University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Differentiated motivations of preservice teachers to enter the teaching profession in Hawai‘i

(USC Thesis Other)

Differentiated motivations of preservice teachers to enter the teaching profession in Hawai‘i

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: MOTIVATIONS OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 1

DIFFERENTIATED MOTIVATIONS OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS
TO ENTER THE TEACHING PROFESSION IN HAWAI‘I

by

Lauren Johanna Kaupp

__________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHER CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

July 2014

Copyright 2014 Lauren Johanna Kaupp
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 2

For current teachers and those to be, may you continue to inspire and be inspired.
For all who have taught, thank you.

“Scan not a friend with a microscopic glass
You know his faults, now let his foibles pass
Life is one long enigma, my friend
So read on, read on, the answer's at the end.”

George Harrison
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 3

Acknowledgments
The following pages are the culmination of so many hours, some of elation and some of
frustration, not all of which have been my own. I would like to extend my gratitude to the many
people who helped me make it from start to finish, and navigate everything in between.
• My gratitude goes to Dr. Darnell Cole, my committee chair, for his guidance and for
feedback that was concise but well placed, which gave me space to reflect and grow.
• A heartfelt thanks to Drs. Melora Sundt and Robert Rueda for their service on my
dissertation committee. Melora has been a role model and inspiration throughout the
program and I truly appreciate Robert’s conscientiousness as a teacher and researcher.
• Many thanks to the preservice teachers who generously gave of their time and thoughts,
although there was little that I could offer them in return. Thanks also go to the
administrators and professors who allowed me to reach out to their students.
• I am indebted to the teachers who shared their knowledge and passion in all of my
educational endeavors. They were an inspiration as I detoured from science into teaching,
which brought me to this point.
• To my dissertation group, thank you for sharing, meeting, reading, editing, reminding,
and cheerleading! Special thanks to Lise Choucair for reading most every word of this
dissertation, countless texts and emails, being a sounding board, and being a friend.
Thanks also to Bruno for being a gracious host and counting down the days!
• Thank you to a cohort that featured a diverse cast of characters who made me think,
laugh, and cry, who played kazoo and maracas, took 100 page quizzes, rode the Skytrain,
squished on the stairs for many class pictures, and generously shared their perspectives
and wisdom.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 4

• The USC Rossier School of Education has provided me with opportunities, experiences,
and relationships for which I am truly grateful. A special thanks to Linda, Carolyn, Lisa,
Julie, and Katy for their help in the dissertation process and the program. Big thanks go to
all of those who made Thailand an amazing learning experience!
• My CRDG colleagues have been among my biggest supporters. Thanks to Don, Frank,
and Barbara for their continued encouragement. Thank you to Truc for inspiring me to
apply to the program. Thank you to Kanesa and Jo for being flexible, thoughtful, and all-
around awesome people and science educators! Thank you to the entire TSI-A team for
the camaraderie, the fab hors d’oeuvres, and lots of science geekdom. Thank you very
much to Morris and Margit for their input on this dissertation. Thanks to many other
CRDG/ULS colleagues for years of working together and their dedication to students and
teachers.
• To the friends who have been understanding as I have seemingly fallen off the face of the
earth, missing phone calls, texts, coffees, lunches, birthdays, and all other manner of fun
things, thank you for your patience. Hopefully I will have better work-life balance when
life does not include weekend classes and hours of dissertation writing.
• Finally, to my family, to Jarid, and to the extended Oshiro/Nakayama/Tangonan ‘ohana–
there is really no way to thank you enough for your love and support. For the past three
years, there have been few moments when you have seen me without a book or laptop on
my lap. You let me eat quick meals and get back to work, allowed me to fall asleep,
exhausted, on your couches, and hopefully did not mind that I was generally boring. My
few hours of non-school, non-work pursuits were mostly spent with you and it was time
well spent. Much love and herzlichen Dank!
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 5

Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 8
List of Figures 10
Abstract 11
Chapter One: Introduction 12
Cultural Responsiveness and Teacher Shortages in Hawai‘i 15
Cultural Responsiveness and Teacher Ethnicity 15
Teacher Shortages and Teacher Quality 22
Student Achievement in Hawai‘i 24
Native Hawaiian and Filipino Student Achievement 25
Addressing Teacher Workforce Issues Through Recruitment Programs 31
HIDOE Teacher Recruitment Incentive Programs 31
Motivation and Teacher Recruitment 33
Statement of the Problem 34
Purpose of the Study 35
Research Questions 35
Significance of the Study 36
Definitions 37
Organization of the Dissertation 37

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 39
Addressing the Research Questions 40
Expectancy–Value Theory 42
Theoretical Framework 42
Expectancy 43
Value 44
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Wigfield-Eccles Model of EVT 45
Implications of EVT in Studying the Motivation of Preservice Teachers 48
Motivation and Teacher Career Choice 49
Classifications of Motivations and Limitations of Motivation Studies 53
Intrinsic motivation 54
Altruistic motivation 55
Extrinsic motivation 56
Addressing Shortcomings of Preservice Teacher Motivation Studies 57
Summary 60
Teacher Ethnicity, Cultural Responsiveness, and Motivation 61
Impact of Teacher Ethnicity and Cultural Responsiveness on Student
Achievement 62
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 6

Ethnicity and Motivation to Become a Teacher 63
Cultural Responsiveness and Motivation to Become a Teacher 64
Teacher Shortages and Motivation to Teach in Shortage Areas 65
Impact of Teacher Shortages on Student Achievement 65
Motivation to Teach in Hard-to-Staff Schools 67
Implications for Addressing Teacher Shortages and Diversity in Hawai‘i 70

Chapter Three: Methodology 71
Research Method and Design 72
Sample and Population 73
Institutions 74
Participants 76
Instrumentation 76
Researcher-Designed Questionnaire 77
Assessing Motivation Using the FIT-Choice Scale 78
Assessing Cultural Responsiveness, Beliefs, and Attitudes 79
PADAA 81
Teacher Belief Survey 82
Open-Ended Questionnaire 83
Data Collection 84
Quantitative Data Collection 84
Qualitative Data Collection 85
Data Analysis 87
Quantitative Data Analysis 87
Qualitative Data Analysis 90
Summary 92

Chapter Four: Results and Analysis 94
Participant and Institutional Characteristics 94
Quantitative Survey Participant and Institutional Characteristics 95
Institutional characteristics 95
Degree program characteristics 96
Licensure program characteristics 97
Participant characteristics 98
Qualitative Questionnaire Participant and Institutional Characteristics 101
Institutional characteristics 103
Degree program characteristics 103
Licensure program characteristics 104
Participant characteristics 105
Research Question 1: Motivations 107
Determining Motivation Factors 107
Describing Motivation Factors 112
Qualitative Motivation Results 115
Findings for Research Question 1 120
Research Question 2: Differentiated Motivations 121
Differentiating by Ethnicity 122
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 7

Determining Cultural Belief and Awareness Factors 125
Differentiating Motivation by Cultural Belief and Awareness Factors 130
Qualitative Ethnicity and Motivation Results 133
Learning about students 136
Role of student-teacher ethnicity match 136
Findings for Research Question 2 141
Research Question 3: Hard-to-Staff Schools 142
Desire to Teach in Hard-to-Staff Schools 143
Qualitative Hard-to-Staff Schools Results 145
Ease of teaching in hard-to-staff schools 146
Motivations to teach in hard-to-staff schools 147
Difficulty of and barriers to teaching in hard-to-staff schools 147
Findings for Research Question 3 150
Summary 151

Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusions 153
Discussion of Findings 155
Choosing Teaching as a Profession 156
Expectancies of Teacher Candidates Relative to the Teaching Profession 158
Desire to Teach in Hard-to-Staff Schools 160
Limitations 162
Sample and Population 163
Statistical Power 163
Threats to Validity 164
Implications for Practice 166
Teacher Recruitment 166
Monetary incentives 166
Non-monetary and mixed incentives 167
Teacher Preparation 170
Future Research 172
Conclusions 173

References 176

Appendices 197
Appendix A: Maps of HIDOE Complexes and Associated Census Tracts 197
Appendix B: Combined Survey 202
Appendix C: Survey Permissions 214
Appendix D: Open-Ended Questionnaires 216
Appendix E: Request to Participate in Research (Administrators and Professors) 232
Appendix F: Consent Information 234
Appendix G: Census Tract, Complex, and ZIP Code Alignment 236
Appendix H: Reliability Analysis Results 237

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 8

List of Tables

Table 1: Equity Index of Teacher Race/Ethnicity Compared to
Student Race/Ethnicity 18

Table 2: Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian and Filipino Populations in
HIDOE Hard-to-Staff Complexes 28

Table 3: Equity Index (EI) for Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian and Filipino Populations in
Schools in Hard-to-Staff Complexes 29

Table 4: State of Hawai‘i Department of Education Teacher Recruitment
Incentive Programs 32

Table 5: Alignment of Wigfield-Eccles EVT to Related Theories 46

Table 6: Alignment of Wigfield-Eccles EVT Values with Motivation Classifications 51

Table 7: Research Studies Examined in This Review, in Terms of Four Methodological 59
Shortcomings

Table 8: Institutional Characteristics of Sampling Sites 74

Table 9: Research Questions, Variables, and Associated Instruments 77

Table 10: The Six Strands of Villegas and Lucas and Corresponding Instruments 81
and Subscales

Table 11: Statistical Tests for Quantitative Data Analysis by Research Question 88

Table 12: Assessment of Validity Criteria 91

Table 13: Institutions Attended by Quantitative Participants 95

Table 14: Degree Enrollment of Quantitative Participants 96

Table 15: Licensure Program Enrollment of Quantitative Participants 98

Table 16: Quantitative Participant Ethnicity 99

Table 17: Quantitative Participant Gender 100

Table 18: Questionnaire Participant Characteristics 102

Table 19: Institutions Attended by Qualitative Participants 103

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 9

Table 20: Degree Enrollment of Qualitative Participants 104

Table 21: Licensure Program Enrollment of Qualitative Participants 105

Table 22: Qualitative Participant Ethnicity 106

Table 23: Qualitative Participant Gender 107

Table 24: Confirmatory Factor Analysis for FIT-Choice Scale 109

Table 25: Acceptable Thresholds for CFA Fit Indices 110

Table 26: Reliability Analysis for FIT-Choice Scale Factors 111

Table 27: Descriptive Statistics for Motivation Factors 112

Table 28: Means for Motivation Factors by EVT Construct and Motivation Classification 114

Table 29: Qualitative Themes of Motivation Factors 116

Table 30: Interaction Effects of Ethnicity and Gender or Program Type 123
for Motivation Factors

Table 31: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Cultural Belief and Awareness Factors 126

Table 32: Reliability Analysis for Cultural Belief and Awareness Scales 129

Table 33: Descriptive Statistics for Cultural Belief and Attitude Factors 130

Table 34: Pearson’s Correlations Between Motivation and Cultural Belief 131
and Attitude Factors

Table 35: Differentiated Qualitative Themes of Motivation Factors 134

Table 36: Intent to Teach in Hawai‘i and Hard-to-Staff Schools 144

Table 37: Desire to Teach in Hard-to-Staff Schools by Residence 145
in Hard-to-Staff Complexes

Table 38: Ease of Teaching in Hawai‘i and Hard-to-Staff Schools 147

Table 39: Difficulty of Teaching in Hawai‘i and Hard-to-Staff Schools 149

Table 40: Barriers to Teaching in Hard-to-Staff Schools 150

Table 41: Summary of Findings 152
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 10

List of Figures

Figure 1. Model of the “teacher pipeline” 22

Figure 2: Wigfield and Eccles expectancy-value model 45

Figure A1: Map of HIDOE complexes on O‘ahu 197

Figure A2: Map of HIDOE complexes on Hawai‘i Island 198

Figure A3: Maps of Native Hawaiian and Filipino populations in 199
Wai‘anae and N!n!kuli complexes

Figure A4: Maps of Native Hawaiian and Filipino populations in 200
Ka"#, Kea‘au, and P!hoa complexes

Figure A5: Maps of persons living below the poverty level in hard-to-staff complexes
on O‘ahu and Hawai‘i Island 201

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 11

Abstract
This study uses expectancy value theory to understand the motivations to enter the teaching
profession of preservice teachers in Hawai‘i. The purpose of the study was to determine how
motivations vary between teacher candidates along three factors, ethnicity, cultural beliefs and
awareness, and preference to teach in hard-to-staff schools. Using a mixed-methods approach of
Likert-type and open-ended questions, the motivations of a sample of preservice teachers were
determined. Comparisons of motivations were made across factors and preservice teacher
groups. Findings from the study indicate that preservice teachers in Hawai‘i have chosen the
career with intent, and have high confidence in their abilities to teach, yet low satisfaction with
their choice of teaching as a profession. While motivations did not vary significantly between
ethnic groups, there were some indications that preservice teachers of different ethnic groups
may have different expectancies relative to the effects of teacher–student ethnicity match in the
classroom. Finally, preservice teachers are motivated by a wish to contribute to their
communities, which is related to their preferences for teaching in hard-to-staff complex areas.
This study has implications for teacher education and recruitment, as well as improving student
achievement in Hawai‘i.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 12

Chapter One: Introduction
Teachers play a critical role in student development and achievement; thus,
understanding those who teach, specifically why they teach, is of great importance to
researchers, school administrators, and teacher education programs. Teacher workforce issues in
Hawai‘i public schools may be partly addressed with an understanding of why teacher candidates
choose to enter the teaching profession. Motivation has been used as a framework through which
to understand career choice (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000) and includes components of self-
efficacy, control beliefs, interest, values, and goals (Pintrich, 2003). Self-efficacy, defined as
personal beliefs about one’s ability to learn or perform, has been shown to mediate career choice
(Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Eccles, Barber, & Jozefowicz, 1999) and has been implicated in
student career planning and exploration (Rogers & Creed, 2011). There is evidence that
motivations of teacher candidates prior to entering the teaching profession can be linked to later
burnout and retention (Haberman, 2004) and it has been suggested that a mismatch between
expectations and the reality of a teaching career may lead to early attrition (Watt & Richardson,
2008). Using motivation as a framework for understanding teacher career choice in Hawai‘i may
allow for both more effective teacher recruitment programs and higher retention. Improved
recruitment and retention may enhance the diversity and cultural responsiveness of teachers and
reduce teacher shortages in Hawai‘i, with the potential to increase student achievement in public
schools in the state of Hawai‘i.
Student academic achievement in Hawai‘i public schools, which serve approximately
84% of Hawai‘i’s students (Hawai‘i State Department of Education [HIDOE], 2012b), is lower
than both the benchmarks set by the state’s education standards and than other states in the
country. Although the issues of educational attainment in Hawai‘i are complex, it is known that
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 13

teachers and teaching are the most important factors that impact student learning outside of a
student’s background (Hanushek, 2010; OECD, 2005). It follows that issues concerning teachers
and teaching impact student learning; in Hawai‘i, two such concerns are cultural responsiveness
and shortages of teachers.
Cultural responsiveness, the capability of teachers to address the needs of a culturally
diverse student body, is one staffing issue in the Hawai‘i State Department of Education
(HIDOE) schools. Many student ethnic groups are underrepresented by teachers; most notably,
Native Hawaiians and Filipinos together make up nearly 50% of the student population, but less
than 15% of the teaching force (HIDOE, 2012b) in Hawai‘i public schools. Further, only 2.3% of
HIDOE teachers have been found to rate high in the use of culture-based strategies supportive of
Native Hawaiian students (Kana‘iaupuni, Ledward, & Jensen, 2010). Although no specific
empirical studies examined teachers’ use of strategies responsive to Filipino students in Hawai‘i,
Halagao (2004) argued that the high dropout rate of Filipino students is evidence that teachers
are not meeting the needs of Filipino students through curriculum or pedagogy. In addition to
issues of cultural responsiveness, HIDOE also experiences chronic teacher shortages, especially
in rural and geographically isolated areas (HIDOE, 2011). Teacher shortages and cultural
responsiveness are known to impact student learning (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2007; Dee &
Cohodes, 2008; Villegas & Irvine, 2010), thus addressing these staffing issues can play an
important role in raising student achievement in public schools in Hawai‘i.
Overwhelmingly, prospective teachers have reported being motivated by intrinsic values,
such as interest and enjoyment, and altruistic values, such as the desire to contribute to society
(Chong & Low, 2008; Manuel & Hughes, 2006; Müller, Alliata, & Benninghoff, 2009;
Richardson & Watt, 2006; Topkaya & Uztosun, 2012; Watt & Richardson, 2007; Watt &
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 14

Richardson, 2008; Watt, Richardson, Klusmann, Kunter, Beyer, Trautwein, & Baumert, 2012).
Many districts, including HIDOE, have used recruitment incentive programs in an effort to
attract teachers, with mixed results (Berry & Eckert, 2012; Guarino, Santibañez, & Daley, 2006;
Loeb & Myung, 2010). Such programs are often based on monetary compensation, which does
not align with what is known about what motivates teachers to enter the profession. Monetary
incentive programs are less likely to impact intrinsic and altruistic motivations than extrinsic
motivations (Müller, Alliata, & Benninghoff, 2009). Thus, financial bonuses may not be the most
effective means of recruiting a stable and culturally competent workforce. A study of preservice
teacher motivations in Hawai‘i, which have not been previously examined, may provide an
opportunity to design more effective recruitment programs aligned with the motivations of those
in the state who might consider teaching as a career.
In this chapter, I explain the rationale for studying the motivations of preservice teachers
in the state of Hawai‘i. Specifically, I highlight some of the effects of both cultural
responsiveness and teacher shortages on student outcomes and describe how conditions
surrounding these issues in HIDOE may impact student success. To underscore the need for
having a theory-grounded understanding of why teachers in Hawai‘i choose the profession, I
summarize the recent recruitment programs HIDOE has implemented, which have been limited
in their success in impacting teacher shortages. After providing the context of cultural
responsiveness, teacher shortages, student achievement, and teacher recruitment in Hawai‘i as
they apply to the problem of preservice teacher motivation for entering the teaching profession, I
outline the purpose of the study, the research questions, and the significance of the study.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 15

