Educational Psychology

An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology

ISSN: 0144-3410 (Print) 1469-5820 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20

The role of values in pre-service teachers’

intentions for professional engagement

Benjamin M. Torsney, Doug Lombardi & Annette Ponnock

To cite this article: Benjamin M. Torsney, Doug Lombardi & Annette Ponnock (2018): The role of
values in pre-service teachers’ intentions for professional engagement, Educational Psychology,
DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2018.1504892

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1504892

Published online: 13 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cedp20
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1504892

The role of values in pre-service teachers’ intentions for

professional engagement
Benjamin M. Torsneya , Doug Lombardib and Annette Ponnockc
a
University College Dublin, School of Education, Dublin, Ireland; bTemple University, Teaching and
Learning, Philadelphia, PA, USA; cDepartment of Human Development and Quantitative
Methodology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study investigated inclusion of epistemic value into Received 24 July 2017
Richardson and Watt Factors Influencing Teaching Choice (FIT- Accepted 23 July 2018
Choice) framework to produce a more robust, useful teacher
motivation model. We specifically examined pre-service teachers’
KEYWORDS
social utility value (SUV), personal utility value (PUV) and epi-
Structural equation model;
stemic value regarding pursuing future professional engagement FIT-Choice; motivation; pre-
and development. Using principal axis factoring, we found four service teachers
main factors: PUV, SUV, epistemic value—future value of know-
ledge (EVF) and persistence/satisfaction. These factors were then
used in a structural equation model (SEM) to predict pre-service
teachers’ intentions to pursue future professional engagement.
Results provided the following three insights: (a) SUV was the
most consistent, positive predictor of professional engagement
and predicted all dependent variables; (b) EVF was a newly identi-
fied factor and a positive predictor of pre-service teachers’ desire
to pursue a leadership position and (c) PUV negatively predicted
planned effort and a desire to pursue a leadership position.

Introduction
The general public, regardless of race, class, gender or political affiliation, agrees that
teachers and teacher quality matters, while, few would disagree that teaching is a field
that is underpaid, overregulated and disrespected. Why then do individuals pursue
careers in teaching, persist and continue to be motivated to develop skills that are
necessary to be successful in the field? Most important for our purposes, can we iden-
tify what might popularly be called “the secret sauce” that leads not only to teacher
retention but also to teacher motivation and commitment to professional develop-
ment? Recent research has demonstrated that the motives pre-service teachers cite as
to why they study to become certified teachers predict future professional engage-
ment (Richardson & Watt, 2016; Watt & Richardson, 2008; Watt, Richardson, & Wilkins,
2014). Others have demonstrated that planned persistence, satisfaction with career
choice and a desire to pursue future leadership positions and professional

CONTACT Benjamin M. Torsney ben.torsney@gmail.com School of Education, Roebuck Offices, University

College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
ß 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 B. M. TORSNEY ET AL.

development stem from higher levels of motivation, which, in turn, contribute to

teachers’ longevity in the classroom (Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Richardson & Watt, 2016).
What concept unites persistence, satisfaction and professional development, in this
constellation of positive outcomes? We contend that the overlooked piece of the puz-
zle is epistemic value, or the specific use of knowledge that students gain from their
teachers may have some future benefit.
To begin, we adopted and modified the Factors Influencing Teaching Choice (FIT-
Choice) model, a teaching-specific motivation model presented by Richardson and
Watt (2006), which is grounded in expectancy-value theory (EVT, Eccles et al., 1983;
Eccles & Wigfield, 1995, 2002). A useful and much needed framework for examining
pre-service teachers’ motivation to enter the teaching profession, this model acts as
the foundation for the current study. To broaden the FIT-Choice model and scale, we
added epistemic value, a new construct that aligns and extends with the broader util-
ity value construct. This addition to the FIT-Choice framework was originally proposed
by Torsney (2016) and Torsney, Ponnock, and Lombardi (2017), and builds upon recent
theoretical work suggesting that individuals’ value about knowledge and the process
of knowing are instrumental in achieving future goals (Chinn, Buckland, &
Samarapungavan, 2011; Chinn, Rinehart, & Buckland, 2014; Fives, Barnes, Buehl,
Mascadri, & Ziegler, 2017). PUV and SUV from the FIT-Choice model are natural exten-
sions and adaptations of the original utility value construct, epistemic value also
extends the conventional utility value construct. Epistemic value adds greater specifi-
city and choice to knowledge that will be used for some future goal. In other words,
pre-service teachers pursuing a teaching career for the epistemic value of teaching
may be particularly interested in helping their students to develop specific types of
knowledge (practical knowledge, culturally relevant knowledge, abstract knowledge,
etc.) that will benefit their students both now and in future.
We also hypothesize that epistemic value is important for studying teachers’ motiv-
ation to engage professionally in their career. Epistemic value may be related to pro-
fessional engagement, professional development and pursuing leadership positions.
Torsney et al. (2017) determined empirically that pre-service teachers’ motivation to
pursue particular kinds of knowledge—either in general or to influence their students’
academic or work-related future goals—is an aspect of the research literature that
merits additional study. Additionally, these researchers found that epistemic value
adds nuance to the utility value construct through significant positive correlations
with social utility value and personal utility value, and by constructing development
through factor analysis. By demonstrating this alignment with utility value, we can
extend our understanding of utility value in a teacher–education context. Research
and measurement in the field of epistemic cognition—from which epistemic value is
drawn—are becoming increasingly important (Sinatra, 2016). Epistemic cognition
allows researchers and practitioners to understand the process of knowledge forma-
tion and helps to explain why individuals make certain judgments. Sinatra explains:
Epistemic cognition, is by definition a highly dynamic process that unfolds and changes
during the learning process. Epistemic cognition is not a variable, but rather describes the
process of thinking that draws on beliefs and knowledge to reason, problem solve, or
make decisions (p. 5).
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 3

