Relationship between science teachers’ teaching motivations and career development aspirations

ABSTRACT

While science teachers play a pivotal role in schools in fostering students’ scientific literacy, interest, and aspirations, many countries face a lack of motivated pre-service teachers (PSTs) for science education. Accordingly, this study aims to explore science PSTs’ motivations for choosing a teaching profession and how these motivations are associated with their aspirations to remain in the teaching profession. The study chose seven factors that were relevant to the Social Cognitive Career Theory framework and investigated the relationships among those factors. The results indicated a positive relationship between the PSTs’ motivation to work with children and career development aspiration, while those who stated having more time for family as the key motivation to choose the teaching profession presented a negative association. Also, this study revealed the critical role of previous learning experiences and perceived teaching ability in increasing the science PST’s planned effort and persistence in the teaching profession.

KEYWORDS:

• Teaching motivation
• career development aspiration
• social cognitive career theory
• FIT-Choice
• PECDA

Introduction

Since science has made a great impact on our lives and economy for the last decades, many nations emphasise the pivotal role of science education and science teachers in equipping future citizens with strong scientific literacy skills. However, at the same time, many countries have faced a shortage of teachers in primary and secondary education (e.g. Meens and Bakx 2019), especially, pre-service teachers (PSTs) with strong capacities in subject areas such as science (Schleicher 2012). Therefore, examining the motivations behind choosing a teaching profession in science education holds significant importance as these motivations play a pivotal role in influencing their decisions to enter, persist in, or leave teacher education programmes and the teaching profession itself (Bruinsma and Jansen 2010; H. M. G. Watt, Richardson, and Wilkins 2014). Moreover, research has consistently shown that teachers’ initial career entry motivations are strongly correlated with their performance during teacher training (Camarero-Figuerola et al. 2023) and their aspirations for future professional leadership and development (H. M. G. Watt and Richardson 2008). Notably, teachers who begin their careers with positive motivations tend to exhibit superior teaching qualities, including effective classroom management, enhanced learning support, and increased cognitive activation (Praetorius et al. 2017). As a result, a deeper understanding of the motivations of science PSTs is not only essential for the recruitment of dedicated science educators but also for ensuring the delivery of high-quality instruction to students. Accordingly, this study aims to shed light on this vital aspect, examining the relationship between science PSTs’ career entry motivation and career development aspirations based on the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT: Lent, Brown, and Hackett 1994) to offer valuable insights for education policymakers, institutions, and teacher training programmes.

Teaching motivations and the FIT-Choice scale

Reasons to become a teacher vary and are complicated since several factors are involved in making the career decision. In order to explore career entry motivations, a large number of studies have been carried out in both developed and developing countries presenting the motives for choosing a teaching career under three main topics: extrinsic, intrinsic, and altruistic reasons (Goller et al. 2019). However, there was a lack of agreement upon analytical and theoretical framework on what constitutes extrinsic, intrinsic, altruistic, or other motivations so it ‘resulted in a lack of definitional precision and overlapping categorisations’ (H. M. G. Watt and Richardson 2012, 186). Accordingly, Watt and Richardson have introduced the Factors Influencing Teaching Choice (FIT-Choice) research programme as a solid overarching theoretical framework to study teaching motivations (Richardson and Watt 2006; H. M. G. Watt and Richardson 2007). The FIT-Choice model presented in Figure 1 is based on the Expectancy-Value Theory (EVT: Eccles 2009) which identifies two key immediate predictors of behaviour: expectancies and values (see Watt and Richardson (2007) for a detailed description of the FIT-Choice framework).

Figure 1. FIT-choice empirically validated theoretical model (H. M. G. Watt and Richardson 2012, 187).

FIT-Choice studies conducted in various contexts such as Australia (Richardson and Watt 2006), the USA (H. M. G. Watt et al. 2012), Netherlands (Fokkens-Bruinsma and Canrinus 2014), or Finland (Goller et al. 2019; Kang et al. 2023) point out seven factors—intrinsic value, self-perception on teaching ability, prior teaching and learning experiences, two social utility values (work with children and shape future of children) and two personal utility values (job security and time for family)—as the highest rated motivations. For instance, the Finnish study by Goller et al. (2019) reported that PSTs, in general, reported intrinsic values followed by their desire to work with children as their main motivations for choosing a teaching career. In addition, they also found that the PSTs from different programmes, for instance, preschool, primary school, or subject teachers, indicated differences in some motivational scales such as time for family or prior teaching and learning experiences. Their findings imply that PSTs preparing to teach different subjects may have different motivational structures. For the same reason, it is to be acknowledged that although these seven factors might be the most common, dominant, and potent motives affecting teachers’ decision to choose the teaching profession, it is important to explore and understand how these factors are related and affect each other in the development of teaching career aspirations.