Cultural Responsiveness and Teacher Shortages in Hawai‘i
Motivation drives choice relative to career planning and selection (Bong & Skaalvik,
2003; Eccles, Barber, & Jozefowicz, 1999; Rogers & Creed, 2011). Thus, teacher workforce
issues in HIDOE can partially be attributed to the motivations of and choices made by current
and potential teachers. For example, college students and career changers choose to enroll in
teacher preparation programs. Teachers may have preferences for working in particular schools
or districts, and seek placement in those schools, which may result in teacher shortages in some
geographic locations. Additionally, the demographics of the HIDOE teaching force are
determined, in part, by the demographics of those individuals who choose to pursue teaching as a
career. The workforce is impacted by the motivations that drive individuals to enter the teaching
profession. In this section, I describe some of those impacts, including cultural responsiveness
and teacher shortages, and their potential effects on student achievement.
Cultural Responsiveness and Teacher Ethnicity
The cultural responsiveness of teachers plays a role in contributing to positive outcomes
for students. Culture refers to the “dynamic system of social values, cognitive codes, behavioral
standards, worldviews, and beliefs used to give order and meaning to our own lives as well as the
lives of others” (Delgador-Gaitan & Trueba, 1991, as cited in Gay, 2010). As education is a
sociocultural process (Villegas & Lucas, 2007), culture is inextricably linked to teaching and
learning. The importance of culturally responsive teachers has been widely recognized (Gay &
Howard, 2000; Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1994, 1995; Villegas & Lucas, 2002, 2007),
including by the major accrediting body for schools of education, the National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, 2008). Although ethnicity is not the only factor in
culture, ethnic groups share cultural characteristics, and ethnicity and culture together are
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 16

considered by Gay (2010, p. 11) to be the “foundational anchors of all other behaviors.” In an
ethnically diverse state such as Hawai‘i, the cultural responsiveness of teachers of both the same
and different ethnic groups as their students is likely to impact student learning and achievement.
Hawai‘i is the only state, along with the District of Columbia, with diversity in its
teaching force that approximates the diversity of its population (Gay, Dingus, & Jackson, 2003).
The population of the United States is approximately 27.6 percent non-White (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2010e), whereas 16.9 percent of teachers nationwide are non-White (Snyder, 2011). In
Hawai‘i, the population is approximately 75.3 non-White (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b) and 80.3
percent of teachers are non-White (HIDOE, 2012b). Not all ethnic groups, however, are
represented equitably in the HIDOE teaching force. The representation of students by teachers,
by ethnic group, must be examined in more detail than a simplistic White versus non-White
comparison in order to understand how teacher representation may affect students of all ethnic
groups in Hawai‘i.
Representation of ethnic groups has been studied in a wide variety of contexts in
education, including special education (Roy, 2012), gifted education (Ford, 2010), STEM
education (Babco, 2003), and higher education (Bensimon, Hao, & Bustillos, 2003). Researchers
in these fields have employed various methodologies to determine the extent of over- or
underrepresentation of target groups; however, these methodologies generally involve a
proportionality expression, which can range from a simple percentage of the target group in the
population to more complex weighted formulas. Bensimon, Hao, and Bustillos (2003) suggested
an Academic Equity Index as a measure of proportionality of target groups as compared to the
population. Although their work centered on educational attainment outcomes of target groups in
higher education, the authors also suggested that
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 17

Different reference populations can be chosen as the denominator depending on the
purpose of the data analysis. At its simplest level, it means that students in the K–12
system should be representative of the population demographics; college student
enrollment should be representative of the K–12 students. . .and the faculty composition
should reflect the composition of the student body. (p. 150)
For this study, the Equity Index of Bensimon, Hao, and Bustillos (2003) will be used for one of
their suggested purposes, determining the diversity of teachers with respect to the diversity of the
student population. The Equity Index was calculated using the following equation

A group with an Equity Index of greater than one is considered to be overrepresented; groups
with an Equity Index of less than one are underrepresented.
Calculating the Equity Index for HIDOE teachers in relation to students reveals that
several racial/ethnic groups of students are underrepresented, including African Americans,
Filipinos, Hawaiians, Hispanics, Koreans, Native Americans, and Samoans (see Table 1).
Although each student group is likely impacted by underrepresentation, Native Hawaiians and
Filipinos make up 48.6 percent of the student population, whereas African Americans, Hispanics,
Koreans, Native Americans, and Samoans, combined, comprise 10.8 percent of students in
HIDOE (HIDOE, 2012b). For this reason, Native Hawaiians and Filipinos are one focus of this
study.
In Table 1, Filipino and Hawaiian results are highlighted. Native Hawaiians make up 28
percent of the student population (HIDOE, 2012b) and are underrepresented, with an Equity
Index of 0.3; Filipino students comprise 20.6 percent of the student population (HIDOE, 2012b)
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 18

and are also underrepresented with an Equity Index of 0.3. The two largest ethnic groups of
students in Hawai‘i’s public schools are severely underrepresented by the teachers in their
classrooms, as described by the Equity Index.
Table 1
Equity Index (EI) of Teacher Race/Ethnicity Compared to Student Race/Ethnicity
______________________________________________________________________________

Race/Ethnicity* Student % Teacher % Equity Index Representation

African American 2.4 0.4 0.2 Under
Caucasian 14.1 19.8 1.4 Over
Chinese 3.1 3.6 1.2 Over
Filipino 20.6 5.7 0.3 Under
Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian 28.0 8.7 0.3 Under
Hispanic 3.3 0.2 0.1 Under
Japanese 8.4 26.7 3.3 Over
Korean 1.1 0.8 0.7 Under
Native American 0.6 0 0.0 Under
Samoan 3.4 0.4 0.1 Under
Other 15.1 33.8 2.2 Over
______________________________________________________________________________
Note: Race/ethnicity designations as used by the Hawai‘i State Department of Education. Data
from the Hawai‘i State Department of Education (2012). Teacher ethnicity data are self-reported
and not required to be reported to HIDOE (J. Higaki, personal communication, March 19, 2013).

The small numbers of Native Hawaiian and Filipino teachers as compared to students
may negatively impact not just Native Hawaiian and Filipino students, but all students, in
Hawai‘i public schools. As reviewed by Villegas and Irvine (2010), there are three major
arguments for diversifying the teaching force: teachers of color can serve as role models for all
students; teachers of color can serve to reduce teacher shortages, especially in high-minority
schools; teachers of color have the potential to improve academic achievement and quality of
school experiences for students of the same ethnic groups. The role model argument centers on
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 19

the assumption that teachers serve as role models for their students and that teachers of the same
ethnic group as their students may serve to boost the self-esteem and motivation of these students
(Villegas & Irvine, 2010). Teachers provide valuable social capital, a range of benefits or
resources associated with being part of a group or network, especially for socially disadvantaged
students (Croninger & Lee, 2001). Ethnic groups also provide social capital (Portes, 1998), so it
follows that teachers of the same ethnicity as their students can provide a unique and important
form of social capital for students. However, White students also benefit from seeing adults of
ethnic minority groups in professional roles as “successful and contributing members of society”
(Villegas & Irvine, 2010, p. 177). In Hawai‘i, Native Hawaiian and Filipino teachers could serve
as role models to students of all ethnicities.
It has also been argued that ethnic minority teachers may reduce teacher shortages in
high-minority urban schools (Villegas & Irvine, 2010). Retention of minority teachers tends to
be higher in high-minority schools, perhaps due to a more “community-oriented perspective” of
teachers of color (Villegas & Irvine, 2010, p. 186). In Hawai‘i, hard-to-staff schools tend to be
those in rural areas with high proportions of Native Hawaiian and Filipino students (see Table 2
and Appendix A, Figures A3–A4). Research of the motivations of preservice teachers to teach in
hard-to-staff urban and rural schools supports the proposition that such individuals have a feeling
of connectedness to the community (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2005;
Burton & Johnson, 2010; Plunkett & Dyson, 2011; Tamir, 2009; Yu, 2011). Alleviating teacher
shortages may also increase student academic achievement, as shortages result in staffing
schools with unqualified or underqualified teachers, which may have a negative impact on
student achievement (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2007; Darling-Hammond, 2007; Dee &
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 20

Cohodes, 2008). Thus, the workforce argument for diversifying the teaching force may be linked
to the student achievement and outcomes argument, which follows.
The academic outcomes and school experiences rationale for diversifying the teaching
force argues that teachers of minority ethnic groups are in a unique position to create relevant
learning experiences of students of the same ethnic group, which may result in improved
academic outcomes (Villegas & Irvine, 2010). The authors reviewed fifteen empirical studies
that showed that students of color benefit academically from being taught by a teacher of the
same race or by a teaching force that is representative of the student body with regard to race
(Villegas & Irvine, 2010). These benefits can be measured in terms of scores on standardized
tests, high school dropout rates, college going rates and other measures. In Hawai‘i, for example,
empirical research has shown that culture-based education strategies have positive impacts on
Native Hawaiian student outcomes, including engagement and self-efficacy (Kana‘iaupuni,
Ledward, & Jensen, 2010). Researchers and theorists suggest that these outcomes are due to the
use by teachers of color of culturally relevant pedagogy, cultural caring, advocacy, and support,
and politically relevant and activist teaching (Gay, Dingus, & Jackson, 2003; Villegas & Irvine,
2010).
To the extent that teacher-student ethnic match is important to student development and
achievement, Hawai‘i’s teachers should be able to provide such social and academic advantages
for their students. It must be noted, however, that while teacher–student ethnicity match can be
important, and may facilitate culturally responsive pedagogy, it would be irresponsible to imply
that simply hiring more Native Hawaiian and Filipino teachers would be sufficient to address the
complex educational and social issues facing Native Hawaiian and Filipino students. Gay (2010)
described the proposed remedy of merely hiring more teachers from a given ethnic group to
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 21

address educational issues of that ethnic group as a form of professional racism, in that it
suggests that teachers are effective only in working with students of the same ethnicity. Teachers
of ethnic groups different than their students are able to employ culturally responsive pedagogy,
and some teachers of the same ethnicity as their students may not use culturally responsive
pedagogical methods (Gay, 2010). In Hawai‘i, Kana‘iaupuni, Ledward, and Jensen (2010) found
that both non-Hawaiian and Hawaiian teachers employ culture-based teaching strategies.
However, 28.8% of Hawaiian teachers in the study rated high in the use of culture-based
education strategies, while only 4.9% of non-Hawaiian rated high in the use of culture-based
education strategies (Kana‘iaupuni, Ledward, & Jensen, 2010). These results support Gay’s
assertions that teachers of all ethnic groups can employ culturally responsive pedagogy, but that
not all teachers do so, even in instances of ethnic and cultural match. As ethnicity and cultural
responsiveness in teaching are related to some extent, but are not wholly correlated, both factors
may play a role in preservice teacher motivation.
Due to the evidence of the multiple benefits of a teacher workforce that is representative
of the student body (Villegas & Irvine, 2010) and because of the potential social capital that
teachers may provide beyond academic content (Croninger & Lee, 2001; Portes, 1998),
diversification of the teaching force in Hawai‘i public schools is one rationale for examining
ethnicity in this study. However, because the importance of culture in teaching is a fundamental
principle of multicultural education (Bennett, 2001), and because cultural competence and
responsiveness are important for all educators in working with all students (Gay & Howard,
2000; Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1994, 1995; NCATE, 2008; Villegas & Lucas, 2002, 2007),
cultural responsiveness of all ethnic groups relative to motivation to teach will also be considered
as part of this study.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 22

Teacher Shortages and Teacher Quality
In addition to cultural responsiveness, teacher shortages can also affect student academic
achievement. Some rural and isolated geographic areas within the state have been identified by
HIDOE as hard-to-staff, including N!n!kuli and Wai‘anae in west O‘ahu, and Kea‘au, P!hoa,
and Ka"# on Hawai‘i island (HIDOE, 2011). In any district, the supply of teachers includes those
currently teaching, those not currently teaching, but qualified to teach, and those who would
consider teaching (Dolton, 2010). The process of moving from considering teaching to becoming
a teacher has been described as a “teacher pipeline” (Henke, Chen, & Geis, 2000; Henke, Geis,
& Giambattista, 1996). Current and prospective teachers move through the pipeline starting from
considering teaching, moving through teacher preparation, student teaching, and certification,
and finally becoming teachers (see Figure 2). There are “leaks” at every point in the pipeline,
with potential and certified teachers exiting at any point along the pipeline (Dolton, 2010; Henke,
Chen, & Geis, 2000; Henke, Geis, & Giambattista, 1996). Those who are certified and leave may
return to the profession. Thus, teacher shortages can be examined in terms of both entering and
leaving the teacher pipeline.

Figure 1. Model of the “teacher pipeline”
There has been no systematic longitudinal examination of movement through the teacher
pipeline in Hawai‘i. However, a study by the Hawai‘i Educational Policy Center (“Report to the
Considering
Teaching
Teacher
Preparation
Student
Teaching
Certification
Applying for
Teaching
Jobs
Teaching
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 23

legislature,” 2008) examined some components of the teacher pipeline. The researchers found
that with only 300–400 teachers retiring annually, the addition of approximately 700 Hawai‘i
teacher preparation program completers each year should lead to a decrease in the yearly need
for new hires in HIDOE. However, the need to hire new teachers remained consistent from
2002–2006, suggesting that teacher retention was a more critical issue than teacher recruitment
(“Report to the legislature,” 2008). The researchers also suggested that the capacity of teacher
preparations programs could be expanded, but the report did not address initial recruitment of
students into teacher preparation programs. Similar to the findings of the Hawai‘i Educational
Policy Center regarding teacher retention, Ingersoll (2003) has suggested that the level of
production of new teachers nationally is generally adequate, and shortages often result from high
levels of teacher turnover, rather than insufficient supply.
Although teacher retention is a critical systemic issue that must be examined, when
licensed teachers leave the classroom, they create openings that must ultimately be filled by new
teachers. Until issues of retention are resolved, a demand for a supply of new teachers will
continue to exist. Thus, the focus of this study is on the teacher production aspect of teacher
workforce supply, rather than teacher retention. Specifically, this study examined the motivations
to enter the profession of preservice teachers in the teacher preparation and student teaching
portions of the teacher pipeline.
Regardless of the causes of teacher shortages, when they exist, districts often assign
teachers out-of-field or hire substitute teachers, which may have a significant impact on teacher
quality (Darling-Hammond, 2007). Teacher shortages in Hawai‘i have, in fact, resulted in the
hiring of underqualified teachers. During the 2010–2011 school year, 63.1% of teachers newly
hired by HIDOE were not licensed or were given teaching assignments out of licensure area
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 24

(HIDOE, 2012a). In comparison, between 1987 and 2007, an average of 23% of teachers
nationwide were teaching out-of-field and 7% were not fully certified (Ingersoll & Merrill,
2011). The total number of unlicensed or out-of-field teachers is not reported by HIDOE.
Although there is debate over the necessity of teacher preparation programs (Darling-
Hammond, Berry, & Thoreson, 2001; Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000), evidence exists that
provisional and emergency-hire teachers can have a negative impact on student achievement
(Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2007). Research has also shown that assignment to out-of-field
teachers leads to lower student test scores, especially in the areas of social studies and
mathematics (Dee & Cohodes, 2008), with mathematics being one primary area of student
assessment (HIDOE, 2013; “NAEP state profiles,” 2011). For a variety of reasons, chronic
teacher shortages in Hawai‘i are likely to have a continuing impact on teacher quality and, in
turn, student achievement.
Student Achievement in Hawai‘i
The teacher staffing issues within HIDOE–teacher shortages and a teacher workforce that
is not representative of, or perhaps responsive to, the ethnic diversity of the student population–
have been empirically shown to impact student achievement outside of Hawai‘i. This study is
rooted in the inference that these teacher workforce issues, influenced in part by motivations of
preservice teachers, have similar negative impacts on student achievement in Hawai‘i. In fact, a
variety of data indicate that HIDOE schools and students are underachieving as compared to
national and state benchmarks. In 2014, Education Week gave Hawai‘i a C- grade for K–12
achievement in its public school system, ranking 18
th
among states (Education Week, 2014). In
2013, Hawai‘i ranked ahead of eleven states in 8
th
grade mathematics and ahead of only three
states in 8
th
grade reading and two states in 8
th
grade science on the National Assessment of
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 25

Educational Progress (“NAEP state profiles,” 2013). Even by HIDOE’s own measures, all
students are not achieving proficiency in tested content areas. In the 2012–2013 school year, of
students taking the taking the Hawai‘i State Assessments, only 72% were proficient in Reading,
only 59% were proficient in Mathematics, and only 38% were considered proficient in Science
according to benchmarks set by HIDOE (HIDOE, 2013). In the 2008–2009 school year, HIDOE
had a higher dropout rate than the national average for public schools, 4.9% as compared to 4.1%
(Chapman, Laird, Ifill, & KewalRamani, 2011). In that year, HIDOE also had a lower graduation
rate than the national average, 75.3% as compared to 75.5% (Chapman, Laird, Ifill, &
KewalRamani, 2011). Although the differences between HIDOE and the national average are not
large, there are many states considerably outperforming Hawai‘i in these areas. For example,
Wisconsin had the highest graduation rate among states (90.7%) and Wyoming had the lowest
dropout rate (1.1%; Chapman, Laird, Ifill, & KewalRamani, 2011). Although these data points
do not provide a comprehensive measure or an explanation of student achievement in Hawai‘i,
taken together they suggest that the overall student population in HIDOE is underachieving
academically as compared to national and state benchmarks.
Native Hawaiian and Filipino Student Achievement
The student population in HIDOE, which is not reaching national or state achievement
benchmarks, is exceptionally diverse, making it important to examine sub-group achievement.
Hawai‘i has one of the most ethnically diverse populations in the country. Compared to other
ethnically diverse states, including California, New York, and Texas, Hawai‘i has the largest
non-White population, the most evenly distributed population among racial groups, and the
largest portion of the population self-reporting as “two or more races” (U.S. Census Bureau,
2010a–d). Diversity, however, does not guarantee equity for all segments of the population. In
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 26

the 2010–2011 school year, Native Hawaiians and Filipinos comprised nearly half of students
enrolled in Hawai‘i public schools (HIDOE, 2012b), but disaggregating student achievement
data by racial/ethnic group shows that these groups are underachieving disproportionately to the
collective HIDOE population. For example, Native Hawaiian and Filipino students lag behind
their White, Chinese, and Japanese peers in reading and math achievement tests, and Native
Hawaiian students have the lowest graduation rate, 71.2 percent in 2006, among all ethnic groups
(Kamehameha Schools, 2009). Students in Hawai‘i public schools, in general, are not attaining
state and national educational benchmark goals, but Native Hawaiians and Filipinos are lagging
even further behind.
There are many possible explanations for the achievement gap between Native Hawaiian
and Filipino students and other student groups in HIDOE. In particular, high school graduation,
one measure of academic success, is empirically linked to a variety of risk factors, including
poor health (Breslau, 2010), juvenile crime (Belfield & Levin, 2009), and poverty (Rumberger &
Lim, 2008). With respect to health, Native Hawaiians have the highest rates of obesity and
asthma, and the lowest rates of health insurance coverage and usage in Hawai‘i (Kamehameha
Schools, 2009). Rates of crime against families and children, as well as juvenile arrest rates, are
some of the highest in Hawai‘i for Filipinos and Native Hawaiians (Kamehameha Schools,
2009). Single- and multi-parent Native Hawaiian and Filipino families are among the most likely
to be living in poverty in Hawai‘i (Kana‘iaupuni, Malone, & Ishibashi, 2005). Native Hawaiian
and Filipino students are entangled in multiple factors that statistically work against school
success; however, because teachers play a key role in student achievement, addressing issues that
impact teacher effectiveness could help to improve student outcomes.
The effects of cultural responsiveness and teacher shortages may intersect and magnify
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 27

each other in ways that impact Native Hawaiian and Filipino students disproportionately. The
N!n!kuli and Wai‘anae complexes in west O‘ahu, and Kea‘au, P!hoa, and Ka"# complexes on
Hawai‘i Island have been identified by HIDOE as having notable achievement gaps compared to
the rest of the state, and also as being hard-to-staff (HIDOE, 2011). Each of these complexes,
defined as one high school and the elementary and intermediate/middle schools that feed into it,
serve Native Hawaiian and Filipino communities in proportions greater than the state
percentages (see Table 2 and Appendix A, Figures A3–A4). For example, the census tracts that
encompass the Wai‘anae and N!n!kuli HIDOE complexes range from 44.2 percent to 80.8
percent of the population self-reporting as Hawaiian alone or in combination, as compared to
21.3 percent across the state (Hawaii Statewide GIS Program, 2011e). These same census tracts
range from 16 percent to 34 percent self-reporting as Filipino alone or in combination, as
compared to 25.1 percent across the state (Hawaii Statewide GIS Program, 2011d). In the
Kea‘au, P!hoa, and Ka"# complexes on Hawai‘i Island, the self-reported Hawaiian population,
alone or in combination, ranges from 14.6 percent to 39.4 percent, as compared to 21.3 percent
across the state (Hawaii Statewide GIS Program, 2011b). The self-reported Filipino population in
these complexes ranges from 12.0 percent to 38.1 percent, as compared to 25.1 percent across
the state (Hawaii Statewide GIS Program, 2011a).
The Equity Index (Bensimon, Hao, & Bustillos, 2003) can be used to determine
representation of Hawaiians/Part-Hawaiians and Filipinos in census tracts that correspond to
hard-to-staff complex areas, as compared to the overall state population. Hawaiians/Part-
Hawaiians are self-identified in greater proportion than the state population in fifteen of sixteen
census tracts corresponding to hard-to-staff complexes. Filipinos are self-identified in greater
proportion than the state in nine of sixteen tracts. Tracts with Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian and
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 28

