Content uploaded by Helen M G Watt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Helen M G Watt on Aug 05, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
I
nt. J. Quantitative Research in Education, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2016 179
Copyright © 2016 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
Students’ motivations to become teachers:
FIT-Choice findings from Indonesia
Anne Suryani*, Helen M.G. Watt and
Paul W. Richardson
Faculty of Education,
Monash University,
Wellington Rd, Victoria 3800, Australia
Email: anne.suryani@lift.or.id
Email: helen.watt@monash.edu
Email: paul.richardson@monash.edu
*Corresponding author
Abstract: The motivations for undertaking teacher education and perceptions
about the teaching profession were examined among 802 fourth-year
undergraduate teacher education students at two public and two private
universities in Jakarta and Yogyakarta, Indonesia (M = 21, SD = 2.31, 83.16%
women). Following translations and piloting, participants completed the factors
influencing teaching choice scale (FIT-Choice; Watt and Richardson, 2007)
with culturally relevant factors added for: religious influences, second job (time
for casual work), tuition fee for teacher education (cheaper), admission into
teacher education (less competitive), time for teacher education studies
(shorter) and media dissuasion. The extended scale proved valid and reliable
with some modifications (e.g., item teaching qualification modified into
teaching certification). Social utility values, prior teaching and learning
experiences, intrinsic career value and religious influences were the main
motivations for choosing teacher education, followed by secure progression
prospects and ‘second job’. Choosing teacher education as a fallback career
was lowest rated, and correlated positively with all teacher education factors.
Teaching was perceived as a highly expert career, with high social status.
Keywords: teacher education students; career motivations; professional
perceptions; religious influence; career aspirations; FIT-Choice scale.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Suryani, A., Watt, H.M.G.
and Richardson, P.W. (2016) ‘Students’ motivations to become teachers:
FIT-Choice findings from Indonesia’, Int. J. Quantitative Research in
Education, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.179–203.
Biographical notes: Anne Suryani holds a PhD in Educational Psychology and
MEd by Research from Monash University, and MSc and BSocSc in
Communication Science from the University of Indonesia. She has been
awarded a number of awards and scholarships throughout her academic
journey, including the 2014 Mollie Holman Doctoral Medal from Monash
University. She has experience of large-scale survey research examining
Indonesian students’ motivations to become teachers. Her research interests
include teaching motivations, new media and learning, and cross-cultural
communication.
180
A
. Suryani et al.
Helen M.G. Watt is a Professor in the Faculty of Education, Monash
University, and an Australian Research Council Research Fellow 2011–2015.
Previously, she has served on the Faculties of the University of Michigan,
University of Western Sydney, University of Sydney, and Macquarie
University. Her interests include motivation, gendered educational and
occupational choices, motivations for teaching, teacher self-efficacy,
longitudinal research, and quantitative methods. She has received national and
international research awards, attracted substantial external funding, published
in leading journals, and received international recognition. Her current research
work has implications for redressing the gender imbalance in mathematics
related careers, and for supporting the career and professional development of
beginning teachers. She is currently an Associate Editor for AERA Open and
serves on several editorial boards.
Paul W. Richardson is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education,
Monash University, and Associate Dean in Research. He previously served as
Associate Dean in Education. He has previously served on the Faculties of the
University of Michigan and University of Sydney. His interests concern the
professional development and socialisation experiences of beginning teachers;
teaching and learning in higher education; academic literacy; youth identity
development; and qualitative and mixed-methods research. He has attracted
substantial competitive funding from Australian Research Council Discovery
Grants to conduct large-scale longitudinal studies with beginning teachers,
published in leading journals, and received international recognition.
This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled ‘Teaching as a
career: perspectives of Indonesian future teachers’ presented at the Australian
Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference, Adelaide,
1–5 December 2013.
1 Introduction
The quality of teachers significantly influences students’ learning outcomes (World
Bank, 2010), thus many countries have focused on recruiting, training, and retaining
sufficient numbers of qualified teachers to improve educational outcomes (Hattie, 2009;
UNESCO, 2010). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD, 2011) countries have been working together to improve teacher recruitment and
preparation, to make teaching an attractive career choice, and to provide high-quality
initial teacher education.
The Indonesian setting is different from Western countries in terms of culture and
educational system; not much research has been conducted about teachers in Indonesia.
Teacher education graduates may have opportunities in both teaching and non-teaching
occupations; also, cultural values, particularly religion, influence students’ decisions
about whether to enter teacher education. Teaching is highly respected as a noble
profession; ‘teacher’ is translated in Bahasa Indonesia as guru, a person with knowledge
or expertise who is expected to set a good example to society. There are two main
problems in Indonesian teacher education: the distribution of teachers across the nation is
unequal and the quality of Indonesian teachers needs to be improved (Chang et al., 2014;
Jalal et al., 2009; World Bank, 2010). This paper, founded on the FIT-Choice scale (Watt
and Richardson, 2007), focuses on two questions:
Students
’
motivations to become teachers 181
1 What is the validity and reliability of the FIT-Choice scale and additional culturally
specific factors in the Indonesian teacher education context?
2 What are students’ motivations for entering into teacher education?
The factors influencing teaching choice (FIT-Choice) framework was developed
precisely for the purpose of measuring teaching motivations, underpinned by a
theoretically comprehensive model, encompassing the range of previously empirically
identified teaching motivations, and using a psychometrically rigorous instrument. The
FIT-Choice framework is based on the expectancy-value theory of achievement
motivation (Eccles [Parsons] et al., 1983; Wigfield and Eccles, 2000) which posits that
people’s choices, persistence and performance can be explained by their beliefs about
how well they will perform an activity and the extent to which they value the activity.
Expectancy is defined as people’s beliefs and judgements about their capabilities to
perform a task successfully. Value means people’s beliefs about the reasons they might
engage in certain tasks.
Four motivational components of value are identified: attainment value, intrinsic
value, utility value and cost (Eccles et al., 1983). Attainment value is the personal
importance of performing well on certain tasks, where people engage in certain activities
which are important for them with the intention of accomplishing their goals which are
consistent with their identities (Wigfield and Cambria, 2010). Intrinsic or interest value is
the pleasure that people gain from doing the activity when people intrinsically value an
activity they engage fully and persist in it, resulting in enjoyment (Wigfield and Cambria,
2010). Utility value refers to the usefulness of the task for individuals in relation to their
current and future goals, including career goals. Cost is the negative aspect of doing
certain tasks, for instance, performance anxiety, fear of failure, effort needed to achieve a
goal, or losing options because of making one choice rather than another (Wigfield and
Eccles, 1992). Eccles et al. (1983) emphasise that cost is an important component for
choices although there has been little work on this value component until recently (for
exceptions, see Conley, 2012; Perez et al., 2014; Watt, in press). Both positive and
negative task characteristics influence choices and all choices are believed to have
cost linked to them because one choice may eliminate alternatives (Wigfield and
Cambria, 2010).
1.1 The FIT-Choice model
Student teachers’ motivations have been extensively investigated. Many researchers have
applied qualitative methods (e.g., Gao and Trent, 2009; Malderez et al., 2007; Stuart,
2000), while others have developed surveys but rarely reported the reliability and validity
of their measures (e.g., Jarvis and Woodrow, 2005; Kyriacou and Kunc, 2007; Kyriacou
et al., 2003; Wang, 2004). It is challenging to compare people’s motivations to become a
teacher because each country has unique cultural, social and economic features.
However, by employing the same set of measures it is possible to begin to compare
findings across countries. This is the main reason for using an established theoretical and
psychometric framework, the FIT-Choice scale which was initially developed in
Australia (Richardson and Watt, 2006; Watt and Richardson, 2007, 2008), then widely
applied in many countries.
182
A
. Suryani et al.