Concerning the science teachers’ motivation, a study using the FIT-choice scale conducted in the Turkish context by Kılınç and Seymen (2014), identified that the top motivations of the science teachers were social utility values (make a social contribution, shape the future of children, and enhance social equity) followed by job security. Also, Kılınç et al. (2012) compared the motivations between the science and non-science preservice teachers in Turkey and found that the science group reported significantly lower motivations than the non-science group, except for the fallback career factor.

Relationships between motivations and career development aspirations

As noticed, teaching motivations show a significant relationship with career development aspirations such as willingness to participate in professional development, and this commitment to be involved in such development programmes is highly relevant to teaching quality (Schleicher 2012). Bruinsma and Jansen (2010) explored the relationship between PSTs’ initial motivation for becoming a teacher and their aspiration to remain in the teaching profession. According to the results, PSTs with intrinsic motives, such as working with children, intended to stay longer in the teaching profession than those who had maladaptive motives such as teaching as a fallback career. Similarly, Fokkens-Bruinsma and Canrinus (2014) reported that PSTs’ planned effort in teaching was positively related to their motivation in working with children and intrinsic career value.

To measure teachers’ willingness to develop their professional expertise, the Professional Engagement and Career Development Aspiration (PECDA) scale was developed by Watt and Richardson (2008) which is also a psychometrically validated scale used in different contexts. While the FIT-Choice scale measures motivations for those entering initial teacher training, the PECDA scale addresses those motivations of in-service teachers including early-career teachers. However, as the FIT-Choice scale is used for both pre- and in-service (e.g. Ainley and Carstens 2018), the PECDA scale also is relevant for PSTs since the scale measures willingness and intention, not the realised action. Thus, it has been used for PSTs to explore the relationships between motivation, professional plan, and future time perspective (Eren and Tezel 2010) or the effect of student teaching experience on the relationship between motivation and planned persistence (Leverett 2016). Briefly, the PECDA scale consists of four factors: 1) planned effort measuring teachers’ willingness to put their effort into becoming a good and effective teacher; 2) planned persistence referring to teachers’ confidence in their tenacity in a teaching career; 3) professional development aspirations referring to their intention to participate in professional development courses; and 4) leadership aspirations investigating teachers’ aim to take up a leadership role in schools. Using the PECDA scale, Watt and Richardson (2008) identified different ‘“types”’ of future teachers, characterised by different profiles of the amount of effort they plan to invest in their job, the length of time they plan to stay in teaching, the degree to which they devote for professional learning to develop and sustain their career, and whether they aspire to take leadership roles in schools.

Research gap in FIT-Choice and PECDA studies

Currently, although several studies have used the FIT-Choice and PECDA scales across countries, there are several gaps in the research. First, as reviewed, most of the studies focused on reporting the characteristics of the specific group (e.g. Fokkens-Bruinsma and Canrinus 2014; Richardson and Watt 2006; H. M. G. Watt et al. 2012) or differences between groups (e.g. Goller et al. 2019; Kılınç, Watt, and Richardson 2012). Also, although there are a few studies that examined the relationships among the FIT-Choice constructs, most of them were basic bivariate correlation studies (See H. M. G. Watt and Richardson 2012, 194–195). However, as the scales were derived from EVT and SCCT assuming causal relationships between the factors, it is worth exploring to what extent the factors are related to each other based on the relevant theories. Second, gender differences in the FIT-Choice and the PECDA scales are inconclusive. For instance, Kılınç et al. (2012) indicated that females indicated higher intrinsic and altruistic values while males presented higher fallback career motivation. On the other hand, the study conducted by Eren and Tezel (2010) in the same context reported that the gender effect is trivial on the FIT-Choice scale. An Irish sample revealed gender differences in motivations for working with children with men rating higher than women and in social dissuasion with women rating higher than men (Heinz, Keane, and Foley 2017). While this study reported men rating higher on social utility factors, a Spanish study reported women rating higher on social utility factors (Gratacós et al. 2017). Third, although the shortage of science teachers has been a critical issue in many countries, there is very little research specific to the science teacher workforce measuring their career entry motivation and career aspirations (Kang et al. 2023). That is, there has always been a strong need to understand why men and women choose to teach science (H. M. G. Watt, Richardson, and Devos 2013), however, as reviewed, a limited number of FIT-Choice studies targeting science teachers were conducted in other contexts (e.g. in Turkey - Kılınç and Seymen 2014; Kılınç, Watt, and Richardson 2012), and to our best knowledge, no other studies used the PECDA scale targeting science pre- or in-service teachers. Therefore, further research is required to explore science teachers’ motivation and aspirations in a different context. Fourth, while a few explored the relationships between the FIT-Choice and PECDA constructs, they did not adopt a rigorous career development framework such as SCCT. In 1994, Lent et al. introduced the SCCT framework explaining an individual’s vocational development and intentions (Lent, Brown, and Hackett 1994), and because of its versatility, SCCT has been widely examined across multiple cultures and domains such as students’ aspiration to pursue teaching careers (Zhang et al. 2014). The FIT-Choice scale is also closely mapped onto the SCCT model (H. M. G. Watt and Richardson 2012). According to SCCT, individuals’ learning experiences, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations play key roles in fostering interest and aspirations to pursue a career such as teaching (Lent et al. 2010). Zhang et al. (2014), for instance, explored PSTs’ intentions to pursue careers in special education and found that self-efficacy, personal and work experience, and outcome expectations affected their special education career interest and intentions. Bruinsma and Jansen (2010) also found a significant positive correlation between learning experiences and self-efficacy, and teachers’ self-efficacy was also positively related to their intention to remain in the teaching profession.

