10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Teaching as a Social Elevator? The Case of Germany and South Africa
Jonas Scharfenberg1, Eva Rutter1, Zelda Barends2, Chris Reddy2
1University of Passau, Germany; 2Stellenbosch University, South Africa
Presenting Author: Scharfenberg, Jonas;
Rutter, Eva
Historically, teaching has been regarded as a social elevator, offering upward mobility for individuals from non-academic households (e.g., for Sweden, Calander et al., 2003). Among ongoing arguments whether teaching may still hold such potential, there is limited knowledge regarding the relationship between academic background and other personal factors of future teachers, such as their career choice motives.
This connection holds significance on several levels. Many countries face teacher shortages, so understanding the motivation of first-generation students is crucial for increasing the number of future teachers. On an individual level, career choices are decisions made under uncertainty, particularly when exploring options distinct from those personally known, e.g. due to parents’ occupations (Gottfredson, 2005). This uncertainty, coupled with the aspirations tied to upward mobility, may be more pronounced for first-generation students, hence the importance to acknowledge and explore their distinct motivational patterns.
The potential of teaching for upward mobility can be linked to a number of factors. First, teaching is a visible academic career: Gottfredson (2005) argues that to choose a career, one has to have this specific occupation within their cognitive map of occupations. For most occupations, this depends on the context a person lives in, but teaching is an profession that can be found on nearly everybody’s occupational map.
The second factor is accessibility. Historically, teachers did not need to study at an expensive university – at least for elementary school teachers – as teacher training could be done at less expensive teacher’s colleges (for Switzerland e.g. Schohaus, 1954). Similarly, the social valuation is not seen as prohibitively high. High status might make a profession seem “too difficult for [students] to enter with reasonable effort or […] pose too high a risk of failure if they try” (Gottfredson, 2005, p. 79). Whether the potential for upward mobility can be used is dependent on personal factors. In a study of educational trajectories of German students whose parents have low educational degrees, Legewie (2021) identifies four personal network factors leading to upward mobility or non-mobility: support with academic efforts, encouragement, support with solving problems, and role models.
The career choice of teachers can be assessed using FIT-Choice, an internationally established framework that assesses perceptions about the teaching profession (e.g. social status and salary of teachers) and motives for choosing the profession (e.g. intrinsic motivation, subject centered motivation, Richardson & Watt, 2006, 2016). Career choice motives are known to differ between countries (Richardson & Watt, 2016) as structural conditions influencing career choice, While a FIT-Choice study has already been conducted in Germany (König & Rothland, 2012), data on South Africa is limited (du Preez, 2018).
Thus, both career choice and social mobility might look different in a developing country like South Africa which can also be compared to a industrialised Western society which produce most of the literature about teacher’s career choice. This imbalance calls for collaborative, comparative studies that include countries from the Global South. For South Africa, for example, social mobility seems to depend heavily on parents’ educational background (OECD, 2018).
Therefore, this research paper utilizes data from an international project for a comparative analysis of students from Germany and South Africa with respect to the occupational backgrounds of their parents. The study aims to address three main questions:
- Are there differences in the parents’ educational background of teaching students from Germany and South Africa or regarding sociodemographic variables (gender, age)?
- Do the career choice motivations of students and their perceptions about the teaching profession differ between Germany and South Africa?
- Are there differences in career choice motivations and perceptions about the teaching profession based on the parents’ educational background?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used[The project] is an international project coordinated by [partner], Germany, with participants from five countries. Participation was anonymous and voluntary. The project used an online version of the FIT-Choice questionnaire (Richardson & Watt, 2016). Data was collected during lectures so researchers could assist should questions arise. The South African questionnaire was handed out in English, but interpreters for Africaans were present to translate. In Germany, the questionnaire was administered in German.
FIT-Choice consists of items concerning career choice motives (n=37) and beliefs regarding the teaching profession (n=13). The model was tested across all five countries using confirmatory factor analysis with robust estimators (R Core Team, 2020; Rosseel, 2012) with acceptable results (career choice motives: RMSEA = 0.035, SRMR = 0.060, χ2/df = 2,28; beliefs: RMSEA = 0.048, SRMR = 0.055, χ2/df = 3,67; construct reliability of scales = 0.63 – 0.92; all factor loadings significant with p < 0.001; see Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003).