We would extend this quotation by adding “ … that draws on beliefs and know-
ledge to reason, problem solve, or make a decision for some epistemic end.” We argue
that these epistemic goals motivate an individual to pursue a teaching career.
More broadly, we believe the concept of epistemic value extends current EVT-based
research in the field of teacher motivation by examining the value of the knowledge
pre-service teachers plan to impart to their future students. This idea fits comfortably
with teachers’ desire to set useful goals for their students in near or distant future and
extends the research conducted on utility value in the context of teacher motivation.
A simple way to understand epistemic value’s contribution to the FIT-Choice model
could help answer the age-old questions from students: “Why do I need to know
this?” and “When will I ever use this?” Teachers motivated by, and committed to, epi-
stemic value might answer this question by saying, “It may not be important now, but
I guarantee you will need it in future when you … ” We might also expect pre-service
teachers who score high on epistemic value to be more engaged in their domain con-
tent, thus knowing and offering further explanation to their students as to why learn-
ing certain material in school is important once entering the field. We also believe
further knowledge of epistemic value and applying the principles of epistemic value
can be fine-tuned with further professional development.
In the next section, we outline and expand on the theory underpinning the current
study. Specifically, we explain, why and how we integrated epistemic value into
Richardson and Watt (2006) FIT-Choice model.

Theoretical framework
Expectancy-value theory and the FIT-Choice model
EVT is a useful theory for assessing motivation to pursue long-term educational goals
and for choosing an academic path. Eccles et al. (1983) initial research on the EVT
framework discovered that an individual’s expectancy for success on an academic task
predicts their performance on that task, whereas their subjective value of that task (i.e.
interest of the task, the importance of the task, the usefulness of the task and cost of
doing that task) predicts their choice to persist and pursue it at an advanced level.
According to Richardson and Watt (2016), the validity of the measures and the rich
empirical evidence that predicts persistence and academic choice in English (see
Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, & Wigfield, 2002; Watt, 2004), sports (see Fredricks &
Eccles, 2002), or math-related careers (see Watt, 2006; Watt et al., 2012), for example,
demonstrate the utility of EVT as a means of assessing achievement motivation in
many different areas. Furthermore, Richardson and Watt (2016) explain that EVT—
known in educational psychology literature as a theory of academic and occupational
choice—and other existing motivational theories (i.e. self-determination theory and
achievement goal theory) have been developed separately and consequently over-
looked in studying teacher motivation.
Richardson and Watt (2006) created the FIT-Choice framework due to a lack of psy-
chometrically robust and valid measures, an “over-reliance on raw frequencies”
(Richardson & Watt, 2016, p. 284), and a potential solid theoretical grounding in the
tenets of EVT. This framework comprises three components: (a) variables adapted from
4 B. M. TORSNEY ET AL.

EVT measuring “Self, Value, and Task Perceptions” (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; Watt &
Richardson, 2007, p. 171), (b) antecedent variables measuring pre-service teachers’ pre-
vious socialization and teaching and learning experiences and (c) variables measuring
career choice satisfaction and future motivation. The self, value and task perceptions
constructs, which stem from three-factor structure found in Eccles and Wigfield (1995)
study of adolescent achievement task values and expectancy beliefs, were subse-
quently revised to study teacher motivation by Watt and Richardson (2007) in their
FIT-Choice model and scale.
Validation of the FIT-Choice scale was conducted by confirmatory factor analysis fol-
lowing a longitudinal study of Australian pre-service teachers from two universities.
Consistent with the theoretical underpinnings of the FIT-Choice model and EVT,
higher-order factors comprise self-perceived teaching ability, subjective attainment value
(personal utility value), social utility value and task perceptions. Specifically, a pre-service
teacher with a high score on self-perceived teaching ability would believe that they
have the necessary ability and skills to be a good teacher. Subjective attainment value
(or personal utility value) describes the value pre-service teachers place on personal
aspects of a teaching career (i.e. a more positive feeling about job security, additional
time for family compared to other jobs and a job that is transferable to other geo-
graphical locations). Social utility value refers to the utility and future outcomes of
working with children and adolescents (i.e. a desire to work with children, enhance
children’s social equity and make a social contribution). The last factor, task percep-
tions, comprises task demand (or the overall educational and emotional demands of a
teaching job) and task return (or society’s views on teaching).
To make the FIT-Choice model specific to the teaching context, Richardson and
Watt (2006) added antecedent variables and a variable measuring pre-service teachers’
return to teaching from another career. An antecedent variable assessed prior teaching
and learning experiences of pre-service teachers; another variable, fallback career, desig-
nated pre-service teachers who came to teaching from another career. Previous corre-
lations (Watt & Richardson, 2007; Watt et al., 2014) suggest pre-service teachers who
chose teaching as a fallback career, valuing the subjective (PUV) aspects of the career
than its intrinsic and social utility. Thus, a pre-service teachers’ score on certain varia-
bles found on the FIT-Choice scale could have positive or negative implications for
their future effort, persistence and professional engagement upon entering the field.
Since its inception, the FIT-Choice model and scale have been rigorously tested
both in Watt and Richardson’s home country of Australia and also in other cultural
contexts. The countries that have conducted studies include:
The United States (see Lin, Shi, Wang, Zhang, & Hui, 2012; Watt et al., 2012; Watt et
al., 2014), Norway (see Watt et al., 2012), Croatia (see Jugovic
, Marusic
, Ivanec, &
Vidovic
, 2012), China (see Lin et al., 2012), Turkey (see Kilinç, Watt, & Richardson, 2012),
Germany (see Ko €nig & Rothland, 2012; Watt et al., 2012) and Switzerland (see Berger &
D’Ascoli, 2012; Richardson & Watt, 2016, p. 286).

These translated FIT-Choice scales showed good cross-cultural validity, making the
FIT-Choice scale a good tool for measuring pre-service teachers’ motivation in both
Eastern and Western contexts.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 5

Groups of pre-service teachers and professional engagement.