The FIT-Choice framework (see Figure 1) consists of antecedent socialisation
influences: prior teaching and learning experiences, social influences and social
dissuasion. Social influences are defined as influences from family and friends in relation
to the choice of a teaching career. In contrast, social dissuasion refers to influences from
others to not choose a teaching career. These antecedent variables influence task
perceptions, self-perceptions, task values and fallback career. Self-perceptions are about
perceived teaching abilities; task perceptions include both task demand and task return
components. Task demand taps participants’ perceptions regarding teachers’ required
level of expertise and workload. Task return is the extent to which teaching is regarded as
a well-respected profession, earning a good salary. With respect to expectancy-value
theory, the difference between task demand and task return is considered as a cost (Watt
and Richardson, 2007). The next part of the model involves task values, constituted by
intrinsic value, social utility value and personal utility value. Intrinsic value measures
participants’ personal interests and enjoyment to work as a teacher. Social utility value
assesses future teachers’ desire to positively contribute to society by working as a teacher
(containing first-order factors: shape future of children/adolescents, enhance social
equity, make social contribution, and work with children/adolescents). Personal utility
value consists of job security, time for family, and job transferability. Fallback career
means that students chose teaching as their last-resort career because they were not
accepted into their first career choice, or were uncertain of their future career.
Figure 1 Theoretical framework: Indonesian teacher education students’ motivation to choose a
teaching career and a career plan
SELF-P ERCEPTION S
P
erceived
t
eachin
g
abilit
y
TEACHER EDUCATION
a
Tuition fee, admission, time
TASK PERCEPTIONS
Task demand (expertise, difficulty)
Task return (social status, salary)
VALUES
Intrinsic value
Social utility value
(Enhance social equity, make social
contribution, work with
children/adolescents)
Personal utility val ue
(Job security, Job transferability, time
for family, second job
a
, religious
influence
a
)
Fallback career
SOCIALISATION INFLUENC ES
Prior teaching and learning experiences
Social influences
Social dissuasion
Media dissuasion
a
SATISFACTION WITH CHOICE
CAREER PLAN
Notes: Factor shape future of children/adolescents was omitted based on the CFA result.
a Factors developed in the current study to include relevant cultural dimension in
the Indonesian context.
Source: Adapted from Watt and Richardson (2007) ‘Motivational factors
influencing teaching as a career choice: development and validation
of the FIT-Choice scale’, Journal of Experimental Education,
Vol. 75, p.176.
The FIT-Choice scale was initially developed and validated in the Australian context by
Watt and Richardson (2007) among teacher education students in Australia (N = 1,651)
for the 12 motivation and 6 perception factors. Since then, it has been validated among
samples from varying cultural settings overviewed below.
Students
’
motivations to become teachers 183
• In a comparative study, including Australia, the USA, Germany and Norway (Watt
et al., 2012), strong factorial invariance indicated that the FIT-Choice scale could be
similarly applied across settings with the exceptions of three factors. Two were
omitted for reasons of reliability in two of the subsamples (job transferability α = .56
in Germany, .43 in Norway; fallback career α = .52 in the USA, .59 in Norway); job
transferability was initially developed in the Australian context where teachers have
opportunities to travel and work overseas, and fallback career may be less relevant
in highly competitive teacher education programs such as in Norway. Shape future of
children/adolescents posed a problem of collinearity in the German sample, being
highly correlated with other social utility constructs in that subsample.
• A comparative study was conducted in the USA (English) and China (Mandarin
Chinese translation), involving 542 student teachers in a university in southern China
and 257 student teachers at a university in southwest US (Lin et al., 2012), and all
items. The results confirmed acceptable construct validity across the two samples.
Most Cronbach’s alpha values were adequate in both contexts, except fallback
career was marginal in the US sample (α = .57) and job transferability in the
Chinese sample (α = .58).
• In Germany (German translation), 1,287 student teachers came from five universities
(König and Rothland, 2012). These researchers omitted job transferability due to its
low reliability reported in the earlier German sample (Watt et al., 2012), but included
fallback career (α = .59). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) indicated the
FIT-Choice scale was construct valid and reliable in this sample.
• In Turkey (Turkish translation), 1,577 first-year student teachers were studying early
childhood, primary and secondary teacher education programs across three
universities (Kılınç et al., 2012). Items for job transferability were modified because
of the different context (e.g., “to work in other European countries” instead of ‘travel
overseas’). CFAs and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients provided evidence the scale was
construct valid and reliable in that context.
• In a Croatian study (Croatian translation) of 374 first-year student teachers across
three universities (Jugović et al., 2012), job transferability items were similarly
modified and six items with low factor loadings were omitted to improve subscale
reliabilities. CFA showed the FIT-Choice scale was construct valid.
• In Spain (Spanish translation), 851 student teachers from 11 universities participated
(Gratacós Casacuberta, 2014). One job transferability item was again modified.
CFAs indicated the FIT-Choice scale was construct valid; Cronbach alpha values
were acceptable except for job transferability α = .58 and fallback career α = .54.
• In Switzerland (German and French translations), several scale modifications were
made to suit the characteristics for a sample of inservice vocational teachers
(N = 483; Berger and D’Ascoli, 2012). First, the researchers replaced ‘children and
adolescents’ with ‘youth’. Job transferability was omitted because there is little
geographical relocation of teachers in Switzerland (Berger and D’Ascoli, 2012).
Fallback career was replaced by a new four-item factor, opportunity, since the
participants were not in a situation to choose among several degrees but in a position
to decide to switch to teaching or to stay as a practitioner. Shape future of youth and
184
A
. Suryani et al.
make social contribution were combined due to high correlation, in both the French-
and German- speaking samples. CFAs indicated good model fit in each sample.
Cronbach’s alpha values for all factors in both translations were above .70 except for
the new factor opportunity (α = .64), and perceptions of teaching as an expert career
(α = .63) in the French translation.
In collectivist countries such as Turkey (Eren and Tezel, 2010; Kılınç et al., 2012;
Topkaya and Uztosun, 2012) and China (Lin et al., 2012), social utility values appeared
to be more prominent than intrinsic and ability motivations that were the highest-rated
motivations in Western settings. Ability and intrinsic value motivations were dominant in
samples from Australia (Richardson and Watt, 2006, 2014; Watt and Richardson, 2007,
2008; Watt et al., 2012), Switzerland (Berger and D’Ascoli, 2012), the USA and Norway
(Watt et al., 2012), Germany (König and Rothland, 2012; Watt et al., 2012) and Canada
(Klassen et al., 2011). In a Norwegian sample, social utility values were rated lowest,
possibly due to participants’ belief that ‘strong egalitarian principles’ [Watt et al., (2012),
p.803] were already applied in schools and in society more generally. In studies from
Croatia (Jugović et al., 2012), Germany (König and Rothland, 2012) and the Netherlands
(Fokkens-Bruinsma and Canrinus, 2014), social utility values were rated high along with
intrinsic value and ability. The mean ratings of social utility values in the FIT-Choice
studies across different contexts are seemingly influenced by cultural factors.
Teaching was perceived as a highly skilled and demanding occupation in previous
FIT-Choice findings from Australia (Watt and Richardson, 2007), Germany (König and
Rothland, 2012), Turkey (Eren and Tezel, 2010; Kılınç et al., 2012), and Switzerland
(Berger and D’Ascoli, 2012). Those who perceived teaching as a highly skilled
occupation also tended to be more satisfied with their choice. Teaching status was rated
low in Switzerland, quite low in Australia, Germany and the USA, and higher in Turkey.
Returns from salary were perceived as moderate, except in Germany where the salary of
teachers was higher in the international comparative study (Watt et al., 2012), which
revealed that motivations for teaching tended to be similar across the four examined
samples (from Australia, the USA, Germany and Norway); however, perceptions about
the profession reflected objective cultural differences (Watt et al., 2012).
Findings from the current Indonesian context can add valuable new insights from this
different setting. It was anticipated that Indonesian participants would rate social utility
value factors highly, in tune with previous FIT-Choice studies reviewed from China and
Turkey, also often categorised as collectivist. Research in collectivist cultures has
indicated that people tend to fulfil goals and expectations of significant others (Markus
and Kitayama, 1991). Indonesian future teachers may also score high on job security
since teaching can offer opportunities to become civil servants which provide for
life-long benefits and a high level of job security.