Filipino populations that are overrepresented as compared to the state are highlighted in Table 2.
Table 2
Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian and Filipino Populations in HIDOE Hard-to-Staff Complexes
______________________________________________________________________________

Island
Census
Tract
Complex
Percent
Hawaiian
Hawaiian
Equity Index
Percent
Filipino
Filipino
Equity Index

9400.02 N!n!kuli 80.8 3.8 17.5 0.7
96.03 N!n!kuli/Wai‘anae 48.4 2.3 34.9 1.4
96.08 N!n!kuli/Wai‘anae 58.1 2.7 30.5 1.2
97.01 Wai‘anae 55.3 2.6 28.6 1.1
97.03 Wai‘anae 63.4 3.0 31.6 1.3
97.04 Wai‘anae 55 2.6 28.1 1.1
98.01 Wai‘anae 44.2 2.1 16.0 0.6
O‘ahu
98.02 Wai‘anae 56.2 2.6 30.2 1.2
210.03 Kea‘au/P!hoa 34.5 1.6 29.9 1.2
210.05 Kea‘au/P!hoa 32.3 1.5 26.5 1.1
210.10 Kea‘au 32.4 1.5 16.2 0.6
210.11 Kea‘au 39.4 1.8 22.1 0.9
210.13 Kea‘au (& Waiakea) 29.5 1.4 38.1 1.5
211.01 P!hoa 14.6 0.7 12.0 0.5
211.06 P!hoa 35.1 1.6 23.0 0.9
Hawai‘i
212.02 Ka"# 28.5 1.3 24.3 1.0
______________________________________________________________________________

The schools that serve these communities are reflective of the community population in
terms of racial/ethnic composition. The complex high schools can be taken as examples and
compared to the general student population in HIDOE. As shown in Table 3, each of the five
high schools in the hard-to-staff complexes serve a Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian student population
that is comparatively larger than the population in HIDOE, which is 28 percent (HIDOE, 2012b).
Two of the five high schools serve a Filipino student population that is proportionately greater
than the general HIDOE population, which is 20.6 percent (HIDOE, 2012b). Schools with Equity
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 29

Indexes (Bensimon, Hao, & Bustillos, 2003) for Hawaiians/Part-Hawaiians and Filipinos that are
greater than one are highlighted in Table 3.
Table 3
Equity Index (EI) for Hawaiian and Filipino Populations in Schools in Hard-to-Staff Complexes

Island
Complex
Area
School
Percent
Hawaiian
Hawaiian
Equity Index
Percent
Filipino
Filipino
Equity Index

N!n!kuli* 70.8 2.6 7.6 0.4 O‘ahu N!n!kuli-
Waianae
Wai‘anae 59.3 2.1 12.4 0.6
Ka"#** 42.5 1.5 27.7 1.4
Kea‘au 43.1 1.6 22.9 1.1
Hawai‘i Ka"#-
Kea‘au-
P!hoa
P!hoa* 43.3 1.6 16.5 0.8
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Schools without an asterisk are high schools. Schools marked with an asterisk (*) are
multilevel intermediate/high schools. Schools marked with a double asterisk (**) are multilevel
elementary/high schools. Data are for the 2011–2012 school year (System Evaluation and
Reporting Section, 2012a–e).

The percentages of Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian and Filipino populations described in Tables
2 and 3 are slightly different due to different collection methods and locations. The data used in
Table 2 is United States Census data, reported in terms of census tracts, which can be related to
school complexes. The data used in Table 3 are based on parent-provided data specific to
students in each school. However, the data in both tables demonstrate that the communities
served by schools in hard-to-staff areas, and many of the schools themselves, have higher
populations of Native Hawaiians and Filipinos than state or HIDOE general populations. Further,
the data in these tables are used to approximate student and teacher ethnicities in each given
complex; a data request, which has yet to be approved, has been submitted to HIDOE for teacher
and student ethnicity by complex in an attempt to minimize these approximations with more
specific data.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 30

The five school complexes identified by HIDOE as in need of additional support in some
ways epitomize the issues that this study seeks to examine and address. These “Zones of School
Innovation” have been identified as containing five of the state’s six lowest performing schools
(HIDOE, 2011), in a state with many indicators of overall lower student performance (Education
Week, 2014; NAEP state profiles,” 2013; HIDOE, 2013). Teacher ethnic diversity, cultural
competence, and shortages may each play a role in student performance in these complexes.
Schools in these complexes are hard-to-staff (HIDOE, 2011), which often results in the hiring of
out-of-field and substitute teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2007). In fact, in the 2010–2011 school
year, 78 percent of newly hired teachers in the Leeward District, which encompasses the
Wai‘anae and N!n!kuli complexes, were not licensed teachers or not licensed to teach in
assigned content areas (HIDOE, 2012a), as compared to 63.1% statewide. Underqualified
teachers may contribute to the low student performance in these schools (Clotfelter, Ladd, &
Vigdor, 2007; Darling-Hammond, 2007).
The N!n!kuli and Wai‘anae complexes in west O‘ahu, and Kea‘au, P!hoa, and Ka"#
complexes on Hawai‘i Island serve large Native Hawaiian and Filipino student populations,
which in many cases are proportionately greater than the general HIDOE population. Students at
these schools are very likely not taught by a teacher workforce that represents the ethnicity of the
student population. At N!n!kuli Intermediate/High School, for example, 70.8 percent of students
are identified as Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian (System Evaluation and Reporting Section, 2012c),
while only 9% of the entire HIDOE teaching force self-identifies as Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian
(HIDOE, 2012b). Students can benefit from contact with a teaching staff that is similarly diverse
to the student population (Villegas & Irvine, 2010), benefits that Native Hawaiian and Filipino
students in these “Zones of School Innovation” are likely not receiving. Culturally relevant
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 31

pedagogy has been highlighted as part of the “Zones of School Innovation” program (HIDOE,
2011), thus there is a stated need for teachers of all ethnic groups who are culturally responsive.
Increasing teacher ethnic diversity, employing a culturally competent workforce, and ending
teacher shortages can all be achieved, in part, by judicious recruitment of teacher candidates.
Addressing Teacher Workforce Issues Through Recruitment Programs
Chronic teacher shortages likely negatively impact the general student population in
Hawai‘i public schools (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2007; Darling-Hammond, 2007; Dee &
Cohodes, 2008), while underrepresentation of Native Hawaiian and Filipino students by teachers
may have adverse effects on those sub-groups (Gay, Dingus, & Jackson, 2003; Villegas & Irvine,
2010). However, teacher workforce issues can potentially be addressed through recruitment
programs. Many school districts have implemented incentive programs to recruit teachers,
generally based on economic theories of choice and monetary incentives (Berry & Eckert, 2012;
Guarino, Santibañez, & Daley, 2006; Loeb & Myung, 2010). In a variety of contexts, such
recruitment incentive programs have had a range of results, perhaps due to a mismatch of
incentives to motivations of potential teachers. HIDOE has crafted an array of recruitment
strategies in response to teacher shortages, as outlined in the following section.
HIDOE Teacher Recruitment Incentive Programs
Nineteen HIDOE teacher incentive programs were in effect in the 2006–2007 school year
(Hamamoto, 2007; “Report to Legislature,” 2008). These programs included salary bonuses for
those teaching in geographic areas of shortage (Hamamoto, 2007), and none of the programs
were targeted at increasing teacher diversity with respect to ethnicity. Table 4 outlines the
available monetary programs in effect in the 2006–2007 school year.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 32

Table 4
State of Hawai‘i Department of Education Teacher Recruitment Incentive Programs
______________________________________________________________________________

Program Bonus

Incentives for Hard-to-Fill Teaching Positions
Teaching in geographic areas of need
$3,000 / year
National Board Certification State Support
Completing National Board Certification
$5,000 / year + $1,500 bonus upon
completion + reimbursement of fees
New Teacher Stipends
Special education teacher candidates agreeing to
teach in Hawai‘i for three years
Full tuition
Special Education Relocation Bonuses
Teachers of special education relocating from the
mainland or O‘ahu’s neighbor islands
Not listed
Relocation Bonuses
Teachers of mathematics, science, and English
relocating from the mainland or O‘ahu’s
neighbor islands
West Coast–$1,500–$2,000
East Coast–$4,500–$5,000
Neighbor Island–$500
Return to Special Education Incentive Bonus
Returning to special education after teaching in
general education classroom
$10,000, split into three payments after
each of three years
Troops to Teachers
Members of the Armed Forces transitioning to
careers in teaching
$5,000 for certification program
$10,000 for teaching three years in a high
needs school
______________________________________________________________________________

Additional incentive programs included recognition of certifications from other states, a
career ladder program for educational assistants, a special licensing program for Teach for
America corps members, and other alternative certification programs (Hamamoto, 2007). As
with recruitment programs in other locations (Berry & Eckert, 2012; Guarino, Santibañez, &
Daley, 2006; Loeb & Myung, 2010), HIDOE’s incentive programs have generally been based on
motivating potential teachers through monetary compensation. Also similarly to other
recruitment programs, the effectiveness of HIDOE’s incentives is unclear. According to a report
to the legislature by the Teacher Education Work Force Research Group of the Hawai‘i
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 33

Educational Policy Center (2008), in the 2006–2007 school year, HIDOE’s recruitment programs
resulted in 993 teachers hired, 62% of the total number of new HIDOE teachers hired in that year
(“Report to the legislature,” 2008). No data existed on how many of the hired teachers would
have entered the workforce without additional incentives (“Report to the legislature,” 2008).
Currently, it is unknown whether the incentive programs outlined in the 2007 Hawai‘i
Highly Qualified Teacher Equity Plan (Hamamoto, 2007) have continued. The 2012 version of
the same report lists as incentive programs only a $1,500 bonus for teaching in hard-to-staff
geographic areas and alternative routes to certification (Matayoshi, 2012). A 2010 article in the
Honolulu Civil Beat reported that HIDOE officials, when directly asked, were unable to describe
what teaching positions were difficult to staff, which incentive programs were available, or how
many teachers currently received incentive bonuses (Poythress, 2010). Evidence supporting the
existence of most of the incentive programs outlined five years ago by HIDOE is limited;
however, in spite of the presence of any such programs at present or in the past, teacher
shortages have persisted in Hawai‘i.
Motivation and Teacher Recruitment
The discontinuation of many of the recruitment programs offered by HIDOE in a
downturned economy and the questionable effectiveness of these programs highlight potential
shortcomings of such teacher recruitment incentives. These programs rely on monetary
compensation to attract potential teachers, which in addition to being subject to fluctuations in
the economy, is not supported by research on preservice teacher motivation. Empirical studies
have shown that teacher candidates are motivated to enter the teaching profession by intrinsic
and altruistic values relative to teaching as a career (Chong & Low, 2008; Manuel & Hughes,
2006; Müller, Alliata, & Benninghoff, 2009; Richardson & Watt, 2006; Topkaya & Uztosun,
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 34

2012; Watt & Richardson, 2007; Watt & Richardson, 2008; Watt et al., 2012). The motivations
of those who want to enter the teaching profession are complex, and they are unlikely to be
significantly affected by relatively small lump-sum payments (Müller, Alliata, & Benninghoff,
2009), such as the incentive programs offered by HIDOE. Understanding what motivates teacher
candidates in Hawai‘i to enter the teaching profession may allow HIDOE to create more
appropriate and effective measures to attract teachers in efforts to end teacher shortages and
expand teacher diversity.
Statement of the Problem
An understanding of the motivations of preservice teachers in Hawai‘i may allow for
improved recruitment of HIDOE teachers, which may in turn improve teacher effectiveness and
student achievement. By many metrics, students in Hawai‘i public schools are underachieving.
Native Hawaiian and Filipino students, on average, lag even further behind their peers
(Kamehameha Schools, 2009). Although many factors contribute to student success, and many
Hawai‘i students face hardships at home that make education a greater challenge (Kamehameha
Schools, 2009; Kana‘iaupuni, Malone, & Ishibashi, 2005), teachers are a key factor in student
achievement (Hanushek, 2010; OECD, 2005). A variety of incentive strategies in the past
(Hamamoto, 2007; “Report to Legislature,” 2008) have failed to make a lasting difference in
Hawai‘i’s teacher workforce. Teacher shortages, the underrepresentation of Native Hawaiian and
Filipino students by teachers, and the cultural responsiveness of the teacher workforce could all
be addressed, in part, through targeted recruitment into teacher preparation programs. New
approaches to attracting potential teachers in Hawai‘i may lie in understanding the motivations
of those who have chosen to become teachers and crafting recruitment strategies that appeal to
those with similar values surrounding the teaching profession.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 35

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this mixed methods study was to understand what motivates teacher
candidates in Hawai‘i to choose teaching as a career and to determine how motivations vary
between teacher candidates along three factors, ethnicity, cultural beliefs and awareness, and
preference to teach in hard-to-staff schools. I measured preservice teachers’ motivations for
choosing teaching as a career using the FIT-Choice (Factors Influencing Teaching Choice) Scale
(Watt & Richardson, 2007). Cultural responsiveness was measured using the Pluralism and
Diversity Attitude Assessment (Dee & Henkin, 2002; Stanley, 1996) and one subscale from the
Teacher Beliefs Survey (Woolley, Benjamin, & Woolley, 2004). A researcher-developed survey
was used to collect demographic information. I looked for correlations of the range of motivation
factors assessed by the FIT-Choice Scale to ethnicity and cultural beliefs and awareness. The
motivation factors assessed by the FIT-Choice Scale were also compared to preservice teachers’
preferred geographic locations for teaching. Open-ended questions were used to develop a
descriptive understanding of preservice teachers’ motivations for entering the profession. The
study as designed to collect information that will be useful in recruiting teachers to the workforce
in Hawai‘i, with a focus on staffing schools in hard-to-staff areas, as well as Native Hawaiian
and Filipino teachers.
Research Questions
The research questions driving this study were
RQ1. Why do teacher candidates in Hawai‘i, specifically those who wish to teach in
Hawai‘i public schools, choose to become teachers? What expectations do they
have and what are their values relative to the teaching profession?
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 36

RQ2. How do motivations differ between teacher candidates of different ethnic groups,
and different cultural attitudes and beliefs? In particular, are there significant
differences in motivations between Native Hawaiian and Filipino preservice
teachers and their peers?
RQ3. What motivates teacher candidates to pursue careers in geographic areas with high
teacher shortages? How are these motivations different or similar to teacher
candidates who do not wish to teach in these areas?
Significance of the Study
This study is significant in several ways. First, understanding preservice teacher
motivations may help to address a problem of practice in the state of Hawai‘i. No studies of
motivation for entering the teaching profession in Hawai‘i have been conducted, to my
knowledge. Results from this study will add to the understanding of why preservice teachers in
Hawai‘i have chosen teaching as a career, across dimensions of ethnicity, cultural
responsiveness, and intended teaching location. Understanding these motivations may be useful
in developing teacher recruitment strategies for both HIDOE and for teacher preparation
programs in the state. Second, there is a small body of literature that describes motivations to
teach with respect to race/ethnicity (Kauchak & Burbank, 2003; Su, 1997; Villegas & Irvine,
2010), but none that address Native Hawaiians or Filipinos. While Hawai‘i is a unique social and
cultural context, results from this study may be generalizable to Native Hawaiians and Filipinos
living elsewhere in the United States. California, for example, has a larger population self-
reporting as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander than Hawai‘i (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a, b).
Filipinos make up the second largest Asian ethnicity in the United States, and there are
significant populations of Filipino-Americans in California, New York, and Illinois, in addition
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 37

to Hawai‘i (Hoeffel, Rastogi, Kim, & Shahid, 2012). The results of this study could be used to
inform general teacher recruitment strategies in Hawai‘i and specific recruitment strategies of
Native Hawaiian and Filipino teachers in Hawai‘i and elsewhere.
Definitions
Motivation — factors impacting performance, persistence, and choice, including
components of self-efficacy, control beliefs, interest, value, and goals (Pintrich, 2003)
Expectancies — beliefs regarding abilities to accomplish certain tasks at the present time
or in the future (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000)
Values — importance of a variety of factors to an individual making a decision (Wigfield
& Eccles, 2000)
Preservice teacher/teacher candidate — student enrolled in a teacher preparation
program, which will lead to the ability to obtain licensure/certification
HIDOE — State of Hawai‘i Department of Education, the state agency governing the
centralized K–12 public education system of the state of Hawai‘i
Culturally responsive teaching — describes a teacher and a pedagogy that is
constructivist, aware of and responsive to students’ home lives, socioculturally conscious,
affirming toward diversity, advocating for all students, and uses appropriate instructional
strategies (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, 2007).
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One presents a broad overview
of the study, providing context to and stating the problem, and describing the purpose and
importance of the study. This chapter provides the information necessary to understand the
problem and lays out the rationale for the study. Chapter Two reviews the literature and theories
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 38

that provide a foundation for the study. The main bodies of literature reviewed are those
pertaining to motivational factors influencing teacher career choice and the impact of teacher
shortages and teacher cultural responsiveness on student achievement. Expectancy–value theory
is the theoretical framework used in understanding motivation and defining motivational
variables in the study instrument. Chapter Three outlines the methodology of the study, including
sampling, instrumentation, data collection, data analysis, and limitations. Chapter Four reports
the findings of the study. Finally, Chapter Five concludes with a summary of the findings and
implications for practice and future research.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 39