The educational background of parents was measured by a scale based on an expanded version
of the UNESCO ISCED-2011 scale (Unesco, 2012), ranging from 1 (“no schooling completed”) to 11 (“doctorate degree”) for both mother and father. A level of seven indicated at least a college degree or a degree from a university of applied sciences; all higher levels indicated university-related degrees. Students were put into three groups:
A) 48% had no parents with an education level of 7 or above on our scale (meaning they are the first-generation students)
B) 27% had one parent with a level of 7 or above (meaning they come from a family with mixed educational backgrounds)
C) 24% had both parents with a level of 7 and above (meaning they come from a family where higher education is common).
The data was analyzed using quantitative method (t-tests, χ2-tests, ANOVAs). All analyses were conducted in R and SPSS. Levene tests were used to test for variance homogeneity and robust estimators were used when necessary.
The data used for this analysis included the datasets from South Africa (n = 142) and Germany (n = 211) that were taken from a larger sample of n = 1157 cases. The average year of birth was 1998 for German and 1999 for South African students (t(322.009) = -5.791, p < 0.001). In total, 88.4% of the participants were female, with no significant differences between the countries. Participants were within their first terms of teacher training.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThere were no significant variances between the educational background of participants from both countries, nor regarding gender or age. Regarding their motives, all groups followed a specific trend, so variation stayed limited. The perceptions social status and teacher morale and the salary were assessed higher by group A while the motives shape future of children/adolescents, make social contribution and subject specific motivation were highest among group C, leading to a more extrinsic pattern in group A compared to C.
Variance between Germany and South Africa was more pronounced. Eight out of twelve motives were different, as were two of the four perceptions. South African participants scored higher for all motives except time for family and scored higher on expert career, while Germans valued salary higher. This is in line with previous research and reflects the country's favorable socioeconomic conditions for teachers (Author 2020).
With 48% first generation students, the study indicates that in both countries, teaching can still serve as a social elevator. First-generation students consistently rating teachers' social status and salary higher than other students illustrates that those are rated in comparison with other occupational options: As group A’s occupational landscapes presumable hold less other academic, well-paying, high-status professions, teaching is comparatively rated higher.
The role of extrinsic motives is disputed. They may negatively affect intrinsic motivation (Deci, Koester & Ryan, 1999) and indeed, higher perceptions of salary and social status among first generation students were accompanied by lower intrinsic values. Nevertheless, they still exhibited high absolute values on intrinsic motives, indicating they possess intrinsic motivations as well (Author, 2020). Furthermore, the importance of extrinisic factors for students from less well-off backgrounds can’t be disputed. Thus, amid teacher shortages, emphasizing both intrinsic and extrinsic benefits of the occupation could be a way to expand the teacher workforce.
ReferencesAuthor (2020).
Author et al. (2022).
Calander, F., Jonsson, C., Lindblad, S., Steensen, J., & Wikström, H. (2003). Nybörjare på Lärarprogrammet. Vilka är de? Vad vill de? Vad tycker de? [Beginners in the Teacher Education Program. Who are they? What do they want? What do they think?]. Uppsala: Pedagogiska Institutionen.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668.
du Preez, M. (2018). The factors influencing Mathematics students to choose teaching as a career. South African Journal of Education, 38(2). DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15700/saje.v38n2a1465
Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). Applying Gottfredson's Theory of Circumscription and Compromise in Career Guidance and Counseling. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Hrsg.), Career development and counseling. Putting theory and research to work (pp. 71–100). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
König, J. & Rothland, M. (2012). Motivations for choosing teaching as a career: effects on general pedagogical knowledge during initial teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 289–315. DOI: 10.1080/1359866X.2012.700045
Legewie, N. (2021). Upward Mobility in Education: The Role of Personal Networks Across the Life Course. Social Inclusion, 9(4), 81–91. DOI:https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i4.4612
OECD (2018): A broken social elevator? How to promote social mobility. URL: https://read.oecd.org/10.1787/9789264301085-en
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
Richardson, P., & Watt, H. (2006). Who Chooses Teaching and Why? Profiling Characteristics and Motivations Across Three Australian Universities. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 27–56.
Richardson, P., & Watt, H. (2016). Factors Influencing Teaching Choice: Why Do Future Teachers Choose the Career? Volume 2. In J. Loughran & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International Handbook of Teacher Education (pp. 275–304). Singapore: Springer Singapore.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling: Version 0.5-21. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research-Online, 8(2), 23–74.