1.2 The teaching context in Indonesia
Indonesia is an archipelago of 17,508 islands located in South East Asia. In 2014 there
are approximately 237 million people living in Indonesia with 28.2% of them aged 14
years or younger (Statistics Indonesia, 2010). Since the implementation of the Teacher
Law in 2005, teachers are required to complete a minimum academic qualification of a
four-year post-secondary education or a bachelor degree, followed by one or two
semesters of postgraduate professional training in teaching, and to pass a certification
Students
’
motivations to become teachers 185
test. With this teaching certification, graduates are eligible to apply for a civil servant
position to secure permanent teaching at a school and to receive double the basic salary
of non-certified teachers, life-long health benefits, and a pension.
The Indonesian government emphasises education as a priority and has started to
improve the quality of education by allocating 20% of the annual national budget to the
development of the education sector. This has been prompted by the pressing need to
invest in more schools and for more teachers to adequately accommodate the high
percentage of school-aged youth. According to the Education Law of 1989, Indonesian
citizens must undertake a minimum of nine years of compulsory basic education,
spending six years at elementary level and a further three years at junior secondary
school. After undertaking another three years at senior secondary school, graduates may
continue to college (also known as the academy or polytechnic) for one-, two-, or
three-year diplomas, or undertake a bachelor degree at a university or institute. In 2013
the government introduced the 12-Year Compulsory Education Program and a new
curriculum, requiring all students to attend primary, junior secondary and senior
secondary schools.
The context of teacher education in Indonesia is quite different from similar programs
in other countries, in terms of programs and tuition fees. Not every Indonesian university
offers teacher education programs, but the government organises at least one public
teacher education institution in each province. Most Indonesian teacher education
programs, particularly in public universities, charge lower tuition fees compared with
other programs of study. For example, in 2010 a student teacher at the State University of
Jakarta paid tuition fees of approximately US$ 530–900 per year while a student at the
University of Indonesia, which offers only non-teacher education programs, was required
to pay approximately US$ 750–2,500 per year. Consequently, secondary graduates may
place teacher education as a second option on their university applications in order to
gain a university qualification at a reduced fee.
In Indonesia, it is acknowledged that teacher graduates have opportunities in both
teaching and non-teaching occupations. For instance, English education graduates may
choose to work as an English teacher or as an interpreter in a multinational company. It is
widely presumed that a number of teacher education graduates may choose non-teaching
occupations1. Another contextual difference is that cultural particularities, especially
religious beliefs, may affect students’ decision to enter teacher education. Most religions
in Indonesia highly respect teaching as a noble profession. Religion is a compulsory
subject from primary until tertiary study. People are required to choose one religion,
which is shown on the national identity card: Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism,
Hinduism, Buddhism, or Confucianism. The majority are Muslims (87.18%), followed by
Protestants (6.96%), Catholics (2.91%), Hindus (1.69%), Buddhists (0.72%), and others
(0.54%) (Statistics Indonesia, 2010).
The importance of sociocultural forces that underlie individual differences in
expectancies, ability self-concepts, and subjective task value is highlighted in the
expectancy-value model (Wigfield et al., 2004). Different cultures provide different
options and levels of freedom in making choices (Wigfield et al., 2004), and these
cultural differences can influence the socialisation of motivated behaviours through
differences in valued activities, valued goals and the extent to which family obligations
influence children’s motivation and achievement (Wigfield et al., 2007). Culture frames
individuals’ choices in relation to achievement-related behaviours such as educational
focus, careers, and leisure activities (Wigfield et al., 2004). Investigating people’s
186
A
. Suryani et al.
motivations to become teachers in different contexts offers comparisons of how
sociocultural values and beliefs influence people’s career choices.
1.3 The FIT-Choice model in the Indonesian context
The Indonesian translation of the FIT-Choice scale consisted of all 12 motivational and 6
perception factors. In the original study, motivation items began with “I chose to become
a teacher because…” but the current study used “I chose to enter teacher education
because…”, considering that Indonesian teacher education students may be likely to
choose a non-teaching career after completing study. Items for all factors were rated on a
scale of 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely) as in the original FIT-Choice scale.
Indonesia has one of the largest and most diverse teacher workforces in the world
(Chang et al., 2014) in a complex education system. Researchers have to be cautious
when applying Western constructs directly to other contexts without examining their
meaning and main assumptions from the point of view of the researched cultural
backgrounds (Ho and Hau, 2014). Six contextually relevant motivation factors were
added to take account of factors particular to the sociocultural context of Indonesia:
tuition fee for teacher education, admission into teacher education, time for teacher
education studies, religious influences, career progression prospects2,and second job;
along with one perception factor: media dissuasion. Each is discussed in turn, below.
In Indonesia, the tuition fee for teacher education is less expensive and entrance to
teacher education is less competitive than programs such as engineering, economics,
medicine and law. In addition, many student teachers have informal teaching jobs during
their study, such as work as private tutors, which may impact their time of study
completion. As most teacher education students have working experience during their
studies, the period after completing teacher education and securing a teaching position
may be shorter.
Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world and each Indonesian citizen
is expected to practise according to her/his religious beliefs. This was the main reason for
including religious influences as a motivation in the measurement, considering most of
the religions view teaching as a noble profession. The concept of career progression
prospects was adopted from motivations for career choice (MCC) scale (Watt and
Richardson, 2006) to include whether students chose teaching because it offers a clear
career pathway and good promotion prospects which has been emphasised since 2005
when the Ministry of National Education of the Indonesian government improved
teachers’ remuneration and career status.
In the original study ‘bludging’ (i.e., becoming a teacher to have a short working day
and lengthy holidays, and to get by with little effort) was factorially indistinguishable
from time for family (Watt and Richardson, 2007), although the current study aimed to
check if bludging would emerge as a distinct factor in the Indonesian context. The
concept of a second job was added to take account of the different educational contexts
when compared with previous FIT-Choice study settings. Most schools in Indonesia start
at 7 am and dismiss around 1 pm, and there is a one-month school holiday from the
middle of June until the middle of July every year. Teachers are able to do other jobs
after school hours and they have longer holidays than other comparable full-time
professions. Similar to the concept of social dissuasion, media dissuasion was defined as
influences from the mass media to not choose a teaching career. This was considered a
possible influence given the ‘poor press’ teachers often receive in the Indonesian media.
Students
’
motivations to become teachers 187
Eight additional items were also developed under the original motivational factors.
“Teachers can become a civil servant” and “teaching can provide a life-long career” were
included under job security, because Indonesian teachers who have civil servant status
have a stable salary, health benefits, and receive pensions after retirement. “My parents
are teachers”, “I have relatives who are teachers”, “I have friends who are teachers”, and
“I know people who are teachers” were added under social influences, considering that as
a collectivist society, Indonesians tend to be influenced by significant others. “As a
teacher I will have more time to do home duties” was added under time for family, due to
the fact that most Indonesian schools finish in the afternoon. “I have had positive
teaching experiences” was included in prior teaching and learning experiences, as it is
common that teacher education students undertake casual or part-time teaching work
prior to formal qualification. One job transferability item “Teaching will be a useful job
for me to have when travelling” was modified to “I can choose where I teach”, as most
Indonesian teacher education graduates would be likely to stay within the country as their
teaching degrees are not internationally recognised.