Therefore, SCCT offers an ideal framework for understanding the relationship between teachers’ motivations and aspirations in the teaching profession. Indeed, as presented in Figure 2, the seven dominant teaching motivations from the FIT-Choice scale and the three career development aspiration factors from the PECDA scale are highly comparable with the SCCT variables (Bold indicates the SCCT factors, and italic indicates the FIT-Choice and the PECDA factors in Figure 2). For instance, the outcome expectation of SCCT referring to a belief that engaging in a particular behaviour will lead to specific outcomes or consequences similar to utility value in EVT. In the FIT-Choice scale, this construct is translated into personal utility value (such as job security) and social utility value (such as working with children). That is, working with children can be an outcome expectation that student teachers have, as they anticipate the rewards and satisfaction that come with working with children in a professional setting. Indeed, Webb et al. (2004) reported that the teaching profession is a rewarding job because teachers feel ‘the pleasure of watching children grow, develop, and make progress’ (182). Similarly, intrinsic task value in the EVT model referring to personal enjoyment that an individual derives from engaging in a particular task or activities (Eccles 2009) is used as an interest construct in the SCCT framework and intrinsic value in the FIT-Choice scale. Therefore, based on the SCCT framework, we can assume that working with children as an outcome expectation may foster student teachers’ interest in the teaching profession that in the end will increase their professional development aspirations.

Figure 2. Comparison between the FIT-Choice, the PECDA, and the SCCT factors.

Note: Bold indicates the SCCT factors, and italic indicates the FIT-Choice and the PECDA factors.

Therefore, this study adopted and examined the hypothesised SCCT model to illustrate how the FIT-Choice and the PECDA factors can be explained by the proposed model in Figure 3. Specifically, this study explored the direct and indirect effects of prior teaching and learning experiences, perceived teaching ability, and four different types of outcome expectation (work with children, shape future of children, job security, and time for family) on intrinsic value and aspirations on professional engagement and career development. For this, we designed four models based on the four outcome expectations and compared them to find and understand the salient outcome expectation of preservice science teachers in pursuing their teaching career.

Figure 3. Hypothesized SCCT model using the FIT-Choice and the PECDA factors.

Method

Sample and procedure

To collect data, we approached science teacher educators in five different Finnish universities. Although two more universities were educating prospective science teachers in Finland, since the number of students in those universities was very small, we contacted only five universities for this study. We asked one to three teacher educators of each university to share email invitations for those who had been accepted to the science pedagogy training programme (60 credits for 2-year study). Since the structure of the training programmes of each university varies, we did not have an exact figure on how many PSTs were listed and invited from each institution. However, each year, around 250 PSTs study the science pedagogies to become secondary school science teachers in the five universities on average (Moilanen and Neittaanmäki 2021) and, in our study, 151 participants (88 females) voluntarily accepted our invitations aged 20–58 years (average 25.61). Most of them had no previous teaching experience (N = 113) or less than 2 years (N = 28) while eight of them had significant teaching experience between 2 and 17 years. Also, most of the participants were studying pedagogy (N = 114) while 32 of them completed and four had not started the pedagogic studies at the time of data collection. The questionnaire included all FIT-Choice and the PECDA scales containing a total of 75 items and the participants filled out the online questionnaire at a single time point.

Measures

The questionnaire was based on the previously validated FIT-Choice scale (H. M. G. Watt and Richardson 2007) and the PECDA scale (H. M. G. Watt and Richardson 2008) which have been widely and internationally studied (e.g. Kang et al. 2023; H. M. G. Watt, Richardson, and Wilkins 2014; H. M. G. Watt et al. 2012). Based on the reviewed literature, preliminary correlation analyses, and the framework of this study, we chose the seven constructs from the FIT-Choice scale (intrinsic value, self-perception on teaching ability, prior teaching and learning experiences, work with children, shape future of children, job security, and time for family) and the three constructs from the PECDA scale (planned effort, professional development, and planned persistence) that fit the hypothesised SCCT model presented in Figure 3. Accordingly, 35 out of 75 items were used in this study. All items had the same response scale from 1 (not at all important (FIT-Choice)/not at all (PECDA)) to 7 (extremely important (FIT-Choice)/extremely (PECDA)). More detailed information about these constructs is presented in Supplement Material.