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Examining the motivations of preservice teachers who choose teaching as a career may
provide insights important in crafting recruitment strategies, as motivation is understood to
influence career choice (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Eccles, Barber, & Jozefowicz, 1998; Lent,
Brown, & Hackett, 2000; Rogers & Creed, 2011) and teacher retention (Haberman, 2004; Watt
& Richardson, 2008). The motivations of teacher candidates are broadly classified as intrinsic,
altruistic, or extrinsic, and they have been shown to vary by gender, ethnicity, age, and culture
(Bastick, 2000; Chong & Low, 2009; Müller, Alliata, & Benninghoff, 2009; Ololube, 2007;
Richardson & Watt, 2006; Sinclair, Dowson, & McInerny, 2006; Topkaya & Uztosun, 2012;
Watt & Richardson, 2007; Watt & Richardson, 2008; Watt et al., 2012; Yong, 1995). Evidence
of variation in preservice teacher motivation across cultures (Bastick, 2000; Kauchak and
Burbank, 2003; Ololube, 2007; Richardson & Watt, 2010; Su, 1997; Yong, 1995) suggests that
Hawai‘i, with a diversity of ethnic groups and cultures, is a unique setting for studying the
motivations of preservice teachers.
Academic achievement of students in Hawai‘i’s public school system is attributable to a
complex array of factors; however, the critical role of teachers in student achievement is well
understood (Hanushek, 2010; OECD, 2005). Teacher diversity (Villegas & Irvine, 2010), teacher
cultural responsiveness (Gay, Dingus, & Jackson, 2003; Gay, 2010; Villegas & Irvine, 2010),
and teacher shortages (Darling-Hammond, 2007) are all known to impact student success and are
likely factors in student achievement in Hawai‘i’s public school. The Hawai‘i State Department
of Education (HIDOE) has a teacher workforce that does not represent the ethnic diversity of the
students it serves (HIDOE, 2010b), which may impact multiple student outcomes for students of
all ethnicities (Villegas & Irvine, 2010). Additionally, in Hawai‘i, pedagogy that is culturally
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 40

responsive to Native Hawaiian or Filipino students, the two largest student ethnic groups
(HIDOE, 2012b), is not being employed extensively (Halagao, 2004; Kana‘iaupuni, Ledward, &
Jensen, 2010), though cultural responsiveness is theorized to be an important cultivator of
academic success (Gay, 2010; Villegas & Irvine, 2010). Although HIDOE has implemented a
variety of recruitment incentives in the past, some school complexes are still considered hard-to-
staff (HIDOE, 2011), which likely impacts the overall teacher quality in those areas (Darling-
Hammond, 2007).
Indeed, a variety of indicators show that students in Hawai‘i public schools are not
achieving the levels of academic success targeted by national and state standards (“NAEP state
profiles,” 2013; HIDOE, 2013), and that Native Hawaiian and Filipino students lag behind their
peers (Kamehameha Schools, 2009). The motivations of teacher candidates in Hawai‘i have
never been examined, and a detailed and differentiated examination of these motivations may be
beneficial in creating programs that attract effective teachers to Hawai‘i’s public schools in order
to raise student achievement. This chapter reviews the major bodies of literature necessary to
provide context for understanding and answering the research questions, including expectancy–
value theory of motivation and motivation relative to teacher career choice, ethnicity, cultural
responsiveness and desire to teach in hard-to-staff schools.
Addressing the Research Questions
This study is designed to examine the following research questions
RQ1. Why do teacher candidates in Hawai‘i, specifically those who wish to teach in
Hawai‘i public schools, choose to become teachers? What expectations do they
have and what are their values relative to the teaching profession?
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 41

RQ2. How do motivations differ between teacher candidates of different ethnic groups,
and different cultural attitudes and beliefs? In particular, are there significant
differences in motivations between Native Hawaiian and Filipino preservice
teachers and their peers?
RQ3. What motivates teacher candidates to pursue careers in geographic areas with high
teacher shortages? How are these motivations different or similar to teacher
candidates who do not wish to teach in these areas?
Each research question was investigated and interpreted through the lens of expectancy–
value theory (EVT), a social cognitive theory of motivation. Thus, expectancy–value theory
(EVT) is reviewed first, and subsequent discussion of motivation is connected to EVT. The first
research question (RQ1) entails a description of preservice teacher motivation with respect to
choosing teaching as a career in Hawai‘i, thus studies examining motivation to become a teacher
via a social cognitive perspective are presented. The second research question (RQ2) is designed
to examine motivations to teach by ethnicity and cultural attitudes and beliefs. Studies examining
the importance of a diverse and culturally responsive teacher workforce and motivation of
teacher candidates with respect to ethnicity and cultural beliefs and awareness are presented. The
third research question (RQ3) addresses motivations of teacher candidates who desire to teach in
geographic shortage areas in HIDOE. To provide the background necessary to understand RQ3,
the impact of teacher shortages on student achievement is reviewed in greater detail. Empirical
literature specifically examining motivations to teach by geographic location is also presented.
Finally, the implications of the bodies of research reviewed in this chapter, in terms of
addressing teacher shortages and increasing teacher cultural responsiveness in Hawai‘i, is
described.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 42

Expectancy–Value Theory
A variety of theoretical lenses have been used to study why teachers choose to teach,
including organizational (Stolovitch, Clark, & Condly, 2002), economic (Corcoran, Evans, &
Schwab, 2004; Guarino, Santibañez, & Daley, 2006; Hanushek & Pace, 1995; Kirby &
Grissmer, 1993; Madkins, 2011; Scott, 2000), and social cognitive. Social cognitive theories
applied to teacher motivation studies have included expectancy–value theory (Richardson &
Watt, 2006; Topkaya & Uztosun, 2012; Watt & Richardson, 2007, 2008; Watt et al., 2012),
cognitive evaluation theory, self-determination theory, organization theory (Müller, Alliata, &
Benninghoff, 2009), frame-of-reference motivation theory, adaptive motivation theory (Sinclair,
Dowson, & McInerney, 2006), and two-factor theory of motivation (Ololube, 2007). Cognitive
theories of motivation focus on the expectations and beliefs of individuals relative to a specific
task or outcome, such as teaching. The cognitive motivation group of theories includes
expectancy–value theory, social learning theory, goal orientation theory, and attribution theory
(Tollefson, 2000).
Expectancy–value theory was used as the major framework for data collection and
analysis and is the theoretical basis for the FIT-Choice Scale motivation survey instrument (Watt
& Richardson, 2007) used in this study. This review of EVT includes the theoretical framework,
a review of empirical evidence supporting the constructs of the theory, an assessment of the
strengths and weaknesses of EVT, and implications for this study.
Theoretical Framework
Modern expectancy–value theory, as described in the seminal paper by Wigfield and
Eccles (2000), is rooted in the expectancy–value model of Atkinson (described in Wigfield,
Tonks, & Eccles, 2004). The expectancy–value theory outlined by Wigfield and Eccles (2000) is
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 43

based on the assumption that expectancies and values directly influence achievement choices,
performance, effort, and persistence. Referred to hereafter as the Wigfield–Eccles model, this
model was described by Wigfield and Eccles (2000) and developed with contributions by others
(Eccles et al., 1983; Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990; Wigfield et al., 1997).
Expectancy
Eccles et al. (1983) defined expectancy in terms of both ability beliefs and expectancies.
Ability beliefs are “the individual’s perception of his or her current competence at a given
activity” (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Expectancies are “beliefs about how well [one] will do on
upcoming tasks, either in the immediate or longer term future” (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). The
authors distinguish ability beliefs as focused on present ability, while expectancies relate to
future success. For example, on an evaluation instrument, an item assessing ability beliefs asks
“How good in math are you” while an item assessing expectancy asks “How well do you expect
to do in math this year?” (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Although theoretically differentiated, the
constructs of expectancy and ability beliefs are empirically related (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).
According to the Wigfield–Eccles model, expectancy is influenced by a number of factors
including self-schemata, goals, ideal self, self-concept of one’s abilities, and perceptions of task
demands (Figure 2). Generally, the Wigfield–Eccles model assesses ability beliefs and
expectancies within domains, rather than in specific activities (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). For the
purposes of this study, expectancies were measured in terms of ability beliefs (Watt &
Richardson, 2007) relative to the domain of teaching, including beliefs about possessing the
skills and qualities of a good teacher.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 44

Value
The Wigfield–Eccles model (2000) defines four value components, attainment value,
intrinsic value, utility value, and cost. Intrinsic value is the enjoyment inherent to doing the task
(Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), and in this study, is related to individuals’ interest in and desire for a
teaching career (Watt & Richardson, 2007). Attainment value refers to the importance of doing
well on a given task (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). For this study, subjective attainment value
describes the extent to which becoming a teacher is important to achieving one’s personal goals,
and includes the constructs of time for family, job security, and job transferability (Watt &
Richardson, 2007). Utility value is the perceived importance of a given task to an individual’s
future plans (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). The future plans considered in this study are specific to
the desire to contribute to society, and include making social contributions, enhancing social
equity, shaping the future of children/adolescents, and working with children/adolescents (Watt
& Richardson, 2007). Finally, cost includes how much effort an activity will require, how
choosing an activity will limit access to other activities, and the emotional toll of the activity
(Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). In this study, cost is related to task demand and task return (Watt &
Richardson, 2007).
The Wigfield–Eccles EVT model, illustrated in Figure 2, includes a wide range of factors
that shape a person’s values and expectancies. These factors are multiple, complex, and
intertwined. In this study, a limited number of factors that influence expectancies and values,
including prior teaching and learning experiences and social influences, as well as teaching as a
fallback career (Watt & Richardson, 2007), were assessed in addition to expectancies and
values.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 45

Figure 2. Wigfield and Eccles expectancy–value model (adapted from Wigfield & Eccles, 2002),
showing influences on expectations and values, which in turn shape achievement-related choices.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Wigfield–Eccles Model of EVT
One strength of the Wigfield–Eccles model of expectancy–value theory is its foundation
in and connection to other theoretical constructs, such as Bandura’s self-efficacy, Battle’s theory
of task persistence, Deci and Ryan’s definitions of intrinsic value, interest value, and utility value
(as described in Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), the motivation orientations of Houle (1988), and
developmental and adult learning theories (King & Kitchener, 2005; Love & Guthrie, 2005).
Eccles and Wigfield relate their construct of expectancy to Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy
(described in Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), agreeing with Bandura’s assertion that efficacy
expectations are more predictive of performance and choice than outcome expectations. The
value component of the Wigfield–Eccles model builds on Battle’s theory of task persistence and
relates to Deci and Ryan’s definitions of intrinsic value, interest value, and utility value
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 46

(Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). The major connections of Wigfield–Eccles EVT to other theoretical
constructs are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5
Alignment of Wigfield–Eccles EVT to Related Theories
______________________________________________________________________________

Major Theory Connection of Wigfield–Eccles Model of Expectancy–Value
Theory to Other Major Theories

Bandura

Self-Efficacy
Efficacy expectations are more predictive of performance and
choice than outcome expectations.
Battle

Task Persistence
Attainment value is the importance of doing well on a task.
Deci & Ryan

Values
Intrinsic value is the enjoyment one gains from doing a task.
Houle

Learning Orientations
Learners can be oriented towards achieving a future goal
(Houle’s goal-orientation, Wigfield–Eccles’ utility or attainment
values) or education for its own sake (Houle’s learning-
orientation, Wigfield-Eccles’ intrinsic value).
Kegan; King & Kitchener

Adult Development Theories
As individuals mature, their self-perception, perceptions of their
environments, and experiences change, likely impacting
expectancies and values.
______________________________________________________________________________

The Wigfield–Eccles model is grounded in research on children and adolescents (Eccles
et al., 1989; Eccles et al., 1983; Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990;
Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield, Eccles, Mac Iver, Reuman, & Midgley, 1991; Wigfield et al., 1997;
Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). The grounding of the Wigfield–Eccles model in research on children
and adolescents may be considered a weakness of the theory in application to adults, as other
models of expectancy–value theory were conceptualized and tested based on adult learners (e.g.
Feather, 1988). However, adult learning and development theories support the basic premises of
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 47

the Wigfield–Eccles model. For example, the values outlined by Wigfield and Eccles can be
aligned to Houle’s (1988) motivation orientations of adult learners (see Table 5). Additionally,
evidence that ability-related beliefs and task values change as a child grows (Wigfield & Eccles,
2000), are consistent with development theory. For example, as one moves through Kegan’s
orders of consciousness (Love & Guthrie, 2005), one’s self-perception and thinking change.
Further, as individuals develop cognitively and their knowledge and epistemology evolve (King
& Kitchener, 2005), their perceptions and interpretations of their environment and experiences
are also likely to change. As one progresses developmentally and cognitively (King & Kitchener,
2005; Love & Guthrie, 2005), from childhood through adolescence and into adulthood,
expectancies and values are likely to change (see Table 5). Empirically, the Wigfield–Eccles
model has been extrapolated to adults, including adult learning, academic choices, and career
choice, in a variety of contexts (e.g., Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman, 2010;
Delialioglu, Cakir, Bichelmeyer, Dennis, & Duffy, 2010; Matusovich, Streveler, & Miller, 2010;
Parkes & Jones, 2011). Thus, the Wigfield–Eccles model is appropriate for the adult population
in this study.
Another strength of the Wigfield–Eccles model is its support by substantial empirical
research (Eccles et al., 1989; Eccles et al., 1983; Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; Meece, Wigfield, &
Eccles, 1990; Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield et al., 1991; Wigfield et al., 1997; Wigfield & Eccles,
1992). Bong and Skaalvik (2003) have questioned whether expectancies and value judgments are
empirically distinguishable. However, within different domains, children and adolescents are
able to distinguish between ability beliefs and subjective task values as well as between
attainment, interest, and utility values (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Additionally, across multiple
studies, the authors found that, while theoretically distinguished from each other, ability beliefs
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 48

and expectancies are empirically indistinguishable for children and adolescents (Wigfield &
Eccles, 2000), supporting the loading together of ability beliefs and expectancies. Evidence
showing differentiation of expectancies and values, as well as changes in expectancies and
values with personal experience, supports the theoretical constructs of expectancy and value of
the Wigfield–Eccles EVT model.
One potential issue with the Wigfield–Eccles model relevant to this study centers on
generalizability of findings. Specifically, questions have been raised from a critical theory
perspective about the applicability of expectancy–value theory to non-Western cultures. Otsuka
and Smith (2005) concluded that EVT does not apply to East Asians, who generally believe that
hard work can overcome a perceived lack of ability. An alternate interpretation, however, could
be that the value of the work may outweigh expectancies relative to the task, causing an
individual to choose to pursue the task. Wigfield and Eccles (2002) cautioned that differences
within groups can be larger than differences between groups, but have also indicated their belief
that the model is “particularly well-suited for a cultural analysis of motivation and activity
choices” (Wigfield, Tonks, & Eccles, 2004). Although transferability issues should be
considered when using the Wigfield–Eccles model, the theoretical grounding and empirical
support of the model make it suitable for use in this study.
Implications of EVT in Studying the Motivation of Preservice Teachers
While the Wigfield–Eccles expectancy–value theory of achievement choice is supported
by evidence from studies of children and adolescents, the theory has been applied widely to adult
motivation and choice, including in examining motivations of individuals who choose teaching
as a career. Watt and Richardson (2007) developed an instrument to assess factors influencing
teaching choice, the FIT-Choice Scale, based on the framework of the Wigfield–Eccles EVT
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 49

model. The FIT-Choice Scale has been used to study the motivations of preservice teachers in
Australia, the United States, Germany, Norway, and Turkey (Richardson & Watt, 2006; Topkaya
& Uztosun, 2012; Watt & Richardson, 2007; Watt & Richardson, 2008; Watt et al., 2012). Based
on the use of the FIT-Choice scale in several countries, and the flexibility of Wigfield–Eccles
EVT model in being applied across cultures, there are implications for utilizing these
frameworks to analyze teacher motivation in Hawai‘i.
Motivation and Teacher Career Choice
Motivation plays a key role in many processes, including learning and decision-making
(Pintrich, 2003). According to social cognitive career theory (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000),
choice of educational and occupational pursuits hinges on the interplay of environmental
variables and cognitive–person variables, such as efficacy and outcome expectations. Research
Question 1 (RQ1) asks
Why do teacher candidates in Hawai‘i, specifically those who wish to teach in Hawai‘i
public schools, choose to become teachers? What expectations do they have and what are
their values relative to the teaching profession?
Answering this question entails a description of the motivation factors of a sample of preservice
teachers. Social cognitive research on preservice teacher motivation often differentiates
motivations as intrinsic, altruistic, and extrinsic (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992). These intrinsic,
altruistic, and extrinsic classifications can be compared to expectancy–value theory, although
Wigfield and Eccles (2000) caution that “values constructs [of the Wigfield–Eccles model] and
constructs of intrinsic and extrinsic value and interest come from distinct theoretical perspectives
and so have different intellectual roots” (p. 73).
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 50