2 Pilot study
2.1 Methodology
A pilot study was conducted during July to August 2011 to make a preliminary check of
the reliability of the translated questionnaire (see Tables 1 and 2), and to determine
whether participants understood the meaning of each item. Forty final-year student
teachers from the Mathematics Education Program at the State University of Jakarta
participated in the pilot study. The questionnaire was initially prepared in English, but
translated from English to Bahasa Indonesia by two bilinguals (including the first author),
then translated back into English by a third bilingual. The original and back-translated
versions were discussed by the translators to verify accuracy and resolve equivalence. In
the translation process, words were modified to suit the Indonesian teacher education
system. For instance, an item under job transferability “I chose teacher education because
a teaching qualification is recognised everywhere”, the word ‘qualification’ was
translated into ‘certification’ because in the Indonesian context ‘qualification’ could only
refer to a bachelor degree. Because teachers are required to complete a bachelor study
followed by a teaching certification, the term ‘certification’ suited the context instead.
In the pilot study, six constructs had Cronbach’s alpha values below .70. Four were
motivational factors: fallback career α = .62; bludging α = .60; admission into teacher
education α = .52; and time for teacher education studies α = .58. All item translations
were further checked and discussed; seven items were added with the aim of improving
reliabilities. Extra items were for fallback career “I was not accepted into my first
enrolment choice to another program”; bludging “as a teacher I will have more free time”
and “as a teacher I will have time to do other things”; admission into teacher education
“it was less difficult to gain entry into the teacher education program” and “the teacher
education program was easier to get into”; time for teacher education studies “the
number of years in teacher education is shorter compared to other programs” and
“teacher education takes less time to complete than other programs”.
188
A
. Suryani et al.
Table 1 Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients for motivation factors
Cronbach’s α
Factors n items
Sample item
(Original English + new items) Watt and Richardson
(2007)
Pilot
study
Main
study
“I chose teacher education because...”
Ability 3 … teaching is a career suited to my abilities .82 .89 .83
Intrinsic value 3 … I am interested in teaching .59 .89 .88
… I was unsure of what career I wanted Fallback career 4
… I was not accepted into my first enrolment choice to another program
a
.65 .62 .73
… teaching will be a secure job
… teachers can become a civil servant
a
Job security/career progression prospects
e
9
… teaching offers good promotion prospects
n/a
e
n/a
e
.91
… teaching hours will fit the responsibilities for having a family
… I will have more time to do home duties
a
Time for family
f
8
… as a teacher I will have lengthy holidays
.80 .83 .89
... a teaching job will allow me to choose where I wish to live Job transferability 3
… a teaching certification is recognised everywhere
b
.69 .72 .69
Shape future of children/adolescents
d
3 … teaching will allow me to have an impact on children/adolescents .79 .84 .82
Enhance social equity 3 … teaching will allow me to work against social disadvantage .83 .93 .83
Make social contribution 3 … teachers make a worthwhile social contribution .82 .81 .83
Work with children/adolescents 4 … I want a job that involves working with children/adolescents .88 .84 .86
Prior teaching and learning experiences 4 … I have had inspirational teachers .87 .83 .82
… my family think I should become a teacher Social influences 7
… my parents are teachers
a
.82 .79 .82
Notes: Items for all factors were rated on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 7 (extremely important). Total items for analysis: 65.
a
Additional items to original factors.
b
Modified item of the existing measures. The original scale used teaching qualification; in the Indonesian context, the term teaching certification is commonly used.
c
Cronbach’s α values were inadequate, these factors were improved in the main study by revising the item wordings.
d
Deleted factor based on CFA result (see also Watt et al., 2012; Gratacós Casacuberta, 2014)
e
In the pilot study job security α = .78 and career progression prospects α = .92.
f
In the pilot study time for family α = .83 and bludging α = .60.
Students
’
motivations to become teachers 189
Table 1 Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients for motivation factors (continued)
Cronbach’s α
Factors n items
Sample item
(Original English + new items) Watt and Richardson
(2007)
Pilot
study
Main
study
Additional factors:
Second job 3 … as a teacher I can do casual work after school hours n/a .86 .86
Religious influences 3 … my religion suggests that being a teacher is a noble profession n/a .70 .82
Tuition fee for teacher education 2 … tuition fee for teacher education is affordable compared to other
programs
n/a .88 .87
Admission into teacher education 4 … entry into teacher education was less competitive than other programs n/a .52
c
.86
Time for teacher education studies 3 … waiting period to get a teaching job is shorter compared to other
professions
n/a .58
c
.74
Notes: Items for all factors were rated on a scale fro m 1 (not at all important) to 7 (extremely important). Total items for analysis: 65.
a
Additional items to original factors.
b
Modified item of the existing measures. The original scale used teaching qualification; in the Indonesian context, the term teaching certification is commonly used.
c
Cronbach’s α values were inadequate, these factors were improved in the main study by revising the item wordings.
d
Deleted factor based on CFA result (see also Watt et al., 2012; Gratacós Casacuberta, 2014)
e
In the pilot study job security α = .78 and career progression prospects α = .92.
f
In the pilot study time for family α = .83 and bludging α = .60.
190
A
. Suryani et al.
Table 2 Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients for perceptions factors
Cronbach’s
α
Factors n items
Sample item
(Original English + new items) Watt and Richardson
(2007)
Pilot
study
Main
study
Expertise 4 Do you think teaching requires high levels of expert knowledge? .73 .67 .87
Do you think teaching is a stressful job?
a
Difficulty 3
Do you think teaching is a tough job?
a
.73 .37
b
.78
Social status 6 Do you believe teaching is a well-respected career? .90 .84 .87
Do you think teachers earn a good salary? Salary 3
Do you think teachers get more incentives (e.g., health insurance, family allowance,
pensions)?
a
.94 .86 .76
Social dissuasion 3 Did others influence you to consider careers other than teaching? .60 .73 .72
Satisfaction with choice 2 How satisfied are you with the choice of teaching as a career?
c
.92 .83 .84
Additional factor:
Media dissuasion 2 Have you been affected by media reporting about teachers’ living conditions? n/a .91 .87
Notes: Items for all factors were rated on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Total items: 23.
a
Additional items to original factors.
b
Cronbach’s α value from the pilot study was unacceptable. The factor was improved in the main study by revising the translation and adding more items.
c
The FIT-Choice original statement was How satisfied are you with your choice of becoming a teacher?
Students
’
motivations to become teachers 191
Two perception factors also had low Cronbach’s alpha in the pilot study: expertise
α = .67 and difficulty α = .37. Translation into Bahasa Indonesia for one expertise item
was revised (C15 “Do you think teachers need highly specialised knowledge”, the
translation for “highly specialised knowledge” changed to “special knowledge”) due to
there being no equivalent meaning. Two difficulty items were revised: C2 “Do you think
teachers have a heavy workload?” to “Do you think teaching is a stressful job?”, and C11
“Do you think teaching is hard work?” to “Do you think teaching is exhausting work?”,
and one item added “Do you think teaching is a tough job?”.
Table 3 Response rates
University
N Students Response
rate (%)
N Surveys
Present Participated Complete Incompletec
State University of Jakartaa 378 361 95.50 328 33
State University of
Yogyakartaa
242 235 97.10 223 12
Sanata Dharma Universityb 196 189 96.43 184 5
Atmajaya Universityb 69 69 100 67 2
Notes: aPublic university; b private university; cexcluded in analyses due to high missing
data (> 50% items)
Table 4 Distribution of participants across teaching programs and school levels (N = 802)
Teaching program School level n %
Mathematics S 197 24.56
Chemistry S 12 1.50
Physics S 27 3.37
Biology S 25 3.12
Guidance and counselling S 20 2.49
English language S 128 15.96
Primary school teacher P 293 36.53
Early childhood EC 65 8.11
Special education SE 30 3.74
Missing information 5 0.62
Notes: S: Secondary school; P: Primary school; EC: Early childhood; SE: Special education
192
A
. Suryani et al.