Analysis

To study the hypothesised relationships presented in Figure 3, we performed structural equation modelling (SEM). The SEM analysis measures how a specific factor predicts other related factors and can calculate direct and indirect influences of the specific factor on several dependent variables (Wang and Wang 2012). Specifically, we wanted to measure direct and indirect influences of prior learning experiences, perceived teaching ability, and the four outcome expectations on intrinsic value, planned effort, professional development aspiration, and planned persistence. For this, we built and compared the four SEM models: Model WC (working with children), Model FC (future of children), Model JS (job security), and Model TF (time for family) in order to examine which factors fit with the hypothesised model the best and showed significant correlations with other core variables. For the model comparison, ΔCFI (changes in Comparative Fit Index) and ΔTLI (changes in Tucker Lewis Index) were examined as ΔCFI and ΔTLI smaller than or equal to 0.01 indicate no significant differences between the models and vice versa (Cheung and Rensvold 2002). Mplus 8.2 was used with the maximum likelihood with robust standard errors and chi-squared (MLR) estimator and missing data were estimated using full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML) (Muthén and Muthén 2012). In measuring the goodness of model fit, traditional cut-off values were applied: RMSEA below .05 or .08, SRMR (Standardised Root Mean Square Residual) below .08; CFI and TLI (Tucker Lewis Index) above .90 or .95 (Wang and Wang 2012).

Results

Regarding the motivational aspects, the Finnish PSTs for science education indicated high motivation in the teaching profession as shown in Table 1. Among them, intrinsic value (M = 6.09, SD = 0.96) was the highest followed by prior learning experiences (M = 5.54, SD = 1.15), and perceived teaching ability (M = 5.26, SD = 1.05). Regarding the four outcome expectations, the PSTs indicated that they wanted to be a teacher because it gave them a chance to work with children (M = 5.05, SD = 1.47) and to shape the future of children (M = 5.01, SD = 1.43). It is to be noted that job security was also rated above the scale midpoint (M = 4.80, SD = 1.30). On the other hand, time for family (M = 3.74, SD = 1.57) was rated low and not likely to be the reason for becoming a teacher in Finland. The PSTs also indicated high occupational aspirations; planned effort (M = 6.08, SD = 0.71) was the highest and planned persistence (M = 5.28, SD = 1.34) was the lowest among the aspirational constructs. Reliabilities for all core constructs were satisfactory (α >.7) and comprehensive reliability and validity tests of the measurement are provided in the Supplementary Material.

Table 1. Core factors’ mean and reliability.

Factor	Factor name	Number of items	Range	Mean (SD)	α
Motivations
Intrinsic value	IV	2	1–7	6.09 (0.96)	.74
Learning Experiences	LE	3	1–7	5.54 (1.15)	.85
Perceived teaching ability	PTA	3	1–7	5.26 (1.05)	.83
Working with Children	WC	3	1–7	5.05 (1.47)	.91
Future of Children	FC	3	1–7	5.01 (1.43)	.90
Job Security	JS	3	1–7	4.80 (1.30)	.84
Time for Family	TF	5	1–7	3.74 (1.57)	.89
Aspirations
Planned Effort	PE	4	1–7	6.08 (0.71)	.90
Professional Development	PD	5	1–7	5.81 (0.78)	.87
Planned Persistence	PP	4	1–7	5.28 (1.34)	.97

As presented in Table 2, we further explored mean differences between genders among the core constructs and found that there were no differences for motivational constructs, except working with children (Male = 4.77 & Female = 5.25, p < .05, d = 0.33). Regarding aspirational constructs, gender differences were identified for planned effort and professional development with medium effect sizes (d = 0.56 & 0.57 respectively) with females indicating higher aspiration than males (p < .005). We also compared mean differences in the core construct between the PSTs’ pedagogy training stages (1. Not started yet, 2. Ongoing, 3. Completed), and teaching experience (1. No experience, 2. Less than 2 years, 3. More than 2 years), but there were no differences between the groups indicating that the PSTs’ motivations or aspirations towards professional development were not associated with their pedagogy training or previous teaching experiences.

Table 2. Mean difference between gender.

