Comparing the Change of Teaching Motivations among Preservice Teachers in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland: Do In-school Learning Opportunities Matter?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we examine the hypothesis that preservice teachers’ teaching motivations change during the first two years of their teacher preparation. A sample of 1,779 student teachers with two time points from Austria, Germany, and Switzerland is used. Findings show that student teachers’ intrinsic motivation increases, whereas their extrinsic motivation being more distal to initial teacher education does not change. Against our expectations, their altruistic-type motivation (e.g., the motivation to work with children/adolescents) tends to deteriorate. The change of teaching motivations is influenced by in-school opportunities to learn (teaching practice activities, support by school mentors) and it is more practically relevant in a teacher education context where practical training is given high priority (Austria, Switzerland) compared with a context that heavily focuses on theoretical study (Germany). We discuss implications for teacher education from a comparative perspective and give an outlook for possible future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it