In this study, the expectancy–value factors of the FIT-Choice Scale (Watt & Richardson,
2007) were used to describe preservice teacher motivation. These factors were developed based
on the authors’ conceptualization of the Wigfield–Eccles EVT constructs, in an effort to create a
more systematic and theory-driven instrument to assess motivation of preservice teachers (Watt
& Richardson, 2007). It is important to situate the specific EVT and FIT-Choice constructs into
the broader motivation classifications in order to avoid confusion of similar terminology and to
facilitate discussion of the wide-ranging scope of teacher motivation literature, which
encompasses a variety of theoretical frameworks.
Eccles and Wigfield described their definition of intrinsic value as being closely aligned
with the construct of intrinsic motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Intrinsic and altruistic
motivations sometimes overlap in the literature (Watt et al., 2012), but the Wigfield–Eccles
model clearly defines intrinsic value as “the enjoyment the individual gets from performing the
activity or the subjective interest the individual has in the subject” (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002,
p.120). Wigfield and Eccles defined utility value as how well a task relates to current and future
goals, specifying that these goals may be external or internalized (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). In
the FIT-Choice scale (Watt & Richardson, 2007), utility value factors are specific to social utility
value, including making social contributions and enhancing social equity. These constructs align
well with altruistic reasons for teaching described in the literature (Watt & Richardson, 2007).
Thus, where altruistic and intrinsic motivations overlap in the literature, clear factors and
constructs are defined by the Wigfield–Eccles EVT model and the FIT-Choice Scale (see Table
6).
Both the FIT-Choice Scale (Watt & Richardson, 2007) and the Wigfield–Eccles EVT
model (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) differentiate intrinsic values from ability beliefs. Although
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 51

ability beliefs are not specifically examined in much of the teacher motivation literature, the idea
of being able to develop professional skills, which is related to ability beliefs, has been reported
as an intrinsic motivator in some research (Müller, Alliata, & Benninghoff, 2009; Yong, 1995).
Table 6
Alignment of Wigfield–Eccles EVT Values with Motivation Classifications
______________________________________________________________________________

EVT Construct FIT-Choice Scale Factors Motivation Classification

Expectancies Ability beliefs Intrinsic
Intrinsic Value Intrinsic career value Intrinsic
Utility Value • Social utility value
• Making social contributions
• Enhancing social equity
• Shaping the future of children/adolescents
• Working with children/adolescents
Altruistic
Attainment Value
(Importance)
• Personal utility value
• Time for family
• Job security
• Job transferability
Extrinsic
Cost • Task demand
• Expertise
• Difficulty
• Task return
• Social status
• Salary
Extrinsic
Influencing
Factors
• Prior teaching and learning experiences
• Social influences
Extrinsic
______________________________________________________________________________

Extrinsic motivations, as reported in the literature, generally encompass the EVT
constructs of attainment value and cost. According to the Wigfield–Eccles model, attainment
value includes the personal importance of doing well on a task (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Watt
and Richardson (2007) interpreted attainment value in terms of the value of teaching as a career
for reasons independent of the content of the career itself, including time for family and job
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 52

security. These factors align most closely with extrinsic motivators cited in the literature,
including job security and work–life balance (Manuel & Hughes, 2006; Müller, Alliata, &
Benninghoff, 2009; Richardson & Watt, 2006; Topkaya & Uztosun, 2012; Watt & Richardson,
2007; Watt & Richardson, 2008; Watt et al., 2012). Cost, as defined by Eccles and Wigfield,
includes both monetary cost and any negative aspects of engaging in the task (Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002). The task demand and task return factors in the FIT-Choice scale (Watt &
Richardson, 2007) include factors of the demand of teaching as a career and the payoff in terms
of social status, teacher morale, and salary. Social status and salary have been reported as
extrinsic motivators in the literature (Bastick, 2000; Müller, Alliata, & Benninghoff, 2009;
Ololube, 2007; Yong, 1995). Additionally, some of the factors that influence expectancies and
values (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) are conceptualized by Watt and Richardson (2007) as prior
teaching and learning experiences and social influences, which have been categorized as
extrinsic motivators (Chong & Low, 2009). Table 6 summarizes the alignment of the constructs
of the Wigfield–Eccles model of EVT and the FIT-Choice Scale factors with the major
categories of motivation classifications.
The body of literature interpreting career choice of teachers through a social cognitive
framework is reviewed in this section. For the purposes of this review, the broad motivation
classification terms, intrinsic, altruistic, and extrinsic, are used. This review focuses on studies
that examined motivations of preservice teachers to enter the teaching profession, with the
exception of one study that examined in-service teachers (Ololube, 2007), included as a point of
cultural comparison. The framework of motivations and study limitations of Brookhart and
Freeman (1992) is used to analyze the literature; thus only studies conducted after the Brookhart
and Freeman analysis were included. Representations of Western/non-Western and
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 53

developed/developing countries were included. Studies that disaggregated results by ethnicity are
examined separately.
Classifications of Motivations and Limitations of Motivation Studies
Based on a metaanalysis of 44 studies of characteristics of entering teacher candidates,
Brookhart and Freeman (1992) classified motivations for choosing teaching as intrinsic,
extrinsic, and altruistic. The authors also identified four major shortcomings of studies of teacher
characteristics, overemphasis on survey methodology, single institution design, inadequate
distinction among subpopulations, and an absence of theoretical or historical contexts. The
authors argued that survey methodology might not accurately capture students’ beliefs about
teaching (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992). At the time that the metaanalysis was conducted, much
of the literature focused on a handful of universities, which limited generalizability of findings
(Brookhart & Freeman, 1992). Several subgroups were identified by the authors as important to
consider, including gender, grade or subject intended to teach, and type of program (Brookhart &
Freeman, 1992). At the time of the study, lack of sampling of these subgroups meant that teacher
candidates were treated as a monolithic entity. Finally, the authors criticized the lack of context,
both theoretical and historical, in the studies they reviewed (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992).
More recent studies have attempted to correct some of the shortcomings of prior work,
but many studies continue to use the intrinsic, extrinsic, and altruistic motivation classifications.
It is important to note that the meanings of intrinsic, extrinsic, and altruistic motivations differ
between researchers. In the following sections, the meanings of each of these terms and findings
across the literature related to each type of motivation are explored.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 54

Intrinsic motivation. Definitions of intrinsic motivation are varied. Research done by
the FIT-Choice group (Richardson & Watt, 2006; Watt & Richardson, 2007; Watt & Richardson,
2008; Watt et al., 2012) defines intrinsic career value as interest in teaching and desire to teach,
which aligns with the definitions of Bastick (2000), Chong and Low (2009), Topkaya and
Uztosun (2012), and Yong (1995). Yong (1995) also considers opportunity for personal
development as a key intrinsic motivator. Manuel and Hughes (2006) distinguish personal
fulfillment and enjoyment of subject from “intrinsic desire,” where other studies group these
factors together in a category of intrinsic value. Müller, Alliata, and Benninghoff (2009) do not
identify intrinsic factors, rather include motivations such as finding teaching useful and
interesting, across several categories. The variety of definitions of intrinsic motivation suggests
that interpretation of intrinsic motivations for becoming a teacher should be considered on a
study-by-study basis.
Intrinsic motivations for choosing to teach have been described by a number of studies.
In a large scale (N = 2290) survey study of teacher candidates from Australia, the United States,
Germany, and Norway (Watt et al., 2012), the authors found intrinsic motivations consistently
rated as one of the top reasons for entering the teaching profession across countries, although
ratings varied by country. A survey study of 306 teacher candidates in Switzerland found that
what may be considered as intrinsic motivations, such as enjoying teaching, feeling that the
profession could be exercised with passion, and interest in didactic and pedagogical aspects of
teaching ranked high in motivation in becoming a teacher (Müller, Alliata, & Benninghoff,
2009). Interestingly, the authors of this study suggested that those types of motivations are the
least likely to be influenced by policy measures meant to recruit teachers (Müller, Alliata, &
Benninghoff, 2009). Research has shown the intrinsic value of teaching as a highly rated factor
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 55

in influencing teaching choice in Australia (Manuel & Hughes, 2006; Richardson & Watt, 2006;
Watt & Richardson, 2007; Watt & Richardson, 2008), Singapore (Chong & Low, 2008), and
Turkey (Topkaya & Uztosun, 2012). Thus, intrinsic motivators are expected to be important to
preservice teachers in Hawai‘i.
Altruistic motivation. Altruistic motivations for teaching are commonly expressed, in
addition to intrinsic motivations, as important to choosing the teaching profession. In Turkey,
social utility values, including influencing the next generation and providing service to society,
were ranked as most important to choosing teaching as a career, above intrinsic values (Topkaya
& Uztosun, 2012). Two altruistic reasons for becoming a teacher, contributing to society and
shaping the future of children and adolescents, were found to be nearly as important as intrinsic
values in the United States, Australia, Germany, Norway, and Singapore (Chong & Low, 2009;
Richardson & Watt, 2006; Watt & Richardson, 2007; Watt & Richardson, 2008). Swiss
preservice teachers ranked altruistic reasons, such as putting values into practice, wishing to help
children succeed, and improving society as important motivators for becoming a teacher (Müller,
Alliata, & Benninghoff, 2009). As with intrinsic motivators, however, altruistic motivators may
be difficult to influence by policy measures (Müller, Alliata, & Benninghoff, 2009). As altruistic
motivators are important to choosing teaching as a career across cultures, it is expected that they
will also be relevant to preservice teachers in Hawai‘i.
An issue in understanding motivation relative to teacher career choice, as noted by Watt
and colleagues (2012), is the operationalization of intrinsic and altruistic values. Across the
studies noted in this review, altruistic values generally include working with young people,
contributing to society, and positively influencing youth, both socially and academically
(Bastick, 2000; Chong & Low, 2009; Müller, Alliata, & Benninghoff, 2009; Richardson & Watt,
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 56

2006; Topkaya & Uztosun, 2012; Watt & Richardson, 2007; Watt & Richardson, 2008; Watt et
al., 2012; Yong, 1995). However, Ololube (2007) and Sinclair, Dowson, and McInerney (2006)
do not distinguish altruistic motivation, identifying only intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Roness
and Smith (2010) group known intrinsic and altruistic values together and do not differentiate
between the two in their results. Chong and Low (2009) cite “answering a calling” as an
altruistic value, although “answering a calling” might alternately be interpreted as an intrinsic
value. In general, there exists overlap between the intrinsic and altruistic categorizations of
motivation, which further justifies the use of the less ambiguous constructs of the Wigfield–
Eccles EVT model (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) and the factors of the FIT-Choice Scale (Watt &
Richardson, 2007) in this study.
Extrinsic motivation. Although intrinsic and altruistic motivations generally
predominate preservice teachers’ reasons for choosing teaching as a career, extrinsic motivations
do come into play. Job security and work–life balance are cited, across multiple countries, as
extrinsic motivators for choosing teaching as a profession (Manuel & Hughes, 2006; Müller,
Alliata, & Benninghoff, 2009; Richardson & Watt, 2006; Topkaya & Uztosun, 2012; Watt &
Richardson, 2007; Watt & Richardson, 2008; Watt et al., 2012), while other extrinsic motivators,
such as salary, are generally less important. Chong and Low (2009) found that in a sample of 605
teacher candidates in Singapore, nearly 10 percent of participants listed extrinsic motivators,
such as financial reasons or influence of others, as their main reason for becoming teachers.
Müller, Alliata, and Benninghoff (2009) noted that extrinsic motivations are more responsive to
teacher recruitment measures than intrinsic or altruistic values, although these values are not of
great importance to many who choose the teaching profession.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 57

Extrinsic motivators play a small role in preservice teacher career choice in many
countries, but are most important in some sociocultural contexts. Extrinsic factors have been
found to be significant motivators of teacher career choice or satisfaction in Brunei (Yong,
1995), Nigeria (Ololube, 2007), and Cameroon, the Caribbean, and Zimbabwe (Bastick, 2000;
Richardson & Watt, 2010). Extrinsic motivators in these countries were not limited to job
security or family time, relevant extrinsic motivators in countries where intrinsic and altruistic
motivators are more important. For example, in Brunei, preservice teachers indicated having no
other career choice as the most important reason for choosing teaching as a career (Yong, 1995).
An interview and survey-based study by Bastick (2000) showed that, in Jamaica, the perception
of teaching as the profession with the most holidays was the main factor identified in teacher
career choice. Bastick (2000) hypothesizes, based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, that these
differences in teacher motivation are caused by discrepancies between developing and
metropolitan countries; intrinsic and altruistic motivations are less important when basic needs
are not met. As the importance of extrinsic motivators varies greatly across cultures, the value of
these motivators to preservice teachers in Hawai‘i may vary as well.
Addressing Shortcomings of Preservice Teacher Motivation Studies
The shortcomings of teacher career choice motivation studies, as outlined by Brookhart
and Freeman in 1992, have been addressed to various degrees in subsequent studies. The use of
survey methodology, the use of single institution design, distinction between subpopulations, and
the theoretical context in each study examined in this review are summarized in Table 7. All of
the included studies used survey methodology. Two studies (Roness & Smith, 2010; Yong,
1995) incorporated open-ended questions. Bastick (2000) developed the questionnaire used in
the study using an exploratory interview of trainee teachers to determine prevalent reasons for
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 58

joining the profession. Over half of the studies examined in this review employed single-
institution design (Chong & Low, 2009; Manuel & Hughes, 2006; Sinclair, Dowson, &
McInerney, 2006; Topkaya & Uztosun, 2012; Watt & Richardson, 2007; Yong, 1995). Three
studies disaggregated results by gender (Müller, Alliata, & Benninghoff, 2009; Ololube, 2007;
Topkaya & Uztosun, 2012), one study considered subpopulations by age (Sinclair, Dowson, &
McInerney, 2006), and one study examined motivation by education level (Müller, Alliata, &
Benninghoff, 2009).
Many of the studies are grounded in theory, including expectancy–value theory of
motivation (Richardson & Watt, 2006; Topkaya & Uztosun, 2012; Watt & Richardson, 2007,
2008; Watt et al., 2012), cognitive evaluation theory, self-determination theory, organization
theory (Müller, Alliata, & Benninghoff, 2009), frame-of-reference motivation theory, adaptive
motivation theory (Sinclair, Dowson, & McInerney, 2006), and two-factor theory of motivation
(Ololube, 2007). However, other studies examined motivation through a blend of several theories
of motivation or through the intrinsic/altruistic/extrinsic classifications summarized by Brookhart
and Freeman (1992). None of the studies examined in this review have addressed all of the
shortcomings outlined by Brookhart and Freeman (1992).
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 59

Table 7
Research Studies Examined in This Review in Terms of Four Methodological Shortcomings
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Yong (1995)
Yes
(with open-ended questions)
One Bruneian university No Loosely related to two or more theories
Bastick (2000) Yes
Teacher training colleges across
Jamaica
No Loosely related to two or more theories
Manuel & Hughes
(2006)
Yes One Australian university No Loosely related to two or more theories
Richardson & Watt
(2006)
Yes Three Australian universities No Expectancy–value theory
Sinclair, Dowson, &
McInerny (2006)
Yes One Australian university By age
Frame-of-reference motivation theory,
adaptive motivation theory
Ololube (2007) Yes
In-service teachers at a variety of
Nigerian schools
By gender Two-factor theory of motivation
Watt & Richardson
(2007)
Yes One Australian university No Expectancy–value theory
Watt & Richardson
(2008)
Yes Three Australian universities No Expectancy–value theory
Chong & Low (2009) Yes One Singaporean university No Loosely related to two or more theories
Müller, Alliata, &
Benninghoff (2009)
Yes
All teachers entering Geneva
Education Department
By education
level and gender
Cognitive evaluation theory, self-
determination theory, organization
theory
Roness & Smith (2010)
Yes
(with open-ended questions)
Four Norwegian universities No Loosely related to two or more theories
Topkaya & Uztosun
(2012)
Yes One Turkish university By gender Expectancy–value theory
Watt et al. (2012) Yes
Participants in Australia, the U.S.,
Germany, Norway
By country, but
not within country
Expectancy–value theory
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Study Survey Methodology? Single institution design?
Subpopulations
addressed?
Theoretical context?
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 60

Summary
The first research question (RQ1) in this study seeks to elicit a general description of
motivations of preservice teachers to enter the profession in Hawai‘i. The specific constructs of
the Wigfield–Eccles EVT model (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) and the factors of the FIT-Choice
Scale (Watt & Richardson, 2007) were used to understand and describe motivation in this study,
but a variety of frameworks have been used by other researchers. Motivations are often broadly
categorized as intrinsic, altruistic, or extrinsic (as in Brookhart & Freeman, 1992) across the
research literature. There is some overlap between these categorizations and the constructs and
factors of the Wigfield–Eccles EVT model (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) and the factors of the FIT-
Choice Scale (Watt & Richardson, 2007). However, the broader motivation categorizations used
throughout the literature are used in this literature review.
Overall, teachers choose the profession primarily because of intrinsic and altruistic
motivations (Bastick, 2000; Chong & Low, 2009; Müller, Alliata, & Benninghoff, 2009;
Richardson & Watt, 2006; Topkaya & Uztosun, 2012; Watt & Richardson, 2007; Watt &
Richardson, 2008; Watt et al., 2012; Yong, 1995). Extrinsic motivations also play a role in
teacher career choice, though to a lesser extent than intrinsic and altruistic motivations in many
cultures (Manuel & Hughes, 2006; Müller, Alliata, & Benninghoff, 2009; Richardson & Watt,
2006; Topkaya & Uztosun, 2012; Watt & Richardson, 2007; Watt & Richardson, 2008; Watt et
al., 2012). These general studies of motivations of preservice teachers are limited by several
aspects of research design, including overemphasis on survey methodology, single institution
designs, inadequate distinction among subpopulations, and an absence of theoretical or historical
contexts (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992). This study will contribute to the literature by addressing
these shortcomings, including describing motivation from the theoretical context of EVT.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 61

Teacher Ethnicity, Cultural Responsiveness, and Motivation
Ethnic diversity in the teacher workforce has been advocated for based on the capacity of
teachers of color to serve as role models, to end workforce shortages in hard-to-staff schools, and
to improve a variety of student outcomes (Villegas & Irvine, 2010). The cultural responsiveness
of all teachers (Gay, Dingus, & Jackson, 2003; Villegas & Irvine, 2010) has also been associated
with positive student outcomes. Culturally responsiveness of teachers includes sociocultural
consciousness, an affirming attitude toward students from culturally diverse backgrounds,
commitment and skills to act as agents of change, constructivist views of learning, learning about
students, and culturally responsive teaching practices (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, 2007). In
Hawai‘i, the two largest student ethnic groups, Native Hawaiians and Filipinos, are
underrepresented by teachers (HIDOE, 2012b) and are likely not being taught using culturally
responsive practices (Kana‘iaupuni, Ledward, & Jensen, 2010; Halagao, 2004), which may
contribute to the levels of academic success of Native Hawaiian and Filipino students that are
behind those of their peers (Kamehameha Schools, 2009). An understanding of how the
motivations of preservice teachers differ by ethnicity and cultural beliefs and attitudes may
contribute to recruitment programs that could begin to address teacher workforce issues in
Hawai‘i. The second research question (RQ2) in this study is
How do motivations differ between teacher candidates of different ethnic groups, and
different cultural attitudes and beliefs? In particular, are there significant differences in
motivations between Native Hawaiian and Filipino preservice teachers and their peers?
This section explores the impact of teacher ethnicity and cultural responsiveness, including
cultural beliefs and attitudes, on student achievement. Literature related to the differences in
motivation to teach by ethnicity and cultural responsiveness is also reviewed.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 62