	Gender	Mean (SD)	t (df)	Cohen’s d
Motivations
Intrinsic value	Male	5.92 (1.05)	−1.85 (148)	−0.30
	Female	6.21 (0.88)
Learning Experiences	Male	5.65 (1.11)	.89 (148)	0.15
	Female	5.47 (1.34)
Perceived teaching ability	Male	5.26 (1.11)	.09 (148)	0.01
	Female	5.25 (1.01)
Work with Children	Male	4.77 (1.47)	−2.01 (148)*	−0.33
	Female	5.25 (1.44)
Future of Children	Male	4.77 (1.60)	−1.74 (115)	−0.29
	Female	5.19 (1.28)
Job Security	Male	4.97 (1.23)	1.31 (148)	0.22
	Female	4.69 (1.35)
Time for Family	Male	3.96 (1.55)	1.46 (148)	0.24
	Female	3.58 (1.58)
Aspirations
Planned Effort	Male	5.85 (0.76)	−3.43 (148)**	−0.56
	Female	6.24 (0.64)
Professional Development	Male	5.56 (0.83)	−3.47 (148)**	−0.57
	Female	5.99 (0.68)
Planned Persistence	Male	5.37 (1.18)	.66 (148)	0.11
	Female	5.22 (1.45)

*>.05, **>.005.

The results of the correlations analysis showed that intrinsic value, learning experiences, and perceived teaching ability were highly correlated with each other and with outcome expectation and career aspiration variables as presented in Table 3. Among the four outcome expectation variables, working with children was correlated with other core variables the most. The aspirational latent variables indicated a high correlation with each other and with intrinsic value and working with children.

Table 3. Correlation of latent variables.

	IV	LE	PTA	WC	FC	JS	TF	PE	PD	PP
IV	1
LE	.467***	1
PTA	.715***	.545***	1
WC	.448***	.331**	.380***	1
FC	.432***	.256*	.393**	.446***	1
JS	0.01	0.129	0.177	0.189	.239*	1
TF	0.151	.283**	.245*	.387***	0.172	.561***	1
PE	.626***	.326***	.387***	.390***	.271**	−0.001	−0.103	1
PD	.373**	0.171	.224*	.287**	0.18	−0.014	−0.167	.711***	1
PP	.403***	.420***	.319**	491***	0.074	.220*	0.155	.490***	.357***	1

IV: intrinsic value, LE: learning experiences, PTA: perceived teaching ability, PE: planned effort, PD: professional development, PP: planned persistence, WC: working with children, FC: future of children, JS: job security, TF: time for family. *>.05, **>.005, ***>.001.

Then, we tested the four SCCT models based on different outcome expectation constructs:

1. Model WC (work with children)

2. Model FC (future of children)

3. Model JS (job security)

4. Model TF (time for family)

First, we checked the fit of the models, and as presented in Table 4, the Model WC, FC, and JS indicated satisfactory model fits and there were no significant differences between the three models (ΔCFI ≤0.01, ΔTLI ≤0.01). On the other hand, the Model TF indicated marginally adequate fits and ΔCFI and ΔTLI were significant when compared with the other models.

Table 4. Fit of the four SCCT-FIT models.

	Chi-square (df)	CFI	TLI	RMSEA (90% CI)	SRMR
Model WC	415.14 (236)***	.920	.906	.071 (.060 & .082)	.070
Model FC	412.64 (236)***	.918	.905	.071 (.059 & .082)	.074
Model JS	393.49 (236)***	.923	.910	.067 (.055 & .078)	.072
Model TF	552.03 (283)***	.888	.871	.080 (.070 & .089)	.080

WC: working with children, FC: future of children, JS: job security, TF: time for family, ***>.001.

Finally, we explored the relationships between motivational and aspirational constructs based on the hypothesised SCCT models. As shown in Table 5, the paths from prior learning experiences to other core constructs were statistically significant in most cases. Especially, the positive learning experiences were highly correlated to their perceived teaching ability and intrinsic value. In addition, the indirect effects of prior learning experiences were also moderately related to their planned persistence in all models. That is, the PSTs’ prior learning experience is likely to predict their effort to become a good teacher and persistence in a teaching career.

Table 5. Path coefficient with 95% confidence intervals.