The FIT-Choice scale has proven to be a useful tool for differentiating the professional
engagement behaviours among groups of pre-service teachers. Watt and Richardson
(2008) and Watt et al. (2014) demonstrated that pre-service teachers’ profiles predict
professional engagement behaviours. Within these two studies, one in Australia and
one in the US and Australia, Watt and Richardson (2008) and Watt et al. (2014) used
hierarchical cluster analysis to identify different motivational groups of pre-service
teachers. Watt and Richardson (2008) identified groups of pre-service teachers that
include: the highly engaged persisters (with high scores on all measures of professional
engagement); lower engaged desisters (with low scores on the same measures) and the
highly engaged switchers (who align with the highly engaged persisters, but who do
not plan to persist in the field for their entire career).
However, Watt et al. (2014) identified: classroom engaged careerists—i.e. a group of
pre-service teachers who are situated between the highly engaged persisters and the
lower engaged desisters. Like the highly engaged persisters, classroom engaged careerists
planned to persist in the field for their entire career, but they did not plan to pursue
leadership positions like the lower engaged desisters. The classroom-engaged careerists
plan to engage in their careers by giving their all in their classrooms, and are moti-
vated to seek professional development opportunities as teachers, and plan to persist
as classroom teachers, rather than leave the classroom for higher leadership roles. Like
the highly engaged persisters, classroom-engaged careerists demonstrate a high level of
intrinsic motivation and a strong desire to teach children and adolescents.
Predicting the influences on pre-service teachers’ future motivation and satisfaction
with their career choice, it is necessary to have the most effective teaching force. For
example, a pre-service teacher who has maladaptive values or motivations towards
entering the profession (e.g. a pre-service teacher who scored in the lower engaged
desister group) might also have a negative orientation towards future professional
development opportunities. If this is the case, a teacher preparation program might
identify such pre-service teacher, implement an appropriate diversion program and
help the pre-service teacher reflect on whether this is truly the career they want to
pursue. Although these studies provide a useful framework for considering the motiv-
ational profiles of pre-service teachers based on their intentions for professional
engagement, other factors within the utility value construct might help to predict
intentions for professional engagement (Torsney et al., 2017). The following section
will explain why epistemic value should be included in the FIT-Choice model, and how
it can broaden the model to more accurately predict pre-service teachers’ future pro-
fessional engagement behaviours in their career.

Epistemic value
Epistemic value is the value an individual places on knowledge and knowing. In this
study, epistemic value represents a pre-service teacher’s commitment to learn, under-
stand and apply certain types of knowledge that have a future benefit. Someone who
values knowledge and knowing, and therefore has high epistemic value, values the
future purpose of knowledge beyond any immediate use. As Chinn et al. (2011) point
6 B. M. TORSNEY ET AL.

out epistemic value as ‘the work (utility) of particular epistemic achievements’ (or the
achievement of creating knowledge; p.142). Fives et al. (2017) clarify this defin-
ition further:
Epistemic value refers to the relative importance of some knowledge over others and is
an indication of what knowledge a learner intends to pursue or understand in a particular
situation (Chinn et al., 2014). Teachers assign differential value to an array of knowledge
needed for teaching (e.g. knowledge of theory, students, learning, content, instructional
practices and classroom assessment; Fives & Buehl, 2008). The value that teachers
attribute to subject matter or knowledge of their students can potentially frame how they
engage in epistemic cognition (Buehl & Fives, 2016).

In essence, the value a teacher places on specific types of knowledge and outcomes
of that knowledge could motivate students to enter teaching and to remain in the
profession. Epistemic value was not specifically identified in the original FIT-Choice
framework and has not been used as a variable to assess or predict pre-service
teachers’ intentions for future professional engagement, therefore we believe the add-
ition is warranted.
Building on the notion of epistemic value, Chinn et al. (2014) presented Aims,
Ideals, and Reliability (AIR) model of epistemic cognition, which describes a process of
evaluating knowledge based on (a) having the intention/value system to create know-
ledge; (b) creating a schema for that knowledge and (c) applying that schema to a
model of knowledge. In the current study, we are focusing on the Aims, the ‘A’, of the
AIR model. We will demonstrate that the ‘A’ is aligned with a pre-service teacher’s
intention (or motivation) to create reliable and accurate knowledge that will have
some future relevant outcome for their students. This outcome—the result of the util-
ity of reliable knowledge being taught—has implications for understanding motivation
in the AIR, FIT-Choice and expectancy-value models.

The Current Study

In the current study, we explored pre-service teachers’ desire for future professional
engagement using measures derived from Richardson and Watt (2006) and Torsney
et al. (2017). The following research questions guided the current study: (a) As pre-ser-
vice teachers enter a teacher preparation program, how do values and motivations to
pursue a teaching career predict their motivation for future professional engagement
once in the field? (b) Does adding items that measure epistemic value make the FIT-
Choice model more effective for predicting a desire for professional development?
We hypothesized that many factors will positively predict pre-service teachers’
desire to pursue professional engagement opportunities, including intrinsic career
value, social utility value, prior factors (role models and external social factors;
Richardson & Watt, 2016) and, especially important for our research, the addition and
assessment of epistemic value as a new construct in the teacher motivation literature
(Chinn et al., 2011; Chinn et al., 2014; Fives et al., 2017; Torsney et al., 2017). Pre-ser-
vice teachers who score high on PUV, however, will choose not to engage profession-
ally in their future career (Richardson & Watt, 2016).
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 7

Methods
Participants and procedures
The sample for this study (N ¼ 216) comprise pre-service teachers from a large urban
university in the northeastern United States. Participants composed of 132 females
(61%) and 84 males (39%) ranging from 18–57 years old and with a mean age of
24.25 y. Descriptive statistics for an academic year in school composed of: 17 freshman
and sophomores (8%), 49 juniors (23%), 117 seniors (54%) and 31 graduate PSTs
(14%). The racial composition of the sample composed of: 151 White PSTs (76%), 22
Black PSTs (11%), 16 Asian PSTs (8%), 7 PSTs who identified as other or mixed race
(4%) and 4 Latino PSTs (2%).
We collected responses from participants who took our survey during class time in
their academic majors. These classes included: (a) secondary education (i.e. science,
social studies and English), (b) K–12 world languages (i.e. Spanish and French), (c) mid-
dle grades education and (d) early childhood education.