Impact of Teacher Ethnicity and Cultural Responsiveness on Student Achievement
As summarized by Dee (2005), the effects of teacher–student ethnicity match are often
theorized to be either passive—the “role-model” effect—or active, in the form of different
expectations and interactions. Empirical evidence supports the existence of both types of effects
of teacher ethnicity on student achievement. For example, a metaanalysis by den Brok and Levy
(2005) reviews a range of research that supports the concept of active effects of teacher ethnicity,
including consistent bias and negative differential treatment of non-White students by White
teachers. Villegas and Irvine (2010) summarized the many positive effects of teacher–student
ethnicity match, or a faculty that mirrors the diversity of the student body, on student
achievement, including higher test scores, fewer placements in special education, more
placements in gifted programs, lower suspension and dropout rates, and increased college-going.
Beyond teacher–student ethnicity match, cultural responsiveness of teachers of all ethnic
groups is important to student achievement (Gay, 2010). Several frameworks of culturally
responsive pedagogy exist (Gay, 2010; Villegas & Lucas, 2002, 2007), and there is some
empirical evidence on the impact of culturally responsive pedagogy on student achievement
(Gay, Dingus, & Jackson, 2003; Villegas & Irvine, 2010). In Hawai‘i, one study showed a
significant positive relationship between the use of culturally responsive pedagogy by teachers of
all ethnic groups and student engagement in school (Kana‘iaupuni, Ledward, & Jensen, 2010).
However, advocates of culturally responsive pedagogy postulate that it is the practices of some
same-ethnicity teachers that impact student achievement, and that those practices can be adopted
by teachers of all ethnic groups (Gay, 2010; Villegas & Irvine, 2010). These practices include
having high expectations of students, having actively caring relationships with students, enacting
culturally responsive teaching practices, serving as cultural mediators and advocates, and
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 63

advocating for social justice (Gay, 2010; Villegas & Irvine, 2010). As teacher ethnicity and
cultural responsiveness are likely to impact student achievement, it is important to examine how
both factors are related to motivation of preservice teachers.
Ethnicity and Motivation to Become a Teacher
Some studies have examined motivations to enter the teaching profession of one
individual racial/ethnic group, such as African Americans (Villegas & Irvine, 2010), but few
studies have attempted to draw comparative conclusions about the motivations of preservice
teachers of different ethnic groups. In this regard, not much has changed since Brookhart and
Freeman (1992) criticized the limitation of not examining and comparing the motivations of
population subgroups. Two studies (Kauchak & Burbank, 2003; Su, 1997) can be used to draw
limited conclusions about differences in motivations of those of different ethnic groups who
choose teaching as a profession. Results from these studies must be interpreted with the
understanding that differences in motivation within groups can be larger than differences
between groups (Wigfield & Eccles, 2002).
Su (1997) compared motivations of white and minority preservice teachers. Teacher
candidates at a graduate institution of education in California were interviewed and surveyed
regarding their views on the teaching profession and reasons for entering the teaching profession.
The results of the study were analyzed through the lens of intrinsic/extrinsic/altruistic
motivations. Both white and minority students cited intrinsic/altruistic reasons for choosing
teaching as a profession. Interviews revealed that minority teacher candidates were concerned
about social justice for minority students in curriculum and instruction, whereas white students
were not. Minority teacher candidates additionally expressed their desires to be change agents in
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 64

school and social reforms, especially for minority students and urban schools. One major
limitation of this study was that the minority group was not disaggregated by race/ethnicity.
Kauchak and Burbank (2003) conducted case studies to explore the knowledge and
beliefs of two minority teacher candidates. Both teacher candidates were in the same teacher
preparation program at the University of Utah. The participants were Carmen, a 23-year-old,
bilingual second-generation Mexican-American, and Bo, a 30-year-old, bilingual Vietnamese
immigrant. The authors found that Carmen and Bo had very different motivations for teaching
and understandings of their roles as teachers. Carmen was motivated by social justice for Latino
students and wanted to provide students like her with a relevant curriculum and a student-
centered experience. Bo was motivated by the desire to help students master content through
different methods of teaching. The use of case studies allowed the authors to understand how
students’ backgrounds influenced their motivations in teaching. The small number of participants
is a limitation of this study, but the results indicate that minority teachers are not a monolithic
group, a consideration that must be taken into account when studying the motivations of minority
teacher candidates. Su (1997) and Kauchak and Burbank (2003) are often cited as providing
evidence for differing motivations between ethnic groups; both studies offer promising evidence
but are limited. The sample characteristics of these studies as compared to the population in
Hawai’i indicate that there may be differences in motivation between ethnic groups, but the
nature and extent of these differences is difficult to extrapolate.
Cultural Responsiveness and Motivation to Become a Teacher
Very little empirical evidence exists on the relationship between cultural responsiveness
and motivation. One study found a positive, linear correlation between cultural responsiveness
and self-determination, which is one framework of motivation (Cox, 2010). In this study, I
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 65

evaluated cultural beliefs and awareness and self-determination using survey methodology. The
measures of cultural responsiveness and motivation, as well as the population in the Cox (2010)
study were quite different to the ones used in the present study, but the results offer the
suggestion that there may be a link between cultural responsiveness and motivations to teach in
Hawai‘i.
Teacher Shortages and Motivation to Teach in Shortage Areas
Teacher shortages persist in Hawai‘i, especially in hard-to-staff complexes (HIDOE,
2011); in the 2010–2011 school year, 63.1% of teachers newly hired by HIDOE were unlicensed
or were hired to teach out of licensure area (HIDOE, 2012a). The hard-to-staff complexes are
generally rural and isolated geographic areas (HIDOE, 2011). In places of teacher shortages, out-
of-field or substitute teachers are often hired to teach, which may negatively impact overall
teacher quality (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2007; Darling-Hammond, 2007; Dee & Cohodes,
2008). Understanding the motivations of preservice teachers who are specifically interested in
teaching in hard-to-staff areas may be useful in recruiting teachers and placing teachers in the
future. The third and final research question (RQ3) examined in this research study is
What motivates teacher candidates to pursue careers in geographic areas with high
teacher shortages? How are these motivations different or similar to teacher candidates
who do not wish to teach in these areas?
In this section, the impact of teacher shortages and qualified teachers on student achievement, as
well as the motivations of teachers to teach in rural areas, such as the hard-to-staff complexes in
Hawai‘i, are discussed.
Impact of Teacher Shortages on Student Achievement
Teacher qualifications, quality, and staffing issues shape one another. Evidence indicates
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 66

that the best teachers are more likely to leave the most difficult schools, with disproportionate
effects on high-poverty and minority schools (Goldhaber, Gross, & Player, 2010; Guarino,
Santibañez, & Daley, 2006; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff,
2002). Conversely, when teachers leave and positions are unfilled, unqualified or underqualified
teachers are often hired, which can negatively impact student achievement (Clotfelter, Ladd, &
Vigdor, 2007; Darling-Hammond, 2007; Dee & Cohodes, 2008). These two conditions are likely
to form a negative feedback loop, in which effective teachers leave low-performing schools,
which are then staffed by less effective teachers, which create conditions in which those schools
continue to be low performing and quality teachers continue to come and go. Hard-to-staff
schools are thus likely to exhibit achievement gaps, such as in the “Zones of School Innovation”
(HIDOE, 2011) in Hawai‘i, possibly due in part to less effective teachers.
Although no specific observable teacher characteristics have been consistently correlated
with student achievement, it has been documented that different teachers produce varying
degrees of student gains (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2009; Darling-
Hammond, 2007; Goe, 2007; Hanushek, 2010; Taylor, Roehrig, Soden Hensler, Connor, &
Schatschneider, 2010). Parsing the effects of genetics, home environment, and classroom factors
on academic achievement is difficult, but studies of twins attempting to isolate the effects of
teachers (Taylor, Roehrig, Soden Hensler, Connor, & Schatschneider, 2010) have shown that,
holding other factors constant, excellent teaching allows students to reach their potentials, but
poor teaching impedes student achievement. Many studies have focused on teacher
qualifications, teacher characteristics, and teacher practices (Goe, 2007) as aspects of teacher
quality. Of these, teacher qualifications and experience have shown significant positive effects
on student achievement (Goe, 2007). To the extent that teacher effectiveness plays a role in
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 67

student achievement, and teacher shortages impact teacher effectiveness, a persistent shortage of
teachers in Hawai‘i’s hard-to-staff schools is likely to contribute to lower levels of achievement
in those schools.
Motivation to Teach in Hard-to-Staff Schools
Empirical research examining the motivations of those who choose to teach in specific
geographical areas is limited. The hard-to-staff complexes in Hawai‘i are in rural areas (HIDOE,
2011), but research on motivation to teach in rural schools is limited. However, while the
contexts are different, some of the challenges in urban and rural schools are similar. For
example, high-poverty, high-minority, urban and rural schools have the highest levels of teacher
turnover, with many teachers leaving these schools for low-minority, suburban schools (Ingersoll
& Merrill, 2010). In Hawai‘i, hard-to-staff school complexes are located in areas of high poverty,
ranging from 7.2 to 36.1% of the population living below the poverty level (see Appendix A,
Figure A5) and have large Native Hawaiian and Filipino populations (see Appendix A, Figures
A3–A4). These features suggest that, although in rural areas, the motivations of teachers who
wish to teach in these schools may be similar to those who desire to teach in urban schools. Thus,
the small bodies of literature examining motivations to teach in both rural and urban schools
were also considered.
Qualitative studies of teachers in rural areas show that they are motivated to teach in
those areas for both intrinsic and altruistic reasons, and specifically due to feelings of
connectedness to the community (Burton & Johnson, 2010; Plunkett & Dyson, 2011). These
results suggest that the predominant intrinsic and altruistic motivations for teaching hold true
over a variety of contexts. In Hawai‘i, it could be expected that feeling connected to the
community may be one reason that teachers wish to teach in rural, hard-to-staff areas. However,
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 68

the specific contexts of the two studies, two white females in the rural south (Burton & Johnson,
2010) and 102 graduating teachers in rural Australia (Plunkett & Dyson, 2011), make it difficult
to predict with any certainty how these results might apply in Hawai‘i.
Two studies have shown that the intent to teach in urban schools is related to a strong
desire to help poor or disadvantaged children and to change society (Tamir, 2009; Yu, 2011). Yu
(2011) found that those who perceived teaching as a difficult and demanding profession were
more likely to desire to teach in urban schools, suggesting that preservice teachers who want to
teach in urban schools are aware of the associated challenges. These motivations may hold true
for teachers who wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools in Hawai‘i, most of which are located in
high poverty areas (see Appendix A, Figure A5) and have notable student achievement gaps as
compared to the rest of the state (HIDOE, 2011). Again however, the limited number of studies
and the difference in study contexts, Chicago (Tamir, 2009) and Philadelphia (Yu, 2011), make
uncertain the generalizability of the results to Hawai‘i.
One theme that overlaps between those who wish to teach in rural and urban schools is a
connection to and an understanding of the community. Data suggest that new teachers are more
likely to seek positions in schools or districts close to their hometowns or in areas similar to
those where they grew up (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2005). The desire to
teach in a familiar geographic area holds true for both urban and rural teachers, which the
authors conclude is related to a variety of social and cultural factors (Boyd et al., 2005). This is
consistent with studies that cite connectedness to the community as a major motivation of those
who wish to teach in rural schools (Burton & Johnson, 2010; Plunkett & Dyson, 2011).
A review by Achinstein, Ogawa, Sexton, and Freitas (2010) explored the intersection
between recruiting and retaining a diverse teacher workforce and staffing hard-to-staff schools.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 69

The authors found that “a high percentage of new teachers of color teach in hard-to-staff
schools” (Achinstein, Ogawa, Sexton, & Freitas, 2010, p. 90) and that “teachers of color
continue to be more likely than White teachers to work in urban districts with high percentages
of students from low income and racially and culturally nondominant communities” (p. 91).
Teachers of color are also more likely to remain in these schools than their White colleagues,
although results of studies on this phenomenon have not explained the reasons for differences in
retention between teachers of color and White teachers. Achinstein, Ogawa, Sexton, and Freitas
(2010) suggest possible explanations,
This pattern might reflect teachers’ preferences and commitments, including the general
tendency for teachers to gravitate toward their home communities, it might reflect the
humanistic commitments of teachers of color described above or a lack of mobility for
certain sectors of the teacher workforce, or it might result from district policies that place
teachers of color in schools with high proportions of students of color. (Achinstein,
Ogawa, Sexton, & Freitas, 2010, p. 94)
Providing specific supports for teachers of color could increase retention and help to
alleviate staffing issues in hard-to-staff schools (Achinstein, Ogawa, Sexton, & Freitas, 2010).
This suggests that the motivations of preservice teachers in Hawai‘i of different ethnic groups
and cultural responsiveness, and those who wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools, may intersect
in ways that would allow HIDOE to both increase workforce diversity and retain teachers at
hard-to-staff schools. Achinstein, Ogawa, Sexton, and Freitas (2010) cautioned, however, of the
social justice dilemma of attempting to specifically retain teachers of color in schools with
substantial challenges and poor working conditions, which many White teachers leave.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 70

Implications for Addressing Teacher Shortages and Diversity in Hawai‘i
An understanding of motivations for choosing teaching as a career has implications for
addressing teacher shortages and teacher diversity equity issues in Hawai‘i. When examined in
aggregate, teachers across cultures in developed countries generally cite intrinsic and altruistic
motivations for teaching (Bastick, 2000; Chong & Low, 2009; Müller, Alliata, & Benninghoff,
2009; Ololube, 2007; Richardson & Watt, 2006; Roness & Smith, 2010; Sinclair, Dowson, and
McInerney, 2006; Topkaya & Uztosun, 2012; Watt & Richardson, 2007; Watt & Richardson,
2008; Watt et al., 2012; Yong, 1995). Similar results could generally be expected in the state of
Hawai‘i, due to its position as a state in a developed country. However, those living in poverty in
the state, 9.6% of the population from 2006–2010 (“State & county quickfacts,” 2012), may have
extrinsic motivations similar to those in developing countries (Bastick, 2000).
Studies that examine motivation by ethnicity have limited direct applicability to Hawai‘i,
as the ethnic/racial composition in the state is vastly different than in these studies. No studies
have explicitly examined motivations of Filipino or Native Hawaiian preservice teachers.
However, social justice and the desire to be agents of social change, cited by non-White teacher
candidates as motivations for teaching (Kauchak & Burbank, 2003; Su, 1997), may be relevant
for Native Hawaiian and Filipino teachers. For example, one view of an advanced teacher with
respect to Hawaiian culturally responsive teaching, is one who believes that the role of a teacher
is to ensure that students have a strong sense of cultural identity and place in addition to fostering
academic achievement (Kana‘iaupuni, Ledward, & Jensen, 2010).
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 71

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to examine the motivations of preservice teachers relative
to choosing teaching as a career and to compare those motivations across several factor,
including ethnicity, cultural awareness, and desire to teach in different geographic areas. As
motivation has been shown to mediate career planning and choice (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003;
Eccles, Barber, & Jozefowicz, 1999; Rogers & Creed, 2011), understanding and differentiating
the motivations of preservice teachers in Hawai‘i may play a role in designing more effective
teacher recruitment, placement, and retention strategies. A sequential explanatory mixed
methodology was used to determine and explain the motivations of preservice teachers. The
following research questions guided this study
RQ1. Why do teacher candidates in Hawai‘i, specifically those who wish to teach in
Hawai‘i public schools, choose to become teachers? What expectations do they
have and what are their values relative to the teaching profession?
RQ2. How do motivations differ between teacher candidates of different ethnic groups,
and different cultural attitudes and beliefs? In particular, are there significant
differences in motivations between Native Hawaiian and Filipino preservice
teachers and their peers?
RQ3. What motivates teacher candidates to pursue careers in geographic areas with high
teacher shortages? How are these motivations different or similar to teacher
candidates who do not wish to teach in these areas?
In designing the research methodology, the four major shortcomings of research
examining entering teacher characteristics, described by Brookhart and Freeman (1992), were
considered: overemphasis on survey methodology, single institution design, inadequate
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 72

distinction among subpopulations, and an absence of theoretical or historical contexts. To
address the overemphasis on survey methodology, this study took a mixed methods approach,
combining surveys using Likert-type questions with focus group interviews. Single institution
design is limited in its generalizability (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992), thus a multi-institution
design was used. Although this study did not address the specific sub-groups suggested by
Brookhart and Freeman (1992), it examined the entire population, as well as sub-groups of
teacher candidates of different ethnic groups, those of varying levels of cultural awareness, and
those who wish to teach in different geographic areas. Finally, the absence of previous studies on
the motivations of preservice teachers in Hawai‘i does not allow for framing this study in an
historical context, as suggested by Brookhart and Freeman (1992). However, this study was
grounded in expectancy–value theory, as a theoretical context is important, but often absent, in
studies of entering teacher characteristics (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992). This chapter presents
the study methodology, including the research method and design, the sample and population,
instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis.
Research Method and Design
This study took a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach, using qualitative data
to support the interpretation of quantitative data. Quantitative survey methodology has several
distinct advantages, including a relatively fast rate of data collection and generalizability of data
from a small sample to a larger population (Creswell, 2009). However, in studying the
characteristics of preservice teachers, survey methods are necessarily limited to variables that
can be easily assessed, whereas qualitative inquiry may be more able to capture the range of
beliefs that teacher candidates hold about teaching (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992). Using
quantitative and qualitative methods to complement each other in a mixed methods approach
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 73

allows for the results of each of the methods to reinforce each other and create a broader
understanding of the data (Creswell, 2009). The combination of qualitative and quantitative
methods can be time consuming and complex; however, interest in mixed methods approaches
has grown and expanded over diverse disciplines (Creswell, 2009), and such an approach was
appropriate for this study.
The sequential explanatory mixed methods approach in this study consisted of two
phases: first, the collection and analysis of quantitative data, followed by the collection and
analysis of qualitative data (Creswell, 2009). This strategy typically gives weight to the
quantitative data, while using qualitative data to inform interpretation (Creswell, 2009). The
quantitative portion of this study consisted of a survey instrument that assessed demographic
information, ethnicity, interest in teaching in hard-to-staff schools, motivation relative to
teaching (FIT-Choice Scale, Watt & Richardson, 2007) and cultural awareness (PADAA; Dee &
Henkin, 2002; Stanley, 1996). Self-reported survey data in higher education are generally
considered valid if questions are clear and easy to comprehend, if the information is known to
the respondents, if the respondents believe the questions merit a thoughtful response, and if the
response options are appropriate (Gonyea, 2005). The qualitative portion of the study consisted
of an open-ended questionnaire. The details of the sampling process, population,
instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis are outlined in the following sections.
Sample and Population
This section describes the participant sample and the institutions from which the sample
was drawn. Institution names have been changed to maintain privacy and anonymity for the
participants to the greatest extent possible.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 74

