correlations between the gain in need fulfilment (day 9 – day 1) and success indicators were also computed (see Table 4).

Table 4. Correlations between need fulfilment (score/gain) and success indicators

Success Indicator	Introduction		Relatedness		Self-affirmation		Self-actualisation
	Score	Gain	0.29*	Gain	Score	Gain	Score	Gain
Learning gain	.29*	.16	.29*	−.08	.42**	−.15	.15	−.10
Learner satisfaction	.36**	.46**	.55*	.28**	.52**	−.11	.56**	.00
Shift in perspective	.35**	.01	.37**	.17	.44**	−.13.	.29*	−.15
Teacher self-efficacy	.24*	.00	.34*	−.02	.27*	−.23	.14	−.01
Level of self-reflection	.41**	.19	.39**	.10	.28*	−.10	.21*	−.09

**p <.01, *p <.05.

It became evident that need fulfilment (the score) in the four dimensions was broadly related to the success indicators to a small-to-medium extent. The student teachers who reported more accumulated need fulfilment also exhibited higher rates of learner satisfaction and higher learning gains and more often realised a shift in perspective. Need fulfilment was positively related to teacher self-efficacy as well. Notably, the student teachers who reported higher rates of need fulfilment correspondingly reached higher levels of self-reflection in their written reports. In contrast, the gain in need fulfilment (apart from two significant correlations with learner satisfaction) seemed almost irrelevant. This difference in the findings suggests that consistently high rates of need fulfilment, not gain rates, may be significant when focusing on success in field experiences. However, additional analysis on this matter revealed some explanatory power in fulfilment gains over time. For example, a linear hierarchical regression for the estimation of learning gain brought to light minor but statistically significant changes in R² at two intervals (see Table 5). Although the fulfilment rates at the start of the experience explained most of the variance in the success indicators, some gains could be observed on day 5 and day 7.

Table 5. Linear hierarchical regression for the estimation of learning gain

	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3			Model 4
Variable	B	SE	β	B	SE	β	B	SE	β	B	SE	β
cnf day 1	.17	.04	.55	.22	.08	.71	.19	.08	.62	.19	.07	.62
cnf day 3				−.06	.08	−.19	−.14	.09	−.42	−.16	.09	−.49
cnf day 5							−.15	.08	.39	.00	.12	.02
cnf day 7										.17	.11	.45
R^2	.30			.31			.36			.39
F for R^2 change	21.55***			.57			3.56**			2.30*

cnf = combined need fulfilment for all dimensions; ***p <.001, **p <.01, *p <.05.

6. Discussion

To summarise, the presented findings support the proposed conceptualisation of needs. The evidence confirms the structure of the theoretical conceptualisation, proving the four dimensions as distinct concepts. The average need fulfilment amounts to high rates of the needs for introduction and relatedness and to medium rates of the needs for self-affirmation and self-actualisation. This set of results demonstrates a more differentiated outcome than those provided by prior studies, which report overall moderate rates of fulfilment of basic needs (Evelein, Korthagen, and Brekelmans 2008; Korthagen and Evelein 2016). Furthermore, the presented data support the assumption of the presence of lower-order and higher-order needs (Conley and Woosley 2000; Maslow 1943).

In tackling the two research questions, further supportive evidence is revealed. A progressive development in need fulfilment is observed for all four dimensions (research question 1). While average gains are visibly similar, starting points differ significantly. As exemplified by further analysis, one reason for these differences involves the factors that vary more or less systematically among groups of pre-service teachers. Several student teachers report a higher fulfilment of their need for introduction on day 1 because of their familiarity with their school prior to the investigated field experience. They thus increase the average fulfilment rate systematically, which might result in differences among the four need concepts on day 1. Future research should investigate the factors responsible for the variance among and within the starting points in need fulfilment. Certain clusters of characteristics might lead to lower or higher fulfilment rates before the beginning of the field experience.

Generally, the average development paths appear plausible in the course of the investigated ten days. This result is in contrast to prior findings (Evelein, Korthagen, and Brekelmans 2008) about a rather unsystematic variation in need fulfilment over time. While this finding can be interpreted in favour of the plausibility of the present framework, it could also be attributed to the longer time spans (10 days versus 14 weeks) and measurement intervals organised alongside teaching experiences in prior approaches (Evelein, Korthagen, and Brekelmans 2008; Korthagen and Evelein 2016). Interestingly, the presence of lower- and higher-order needs is further supported by the reported fulfilment gain rates. The needs for introduction and relatedness show higher gain rates of fulfilment when compared with the needs for self-affirmation and self-actualisation. Based on SDT, it can be argued that one reason lies in the higher complexity of fulfiling the latter two needs in the context of a multifaceted learning environment (Mcneil et al. 2006). In this sense, need fulfilment requires a positive upward spiral of autonomously regulated proactivity, in which the individual gains resources by gradually realising increasingly complete self-regulatory processes and effective goal regulation (Strauss and Parker 2014). As a consequence, the gained knowledge or skills serve the successful handling of the more complex processes of self-regulation and goal regulation. In this respect, the investigated ten-day practical phase could have simply been too short for the student teachers to further escalate within the spiral. This conjecture should receive attention in future research on long-term practical phases.