	Path	Model WC	Model FC	Model JS	Model TF
1	LE→PTA (d)	.56*** (.37, .73)	.58*** (.39, .75)	.58*** (.39, .74)	.58*** (.40, .74)
2	LE→OE (d+ind)	.35*** (.17, .55)	.26* (.04, .48)	.14	.28** (.09, .45)
3	LE→IV (ind)	.44*** (.25, .61)	.43*** (.25, .61)	.42*** (.23, .61)	.42*** (.23, .60)
4	LE→PE (ind)	.26*** (.16, .38)	.24*** (.14, .37)	.24*** (.12, .37)	.21** (.09, .35)
5	LE→PD (ind)	.15* (.04, .27)	.13* (.03, .25)	.13* (.02, .24)	.10
6	LE→PP (ind)	.25*** (.11, .40)	.22** (.08, .38)	.22** (.09, .37)	.22** (.07, .37)
7	PTA →OE (d)	.27* (.04, .52)	.38* (.12, .68)	.16	.13
8	PTA →IV (d+ind)	.70*** (.47, .89)	.73*** (.52, .90)	.73*** (.52, .90)	.73*** (.52, .90)
9	PTA →PE (d+ind)	.37*** (.17, .51)	.41*** (.24, .55)	.42*** (.26, .54)	.44*** (.28, .57)
10	PTA →PD (d+ind)	.20* (−.01, .38)	.22* (.02, .40)	.23* (.03, .40)	.26* (.06, .47)
11	PTA →PP (d+ind)	.29* (.05, .54)	.38*** (.18, .59)	.37*** (.16, .59)	.37*** (.17, .59)
12	OE→IV (d)	.22	.16	−.13	−.03
13	OE→PE (d+ind)	.29** (.09, .47)	.13	−.08	−.22* (−.42, −.03)
14	OE→PD (d+ind)	.23* (.02, .43)	.11	−.06	−.24* (−.43, −.04)
15	OE→PP (d+ind)	.44*** (.22, .62)	−.07	.14	.05

LE: learning experiences, PTA: perceived teaching ability, OE: outcome expectation, IV: intrinsic value, PE: planned effort, PD: professional development, PP: planned persistence, WC: work with children, FC: future of children, JS: job security, TF: time for family, d=direct effect, ind=indirect effect, *>.05, **>.005, ***>.001. parenthesis: 95% confidence interval (lower, upper).

Perceived teaching ability predicted two outcome expectations, work with children and future of children, but was not related to the other two outcome expectations, job security and time for family. That is, the PSTs with high perceived teaching ability chose to be a teacher not because of a reliable income or enough time for family, but because considering the potential opportunities to work with and for children. Furthermore, perceived teaching ability indicated a significant correlation with intrinsic value in all models. Compared to prior learning experiences, perceived teaching ability indicated higher correlations with all aspirational constructs. That is, perceived teaching ability predicts the PSTs’ planned effort and persistence in teaching better than their prior teaching or learning experiences.

Regarding the relationships between outcome expectations and other variables, working with children as outcome expectation for the science PSTs indicated positive correlations with intrinsic value (b=.22, p = .05), planned effort (b=.29, p < .005), aspiration in professional development (b=.23, p < .05), and planned persistence (b=.44, p < .001) in Model WC. On the other hand, Model FC and Model JS did not indicate any significant correlations between the outcome expectation and other variables. Interestingly, Model TF that showed the time for family as an outcome expectation indicated negative correlations with planned effort and professional development. That is, the science PSTs expecting a teaching career may give enough time for family invest less effort into their teaching. Thus, it can be concluded that spending time for family and being a good teacher who invests significant effort into teaching may be two conflicting perceptions. One thousand bootstrap replications for assessing the significance of indirect effects in the mediation analyses were used, and the results were presented in parentheses in Table 5. According to the results, the bootstrap 95% confidence intervals for the indirect effects did not include zero in most cases, indicating statistical significance. However, it is important to recognise that while these findings provide robust support for our mediation hypotheses, the practical and theoretical significance of these effects should be carefully considered. Moreover, due to our small sample size, there may be limitations in the generalisability of our results, and caution should be exercised when applying these findings to broader populations or contexts.

Discussion

Teachers’ motivations play an important role in their career satisfaction, teaching approaches, and teacher retention. However, only a few studies have explored the relationships between motivational and aspirational factors using the SCCT framework. Accordingly, this study attempted to extend our current knowledge of the effect of PSTs’ teaching motivations on their aspirations of professional development and retention in the teaching profession. For this, we employed the FIT-Choice and PECDA scales and proposed the SCCT model as an underpinning conceptual framework adopting several factors from these two scales. Findings revealed that PSTs’ motivation to work with children indicated a significant role in developing their aspirations. Also, prior learning experiences and perceived teaching abilities showed positive relationships with career aspirations.

Two significant outcome expectations: work with children & time for family

In line with the previous studies (Goller et al. 2019; Richardson and Watt 2006), our sample presented high values for six motives such as intrinsic value, learning experiences, perceived teaching ability, work with children, shape future of children, and job security. However, unlike the study by Fokkens-Bruinsma and Canrinus (2012), time for family was not the reason for choosing the teaching profession in Finland. Also, the SCCT model including the time for family factor indicated poor model fit, and moreover, time for family was negatively associated with the aspirations on the career development plan and planned effort. Therefore, the current study reveals that the career motive ‘time for family’ did not attract PSTs to choose teacher education, but rather adversely affected their intentions and contributions to their professional growth and development. Goller et al. (2019) also reported that compared to the German sample, Finnish PSTs rated low on time for family. A possible interpretation of this result could be that since in Finland not only the teaching profession but also most of the occupations offer flexible working environments compared to other Western countries (Savage 2020), having more time for friends and family is not an important criterion to choose one’s career. Also, it is plausible that if individuals wanted to have more time with family, they would not have enough time to engage in professional development. Thus, we can assume that the PSTs already had a realistic understanding of the demands of a teaching career and conceived that these two motives cannot coexist or be satisfied simultaneously in the teaching profession.