Institutions
This study was a cross-sectional, multi-institution investigation on the motivations of
preservice teachers in Hawai‘i and the relationship of those motivations to intended geographic
placement area, ethnicity, and cultural awareness. Multi-institution design is critical when
studying the characteristics of preservice teachers, if results are to be generalized from the
sample to the population (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992). According to the Hawai‘i Teacher
Standards Board, there are 11 state approved teacher education institutions in Hawai‘i offering a
variety of teacher preparation programs (“Hawai‘i teacher standards,” 2013). Six of the 11
institutions were purposefully selected as sampling sites to represent different institution and
program characteristics. Of those six, three institutions participated. Students in teacher
preparation programs at Kiawe University, International College, and Hilltop University were
sampled. The characteristics of these institutions are summarized in Table 8. Licensure program
information and program size comes from the Hawai‘i Teacher Standards Board (2013).
Table 8
Institutional Characteristics of Sampling Sites
______________________________________________________________________________

Institution Characteristics Licensure Programs Total Program Size

Kiawe University
College of Education
Urban, Public
Bachelor’s, Master’s,
Post-baccalaureate
Large
International College
School of Education
Urban, Private
Bachelor’s, Master’s,
Post-baccalaureate
Small
Hilltop University
Division of Education
Urban, Public Bachelor’s Small
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. For this study, a large program had >300 completers in the 2011–2012 school year and a
small program had < 100 completers.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 75

Kiawe University and Hilltop University are part of Hawai‘i’s public higher education
system, the mission of which includes providing “all qualified people in Hawaii with equal
opportunity for high quality college and university education and training (“Hawai‘i higher
education,” 2002). For this reason, it was important to include these institutions in the study
sample. One public institution declined to participate; other institutions in the public higher
education system do not offer teacher licensure track programs and were thus excluded. In
addition, International College was included as a private institution. Students at private
institutions can differ in self-concept than students in public institutions (Pryor et al., 2012) and
should be included in order to be representative of the population of preservice teachers in
Hawai‘i.
The three participating institutions graduated 59% of the licensure track program
completers in the 2011–2012 school year (“Hawai‘i teacher standards,” 2013). Across the three
institutions, public and private urban schools were represented, with small and large licensure
track programs, including Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees and post-baccalaureate certifications.
A range of institutional characteristics allows for a more complete understanding of the
preservice teacher population in Hawai‘i. Of the five licensure-track programs that were not
considered for the study, three had no completers and one had fewer than ten completers in the
2011–2012 school year. One program was excluded because it is a for-profit institution and
students at for-profit colleges have been found to differ disproportionately in age, ethnicity,
gender, and academic preparation from students at nonprofit colleges (Deming, Goldin, & Katz,
2013). Only students currently in licensure track programs were sampled, thus excluding pre-
professional programs at both four-year institutions and community colleges.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 76

Participants
Students currently in licensure track programs, including Bachelor’s, Master’s and post-
baccalaureate programs, were sampled, with requirements for entry into these programs varying
between institutions. Based on the number of program completers from each of the institutions in
the 2011–2012 school year (“Hawai‘i teacher standards,” 2013), there could have been
approximately 826 students in licensure track programs at the participating institutions during the
time of the study. With a 95% level of confidence, and a 10% margin of error, the required size
of the sample that would be representative of this population is 86 students (Krejcie & Morgan,
1970). However, the number of participants was constrained by access to students, as described
further in the Data Collection section.
Open-ended questionnaire participants were selected from the pool of survey participants
and contacted via email addresses collected in the demographic survey. Four groups were
created, Native Hawaiian, Filipino, those interested in teaching in hard-to-staff schools, and
those not in the previous three groups. Group members were identified based on participants’
answers to survey questions. The goal was to create groups of eight to ten participants, with other
factors such as gender, type of program, and institutions being balanced between groups.
Participant characteristics are further described in Chapter Four.
Instrumentation
The instruments used in this study were chosen or designed to answer the research
questions and to measure the variables addressed by the questions. The research questions,
question types, variables, and instruments are summarized in Table 9.
The researcher-designed questionnaire, FIT-Choice Scale, PADAA, and TBS were
combined into one online survey, found in Appendix B. Permissions were obtained for the use of
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 77

the FIT-Choice Scale, PADAA, and TBS (see Appendix C). The difference in the response rate
of college age students to mail- and email-based surveys is negligible (Shih & Fan, 2009), thus a
web-based survey was appropriate for this study. In addition to the survey instrument, an open-
ended questionnaire was used to collect qualitative data; four variations of this questionnaire
were used, one for each group (see Appendix D). Each of the methods and instruments are
described in further detail in the following sections.
Table 9
Research Questions, Variables, and Associated Instruments
______________________________________________________________________________

Research Question Question Type Variables Instruments

RQ1. Motivations of
teacher candidates
Descriptive Motivation factors FIT-Choice Scale
RQ2. Motivations by
ethnicity and cultural
attitudes and beliefs
Relational
a. Motivation factors
b. Ethnicity
c. Cultural
Responsiveness
a. FIT-Choice Scale
b. Researcher-Designed
Questionnaire
c. PADAA, TBS
RQ3. Geographic
area and motivation
Comparative
a. Motivation factors
b. Intent to teach in
hard-to-staff
complexes
a. FIT-Choice Scale
b. Researcher-Designed
Questionnaire
______________________________________________________________________________

Researcher-Designed Questionnaire
The researcher-designed questionnaire was used to collect demographic data about the
study participants, including two of the variables in the research questions, ethnicity and intent to
teach in hard-to-staff areas. The questionnaire also included factors that were not the focus of
this study, but which may influence teacher motivation, including gender, type of program, and
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 78

type of licensure being pursued (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992), which were controlled for in data
analysis.
Assessing Motivation Using the FIT-Choice Scale
The Factors Influencing Teaching Choice (FIT-Choice) Scale was developed to measure
the factors influencing motivation and choice to teach (Watt & Richardson, 2007). The
instrument was developed using expectancy–value theory (EVT) of motivation as a framework
(Watt & Richardson, 2007). The FIT-Choice scale is structured in three sections, consisting of
motivations for becoming a teacher, beliefs about teaching, and the decision to become a teacher,
and has a total of 62 items (Watt & Richardson, 2007). The researchers developed instrument
items to measure constructs based on EVT, which were validated in an initial study at an
Australian university that was replicated at a second Australian university (Richardson & Watt,
2006; Watt & Richardson, 2007). Through a sequence of exploratory and confirmatory factor
analyses, the researchers narrowed the number of factors to 18, with Cronbach’s alpha
reliabilities ranging from 0.62 to 0.92 (Watt & Richardson, 2007). Ten of these factors loaded
into four higher order factors, with Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities ranging from 0.56 to 0.81 (Watt
& Richardson, 2007). Convergent and divergent construct validity were assessed using
exploratory factor analysis with image extraction and oblimin rotation, and were considered by
the authors to be good, with pattern coefficients ranging from 0.56 to 0.95 (Watt & Richardson,
2007). For more detailed information about the development of the FIT-Choice instrument, see
Watt and Richardson (2007).
FIT-Choice survey data reported by the participants in this study is likely to be valid
according to the Gonyea (2005) framework. The questions are likely to be clear and easy to
comprehend (Gonyea, 2005) by the participants, as they were written for preservice teachers
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 79

(Watt & Richardson, 2007). Participants are asked to assess their own beliefs and values; the
information assessed by the questions is known to the participants (Gonyea, 2005). The Likert-
type response options are appropriate for assessing extent of agreement (Gonyea, 2005). Finally,
through recruitment efforts and through the wording on the survey, I hope that the participants
believed that the questions merited a thoughtful response (Gonyea, 2005). The FIT-Choice scale
has established reliability and validity over a range of studies of preservice teachers in Australia,
the United States, Germany, Norway, and Turkey (Richardson & Watt, 2006; Topkaya &
Uztosun, 2012; Watt & Richardson, 2007; Watt & Richardson, 2008; Watt et al., 2012),
indicating that it is likely to yield valid results in a Hawai‘i context.
Assessing Cultural Responsiveness, Beliefs, and Attitudes
Culturally responsive pedagogy has been defined through a variety of frameworks,
including by Ladson-Billings (1994, 1995), Gay and Howard (2000), Gay (2010), and Villegas
and Lucas (2002, 2007). Several instruments have been developed to assess elements of cultural
responsiveness, including the Multicultural Teaching Competency Scale (MTS; Spanierman et
al., 2011), the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (CDI; Henry, 1986; Larke, 1990), and the
Pluralism and Diversity Attitude Assessment (PADAA; Dee & Henkin, 2002; Stanley, 1996).
While each of these instruments measures aspects of cultural responsiveness, none were
developed based on a specific framework of culturally responsive teaching. For this study, the
framework of Villegas and Lucas (2002, 2007) was used, as it was contextualized for preservice
teachers in teacher preparation programs. Villegas and Lucas (2002, 2007) laid out six strands, or
essential dispositions, of teachers to be used in conceptualizing teacher education curricula that
prepare culturally responsive teachers. These six strands are sociocultural consciousness, an
affirming attitude toward students from culturally diverse backgrounds, commitment and skills to
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 80

act as agents of change, constructivist views of learning, learning about students, and culturally
responsive teaching practices (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, 2007).
Based on the Villegas and Lucas (2002, 2007) framework of cultural responsiveness,
several instruments were chosen to assess cultural beliefs and attitudes. The Pluralism and
Diversity Attitude Assessment (Dee & Henkin, 2002; Stanley, 1996), or PADAA, was chosen
for this study, as the five PADAA subscales align with four of the six culturally responsive
teaching strands of Villegas and Lucas (2002, 2007). Additionally, the PADAA was written in a
manner appropriate to all preservice teachers, whereas other instruments included items
assessing specific teaching practices more appropriate to in-service teachers. To address one of
the final two Villegas and Lucas subscales, constructivist views of learning, the constructivist
teaching subscale from the TBS, Teacher Beliefs Survey (Woolley, Benjamin, & Woolley, 2004)
was used. By using two instruments, five of the six Villegas and Lucas strands were addressed.
However, neither instrument was designed with the six strands of Villegas and Lucas (2002,
2007) as a theoretical framework, nor were the subscales meant to directly assess any of the
strands. The final strand, learning about students, was addressed through open-ended questions.
The six strands, as described by Villegas and Lucas (2002, 2007), represent complex constructs,
which the instruments and particular subscales were chosen to approximate. The strands,
instruments, and subscales are summarized in Table 10.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 81

Table 10
The Six Strands of Cultural Responsiveness and Corresponding Instruments and Subscales
______________________________________________________________________________

Strands Instrument–subscale

Sociocultural consciousness PADAA–Comfort with Diversity
Affirming attitude toward students from
culturally diverse backgrounds
PADAA–Equity Beliefs, Assimilation
Commitment and skills to act as agents of
change
PADAA–Implement Diversity, Social Value of
Diversity
Constructivist views of learning TBS–Constructivist Teaching
Learning about students Focus group interview question
Culturally responsive teaching practices PADAA–Implement Diversity
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. The six strands come from Villegas and Lucas (2002, 2007).

PADAA. The Pluralism and Diversity Attitude Assessment (PADAA) was developed by
Stanley (1996), with constructs based on a review of literature in multicultural education.
Content validity was established by an expert panel’s examination of items (Stanley, 1996). Both
internal and test–retest reliability for the instrument were established, with a Cronbach’s alpha of
0.91 for internal reliability and 0.84 for test–retest reliability for the instrument. Exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis yielded 19 items in four factors, with reliabilities ranging from ! =
0.72–0.92. These factors were appreciate cultural pluralism, value cultural pluralism, implement
cultural pluralism, and uncomfortable with cultural diversity (Stanley, 1996). More recently,
Dee and Henkin (2002) adapted the PADAA and found a five-factor structure to be a better fit to
their data, renaming the subscales implement diversity (! = 0.885), equity beliefs (! = 0.726),
comfort with diversity (! = 0.610), social value of diversity (! = 0.593), and assimilation (! =
0.678). The PADAA was used as a proxy to measure four of the six strands of culturally
responsive teaching (Villegas & Lucas 2002, 2007), as summarized in Table 10.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 82

The results of the PADAA are likely to be valid for this study population. The survey
questions are clear and written appropriately to preservice teachers (Dee & Henkin, 2002;
Gonyea, 2005). The items assess personal attitudes and beliefs, information which is known to
each participant (Gonyea, 2005). As with the FIT-Choice Scale, Likert-scaled responses are
appropriate for assessing agreement with statements (Gonyea, 2005). I hoped to build participant
understanding of the research, which would lead them to value the research and believe the
questions merit a thoughtful response (Gonyea, 2005). Finally, this survey has been administered
over a variety of contexts, including in the American South (Brown & Chu, 2012; Lucas, 2011),
Southeast, Northwest, West, and Midwest (Stanley, 1996), and in Germany (Hachfeld, 2013),
which indicates that it is likely also valid with preservice teachers in Hawai‘i.
Teacher Belief Survey. The Teacher Belief Survey (TBS) was developed by Woolley,
Benjamin, and Woolley (2004). Constructs were developed through a combination of literature
review and exploratory teacher interviews (Woolley, Benjamin, & Woolley, 2004). Based on
exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, the authors found that a three-factor structure best
fit the data, retaining 21 questions under traditional management, traditional teaching, and
constructivist teaching factors (! = 0.52–0.78). The constructivist teaching scale used in this
study consists of ten items and has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.73 (Woolley, Benjamin, & Woolley,
2004). The constructivist teaching scale of the TBS was used as a measure of the constructivist
views of learning strand of cultural responsiveness (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, 2007).
The TBS should be a valid measure of preservice teacher beliefs in Hawai‘i. The
instrument and its subscales have been used in studies in Turkey (Çobanoglu, 2011), China
(Sang, Valcke, Tondeur, Zhu, & van Braak, 2012), the United States mid-Atlantic (Woolley,
Benjamin, & Woolley, 2004), Germany (Krauskopf, Zahn, & Hesse, 2011), South Africa (Ngidi,
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 83

2012), and Belgium (Tondeur, Hermans, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008), suggesting applicability
across a wide range of cultural contexts. The questions are easy to comprehend and the answers,
personal beliefs, are known to students (Gonyea, 2005). Likert-scale response options are
appropriate for assessing extent of belief (Gonyea, 2005). Finally, my description of the research
to the participants provided them with a reason to answer questions with thoughtful responses
(Gonyea, 2005).
Open-Ended Questionnaire
Open-ended questions can be used to “offer insight into why people believe the things
they do” (Fink, 2013). In this study, the open-ended questionnaire allowed for the collection of
explanatory data to triangulate quantitative survey data. In addition, one cultural responsiveness
strand not assessed in the quantitative data collection, learning about students (Villegas & Lucas,
2002, 2007), was examined through the open-ended questionnaire. Four variations on the open-
ended questionnaire were created, one for each of four groups. Groups were designed to
represent preservice teachers who wish to teach in hard-to-staff complexes, Native Hawaiian
teacher candidates, Filipino teacher candidates, and all other teacher candidates. The questions
were designed to examine expectancies and values relative to teaching as a profession, as well as
aspects of culturally responsive teaching. The hard-to-staff questionnaire also included questions
to address one known factor associated with teaching in rural schools, feelings of connectedness
to the community (Burton & Johnson, 2010; Plunkett & Dyson, 2011). The Native Hawaiian and
Filipino questionnaires included questions to examine motivations relative to enhancing social
equity (Kauchak & Burbank, 2003; Su, 1997) and teaching students of the same and other ethnic
groups.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 84