3 Main study
3.1 Methodology
Participants were studying at the State University of Jakarta (n = 328, 40.90%), the State
University of Yogyakarta (n = 223, 27.81%), Sanata Dharma University (n = 184,
22.94%), and Atmajaya University (n = 67, 8.35%). The mean age of participants was
21.61 years (SD = 2.31), consisting of mainly women (n = 667, 83.16 %). Referring to
their religious background, 543 (67.71%) were Muslim, 192 (23.94%) Catholic, 56
(6.98%) Protestant, 4 (0.50%) Buddhist, 4 (0.50%) Hindu, and three did not answer. Over
one-third (n = 307, 38.28%) were undertaking paid work during their study, another
one-third (n = 269, 33.54%) had work experience in the past, the remainder (n = 224,
27.93%) had not worked at all, and two did not answer. Among those who were either
currently or previously employed, 530 (92.01%) had teaching experience and only 45
(7.81%) had non-teaching experience and one did not specify. Response rates varied due
to different classroom locations and times of data collection, but all response rates were
above 95% of those present and spread evenly across the four universities with no
systematic pattern for missing data. Specifically, the response rates were 95.50% for the
State University of Jakarta, 97.10% for the State University of Yogyakarta, 96.43% for
Sanata Dharma University, and 100% for Atmajaya University.
Following university and departmental ethical approvals, explanatory letters were
distributed along with paper-based questionnaires to final-year undergraduate teacher
education students during October–November 2011. Students who had participated in the
pilot were excluded from the main study. Two public and two private universities were
selected because they had reputable teacher education programs for around 50 years. In
terms of quality, there are no strict selections or screening processes for teacher education
candidates and the quality of graduates may vary across universities. Teacher education
institutions have different enrolment criteria and entrance tests, particularly between
public and private universities. Enrolment tests for public universities are organised
nation-wide, private universities manage their selection tests independently.
4 Results
4.1 Motivations
Two CFAs and model fits were conducted using Amos 20, one for motivations and one
for perceptions, using full responses (Ns = 540 motivations; 728 perceptions)3. The
proposed theorised model was tested using maximum likelihood (ML) estimation (see
Harrington, 2009), which in large samples is asymptotically unbiased, to yield efficient
and consistent estimates (Kline, 2011). Fit indices for the models were examined, then
modification indices (MIs). The fit indices reported are the goodness-of-fit index (GFI),
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean-square error of
approximation (RMSEA) and standardised root mean-square residual (SRMR). The
cut-off criteria were TLI and CFI ≥ .95, RMSEA ≤ .06, and SRMR ≤ .08 (Hu and
Bentler, 1999).
Students
’
motivations to become teachers 193
Table 5 Item wordings and MIs between paired item measurement errors
Item 1 Item 2 MI
Motivations
Freed for estimation
B17 I have had inspirational teachers B30 I have had good teachers as role-models 170.059
B44 I have relatives who are teachers B34 My parents are teachers 130.316
B5 I have the qualities of a good teacher B19 I have good teaching skills 63.786
B50 Teaching offers good promotion prospects B56 Teaching provides a clear pathway for career development 58.852
B3 My friends think I should become a teacher B40 People I’ve worked with think I should become a teacher 49.020
B4 As a teacher I will have a lengthy holidays B18 As a teacher I will have a short working day 37.913
B24 My family think I should become a teacher B40 People I’ve worked with think I should become a teacher 67.615
B2 Part-time teaching could allow more family time B16 Teaching hours will fit with the responsibility of having a family 30.839
Not freed for estimation
B5 I have the qualities of a good teacher B6 Teaching allows me to provide a service to society 29.985
B11 I was unsure what career I wanted B15 Entry into teacher education was less competitive than other programs 29.585
B58 My religion suggests that I can serve others through teaching B57 I have friends who are teachers 28.353
B6 Teaching allows me to provide a service to society B10 I want to help children/adolescents learn 28.198
B45 A teaching job will allow me to choose where I wish to live B46 Teaching has a career ‘ladder’ I can climb 27.451
B22 A teaching certification is recognised everywhere B21 I know people who are teachers 27.336
B25 Teaching can provide a life-long career B24 My family think I should become a teacher 27.329
B29 School holidays will fit in with family commitments B28 I can spread religious messages in my teaching 25.567
B19 I have good teaching skills B20 Teachers make a worthwhile social contribution 22.440
Perceptions
Freed for estimation
C12 Do you believe teaching is a well-respected career? C13 Do you think teachers feel their occupation has high social status? 33.687
Not freed for estimation
C4 Do you believe teachers are perceived as professionals? C5 Do you think teachers have high morale? 165.722
C6 Do you think teaching is a highly skilled motivation? C5 Do you think teachers have high morale? 50.052
194
A
. Suryani et al.
Table 6 Latent correlations among FIT-Choice and new motivational factors
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1 Ability -
2 Intrinsic value .892 -
3 Fallback career –.141 –.236 -
4 Job security .797 .603 .026 -
5 Time for family .635 .427 .161 .750 -
6 Second job
a
.578 .380 .078 .695 .794 -
7 Job transferability .700 .464 .242 .866 .823 .707 -
8 Enhance social equity .649 .542 –.038 .501 .416 .441 .422 -
9 Make social contribution .766 .731 –.191 .630 .430 .429 .475 .801 -
10 Work with children/adolescents .797 .761 –.199 .612 .464 .433 .471 .820 .876 -
11 Prior teaching and learning experiences .835 .709 –.122 .711 .504 .523 .614 .727 .826 .779 -
12 Social influences .718 .543 .206 .823 .703 .638 .892 .488 .601 .561 .725 -
13 Religious influences
a
.612 .576 –.007 .622 .550 .468 .584 .769 .796 .663 .715 .661 -
14 Tuition fee for teacher education
a
.274 .199 .270 .390 .424 .355 .480 .306 .199 .225 .263 .369 .339 -
15 Admission into teacher education
a
.226 .093 .474 .278 .366 .297 .445 .137 .070 .068 .162 .325 .215 .588 -
16 Time for teacher education
a
.336 .184 .397 .498 .580 .457 .705 .251 .208 .202 .272 .542 .382 .759 .850 -
Notes: Italic numbers denote statistical significance (p < .01).
a
New factors.
Students
’
motivations to become teachers 195
Table 7 Latent correlations among FIT-Choice and new perceptions about teaching factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Expertise -
2 Difficulty .108 -
3 Social status .620 .045 -
4 Salary .191 .054 .624 -
5 Social dissuasion -.160 .392 -.093 .046 -
6 Media dissuasiona .076 .210 .229 .190 .468 -
7 Satisfaction with choice .547 -.154 .684 .399 -.136 .205 -
Notes: Italic numbers denote statistical significance (p < .01).
a New factors.
The estimated 19-factor motivations for teaching CFA model consisted of 69 items, and
produced an inadmissible solution, likely due to high latent correlations between factors
time for family and bludging4 (.952), shape future of children/adolescents5 and work with
children/adolescents (.982), shape future of children/adolescents and enhance social
equity (.926), shape future of children/adolescents and make social contribution (.912),
and job security and career progression prospects (.936). The model was revised by
combining time for family and bludging items as per the FIT-Choice scale, combining job
security and the added factor career progression prospects (MCC scale; Watt and
Richardson, 2006), and omitting shape future of children/adolescents (the latter as in
Watt et al., 2012; Gratacós Casacuberta, 2014). The respecified model showed marginal
fit, χ2 (1941, N = 540) = 5432.228, p < .001, TLI = .846, CFI = .861, RMSEA = .058, and
SRMR = .060. There were high MIs between item B52 and each of B7 (152.650); B1
(104.155); B12 (95.034); B43 (57.616); and B37 (37.679). Item B52 under factor job
security was therefore omitted (“teaching is a fulfilling career”); this also improved
Cronbach’s alpha for job security from .908 to .914. Item pairs in the respective model
with high MIs were checked. In cases where similar meanings were found between item
pairs, error covariances were freed and the model was sequentially re-estimated. In total,
eight measurement error covariances were estimated; in each case, model fit indices
appeared improved (see Table 5). MIs for measurement errors could not be freed for
estimation where item pairs measured very different items and could not be defended on
substantive grounds.