Measure
We used a short-form (18 item) version of Watt and Richardson’s (2006) 57-item FIT-
Choice scale, which features single items to address larger, higher order factors rather
than multiple scale items, which appeared in the original version of the measure.
Building on previous empirical research by Torsney et al. (2017), which added another
dimension of inquiry to the FIT-Choice framework and the teacher motivation litera-
ture, we also added five items to measure epistemic value.
All items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale and were assessed using the
following item prompts: (a) I chose to become a teacher because … (for motivation
items) and (b) How satisfied are you with your choice of career? (for professional
engagement items). For the motivation items, the scales were anchored by the values
‘not at all important’ (value of 1) to ‘extremely important’ (value of 7). For the profes-
sional engagement items, the scales were anchored by the values ‘not at all’ (value of
1) to ‘extremely’ (value of 7). A detailed description of the items can be found in the
significant factor loadings table (see Table 1).

Validation of the original FIT-Choice model.

The FIT-Choice model was validated by Watt and Richardson (2007) during their longi-
tudinal study of graduate and undergraduate pre-service teachers at two Australian
institutions. Scales comprised counterbalanced items that measured pre-service
teachers’ values, self-perceptions as a teacher and teaching task characteristics. A 12-
factor latent variable confirmatory factor analysis grouped properties of each variable,
and as a result, the FIT-Choice scale explained 77% of the variance for the two com-
bined cohorts. Further results from the same study indicated that personal utility value
(A ¼ 0.72 [cohort 1], 0.68 [cohort 2]), and social utility value (A ¼ 0.81 [cohort 1], 0.76
[cohort 2]) were significant higher order factors that led people to pursue a teaching
career (Watt & Richardson, 2007). Goodness of fit indices demonstrated good conver-
gent and divergent construct validity across the entire set of constructs, and
 8

Table 1. Significant factor loadings from principal axis factoring.

Epistemic
value Epistemic
Personal Social –Future value – Practical
utility Persistence/ utility value of Prior value of
Item value Satisfaction value knowledge factors knowledge
I chose to become a teacher because teaching offers job flexibility 0.833
(travel, part-time, family commitments)
I chose to become a teacher because teaching hours will fit in with 0.784
my family responsibilities
B. M. TORSNEY ET AL.

I chose to become a teacher because teaching will be a secure job 0.632

How sure are you that you will persist in your teaching career? 0.946
How satisfied are you with your choice to pursue a teaching career? 0.737
I chose to become a teacher because a teaching career will allow me 0.758
to work against social disadvantage
I chose to become a teacher because teaching makes a worthwhile 0.730
social contribution
I chose to become a teacher because teaching will allow me to influ- 0.586
ence the next generation
I chose to become a teacher because school instruction should create 0.903
knowledge that helps students to be successful in the workplace
I chose to become a teacher because the goal of teaching is for stu- 0.658
dents to gain knowledge that will one day enhance their standing
in the community
I chose to become a teacher because a teaching career is suited to 0.717
my abilities
I chose to become a teacher because I like teaching 0.531
I chose to become a teacher because other people think I should 0.454
become a teacher
I chose to become a teacher because I have had good teachers as 0.420
role-models
I chose to become a teacher because school instruction should focus 0.631
on knowledge despite potential benefits for community well-being
I chose to become a teacher because school instruction should 0.428
develop students’ job skills rather than abstract knowledge
Eigenvalues 3.765 2.299 1.543 1.482 1.162 1.001
Percentage of total variance 23.533 14.372 9.646 9.261 7.265 6.255
Number of items 3 2 3 2 4 2
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 9

moderate-to-high levels of internal consistency among all constructs (Watt &

Richardson, 2007, p.195). The FIT-Choice scale also demonstrated highly correlated
findings longitudinally between the two cohorts among higher order factors. These
findings confirmed our decision to use the FIT-Choice scale for the current study for it
uses higher order factors as single items for conducting a study at a single point
in time.

Validation of the short-form FIT-Choice measure.

The short form version of the FIT-Choice model has undergone rigorous validation in
multiple studies and has shown suitable face and content validity. According to Watt
(personal communication, December 8, 2017), the short-form version of the scale con-
sists of single items per factor. To satisfy content validity, the highest loading items
per factor on the original FIT-Choice scale were chosen and analysed. These items
were the best representations of the theoretical underpinning of the particular con-
struct they were measuring. Each single item was then correlated with its latent
score—which comprised all items measuring that construct in the original scale—to
test if constructs on both the short- and long-form scales highly correlated. The corre-
lations showed highly correlated constructs.
In a recent study assessing newly created epistemic value items and personal and
social utility value items from the FIT-Choice measure, Torsney et al. (2017) found that
each subscale factored according to its theoretical assumptions. Finally, in this study,
epistemic value, PUV, SUV, prior motivational factors and persistence/satisfaction all
loaded as separate constructs. All subscales in these studies had reliability coefficients
of .70 or higher.

Adding epistemic value.

We argue that adding items to the FIT-Choice scale to measure pre-service teachers’
value of knowledge and knowing may allow for a more holistic and contextualised
picture of the motivations for pursuing a teaching career beyond intrinsic, personal
and social utility values. Using items to measure epistemic value, Torsney et al. (2017)
found an acceptable reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.71).

Results
Factor analysis
To begin our analysis, we conducted a Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) with a Varimax
rotation for all 23 items on our measure. We retained factors with an eigenvalue
greater than 1.0 and items with factor loadings of 0.4 and higher (Costello & Osborne,
2005). We omitted items that were cross-loaded, loaded only on a single factor, failed
to load or had factor loadings lower than 0.4. The PAF revealed six factors accounting
for 70.3% of the total variance. Table 1 shows the factor structure for the retained
items, and Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients for
each subscale.
10 B. M. TORSNEY ET AL.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of scales.

Scale No. of items M SD Cronbach’s a
Personal utility value (PUV) 3 4.52 1.50 0.80
Persistence/Satisfaction 2 6.02 1.04 0.86
Social utility value (SUV) 3 6.23 0.88 0.72
Epistemic value – Future (EVF) 2 4.37 1.13 0.77

Table 3. Correlations of scales.