On the other hand, the PSTs’ motivation to work with children was identified as the most important outcome expectation of teaching. Previous studies using the FIT-Choice scale also have repeatedly reported that working with children is one of the main reasons to become a teacher (e.g. Fokkens-Bruinsma and Canrinus 2012; Goller et al. 2019). The current findings further underscore that science PSTs’ motivation for becoming a teacher is not that different from other subject teachers. In addition, this study presented the hypothesised model including working with children as an outcome expectation as the best-fitted model with the SCCT framework, clearly indicating that the motivational construct, ‘working with children’, is a better predictor (than the other three outcome expectations:—shape future of children, time for family, and job security) of planned effort, professional development aspiration, and planned persistence in the teaching profession. Thus, reminding the PSTs of their significant role as a key adult in the lives of young students whom they are going to teach in future after the completion of teacher education may encourage them to give more effort to be involved in professional development to improve their teaching skills. In addition, this recalling is likely to have a positive impact on their commitment to remain in the teaching profession.

However, we found that there were gender differences in the participants’ motivations (work with children) and aspirations (planned effort and professional development aspiration) with women reporting higher values on all three factors than men. Bruinsma and Jansen (2010) and Kılınç et al. (2012) also argued that female PSTs indicated higher intrinsic motives such as working with children than the males in the Netherlands and Turkey, respectively. This gender difference can be explained by the previous results as work with children is a significant predictor of the PSTs’ planned effort and professional development aspiration. Thus, the current results underscore that women PSTs are more likely to be involved in the development of their professional skills in teaching than men because they have a greater desire to work with children. However, it is to be acknowledged that despite the identified gender differences, men in our sample also rated planned effort and aspirations on professional development very high, indicating that these differences may not be an issue in Finland.

Role of learning experiences and perceived teaching ability in the development of aspirations

Similar to the previous studies (Fokkens-Bruinsma and Canrinus 2012; Goller et al. 2019), prior learning experiences were one of the most important motivations for becoming a science teacher. According to Goller et al. (2019), subject teachers’ prior learning experiences affected the PSTs’ motivations for their career choice much higher than the primary or preschool PSTs. The reason probably is that since the memory of learning experiences with certain subject teachers at secondary school is the most recent one in comparison to pre- or primary school teachers, subject PSTs more often stress-positive learning experiences as motivations to become a teacher. In addition, in the hypothesised SCCT model, previous learning experiences were positively associated with all other core variables of this study such as intrinsic value or professional development aspirations. Thus, the current finding emphasises the critical role of science teachers in secondary schools, not only in attracting capable students to the teaching profession but also in retaining them in the teaching profession in the long term. Therefore, we should not only recognise but also remind science teachers of their role as influencers who can shape the future of science education by attracting and retaining capable individuals in the teaching profession.

Along with prior-learning experiences, the perceived teaching ability was also identified as an important motivation to become a science teacher as reported in previous studies (e.g. Fokkens-Bruinsma and Canrinus 2012; Goller et al. 2019). It can be interpreted that, unlike the students who major in science in higher education, preservice science teachers need to have confidence not only in science content knowledge but also in their teaching abilities. The results of the SCCT models showed that their confidence in teaching was highly correlated to previous learning experiences. Considering that our sample rarely had teaching experiences and there were no relationships between perceived teaching ability and training experiences at teacher colleges, their higher perceptions of teaching abilities might have stemmed from their learning experiences at secondary school such as having good and inspirational teachers as role models or influencers (Craig et al. 2019; Dawson 2007). Our results also indicated that perceived teaching ability was highly associated with professional development aspirations. Thus, PSTs who have higher confidence in their teaching abilities are likely to put more effort into developing their teaching skills and to remain in the teaching profession than those who have lower confidence. Another interesting finding concerning perceived teaching ability is that this construct was related to only the two outcome expectations (working with children and shaping future of children), but not related to the other two outcome expectations (job security and time for family). Thus, it seems that the PSTs who showed high perception in their teaching ability may also expect to work with and for children when they become a teacher rather than to focus on having job security or time for family. To sum up, these findings imply that teacher educators and colleges should place a strong emphasis on strategies and activities such as mentorship or practical teaching experiences that boost the confidence of preservice science teachers in their teaching abilities, as this may increase their altruistic motivations and retention in the teaching profession.