The final motivations model fit consisted of 16 factors and 65 items χ2 (1887,
N = 540) = 4706.702, p < .001, TLI = .873, CFI = .885, RMSEA = .053, and
SRMR = .055. Cronbach’s alpha values were calculated for all factors. Reliability
coefficients that were low in the pilot study were improved in the main study: fallback
career α =.73; admission into teacher education α = .86; time for teacher education
studies α = .74; expertise α = .87 and difficulty α = .78. Only one factor had alpha
slightly below .70 (job transferability α = .69).
Most motivations for teaching factors were significantly intercorrelated (Table 6)
especially between social utility values (make social contribution and work with
children/adolescents, φ = .88), also between ability and intrinsic value (φ = .89),
admission into teacher education and time for teacher education (φ = .85), and second
job and time for family (φ = .79). Religious influences had significant positive
correlations with all social utility values; fallback career was negatively but weakly
196
A
. Suryani et al.
correlated with intrinsic value, make social contribution, and work with
children/adolescents, but, positively correlated with the three teacher education factors:
admission, time spent and tuition fee.
Observed factor scores for the three social utility values were rated high (make social
contribution, work with children/adolescents, and enhance social equity). Next were prior
teaching and learning experiences and intrinsic value. Five factors under personal utility
value were rated relatively high (religious influences, job security/career progression
prospects, second job, time for family/bludging, job transferability). Tuition fee and time
for teacher education were rated above the midpoint, whereas admission into teacher
education was slightly below it. Fallback career was rated the lowest.
Figure 2 Mean ratings for observed motivational factors
6.00
5.65 5.60 5.44 5.39 5.37 5.34 5.33 5.29
5.02
4.78 4.74
4.25
3.84
3.38
2.81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
mean ratings
Notes: *Social utility value factors; **personal utility value factors; ***teacher education
factors; scale anchors from 1 (not at all important) – 7 (extremely important)
4.2 Perceptions
Another CFA was performed for the FIT-Choice perceptions6 with one additional factor
relevant to the Indonesian context (media dissuasion). The proposed seven-factor
perceptions about teaching model consisted of 24 items and the data did not fit well, χ2
(233, N = 728) = 1,232.838, p < .001, TLI = .863, CFI = .884, RMSEA = .077, and
SRMR = .085. The MIs for item C7 “Do you think teaching is emotionally demanding?”
in the difficulty factor indicated problematic cross-loading items on factors including
satisfaction (MI = 99.331), social status (MI = 110.242) and expertise (MI = 219.370);
therefore C7 was omitted and the model reanalysed. The fit improved, χ2 (211, N = 728)
= 893.949, p < .001, TLI = .901, CFI = .917, RMSEA = .067, and SRMR = .048. Item
Students
’
motivations to become teachers 197
pairs with high MIs were examined, and the error covariance was freed for one pair of
items which contained parallel wording (Table 5). The final fit for 7 factors and 23 items
showed χ2 (210, N = 728) = 847.735, p < .001, TLI = .907, CFI = .923, RMSEA = .065,
and SRMR = .045. Most participants perceived teaching as a highly skilled occupation
requiring high levels of expertise, with high social status, slightly above average
earnings, and moderately tough (see Figure 3). The highest correlations among
perceptions about teaching factors were between expertise and social status (φ = .62),
social status and satisfaction with choice (φ = .68), and social status and salary (φ = .62).
Figure 3 Mean ratings for observed perceptions of teaching and career choice satisfaction factors
6.32
5.57
4.58 4.39 4.29
3.61
5.51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Expertise* Social status** Salary** Media
dissuasion ***
Difficulty* Social
dissuasion***
Satisfaction with
choice
mean ratings
Notes: *Task demand factors; **task return factors; ***dissuasion factors; scale anchors
from 1 (not at all) – 7 (extremely)
5 Discussion
5.1 Scale validity and reliability
Our main objective was to test the validity and reliability of the translated and extended
Indonesian FIT-Choice scale among a large sample of Indonesian teacher education
students. Results supported the construct validity of the scale, by deleting item B52,
omitting factor shape future of children/adolescents (consistent with Watt et al., 2012),
merging time for family/bludging items [as per the original FIT-Choice scale; (Watt and
Richardson, 2007)], and job security/career progression prospects due to extremely high
latent correlation. Career progression prospect had been added from the MCC scale (Watt
and Richardson, 2006), with similar findings found by Watt (in press) among adolescent
Australian youth. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients indicated good to acceptable
internal consistencies for all final factors.
198
A
. Suryani et al.
The FIT-Choice scale factor structure was essentially confirmed, first for the original
scale, then for the Indonesian adapted version with addition of new context factors. In the
current study, the very high latent correlation between intrinsic value and ability
motivations (φ = .89) paralleled findings in Spain (φ= .74; Gratacós Casacuberta, 2014)
and Germany (φ = .86; König and Rothland, 2012); whereas in Croatia (φ = .64; Jugović
et al., 2012) and Australia (φ = .68; Watt and Richardson, 2007) the correlation was less
strong. This suggests that future teachers’ ability motivations were highly interwoven
with their interest in and enjoyment of teaching in the present study.
5.2 Motivations of Indonesian teacher education students
From 12 original FIT-Choice and five additional motivation factors, all three social utility
values were rated highly: make social contribution was the highest rated, followed by
work with children/adolescents, and enhance social equity. In a collectivist country like
Indonesia, it was not surprising that social utility values were rated high similar to
FIT-Choice studies in other collectivist cultures reviewed earlier. Fallback career was the
lowest rated motivation in the Indonesian setting, indicating that students entered teacher
education as a positive choice, similar to Australia (Watt and Richardson, 2007),
Germany (König and Rothland, 2012), Croatia (Jugović et al., 2012), Turkey (Kılınç
et al., 2012), Spain (Gratacós Casacuberta, 2014), the USA and China (Lin et al., 2012),
that teaching was not a second choice career. It was interesting that intrinsic value was
rated higher than personal utility values despite the potential benefits of teachers
becoming civil servants in Indonesia.
This study offers new insights to the literature by taking religion into account as one
of the motivational drivers, as well as second job and three teacher education factors.
Because most religions respect teaching as a career choice, it was not surprising that
religious influences were rated high and had strong correlations with all factors except
fallback career. The new second job factor was also rated high, meaning that most
participants intended to take on a teaching career together with other employment. As
most participants in this study were women, domestic housework might be a reason for
choosing teaching due to the short work hours. Other new factors tuition fee for teacher
education, time for teacher education studies and less competitiveness of admission into
teacher education were rated moderately.
5.3 Perceptions about teaching
In the Indonesian context, educational practices such as teacher and student interactions
are influenced by social factors such as rank, social status, and age (Dardjowidjojo,
2006). People with higher rank, social status and age receive more respect than others.
Teaching is considered a highly regarded position and teachers hold responsibility equal
to parents during school hours. Most participants perceived teaching as a highly expert
career with high social status and moderate salary, possibly due to the new Teacher Law
announced by the government in 2005 allowing teachers with a four-year university
degree and teaching certification to receive double the basic salary and be eligible to
apply for a civil servant position. Findings from this study confirm that teaching was
perceived as a highly demanding occupation; not only do teachers need to be
Students
’
motivations to become teachers 199
knowledgeable in the subject matter and able to communicate with students in the
classroom, they also experience high expectations and pressure from the society as “the
agents largely responsible for student success in all aspects” [Luciana, (2004), p.1].
Social dissuasion was rated a little below the midpoint, and had been found to be
moderate among samples from Australia, Germany, Norway (Watt et al., 2012), Turkey
(Kılınç et al., 2012), Croatia (Jugović et al., 2012), Germany (König and Rothland,
2012), the Netherlands (Fokkens-Bruinsma and Canrinus, 2014), the USA and China (Lin
et al., 2012), and low in Switzerland (Berger and D’Ascoli, 2012). Interestingly, the new
factor of media dissuasion was rated moderately high in the present study, in line with the
negative portrayal of the teaching profession in the mass media, which likely discourages
people from choosing teaching as a career path.