However, gain rates do not seem so relevant for the success indicators in practical learning (research question 2). Here, the overall need fulfilment more significantly relates to the following success indicators: learner satisfaction, learning gain, shift in perspective, teacher self-efficacy and self-reflection. This finding highlights the importance of high fulfilment rates right from the start of the field experience. Student teachers who start with low rates and advance to high gains in need fulfilment during their field experience appear to benefit only in terms of learner satisfaction. This outcome seems plausible because higher satisfaction can be regarded as a result of the realised gains. Notably, accumulated need fulfilment is positively related to the level of self-reflection exhibited by the student teachers in their written closing reports some weeks after the practical phase. Therefore, the need-satisfied student teachers do not only report higher learning gains but also demonstrate higher achievements regarding the academic side of practical learning. These results considerably align with the findings of Poom-Valickis et al. (2017).

Altogether, the results support the presented theoretical framework. It becomes clear that when focusing on basic and specific needs, the proposed concept might be superior in explanatory strength compared with the approaches that emphasise only the learner side of practical learning. The results point to a more differentiated picture of need fulfilment and its development during the practical phases of teacher education.

6.1. Limitations

The presented findings were obtained from a rather small sample size. Hence, a careful interpretation is advised, especially regarding their generalisation. The aggregated data also reveal little information about individual development in need fulfilment. When observed at a closer range, different individual development patterns might emerge. Future studies should tackle this problem with larger sample sizes to provide more possibilities for in-depth data analysis.

A further limitation of this present study is its use of self-reports, which are prone to method bias and can inflate the correlations between measures (Blume et al. 2010). Following the suggestions of Devos et al. (2007), the potential effects of this bias have been minimised by using anonymised questionnaires and providing sufficient time and support for filling them out. Most importantly, the longitudinal design has reduced the contamination of the success measures, as they have been recorded separately and with a temporal distance from the field experience. Moreover, the use of at least one external criterion (grades in closing reports) supports the validity of the findings to some extent. However, future research should incorporate further external criteria, such as observations, to provide more solid evidence in this regard. Prospective studies could additionally apply methods of mobile experience sampling, especially in recording the need fulfilment data. The benefits could include better accuracy and an enhanced ability to recognise meaningful within-person variability (Carson, Weiss, and Templin 2010).

7. Implications for pre-service teacher education

Based on the conclusions drawn from this study, it can be argued that to offer functional and productive field experiences in pre-service teacher education, schools as learning and practising environments should provide possibilities for the fulfilment of the psychological needs of student teachers. This recommendation is in accordance with the argument in favour of learning environments that allow student teachers’ personal choices, goals and opinions in academic and practical contexts (Poom-Valickis et al. 2017). The present paper makes the point that treating pre-service teachers only as learners who prepare themselves to become future teachers is an insufficient approach. Because student teachers strive for authentic possibilities of experiencing (not simulating) what it means to be teachers, enhancing conditions for practical learning also requires responding to the needs of in-service teachers. In this respect, mentoring and other means of support for pre-service teachers in schools should address and provide possibilities for need fulfilment by using a more holistic approach. Such strategies might incorporate a proper introduction (Hudson 2012), a supportive school community (Hudson 2012; Lee and Feng 2007), the characteristics of the mentor–mentee relationship based on equal footing (Hobson et al. 2009), opportunities for choice (Pelletier, Se´guin-Le´vesque, and Legault 2002; Poom-Valickis et al. 2017), as well as the possibilities for self-affirmation (Wright and Bottery 1997), including professional feedback from various sources (Edwards and Protheroe 2004; Helman 2006; Putnam and Borko 2000). Encouraging student teachers to engage in a self-directed process of need fulfilment seems beneficial (Alberta Teachers’ Association 2003), especially regarding the alleged differentiation between lower- and higher-order needs. Based on the present findings, a serial approach to need fulfilment is advised. Instead of offering various possibilities for need fulfilment in the beginning of a field experience, it seems plausible to initially dedicate time and support to the fulfilment of the needs for introduction and relatedness (e.g. meet-and-greet sessions, job shadowing, observations). This approach could help secure high rates of need fulfilment from an early stage, which has proven to be crucial for the success of practical learning. Once these lower-order needs are sufficiently fulfilled, higher-order needs should be tackled by providing time and specific support (e.g. teaching experiences, feedback sessions, active engagement). Such a serial approach to need fulfilment aiming at a positive upward spiral (Strauss and Parker 2014) could be a major design feature of future field experiences during teacher education.

Acknowledgments

I express gratitude towards Sophie Merl, Madlen Protzel and Ines Stuckatz for supporting data collection and management.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Benjamin Dreer

Benjamin Dreer holds a Master of Education degree in secondary education and a PhD degree in educational sciences. He is currently the scientific manager of the Erfurt School of Education, the centre for teacher education and educational research at the University of Erfurt, Germany. His research interests lie in pre-service teacher education, especially in enhancing conditions during field experiences. Furthermore, he is interested in understanding and fostering teacher and student teacher well-being.

Notes

1. Indicators of familiarity: visited school as pupils, had relatives working in the school, had former field experiences in the school, knew the school under other circumstances.