PUV P/S SUV EVF
PUV –
P/S .092 –
SUV .136 .377 –
EVF .189 .084 .140 –
p < .05,
p < .01

Following the construction of factors, we omitted factors from the analysis that
make up the variables prior factors (i.e. a combination of the intrinsic value of teaching
and social influences on teaching) and epistemic value for practical knowledge (EVP;
i.e. knowledge for practical uses) due to unacceptable reliability (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.58
for prior factors and Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.45 for EVP, respectively). Table 3 presents corre-
lations among significant factors.

Predictors of engagement activities

Using a variance-based structural equation model (VB-SEM; Kock, 2013), we examined
relational paths among three predictor variables (PUV, SUV and EVF), and the four
dependent variables: (a) the combined persistence and satisfaction variable from our
factor analysis, (b) planned effort, (c) desire to pursue future professional development
opportunities and (d) desire to pursue future leadership opportunities (see Figure 1).
Unlike traditional, covariance-based structural equation modelling, VB-SEM uses the par-
tial least-squares method, which is based on ranked data and is distribution-free. VB-
SEM allows researchers to apply SEMs to measures—like the FIT-Choice scale—that
might have skewed distributions on certain items and variables (e.g. I chose to become a
teacher because I want a job that involves working children and adolescents, which might
be ranked towards the positive end of the scale). Use of ranked-based data allows for
more statistical power without compromising or inflating the chance for Type I errors
for a large range of sample sizes and variation of group sizes (Reinartz, Haenlein, &
Henseler, 2009). Figure 1 shows relational paths between the predictor and criter-
ion variables.
To gauge the validity of our SEM, we used several fit and quality indices. These
indices include: (a) overall goodness-of-fit (GoF), (b) average path coefficient (APC),
(c) average coefficient of determination across the model (average R2 or ARS), (d) aver-
age variance inflation factor for model parameters (AVIF) and (e) average full collinear-
ity VIF (AFVIF). Tenenhaus, Amato, and Esposito Vinzi (2004) proposed that researchers
use GoF as a criterion for the overall utility and predictability of the model. Wetzels,
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 11

Figure 1. Relations between teachers’ values and professional engagement. PUV: personal utility
value, SUV: social utility value, EVF: epistemic value – future value of knowledge, and PD: profes-
sional development. Solid arrows indication relations with significant standardized path coefficients
and dashed arrows indicated non-significant paths.

Odekerken-Schro €der, and Van Oppen (2009) advised that good predictability for a
model exists when GoF is greater than 0.36. Both APC and ARS provide further infor-
mation about a model’s adequacy and should demonstrate values that are statistically
different from zero (Hagger, Sultan, Hardcastle, & Chatzisarantis, 2015). Finally, high
AVIF and AFVIF values indicate that a potentially large degree of collinearity (i.e.
redundancy of variables; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) is present in the model. Values of
AVIF and AFVIF should generally be below 3.3 (Kock & Lynn, 2012) to ensure that vari-
ables are not redundant.
For the present study, the overall fit and quality of model were very good, with
GoF ¼ 0.401 (large effect size; Tenenhaus, Esposito Vinzi, Chatelin, & Lauro, 2005);
APC ¼ 0.194, p < .001; ARS ¼ 0.149, p < .001; AVIF ¼ 1.03; and AFVIF ¼ 1.32.
We chose standardized values for each variable to allow the reader to compare dif-
ferences of magnitude among them (see Table 4). All relational paths were statistically
significant (shown as solid lines in Figure 1) with the exception of the paths between
PUV and persistence/satisfaction, and EVF and persistence/satisfaction (both shown as
dotted lines in Figure 1). All of the significant paths also expressed positive predictive
relationships, except the path between PUV and effort, and PUV and leadership, which
showed negative predictive relationships. The degree of variance in each of the mod-
el’s dependent variables ranged from 13% to 18%.
12 B. M. TORSNEY ET AL.

Table 4. Standardized path coefficients (b), p-values, and f2 coefficients for the
structural equation model.
b p f2
PUV
Planned effort –0.21 <.001 0.044
Persistence/Satisfaction 0.044 .26 0.005
Pursue future PD 0.14 .017 0.028
Pursue leadership –0.12 .041 0.017
SUV
Planned effort 0.30 <.001 0.10
Persistence/Satisfaction 0.38 <.001 0.15
Pursue future PD 0.22 <.001 0.058
Pursue leadership 0.25 <.001 0.063
EVF
Planned effort 0.14 .022 0.025
Persistence/Satisfaction 0.048 .24 0.006
Pursue future PD 0.19 .002 0.045
Pursue leadership 0.31 <.001 0.097

To measure effect size of each relational path, we used unbiased indices that are
compatible with VB-SEM, which are equivalent to Cohen’s (1998) f2 coefficient
(Kock, 2013). Therefore, based on Cohen’s (1998) recommended f2 guidelines (small
f2 ¼ 0.02, medium f2 ¼ 0.15 and large f2 ¼ 0.35), most significant paths had a small-to-
moderate strength as shown in Table 4.

Discussion
Results from the current study supported our hypothesis that pre-service teachers
who scored high on social utility value and epistemic value are more motivated to
pursue future professional engagement activities, whereas pre-service teachers who
score high on personal utility value are more likely not to pursue professional engage-
ment activities. The EFA and correlations with other constructs we conducted suggest
that epistemic value factors as a unique construct and is also related to other utility
value constructs found in the FIT-Choice model. Our findings contribute to the under-
standing of both teacher retention and professional development needs from an indi-
vidual’s progression from a pre-service teacher to an in-service teacher to a potential
leadership role. We suspect that our findings may have meaningful ramifications for
students and for school, district, regional and national leadership and policy-making.
First, we found that the FIT-Choice model is useful for assessing and predicting pre-
service teachers’ motivation and desire to devote their lives to the teaching profession.
The results of our SEM showed that SUV, EVF and PUV predict pre-service teachers’
motivation to pursue future professional engagement opportunities. This finding is
crucial for assessing pre-service teachers’ motivation at the beginning of their teacher
education program, which may predict their future classroom effectiveness and their
intention to engage deeper in their profession. Teacher preparation programs might
consider offering the FIT-Choice measure to assess pre-service teachers’ motivations
when starting their teacher training. Depending on an individual’s score, additional
advising or career counselling services might be necessary. One type of informal
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 13