5.4 Significance and future directions
As the research applied an existing measure of teaching motivations and perceptions,
findings contribute to the international comparisons concerning choosing a teaching
career, with the addition of culturally specific factors: religious influences, teacher
education, and intention to have a second job. The study involved a large number of
student teachers from different sociocultural backgrounds and religious affiliations
studying at public and private universities in Indonesia. However, there are 32 states and
342 private teacher education institutions spread across 34 provinces of Indonesia with
students coming from various ethnic backgrounds, thus the findings cannot be simply
generalised to the entire Indonesian archipelago. Further, the analyses rely on cross-
sectional data, and more detailed longitudinal research is needed to follow up
participants’ motivations and perceptions after graduation, particularly in the first few
years of teaching, to discern whether they predict remaining in or discontinuing from the
profession.
The findings provide a basis for the improvement of teacher education programs and
teacher policies in Indonesia, and are of importance for preparing future teachers and
understanding teachers who have entered the profession. For example, do teachers take a
second job while teaching, and does it affect their teaching commitments and teaching
quality, particularly during early career? Studies in the literature suggest that teachers
hold second jobs mainly for monetary reasons (Betts, 2004; Parham and Gordon, 2011),
and that this impacts the quality of their teaching due to lack of time preparing materials,
attending professional development courses, and undertaking leadership roles in schools.
As in other FIT-Choice study contexts, participants in Indonesia chose to enter
teacher education due to positive motivations, not because of lack of other options.
Because Indonesia needs more teachers in rural and remote areas to evenly distribute
placements across the nation, the finding that social utility values were among the highest
motivations is important. If these teachers are eager to benefit the socially disadvantaged,
provide a service to society and help children and adolescents, hopefully this may attract
them to teach in such locations. It certainly appeared that teaching was perceived as a
career high in social status, and attractive to secondary school graduates who enter
teacher education and plan to work as qualified teachers upon completion of their studies.
200
A
. Suryani et al.
6 Conclusions
This study was the first to translate and apply the FIT-Choice scale in the Indonesian
setting and has contributed to the growing literature about teaching motivations, by
providing a validated Indonesian translation of the FIT-Choice scale and first indications
of mean-level factor ratings, including for six added culturally relevant factors. From the
theoretical perspective, this study supported the same FIT-Choice factor structure in a
different context, and expanded the FIT-Choice theoretical framework to add Indonesian
culturally specific factors: second job (opportunity to work another job), religious
influences (influence from religion to enter teacher education), tuition fee for teacher
education (cheaper), admission into teacher education (less competitive), time for
teacher education (shorter, less waiting time to get a job), and media dissuasion (mass
media influence to not choose teaching). These were all effectively measured by new
subscales, and found to be relevant in the Indonesian setting. From the applied
perspective, the findings are noteworthy as the basis for preparing future teachers in
Indonesia. The fact that teaching is known to be an occupation requiring high levels of
expert knowledge is valuable. This can be used to continue to improve the image of
Indonesian teachers and raise their status to that of other expert professionals, to attract
top graduates to become future teachers. The decision of the Indonesian government to
increase the salary of qualified teachers and provide them with pension benefits as civil
servants may improve the teaching career to offer respect, status and income comparable
to those offered by other attractive graduate careers. The difficulties of attracting and
retaining quality teachers in the rural and more remote parts of the Indonesian
archipelago are likely to continue to be similar to those experienced by many countries
around the world, and the geographical dispersion of a very large population presents
special difficulties for Indonesia. A better understanding of teachers’ motivations and
associated contextual influences should prove useful in continuing to develop policies
designed to attract and retain talented and motivated people in the teaching profession.
References
Berger, J-L. and D’Ascoli, Y. (2012) ‘Becoming a VET teacher as a second career: Investigating
the determinants of career choice and their relation to perceptions about prior occupation’,
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.317–341,
doi: 10.1080/1359866x.2012.700046.
Betts, S.C. (2004) ‘Gender differences in multiple jobholding: moonlighting among teachers’,
Journal of Business & Economics Research, Vol. 2, No. 8, pp.25–34.
Chang, M.C., Shaeffer, S., Al-Samarrai, S., Ragatz, A.B., de Ree, J. and Stevenson, R. (2014)
Teacher Reform in Indonesia: The Role of Politics and Evidence in Policy Making, World
Bank, Washington, D.C., doi: 10.1596/978-0-8213-9829-6.
Conley, A.M. (2012) ‘Patterns of motivation beliefs: combining achievement goal and
expectancy-value perspectives’, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 104, No. 1,
pp.32–47, doi: 10.1037/a0026042.
Dardjowidjojo, S. (2006) ‘The implementability of western approaches into eastern societies’,
Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.1–20.
Eccles [Parsons], J., Adler, T.F., Futterman, R., Goff, S.B., Kaczala, C.M., Meece, J.L. and
Midgley, C. (1983) ‘Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors’, in Spence, J.T. (Ed.):
Achievement and Achievement Motives, pp.75–146, Freeman, San Francisco.
Students
’
motivations to become teachers 201
Eren, A. and Tezel, K.V. (2010) ‘Factors influencing teaching choice, professional plans about
teaching, and future time perspective: a mediational analysis’, Teaching and Teacher
Education, Vol. 26, No. 7, pp.1416–1428, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010. 05.001.
Fokkens-Bruinsma, M. and Canrinus, E.T. (2014) ‘Motivation for becoming a teacher and
engagement with the profession: evidence from different contexts’, International Journal of
Educational Research, Vol. 65, pp.65–74, doi: 10.1016/ j.ijer.2013.09.012.
Gao, X. and Trent, J. (2009) ‘Understanding mainland Chinese students’ motivations for choosing
teacher education programmes in Hong Kong’, Journal of Education for Teaching, Vol. 35,
No. 2, pp.145–159, doi: 10.1080/02607470902771037.
Gratacós Casacuberta, G. (2014) Estudio sobre las motivaciones en la elección de ser maestro
(Research on motivations for choosing teaching as a career), Unpublished Doctoral thesis,
Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona [online]
http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/134986 (accessed 8 August 2014).
Harrington, D. (2009) Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Hattie, J. (2009) Visible Learning, Routledge, New York, NY.
Ho, I.T. and Hau, K-T. (2014) ‘East meets west: teacher motivation in the Chinese context’, in
Richardson, P.W., Karabenick, S.A. and Watt, H.M.G. (Eds.): Teacher Motivation: Theory
and Practice, pp.133–149, Routledge, New York, NY.
Hu, L-T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999) ‘Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives’, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.1–55, doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.
Jalal, F., Samani, M., Chang, M.C., Stevenson, R., Ragatz, A.B. and Negara, S.D. (2009) Teacher
Certification in Indonesia: A Strategy for Teacher Quality Improvement, Ministry of National
Education, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Jarvis, J. and Woodrow, D. (2005) ‘Reasons for choosing a teacher training course’, Research in
Education, Vol. 73, pp.29–35.
Jugović, I., Marušić, I., Ivanec, T.P. and Vidović, V.V. (2012) ‘Motivation and personality of
preservice teachers in Croatia’, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 40, No. 3,
pp.271–287, doi: 10.1080/1359866x.2012.700044.
Kılınç, A., Watt, H.M.G. and Richardson, P.W. (2012) ‘Factors influencing teaching choice in
Turkey’, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.199–226,
doi: 10.1080/1359866x.2012.700048.
Klassen, R.M., Al-Dhafri, S., Hannok, W. and Betts, S.M. (2011) ‘Investigating pre-service teacher
motivation across cultures using the teachers’ ten statements test’, Teaching and Teacher
Education, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.579–588, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.10.012.
Kline, R.B. (2011) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, The Guilford Press,
New York, NY.
König, J. and 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, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.289–315, doi: 10.1080/1359866x.2012.700045.
Kyriacou, C. and Kunc, R. (2007) ‘Beginning teachers’ expectations of teaching’, Teaching and
Teacher Education, Vol. 23, No. 8, pp.1246–1257, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.20 06.06.002.