Another important finding of this study is that there were no differences among the pre-service science teachers in motivation (FIT-Choice) and aspiration (PECDA) scales regardless of their teaching experiences and the level of pedagogic studies. Several previous studies also have indicated that the motivation factors of early-career teachers (less than 5 years of teaching experience) were not different than established teachers (more than 6 years of teaching experience) (Wyatt-Smith et al. 2017); and the motivation factors did not change from the start of teacher education until early-career teaching (H. M. Watt, Richardson, and Morris 2017). In addition to the motivation factors, the aspiration factors also were not different among different years of study at college (first to final-year students) (Eren and Tezel 2010) and did not change during the teacher education programme (Leverett 2016). Therefore, unlike the assumption by Watt and Richardson (2008, 2014) that professional engagement and career development aspiration may be fostered during the teacher education programme, it seems like PSTs’ career development aspiration has already been formed before they enter the teachers college and not been changing easily during and/or after teacher education. Also, as our results indicate, these aspirational factors are highly correlated with the specific outcome expectations such as working with and for children. Therefore, the results of this study together with previous literature underline again the important elements that teacher educators should consider when recruiting prospective teachers. That is, if they were able to choose the candidates possessing higher motivations for working with and for children, it is likely to increase their participation in professional development and decrease their turnover rate in future. Especially, concerning the shortage and high turnover rate of science teachers in many countries (Meens and Bakx 2019), teacher education and teacher employing authorities need to seriously consider the initial motivations of prospective science teachers that ultimately could affect the quality of national science education and society at large.

Limitations

Although this study offers several implications for educational research and practice, it is not without limitations. First, since we only used the Finnish sample, the results cannot be generalised to other educational systems or cultures. For further studies, therefore, we recommend collecting data from multiple contexts and analysing each dataset with the hypothesised SCCT model used in this study. Second, although our sample was from five different Finnish universities, the number of samples was small considering the number of items and complexity of the statistical model. However, concerning that 1) the recommendation of item-sample ratio is in general 5 to 10 samples for each item, and 2) the good result of the statistical model fit which take the number of sample and complexity of the model into account, the sample size may not be the serious limitation of this study. Third, although SCCT has been proven to show causal relationships among the factors in the model by many studies, this study did not allow causal inferences to be made since it is cross-sectional. Thus, in order to capture the dynamic interplay between the motivational and aspirational constructs, longitudinal studies following PSTs during and after teacher education are recommended. Fourth, it would be beneficial to explore how do PSTs’ initial motivations and aspirations affect teacher retention in practice. Lastly, although we found that the year of teaching or pedagogy training stages did not affect their motivations or aspirations, there are previous studies using other research methods such as interviews (e.g. Tang, Cheng, and Cheng 2014) or different scales (e.g. Roness and Smith 2010; Sinclair 2008) showing that teacher motivations are affected by the initial teacher education programmes. Thus, the discussion is still open in this regard because results could be different based on the measurement, method, or cohorts. For example, we collected only the quantitative aspects of the participants’ teaching experiences that may be different if we had taken the qualitative aspects of teaching experiences, such as whether student teachers had positive or negative experiences during the practicum, into account (e.g. Leverett 2016; Roness and Smith 2010). This qualitative part of teaching experience can be a mediating or moderating factor between interest and aspiration factors, for instance. Accordingly, it is recommended further research to collect both quantitative and qualitative aspects of teaching experiences to deepen the understanding of the relationship between these factors.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2024.2311698

Additional information

Funding

This project has received funding from the Finnish Cultural Foundation for the first author and from the Research Council of Finland for the second author [Nr. 316852].

Notes on contributors

Jingoo Kang

Jingoo Kang, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education at the University of Eastern Finland. His expertise and research interests encompass science teacher motivation, gender equity in STEM careers, and climate change education.

Jaana Viljaranta

Jaana Viljaranta, Ph.D., is a professor in the School of Educational Sciences and Psychology at the University of Eastern Finland. Her research interests are in the development of motivation and on the role of motivation in learning, well-being and educational paths with a special focus on different individual and contextual factors.

Sindu George

Sindu George, Ph.D., is a senior lecturer in the National School of Education at the Australian Catholic University, Melbourne Campus. She has taught across primary, secondary, and tertiary sectors in different contexts including Australia and India. Her main research interests are teacher motivations, self-efficacy, goal orientations, STEM education, and inclusive education.

Ilpo Jäppinen

Ilpo Jäppinen is a Ph.D. student in the School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education at the University of Eastern Finland. He received a master’s degree in physics and is currently working as an e-learning specialist. His research interests focus on testing and developing study modules in the field of science education, including students’ intrinsic motivation.