assessment of motivation teacher preparation programs offers is field experiences that

take place early in their program. The purpose of such field experiences in actual, and
not simulated, classrooms early in pre-service teachers’ academic career is to expose
PSTs to the realities of teaching. If PSTs do not participate in field experiences early in
their teacher preparation program, the chances for declines in self-efficacy and shock
once in the field could increase (Kim & Cho, 2014), which could have negative implica-
tions on a teachers’ motivation. According to Richardson and Watt (2010), PSTs’
planned persistence and satisfaction with their career choice tend to drop as
PSTs move through their teacher education program and into the field. In other
words, as PSTs spend more time in the field, they being to see realities of the profes-
sion, and their motivation actively engaged in the profession decreases.
Second, learning that SUV can predict future professional engagement is neither
new nor is it surprising. Past research on teacher motivation has shown that individu-
als choose to pursue teaching because of perceived social benefits (see Lortie, 1975;
Book & Freeman, 1986; Moran, Kilpatrick, Abbott, Dallat, & McClune, 2001; Richardson
& Watt, 2016). EVF, however, has not yet been studied as a predictor of professional
engagement behaviours. This study found that pre-service teachers who scored high
on EVF plan to give more effort once in their career and also plan to pursue leader-
ship roles and opportunities for professional development. Thus, pre-service teachers
who scored high on EVF may have greater aspirations for learning—both for them-
selves and their students—beyond gaining classroom seniority or improving student
test scores. For them and their students, learning and knowledge have ramifications
for use, even if one has no way of knowing when and where.
We believe schools could use this knowledge of pre-service teachers’ EVF to place
these pre-service teachers with more intentionality. Research indicates that teachers
become more comfortable in the classroom and satisfied with their career between
the 5-year (Ingersoll, 2012) and 10-year (Ennis & Chang, 1995) mark. It may be wise for
teacher preparation programs, in this case, to match pre-service teachers with teachers
or mentors who may have different motivations, like EVF. By matching PSTs with
teachers/mentors with motivations and values different from their own, a teacher
preparation program would help develop PSTs’ understanding of the many different
motivation orientations. By learning about themselves in this context, they will be bet-
ter able to recognize different motivations in their PSTs. This matching and learning
process could occur in PSTs’ field experience early in a pre-service teacher’s career or
during PSTs teaching.
As hypothesized, PUV demonstrated negative relationships with some professional
engagement behaviours (i.e. planned effort and pursuit of future leadership positions).
We believe PUV might be a negative predictor of professional engagement for pre-ser-
vice teachers do not, in fact, believe that teaching profession affords classroom teach-
ers with substantial free, personal time. For example, PSTs who are in their first field
experience might begin to recognize that teachers do not actually get to spend more
time with their families; that, contrary to popular opinion, teachers often have to work
outside of school hours prepping lesson plans and grading papers (United States
Department of Labor, 2017). Thus, PSTs who pursue teaching for the personal benefits
may be disappointed.
14 B. M. TORSNEY ET AL.

Contrary to our hypothesis, however, PUV demonstrated a positive relationship with

pursuing future professional development. This finding differs from the results of Watt
and Richardson’s (2013), as seen in Richardson and Watt’s (2016) longitudinal study
that explains ‘[p]ersonal utility values did not predict early career professional engage-
ment or self-reported teaching behaviours’ (p. 288). We believe a potential reason for
this finding could be that when teachers engage in professional development and use
skills they learn, teaching becomes a more secure and fulfilling career choice.
This study has also shown that the epistemic value items added to the FIT-Choice
model has added breadth to the model and depth to the utility value construct put
forth by Eccles et al. (1983), and potentially opens a new chapter in the teacher motiv-
ation literature. An individual’s motivation to create reliable knowledge for some
future, epistemic end—or the A in the Aims component of the AIR model—has impli-
cations for that individual’s motivation to pursue a teaching career.
Buehl and Fives (2016) offer a real-world example showing how epistemic value
may influence pre-service teachers’ motivation towards their teacher preparation pro-
gram. Bailey and Jill are two pre-service teachers that have two different orientations
to acquiring knowledge. Jill’s main goal for her teacher education program was not
necessarily to make connections between the content of her teacher education classes
and the content from other classes; rather, Jill’s main goal was to achieve a passing
grade for that specific class in order to get closer to earning her teaching certification.
We would anticipate that Jill would score lower on epistemic value as ‘Jill’s goal was
to do what was necessary to pass the respective class, but she was not focused on
acquiring the understanding or true belief of how the content related to her teaching
(or that of her future students)’ (p. 253). In other words, Jill did not prioritize the cre-
ation of knowledge during her teacher education program to benefit her future stu-
dents; rather, the knowledge she was creating was to help her pass her classes.
Bailey, on the other hand, valued connecting her past experiences with the content
she had learned, which would then impact her future teaching. Bailey understood the util-
ity of her learning experiences as something that could help her as a future teacher by
creating new knowledge. We would argue that when Bailey becomes a teacher, she will
have an advantage over Jill in her ability to foster a classroom community that extends
knowledge beyond the borders of a single subject and the walls of the classroom. Bailey
will be able to make connections that will help her students understand not only the
material at hand, but also prepare them to make reliable inferences for future knowledge.
Jill exemplifies the criticism facing our current system of public education. Given
the low priority, she places on the utility of the content she will teach, Jill regards
knowledge as a means to an end as registered by passing grades, high test scores, or
a teaching contract. Jill and Bailey have two different motivations for entering the
teaching profession based on divergent philosophies of how knowledge is created
and should be transferred to their students. In this example, Jill values the utility of
passing grades in her teacher education classes, whereas Bailey has a more instrumen-
tal focus for the knowledge she will gain in her teacher education classes.
The example of Jill and Bailey suggests why the current study is important. By add-
ing epistemic value to the perceived task value construct in the FIT-Choice model, we
may provide a more comprehensive understanding of the values that motivate people
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 15

to teach and what teachers are more likely to create classrooms where their students
can create, transform and evaluate the material they are learning or have learned into
useful, reliable knowledge for both the present and the future.