Kyriacou, C., Kunc, R., Stephens, P. and Hultgren, A. (2003) ‘Student teachers’ expectations
of teaching as a career in England and Norway’, Educational Review, Vol. 55, No. 3,
pp.255–263, doi: 10.1080/0013191032000118910.
Lin, E., Shi, Q., Wang, J., Zhang, S. and Hui, L. (2012) ‘Initial motivations for teaching:
comparison between preservice teachers in the United States and China’, Asia-Pacific Journal
of Teacher Education, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.227–248, doi: 10.1080/1359866x.2012.700047.
Luciana, L. (2004) ‘Developing standards for language teacher education programs in Indonesia:
professionalizing or losing in complexity?’, TEFLIN Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.27–41.
202
A
. Suryani et al.
Malderez, A., Hobson, A.J., Tracey, L. and Kerr, K. (2007) ‘Becoming a student teacher:
core features of the experience’, European Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 30, No. 3,
pp.225–248, doi: 10.1080/02619760701486068.
Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1991) ‘Culture and the self: implication for cognition, emotion
and motivation’, Psychological Review, Vol. 98, No. 2, pp.224–253, doi: 10.1037/0033-
295X.98.2.224.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2011) Building a
High-Quality Teaching Profession: Lessons from Around the World [online] http://www2.ed.
gov/about/inits/ed/internationaled/back ground.pdf (accessed 15 April 2011).
Parham, J.N. and Gordon, S.P. (2011) ‘Moonlighting: a harsh reality for many teachers’, The Phi
Delta Kappan, Vol. 92, No. 5, pp.47–51, doi: 10.2307/27922510.
Perez, T., Cromley, J.G. and Kaplan, A. (2014) ‘The role of identity development, values, and costs
in college STEM retention’, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 106, No. 1, pp.315–329,
doi: 10.1037/a0034027.
Richardson, P.W. and Watt, H.M.G. (2006) ‘Who chooses teaching and why? Profiling
characteristics and motivations across three Australian universities’, Asia-Pacific Journal of
Teacher Education, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp.27–56, doi: 10.1080/13598660500480290.
Richardson, P.W. and Watt, H.M.G. (2014) ‘Why people choose teaching as a career: an
expectancy-value approach to understanding teacher motivation’, in Richardson, P.W.,
Watt, H.M.G. and Karabenick, S.A. (Eds.): Teacher Motivation: Theory and Practice,
pp.3–19, Routledge, New York, NY.
Statistics Indonesia (2010) Population Census, Author, Jakarta [online] http://sp2010.bps.go.id/
index.php/site/tabel?wid=0000000000&tid= 320&fi1=58&fi2=3 (accessed 12 February 2014).
Stuart, V.B. (2000) Reasons for Selecting a Teaching Career and Remaining in the Profession: A
Conversation with 10 African American Roanoke City Teachers, Unpublished Doctoral
thesis, Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
Virginia [online] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.3.2317&rep=rep1
&type=pdf (accessed 11 April 2013).
Topkaya, E.Z. and Uztosun, M.S. (2012) ‘Choosing teaching as a career: motivations of pre-service
English teachers in Turkey’, Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 3, No. 1,
pp.126–134.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2010) The Global
Demand for Primary Teachers – 2010 Update [online] http://www.uis.unesco.org/template/
pdf/EducGeneral/Info sheet_No%2 05_Teachers_EN.pdf (accessed 17 November 2010).
Wang, H-H. (2004) ‘Why teach science? Graduate science students’ perceived motivations for
choosing teaching as a career in Taiwan’, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 26,
No. 1, pp.113–128, doi: 10.1080/0950069032000070243.
Watt, H.M.G. (in press) ‘Gender and motivation’, in Wentzel, K. and Miele, D. (Eds.): Handbook
of Motivation at School, 2nd ed., Routledge, Taylor & Francis, New York.
Watt, H.M.G. and Richardson, P.W. (2006) Motivations for Career Choice Scale, Unpublished
manuscript, Monash University.
Watt, H.M.G. and Richardson, P.W. (2007) ‘Motivational factors influencing teaching as a career
choice: development and validation of the FIT-Choice scale’, Journal of Experimental
Education, Vol. 75, No. 3, pp.167–202.
Watt, H.M.G. and Richardson, P.W. (2008) ‘Motivations, perceptions, and aspirations concerning
teaching as a career for different types of beginning teachers’, Learning and Instruction,
Vol. 18, No. 5, pp.408–428, doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.002.
Watt, H.M.G., Richardson, P.W., Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Beyer, B., Trautwein, U. and
Baumert, J. (2012) ‘Motivations for choosing teaching as a career: an international comparison
using the FIT-Choice scale’, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp.791–805,
doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.003.
Students
’
motivations to become teachers 203
Wigfield, A. and Cambria, J. (2010) ‘Expectancy-value theory: retrospective and prospective’, in
Urdan, T.C. and Karabenick, S. (Eds.): The Decade Ahead: Theoretical Perspectives on
Motivation and Achievement, Vol. 16A, pp.35–70, Emerald, Bingley, U.K.
Wigfield, A. and Eccles, J.S. (1992) ‘The development of achievement task values: a
theoretical analysis’, Developmental Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.265–310, doi: 10.1016/0273-
2297(92)90011-P.
Wigfield, A. and Eccles, J.S. (2000) ‘Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation’,
Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.68–81, doi: 10.1006
/ceps.1999.1015.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J.S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R. and Davis-Kean, P. (2007) ‘Development of
achievement motivation’, in Eisenberg, N. (Ed.): Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 3, John
Wiley, New York, NY.
Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. and Eccles, J.S. (2004) ‘Expectancy value theory in cross-cultural
perspective’, in McInerney, D.M. and Etten, S.V. (Eds.): Big Theories Revisited: Research in
Sociocultural Influences on Motivation and Learning, pp.165–198, Information Age
Publishing Inc., Greenwich, CT.
World Bank (2010) From Pre-Service Training to Retirement: Producing and Maintaining a
High-Quality, Efficient, and Motivated Workforce, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Notes
1 Although very few alumni records are available, this issue is often advertised. For instance, a
university website promotes career options for Indonesian language education graduates as
teachers, researchers, writers, newspaper journalists and editors, also radio announcers
(http://pmb.ums.ac.id/2011/alumni retrieved 1 April 2013).
2 Combined with job security based on high correlation in CFA.
3 A CFA was first conducted to check the factor structure of the original FIT-Choice
motivation factors (ability, intrinsic value, fallback career, job security, time for family,
job transferability, enhance social equity, make social contribution, work with
children/adolescents, prior teaching and learning experiences, and social influences) omitting
all new factors and items. The model consisted of 11 factors and 36 items because shape
future of children/adolescents was omitted due to multicollinearity with the other social utility
factors, as had been the case previously in two studies (German sample in Watt et al., 2012;
Spanish sample, Gratacós Casacuberta, 2014; Swiss vocational sample, Berger and D’Ascoli,
2012). This showed good fit, χ2 (533, N = 540) = 1,369.015, p < .001, TLI = .916, CFI = .929,
RMSEA = .054, and SRMR = .050. All Cronbach alphas values were above .70 except
fallback career
α
= .61 and job transferability
α
= .69.
4 Combined with time for family based on CFA [as in the original FIT-Choice validation, (Watt
and Richardson, 2007)].
5 Omitted from final analyses based on CFA due to multicollinearity with 3 other factors: work
with children/adolescents, enhance social equity, and make social contribution.
6 A CFA was first performed to check the factor structure of all original FIT-Choice perception
factors (expertise, difficulty, social status, salary, social dissuasion, and satisfaction with
choice) omitting new factors and items. This model consisted of 6 factors and 19 items and
indicated good fit, χ2 (139, N = 728) = 723.927, p < .001, TLI = .891, CFI = .911,
RMSEA = .076, and SRMR = .047. All Cronbach alphas values were above .70 except
difficulty
α
= .65.