Schohaus, W. (1954). Seele und Beruf des Lehrers [The soul and the profession of teachers]. Frauenfeld: Huber & Co.
UNESCO (2012): International Standard Classification of Education 2011. URL: https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-isced-2011-en.pdf
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Uncovering Relationships Between Formal and Informal Learning: Unveiling the Mediating Role of Basic Need Satisfaction and Challenge Seeking Behaviour
Yvonne Xianhan Huang1, Shiyu Zhang2, Chan Wang3, Mingyao Sun2, Wen Shao2
1The Education University of Hong Kong; 2The University of Hong Kong; 3The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Presenting Author: Huang, Yvonne Xianhan;
Zhang, Shiyu
Existing studies have demonstrated the critical roles of either formal or informal learning in bolstering teachers’ professional performance, personal welfare, and the resultant student outcomes (Kyndt et al., 2016). However, most current studies address these two constructs separately, rendering the relationship between them ambiguous, which has caused a biased understanding of workplace learning (Kyndt et al., 2016). To bridge this gap, we integrated self-determination theory (SDT) and job redesign theory to explore the influencing mechanisms of formal learning on informal learning.
Teachers’ formal learning refers to experiences derived from school-organized/endorsed or institutionally sponsored learning programs aimed at fostering their professional development (Feiman-Nemser, 2012). Their informal learning means teachers’ self-initiated learning behavior aimed at addressing their professional development needs (Kyndt et al., 2016) or resolving work-related issues (Hoekstra and Korthagen, 2011). Informal learning activities can be categorized into five types consisting of four types of interactive learning activities, including learning through media, colleague interaction, stakeholder interaction, and student interaction, and the fifth type is reflecting on practice (Huang et al., 2020). The overall impact of formal learning on informal learning has been theoretically and empirically confirmed (Choi and Jacobs, 2011). Individuals with more formal education and training experience have been found to devote more time to self-directed learning activities and engage in more informal learning activities (Rowden, 2002). Therefore, we postulated that teacher perceived formal learning would positively influence teachers’ five types of informal learning activity.
The critical role of basic need satisfaction to informal learning is firstly supported by the self-determination theory (SDT). SDT posits that there are three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. SDT asserts that individuals with basic need satisfaction will exhibit a high level of autonomous motivation and initiate more learning activities (Deci et al., 2017). SDT also proposes that the workplace context, including provided formal learning opportunities, is pivotal in influencing individuals' basic need satisfaction (Deci et al., 2017). While few studies have directly explored the relationship between teachers' formal learning and basic need satisfaction, indirect evidence suggests that teacher-perceived formal learning opportunities can fulfill their three basic needs by augmenting teachers' knowledge, skills (Richter et al., 2014), autonomy (Castle, 2004), and perceived relatedness (Barrable and Lakin, 2020). we posit that teachers’ basic need satisfaction mediates the impact of perceived formal learning on different types of informal learning activity.
The job redesign theory has emphasised the crucial role of individuals’ job redesign behaviour, especially challenge seeking behaviour, in their learning behaviour and working performance (Zhang and Parker, 2019). Individuals who are seeking challenges such as new skills acquisition or innovative practice generation will have a high level of informal learning motivation and engage in different types of informal learning activity (Lazazzara et al., 2020). Moreover, formal learning can enhance individuals’ self-efficacy and augment their professional knowledge and skills (Richter et al., 2014). Consequently, individuals with boosted confidence and perceived control of working are more inclined to seek additional challenges, such as undertaking more tasks or responsibilities. Drawing from the literature, we believe that teachers’ challenge seeking behaviour mediates the impact of teacher-perceived formal learning on their different types of informal learning activity. Given that individuals’ challenge seeking behaviour largely depends on their autonomous motivation (Lazazzara et al., 2020), we posited that teachers’ challenge seeking behaviour serves as a sequential mediator between their formal and informal learning.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedOur sample consisted of 1,886 primary and secondary school teachers from Gansu and Yunnan provinces in southwest China. Each participant received a WeChat link to a consent form and an online questionnaire from their school principal.
A 7-item professional learning opportunity subscale of the 2020 North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2020) were used to assess the perceived formal learning opportunity. These items were scored ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
All other variables were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Teachers’ basic need satisfaction. The 16-item Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction Scale developed by Van den Broeck and colleagues (2010) was used to assess the teachers’ basic need satisfaction. Challenge seeking behavior. The 5-item subscale of increasing job demands behavior developed by Tims et al. (2012) was used to examine teachers’ challenge seeking behavior. Informal learning activity. Teachers' informal learning activity was evaluated using the Informal Teacher Learning Scale (Huang et al., 2022). The 19-item scale has 5 dimensions.