Limitations
This study is not without its limitations. The epistemic value items created for this
study are not meant to, and may not be exhaustive of the theoretical construct as
defined by Chinn et al. (2014). The alignment and relationship among constructs may
simply be a product of the wording of the items. Additional research into epistemic
value is needed to further understand the construct and its relationship to pre-service
teachers’ motivation to enter, persist and engage professionally once in the field.
This study also helped to validate the short-form FIT-Choice scale and newly create
epistemic value items using one sample of pre-service teachers. Fully validating this
scale requires more analysis with a diversity of samples.

Conclusions
SUV was the most consistent predictor of professional engagement. Specifically, it pre-
dicted persistence and satisfaction, planned effort and a desire to engage in future
professional development and leadership roles. This result suggests that pre-service
teachers who highly value the utility of social contributions are also expected to be
more satisfied with their career choice, intend to teach for a long time, will put more
effort into their teaching, and intend to engage in professional development and pur-
sue leadership roles once they enter the field. The effect of SUV—and other values in
the FIT-Choice framework—on pre-service teachers’ desire to remain engaged and per-
sist once in the field is becoming an area of research with practical implications for
teacher preparation programs and school districts (Watt & Richardson, 2008), many of
which lack experienced teachers and have difficulty attracting new teachers to their
communities.
EVF, a new variable that we argue makes the FIT-Choice model more robust, was
also a positive predictor of leadership and planned effort. This result suggests, along
with previous research, an important theoretical alignment of epistemic value with
social and personal utility value (Torsney et al., 2017). Epistemic value adds greater
specificity to the utility value construct found in the FIT-Choice model by assessing
pre-service teachers’ motivation to enhance the curiosity, drive for learning and desire
for knowledge of their future students.
Finally, personal utility value negatively predicted effort and leadership intentions.
This result suggests that pre-service teachers who plan to pursue a career in teaching
for benefits such as job flexibility to accommodate family responsibilities and job
security, may need to reconsider their career choice. These benefits may be either a
remnant of the past or entirely mythical. In the 21st century, educational leadership
often includes working nights, weekends, and during the summer to prepare for the
following school year (United States Department of Labor, 2015).
16 B. M. TORSNEY ET AL.

Practical implications and future research

The practical implications of these findings are threefold. First, with knowledge of
desired professional engagement, schools and districts can begin to predict the reten-
tion of their beginning teachers. According Benner (as cited in Darling-Hammond,
2006, p. 12), teacher attrition costs school districts approximately $8,000–$48,000 in
‘hiring, placement, induction and replacement’. An indepth understanding about
teacher retention can save the money in schools and in districts.
Second, these findings support a growing literature that uses Richardson and Watt
(2006) FIT-Choice scale, expectancy-value theory in general, and adds to the current
literature using SEMs (see Eren & Tezel, 2010; Watt et al., 2012) to predict pre-service
teachers’ future professional engagement behaviours. By adding epistemic value to
the FIT-Choice model, our results make the utility value construct more robust. Such
research may influence self-selection among pre-service teachers as they pursue their
professional education.
Last, the future step in this line of research would be developing, testing and vali-
dating an instrument to categorise and verify scores of epistemic value among educa-
tion leaders at the local, state and national levels. Having an instrument like the
FIT-Choice model that could assess leaders’ epistemic value could also give an indica-
tion to the potential effectiveness and motivation of these individuals as they continue
to advocate for and implement educational policies.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Benjamin M. Torsney http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5936-0209
Doug Lombardi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4172-318X
Annette Ponnock http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5983-7767

References
Berger, J.-L., & 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, 40, 317–341. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2012.700046
Book, C. L., & Freeman, D. J. (1986). Differences in entry characteristics of elementary and
secondary teacher candidates. Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 47–51. doi:10.1177/
002248718603700209
Buehl, M. M., & Fives, H. (2016). The role of epistemic cognition in teacher learning and praxis.
In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition. (pp.
247–264). New York: NY Routledge.
Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. L. A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of
epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist,
46, 141–167. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.587722
Chinn, C. A., Rinehart, R. W., & Buckland, L. A. (2014). Epistemic cognition and evaluation infor-
mation: Applying the AIR model of epistemic cognition. In D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.),
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 17

Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science
and the educational sciences, (pp. 425–453), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says. Alexandria, Virginia
ASCD.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of teacher
education, 57, 300–314. doi:10.1177/0022487105285962
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sclan, E. M. (1996). Who teaches and why: Dilemmas of building a pro-
fession for twenty-first century schools. Handbook of research on teacher education, 2, 67–101.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York: Plenum.
Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley, C. (1983).
Expectancies, values, and academic behaviours. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achieve-
ment motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 76–146). New York, NY: WH
Freeman.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’ achieve-
ment task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21,
215–225. doi:10.1177/0146167295213003
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109–132. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Ennis, C. D., & Chen, A. (1995). Teachers’ value orientations in urban and rural school settings.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66, 41–50. doi:10.1080/02701367.1995.10607654
Eren, A., & Tezel, K. V. (2010). Factors influencing teaching choice, professional plans about
teaching, and future time perspective: A mediational analysis. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 26, 1416–1428. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.05.001
Fives, H., Barnes, N., Buehl, M. M., Mascadri, J., & Ziegler, N. (2017). Teachers’ epistemic cognition
in classroom assessment. Educational Psychologist, 52, 270–283 doi:10.1080/
00461520.2017.1323218
Fives, H., & Buehl, M. (2008). What do teachers believe? Developing a framework for examining
beliefs about teachers’ knowledge and ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33,
134–176. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.01.001
Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Children’s competence and value beliefs from childhood
through adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male-sex-typed domains. Developmental
Psychology, 38, 519. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.4.519
Hagger, M. S., Sultan, S., Hardcastle, S. J., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2015). Perceived autonomy sup-
port and autonomous motivation toward mathematics activities in educational and out-of-
school contexts is related to mathematics homework behavior and attainment. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 41, 111–123. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.12.002
Ingersoll, R. M. (2012). Beginning teacher induction what the data tell us. Phi Delta Kappan, 93,
47–51. doi:10.1177/003172171209300811
Ingersoll, R. M., & May, H. (2012). The magnitude, destinations, and determinants of mathematics
and science teacher turnover. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 435–464.
doi:10.3102/0162373712454326
Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s
self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through
twelve. Child Development, 73, 509–527. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00421
Jugovic
, I., Marusic
, I., Ivanec, T. P., & Vidovic
, V. V. (2012). Motivation and personality of
pre-service teachers in Croatia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 271–287.
doi:10.1080/1359866X.2012.700044
Kilinç, A., Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2012). Factors influencing teaching choice in
Turkey. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 199–226. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2012.
700048
Kim, H., & Cho, Y. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ motivation, sense of teaching efficacy, and
expectation of reality shock. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 67–81. doi:10.1080/
1359866X.2013.855999
18 B. M. TORSNEY ET AL.

Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction:
Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of educational Psychology, 102,
741. doi:10.1037/a0019237
Kock, N., & Lynn, G. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An
illustration and recommendations. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13,
546–580. doi:10.17705/1jais.00302
Kock, N. (2013). WarpPLS 4.0 user manual. Laredo, TX: ScriptWarp Systems.
€nig, J., & Rothland, M. (2012). Motivations for choosing teaching as a career: Effects on gen-
Ko
eral pedagogical knowledge during initial teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 40, 289–315. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2012.700045
Kyriacou, C., Hultgren, Å., & Stephens, P. (1999). Student teachers’ motivation to become a
secondary school teacher in England and Norway. Teacher Development, 3, 373–381.
doi:10.1080/13664539900200097
Lin, E., Shi, Q., Wang, J., Zhang, S., & Hui, L. (2012). Initial motivations for teaching: Comparison
between preservice teachers in the United States and China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 40, 227–248. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2012.700047
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Moran, A., Kilpatrick, R., Abbott, L., Dallat, J., & McClune, B. (2001). Training to teach: Motivating
factors and implications for recruitment. Evaluation & Research in Education, 15, 17–32.
doi:10.1080/09500790108666980
Myths and Facts about Educator Pay. (n.d.). Retrieved March 06, 2017, from: http://www.nea.org/
home/12661.htm
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of
covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26,
332–344. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.08.001
Richardson, P. W., & Watt, H. M. (2016). Factors influencing teaching choice: Why do future
teachers choose the career?. In J. Loughran & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook of
teacher education (pp. 275–304). Singapore: Springer.
Richardson, P. W. & Watt, H. M. G. (2010). Current and future directions in teacher motivation
research. In T. C. Urdan & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.), The decade ahead: Applications and contexts
of motivation and achievement; Advances in Motivation and Achievement, (Ch. 5, pp. 139–173)
Volume 16B. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald.
Richardson, P. W., & Watt, H. M. (2006). Who chooses teaching and why? Profiling characteristics
and motivations across three Australian universities. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,
34, 27–56. doi:10.1080/13598660500480290
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Sinatra, G. (2016). Thoughts on knowledge about thinking about knowledge. In J. A. Greene, W.
A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.) Handbook of epistemic cognition. (p. 5). New York: Routledge.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Multivariate analysis of variance and covariance. Using
multivariate statistics, 3, 402–407.
Tenenhaus, M., Amato, S., & Esposito Vinzi, V. (2004). A global goodness-of-fit index for PLS struc-
tural equation modeling. In Proceedings of the XLII SIS scientific meeting (Vol. 1, pp. 739–742).
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y. M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational
statistics & data analysis, 48, 159–205. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2004.03.005
Torsney, B. M. (2016). Motivational characteristics of K-12 teachers: Determining the values that
influence pre-service teachers’ decision to teach. Temple University
Torsney, B. M., Ponnock, A. R., & Lombardi, D. (2017). The role of values in preservice teachers’
decision to teach. The Teacher Educator, 52, 39–56. doi:10.1080/08878730.2016.1196986
United States Department of Labor. (2015). Elementary, Middle, and High School Principals.
Retrieved March 15, 2017, from Bureau of Labor Statistics: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/manage-
ment/elementary-middle-and-high-school-principals.htm#tab-3
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 19

United States Department of Labor. (2017). High School Teachers. Retrieved January 11, 2018,
from Bureau of Labor Statistics: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/high-
school-teachers.htm#tab-3
Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W. W., Henseler, J., & Wang, H. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of partial least
squares: Concepts, methods and applications. Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, New York:
Springer.
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schro € der, G., & Van Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for
assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS quarterly,
33, 177–195.
Watt, H. M. G. (2004). Development of adolescents’ self-perceptions, values and task perceptions
according to gender and domain in 7th through 11th grade Australian students. Child
Development, 75, 1556–1574. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00757.x
Watt, H. M. G. (2006). The role of motivation in gendered educational and occupational trajecto-
ries related to math. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 305–322.
Watt, H. M., & Richardson, P. W. (2007). Motivational factors influencing teaching as a career
choice: Development and validation of the FIT-Choice scale. The journal of experimental educa-
tion, 75, 167–202. doi:10.3200/JEXE.75.3.167-202
Watt, H. M., & Richardson, P. W. (2008). Motivations, perceptions, and aspirations concerning
teaching as a career for different types of beginning teachers. Learning and Instruction, 18,
408–428. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.002
Watt, H. M., Richardson, P. W., Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Beyer, B., Trautwein, U., & Baumert, J.
(2012). Motivations for choosing teaching as a career: An international comparison using the
FIT-Choice scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 791–805. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.003
Watt, H. M., Richardson, P. W., & Wilkins, K. (2014). Profiles of professional engagement and car-
eer development aspirations among USA preservice teachers. International Journal of
Educational Research, 65, 23–40. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2013.09.008
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical
analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265–310. doi:10.1016/0273-2297(92)90011-P
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2002). The development of competence beliefs, expectancies for suc-
cess, and achievement values from childhood through adolescence. In A. Wigfield & J. Eccles
(Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 91–120). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.