To test the construct validity of the studied variables, we first conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Following the CMV test, descriptive statistical analysis was used to determine the means and standard deviations of the variables investigated, as well as their Spearman’s correlations. Then, a measurement model encompassing all eight variables was built. To test the hypothesis model, structural equation modelling (SEM) was used with maximum likelihood (ML) as the estimator. As the CFI and TLI values were greater than .90 and the RMSEA and SRMR were less than .08, the model fit was regarded as acceptable. Bootstrapping procedures with 2,000 samples were performed to verify the mediation effect. Mplus 8.3 software was used to conduct all of the analyses.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOur study generates two main findings:
1. Teachers perceived formal learning opportunity functions in various ways to promote different informal learning activities.
Formal learning was found to directly promote teachers’ interactive informal learning activity. Given that interaction with colleagues, stakeholders, and students is the most common content involved in formal learning, these activities may easily permeate and influence teachers’ daily learning activity. However, regarding learning through media and reflection, the impact of formal learning was only through basic need satisfaction and challenge seeking behaviour.
2. Both teachers’ basic need satisfaction and challenge seeking behaviour were found to be critical mediators, with the latter having a stronger relationship with teachers’ informal learning.
We found that formal learning can boost teachers’ challenge seeking behaviour. By accessing cutting-edge theories and alternative pedagogy through formal learning, teachers are inclined to take on more challenges or implement teaching experiments. Further, the strength of the associations between challenge seeking behaviour and most informal learning was very high except for learning through colleagues. This may because colleague interaction resides in a school’s culture as well as individual teachers’ motivation and initiation (Grosemans et al., 2015).
Regarding the mediating role of basic need satisfaction, our results indicate that it only mediated one-third of the effect of perceived formal learning opportunity on challenge seeking behaviour. This finding is noteworthy given recent research suggesting that motivation is the core mediator of the impact of job resources on individuals’ job redesign behaviour (Zhang & Parker, 2019), with basic need satisfaction potentially explaining this relationship (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). However, our study reveals that teachers’ challenge seeking behaviour may be significantly influenced by their interaction with supportive conditions, such as available resources and engaging research projects, rather than being predominantly dependent on teachers’ basic need satisfaction.
ReferencesReferences (abridged)
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285.
Castle, K. (2004). The meaning of autonomy in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 25(1), 3–10.
Choi, W., & Jacobs, R. L. (2011). Influences of formal learning, personal learning orientation, and supportive learning environment on informal learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(3), 239–257.
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 19–43.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2012). Teachers as learners. Harvard Education Press.
Grosemans, I., Boon, A., Verclairen, C., Dochy, F., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Informal learning of primary school teachers: Considering the role of teaching experience and school culture. Teaching and Teacher Education.
Hoekstra, A., & Korthagen, F. (2011). Teacher learning in a context of educational change: Informal learning versus systematically supported learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1), 76–92.
Huang, X., Lee, J. C. K., & Frenzel, A. C. (2020). Striving to become a better teacher: linking teacher emotions with informal teacher learning across the teaching career. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1067.
Huang, X., Lin, C. H., Sun, M., et al. (2022). Metacognitive skills and self- regulated learning and teaching among primary school teachers: The mediating effect of enthusiasm. Metacognition Learning, 17, 897–919.
Kyndt, E., Gijbels, D., Grosemans, I., & Donche, V. (2016). Teachers’ everyday professional development: Mapping informal learning activities, antecedents, and learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1111–1150.
Lazazzara, A., Tims, M., & de Gennaro, D. (2020). The process of reinventing a job: A meta–synthesis of qualitative job crafting research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 116, 103267.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2020). North Carolina teacher working conditions survey. Retrieved from https://nctwcs.org
Richter, D., Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2014). Professional development across the teaching career: Teachers’ uptake of formal and informal learning opportunities. In Teachers’ professional development (pp. 97-121). Brill.
Rowden, R. (2002). The relationship between workplace learning and job satisfaction in US small to midsize businesses. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 407–425.
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 173-186.
Zhang, F. F., & Parker, S. K. (2019). Reorienting job crafting research: A hierarchical structure of job crafting concepts and integrative review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 126–146.
|