Data Collection
The sequential explanatory mixed methods design of this study entailed collecting data in
two phases, quantitative data first, then qualitative data. Prior to data collection, IRB applications
were submitted in June 2013 to the University of Southern California and then to participating
study institutions. This section describes the procedures used in the quantitative and qualitative
phases of data collection.
Quantitative Data Collection
Recruitment for participants started during the Fall 2013 semester. Initial requests for
participation were made via email to program administrators at each of the universities (see
Appendix E). Emails were sent to professors of licensure-track courses at each institution, either
by myself or by administrators, as determined by each institution’s administrator. In one
instance, a department chair invited me to speak with faculty at a faculty meeting, and then
follow up by email. Permission was requested from faculty to meet with students during 10
minutes of one class meeting. Of the faculty contacted, 23 professors allowed me to speak with
21 classes.
During the 10 minutes that I met with each class, I explained the research to the students,
provided students with a copy of the consent information sheet (see Appendix F) and my contact
information. The consent information sheet explained information about the study and described
student rights, confidentiality issues, and potential risks. Individual index cards were passed out
and students who were interested in participating in the project shared their email addresses
using one index card per student. These index cards were destroyed upon completion of the
study. As information sessions were completed, I contacted potential participants with further
information about participating and the web-link for the survey instrument. A total of 343
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 85

students provided their email addresses. Further information about the participants is described
in Chapter Four.
The combined researcher-designed survey, FIT-Choice Scale, PADAA and TBS scale
were administered in one web survey, run on Qualtrics, consisting of a total of 104 items (print
version of web survey in Appendix B). Consent information preceded the survey. The survey
remained open from the date of the first class visit, August 28, 2013 until November 18, 2013.
For all responses, including incomplete surveys, the mean response time was one hour, ten
minutes. Excluding response times over one hour (n = 10), the mean response time was 19
minutes. The mode of the response times was 14 minutes.
Convenience sampling of students in licensure track programs at each institution was
used, based on voluntary participation. Of 343 students who provided an email address, 175
respondents started the survey. Ten students started, but answered no questions and were thus
excluded. The total number of complete responses was 165 (N = 165), a response rate of 48.1%,
which exceeds the average response rate to email/web based surveys of 33% (Shih & Fan, 2009).
Measures were taken to maximize the response rate, including pre-notification, mixed-mode
contact and delivery, and four email follow-up reminders (Fan & Yan, 2010; Shih & Fan, 2009).
Data from surveys was exported from Qualtrics into Excel and then into SPSS. All data were
maintained on a secured laptop and hard drive, kept in a secured location.
Qualitative Data Collection
The qualitative data collection process was started approximately two weeks after the
quantitative survey was closed. Qualitative participants were contacted via the email addresses
provided in the demographic survey. To protect the privacy of participants, after the research was
completed, email addresses were expunged from the data set. Potential participants were sent an
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 86

initial email requesting participation and explaining the focus group portion of the study (see
Appendix E). Follow up emails were sent to the respondents to the initial email to confirm
interest and availability. Due to difficulty in scheduling focus groups, the participants were
subsequently emailed, asking them to complete the online questionnaire in lieu of participating in
focus groups.
The questionnaire was administered online, using Qualtrics (print version of web survey
in Appendix B). There were four variations of the questionnaire, one for each group.
Questionnaire A was administered to self-identified Native Hawaiian participants. Questionnaire
B was administered to self-identified Filipino participants. Questionnaire C was administered to
participants who expressed a desire to teach in hard-to-staff schools. Questionnaire D was
administered to non-Native Hawaiian or Filipino participants who did not wish to teach in hard-
to-staff schools. Consent information preceded each survey. Questionnaires A and D had 13
questions each, Questionnaire B had 12 questions, and Questionnaire C had 14 questions. The
survey remained open January 21 until January 31. The mean response times were 14 minutes
for Questionnaire A, 35 minutes for Questionnaire B, 21 minutes for Questionnaire C, and 1 hour
and 35 minutes for Questionnaire D.
Participants were purposefully chosen for each group. Of 18 participants invited to take
Questionnaire A, two responded (response rate = 11.1%). Two of 18 participants invited to take
Questionnaire B responded (response rate = 11.1%). Of 15 participants invited to take
Questionnaire C, five responded (33.3% response rate). Six of 18 invited participants completed
the Questionnaire D (33.3% response rate). The overall response rate was 21.7%, as compared to
found an average response rate of 33% of email/web based surveys (Shih & Fan, 2009).
Measures were taken to maximize the response rate, including pre-notification, the use of mixed-
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 87

mode contact and delivery, and four email follow-up reminders (Fan & Yan, 2010; Shih & Fan,
2009). Data from surveys was exported into Excel and then into a Word document for coding.
All data were maintained on a secured laptop and hard drive, kept in a secured location.
Data Analysis
Data analysis in a sequential explanatory mixed methods study often gives weight to the
quantitative data and uses qualitative data to inform understanding (Creswell, 2009). Analyses of
the complete quantitative data set were completed before analyses of the qualitative data.
However, preliminary analysis of quantitative data informed the selection of open-ended
questionnaire participants. Data analyses for both quantitative and qualitative approaches are
described in this section.
Quantitative Data Analysis
Quantitative data analysis was conducted using SPSS and included descriptive statistics,
chi-square goodness of fit test, confirmatory factor analysis, binary linear regression, t-tests for
independent samples, multiple linear regression, bivariate correlations, and one-way and factorial
analyses of variance (ANOVA). The statistical analyses used in the study are summarized in
Table 11 and described in further detail in the following sections.
Descriptive statistics are used to describe provide an overview of the sample and each of
the variables in the study. These analyses can reveal emerging trends and patterns, as well as
summarized characteristics of the sample. Means, medians, and modes were calculated.
Measures of skewness and kurtosis were also be calculated to determine if the responses were
normally distributed, i.e. values are less than or equal to an absolute value of 2, in order to
determine if further parametric analyses can be conducted. Descriptive statistics were used in
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 88

analysis of each of the research questions, for demographics, motivation factors, and cultural
awareness factors (see Table 11).
Table 11
Statistical Tests for Quantitative Data Analysis by Research Question
______________________________________________________________________________

Research Question Statistical Tests
______________________________________________________________________________

RQ1. Motivations of teacher candidates Descriptive statistics; confirmatory factor analysis
RQ2. Motivations by ethnicity and
cultural attitudes and beliefs
Descriptive statistics; one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVAs); bivariate correlations
RQ3. Geographic area and motivation
Descriptive statistics; binary logistic regressions;
t-tests for independent samples; Fisher’s exact test
______________________________________________________________________________

Factor analysis is used to determine how well groups of items are related in measuring a
given construct. Each of the instruments used in the study had been previously validated.
However, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to determine a factor structure for each
instrument. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to determine the fit of the factor
solutions to the data and to select a factor solution when more than one was possible. Results for
confirmatory factor analysis were reported in terms of a variety of fit statistics. EFA and CFA
were used on the FIT-Choice, PADAA, and TBS instruments (RQ1; see Table 11).
In this study, ANOVA was used to determine if significant differences existed in
motivation and cultural attitudes and beliefs factors between ethnicities (RQ2; see Table 11).
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to determine if there is a significant difference between 3
or more groups along one factor. The significance level was set at p ! 0.05.
Bivariate correlations are used to determine if two variables are linearly related to each
other. In this study, bivariate correlations were used to determine if there were relationships
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 89

between motivation factors and cultural attitudes and beliefs factors (RQ2; see Table 11).
Pearson’s r is the test statistic and significance was set at the p ! 0.05 level.
Independent samples t-tests are used determine whether two independent groups are
significantly different across one or more factors. Using SPSS, t values and significance (p)
values also generated, and a Levene’s test for equality of variances is also run, to determine if the
variances in responses of the two groups are equal. A level of significance of p ! 0.05 was set
for this test. Independent samples t-tests were used to determine if there were significant
differences in motivation between preservice teachers who do and do not wish to teach in hard-
to-staff schools (RQ3; see Table 11).
Binary logistic regressions are used to determine factors that predict a binary outcome. In
this study, binary logistic regressions were used to determine motivation factors that predict
desire to teach in hard-to-staff schools (RQ3; see Table 11). Using SPSS, significant variables in
predicting this outcome were identified, with a significance level set at p ! 0.05.
Fisher’s exact tests are used in the analysis of contingency tables, with small sample
sizes. The purpose of this test is to determine if there are significant associations between
categorical variables. In this study, Fisher’s exact tests were used to determine relationships
between residence in hard-to-staff complexes and desire to teach in those complexes (RQ3; see
Table 11). This test was run using SPSS, with a significance level set at p ! 0.05.
In order to determine respondent ethnicity (RQ2), ethnicity data were collected and coded
similarly to the University of Hawai‘i at M"noa Institutional Research Office (UHM IRO)
reporting priorities and scheme (Institutional Research Office, 2009). This reporting scheme can
be aligned with the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) reporting fields.
However, the disaggregation and specificity of the UHM IRO reporting fields in the Asian and
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 90

Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander categories are appropriate to the ethnic diversity in
Hawai‘i. The UHM IRO also has reporting priorities that put emphasis on Native Hawaiian and
mixed race groups. For example, any person who reports Native Hawaiian/Part Hawaiian as one
ethnicity, even of many, was recorded as Native Hawaiian. As this study also focused on Filipino
preservice teachers, those who reported as either Filipino or part Filipino, even with other
ethnicities, were recorded as Filipino.
Qualitative Data Analysis
Constant comparison analysis was used in identifying themes from qualitative data. In
constant comparison analysis, the data are initially broken down into smaller meaningful parts,
or chunks (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007). The chunks are then assigned codes, which are
descriptive titles (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007). As the process continues, data chunks are
compared to previous codes to ensure that similar chunks are coded in the same way (Leech &
Onwuegbuzie, 2007). Constant comparison coding was done using Microsoft Excel and Word.
Once all of the data were coded, codes were grouped by similarity, a process through which
themes emerged (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007). These codes and themes were described and
interrelated, then interpreted in the contexts of the open-ended questionnaire, the quantitative
data, and the research questions.
As the qualitative data were intended to triangulate the quantitative data, it is crucial that
qualitative data were validated. There are many perspectives on validity of qualitative data
(Creswell, 2013), but the framework of Whittemore, Chase, and Mandle (2001) was used in this
study. Whittemore, Chase, and Mandle (2001) defined the primary criteria of validity as
credibility, authenticity, criticality, and integrity, and the secondary criteria as explicitness,
vividness, creativity, thoroughness, congruence, and sensitivity. The authors suggested questions
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 91

to be used in assessing primary and secondary validity criteria, summarized in Table 12. The
questions in Table 12 were used, along with several specific techniques, to contribute to the
validity of the qualitative data. Negative case analysis, an analytic technique (Whittemore,
Chase, & Mandle, 2001) in which disconfirming data are considered as the inquiry advances and
reported in order to provide a balanced and realistic assessment (Creswell, 2013), was used. Data
were triangulated between questionnaire groups to look for evidence of common themes
(Creswell, 2013; Whittemore, Chase, & Mandle, 2001).
Table 12
Assessment of Validity Criteria. Adapted from Whittemore, Chase, and Mandle (2001)
______________________________________________________________________________

Criteria Assessment
______________________________________________________________________________

Primary Criteria
Credibility Do the results of the research reflect the experience of the participants in
a believable way?
Authenticity Does the representation of the results reflect awareness of the subtle
differences in the voices of all participants?
Criticality Does the research process demonstrate evidence of critical appraisal?
Integrity Does the research reflect recursive and repetitive checks of validity as
well as a humble presentation of findings?
Secondary Criteria
Explicitness Have methodological decisions, interpretations, and investigator biases
been addressed?
Vividness Have thick and faithful descriptions been portrayed with artfulness and
clarity?
Creativity Have imaginative ways of organizing, presenting, and analyzing data
been incorporated?
Thoroughness Do the findings convincingly address the questions posed through
completeness and saturation?
Congruence Are the process and the findings congruent? Do all the themes fit
together? Do findings fit into a context outside the study situation?
Sensitivity Has the investigation been implemented in ways that are sensitive to the
nature of human, cultural, and social contexts?
______________________________________________________________________________

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 92

Finally, clarifying and considering researcher bias is important in qualitative data
collection, analysis, and reporting (Creswell, 2013; Whittemore, Chase, & Mandle, 2001). In this
case, there are several potential sources of researcher bias. First, I was previously employed by
one of the participating institutions in the study and had served as a mentor teacher for student
teachers from this institution, although I was not involved in teacher preparation programs at the
time of this study. This association may potentially provide me with a deeper understanding of
the program and experiences of focus groups participants from this institution as compared to
other institutions, which may have had a bearing on my analysis of these participants’ data.
Secondly, I am a Caucasian female who was raised on the East Coast of the United States and
had been living in Hawai‘i for 11 years at the time of the study. I have lived in Honolulu during
that time, and have not worked extensively with students or teachers from the hard-to-staff
HIDOE complexes. A potential difference in perspectives between the participants and myself
may be a source of preconceptions for both study participants and for me, which must be
considered during data collection and analysis. Although an understanding that bias exists and an
identification of potential biases does not completely eliminate these biases in data analysis, self-
reflection on these biases may allow for a more open and honest narrative (Creswell, 2009).
Summary
This chapter describes the mixed method research that was conducted in this study,
including sample and population, instruments, data collection, and data analysis. This study had
an explanatory sequential design, with an emphasis on the quantitative data (QUAL + quan;
Creswell, 2009). Students in teacher preparation programs at three institutions in Hawai‘i were
sampled. The quantitative portion of the study consisted of a survey used to measure preservice
teacher motivation, cultural awareness, and demographic data; data analysis was completed
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 93

using SPSS. The qualitative portion consisted of an open-ended questionnaire designed to elicit
explanatory data regarding motivation with respect to teacher ethnicity, cultural awareness, and
desire to teach in hard-to-staff schools. Qualitative data were analyzed using constant
comparative analysis. In Chapter Four, I present and discuss the findings that resulted from this
methodology.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 94

Chapter Four: Results and Analysis
This chapter presents the findings of the study in response to the three research questions.
The first research question (RQ1) seeks to describe why teacher candidates in Hawai‘i,
specifically those who wish to teach in Hawai‘i public schools, choose to become teachers in
terms of their expectancies and values. RQ2 seeks to differentiate the motivations of teacher
candidates of different ethnic groups, and different cultural attitudes and beliefs. Finally, RQ3
examines the motivations of teacher candidates who wish to pursue careers in hard-to-staff
schools as compared to those who do not wish to teach in these school complex areas.
This study took a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach, using qualitative data
to support the interpretation of quantitative data. Quantitative data were collected using survey
instruments as described in Chapter Three. These data were analyzed using statistical
methodology in the SPSS v21 and R 3.0.2 statistical software packages. Data analyses are
described in greater detail in each section. Qualitative data were collected using open-ended
survey questions. These data were analyzed using constant comparison analysis (Leech &
Onwuegbuzie, 2007). This chapter presents results of the data, starting with participant and
institutional characteristics, and then quantitative and qualitative analysis for each research
question.
Participant and Institutional Characteristics
The purpose of this section is to describe the samples of both the quantitative and
qualitative portions of this study. The quantitative portion of the study consisted of an online
survey. The qualitative portion of the study consisted of an online open-ended questionnaire.
Questionnaire participants were a subset of those who took the quantitative survey.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 95

Quantitative Survey Participant and Institutional Characteristics
This section describes the demographic characteristics of the quantitative survey
participants and the institutions and programs to which they belong. The total number of
complete responses was 165 (N = 165).
Institutional characteristics. This section describes the characteristics of the institutions
that participated in this study. Of the six institutions selected for the study, three participated.
From these three institutions, 62.4% of participants attend Kiawe University, 20.6% attend
Hilltop University, and 17.0% attend International College (see Table 13).
Table 13

Institutions Attended by Quantitative Participants (N = 165)
______________________________________________________________________________

Institution Frequency % Reference %
______________________________________________________________________________

International College 28 17.0 10.2
Kiawe University 103 62.4 82.8
Hilltop University 34 20.6 7.0
Total 165 100.0 100.0
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. The population of teacher preparation program completers in the state of Hawai‘i in the
2011–2012 school year served as the reference population.

This sample was compared to the population of teacher licensure program completers in the
2011–2012 school year (“Hawai‘i teacher standards,” 2013). During this year, from the three
participating institutions, 10.2% of completers were from International College, 82.8% were
from Kiawe University, and 7.0% were from Hilltop University. A chi-square goodness-of-fit
test indicates that the sample is significantly different from the population of program completers
("
2
= 37.76, p = 0.000). International College and Hilltop University were overrepresented
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 96

compared to the population, while Kiawe University was underrepresented. Table 13 shows the
frequency and percentage of students in the sample attending each institution, as well as the
percentage of teacher preparation program completers in the state of Hawai‘i from each
participating institution in the 2011–2012 school year, which served as the reference population.
Degree program characteristics. This section describes the characteristics of the degree
programs in which study participants are enrolled. Of the study sample, 62.4% of participants
were pursuing Bachelor’s degrees, 28.5% were pursuing Master’s degrees, and 9.1% were
enrolled in post-baccalaureate certification programs (see Table 14).
Table 14

Degree Enrollment of Quantitative Participants (N = 165)
______________________________________________________________________________

Degree Program Frequency % Reference %*
______________________________________________________________________________

Bachelor's 103 62.4 69
Master's 47 28.5 14.3
Post-baccalaureate 15 9.1 16
Total 165 100.0 99.3
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Students enrolled in teacher preparation degree programs at Kiawe University served as the
reference population (N = 737). Reference percentages do not add to 100%, as not all degree
programs were represented.

Although not a direct comparison, for perspective on the makeup of the sample relative to the
population, these data can be compared to the enrollment at Kiawe University, the institution that
62.4% of the participants attend. In Fall 2012, of 737 students, 69% of students enrolled in
teacher preparation programs in the College of Education at Kiawe University were in
Bachelor’s programs, 14.3% were in Master’s programs, and 16% were in post-baccalaureate
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 97

certification programs. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test indicates that the sample is significantly
different from the population of at Kiawe University ("
2
= 18.75, p = 0.000). Students enrolled in
Master’s degree programs were overrepresented, while students enrolled in post-baccalaureate
programs were underrepresented relative to the population at Kiawe University. Table 14 shows
the frequency and percentage of students in the sample enrolled in each degree program, as well
as the percentage of students enrolled in each degree program at Kiawe University, which served
as the reference population (N = 737).
Licensure program characteristics. This section describes the characteristics of the
licensures that study participants are pursuing. Of the study population, 64.2% were pursuing
licensure in Elementary/Early Childhood, 33.3% were pursuing licensure in Secondary
Education, and 2.4% were pursuing licensure in K–12 education. To compare the study sample
to teacher candidates from Kiawe University recommended for teacher licensure in the 2011–
2012 school year, a chi-square goodness-of-fit was run. During this school year, of 296
candidates from Kiawe University recommended for licensure, 44.3% were recommended for
licensure in Elementary/Early Childhood, 32.4% in Secondary, and 0.7% in K–12. The chi-
square goodness-of-fit test indicates that the sample is not significantly different from the
population of at Kiawe University ("
2
= 4.033, p = 0.133). However, the population at Kiawe
University may not be representative of the entire study population across three institutions,
meaning the sample may differ from the overall population. Table 15 shows the frequency and
percentage of students in the sample enrolled in each licensure program, as well as the
percentage of students recommended for licensure in each licensure program at Kiawe
University during the 2011–2012 school year, which served as the reference population (N =
296).
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 98

Table 15
Licensure Program Enrollment of Quantitative Participants (N = 165)
______________________________________________________________________________
Licensure Frequency % Reference %*
______________________________________________________________________________

Elementary/Early Childhood 106 64.2 44.3
Secondary 55 33.3 32.4
K–12 4 2.4 0.7
Total 165 100.0 77.4
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Students recommended for licensure at Kiawe University during the 2011–2012 school
year served as the reference population (N = 296). Reference percentages do not add to 100%, as
not all licensure programs were represented.

Participant characteristics. This section describes the ethnicity and gender of the study
participants. Ethnicity designations were collected and coded using a similar method to the
University of Hawai‘i at Manoa Institutional Research Office (UHM IRO) reporting scheme
(Institutional Research Office, 2009), as described in Chapter Three. The study sample
represented 12 of a possible 23 ethnic designations from this reporting scheme. The largest
percentage of respondents identified as Native Hawaiian, and the smallest percentage of
respondents identified as Micronesian (see Table 16).
Table 16 shows the frequency and percentage of students in the sample of each ethnic
group, as well as the percentage of students of each ethnic group in the College of Education at
Kiawe University in Fall 2012, which served as the reference population (N = 1861). A chi-
square goodness-of-fit test indicates that the sample is significantly different from the population
of Kiawe University, the reference population ("
2
= 48.25, p = 0.000).

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 99

Table 16

Quantitative Participant Ethnicity (N = 165)
______________________________________________________________________________

Ethnicity Frequency % Reference %*
______________________________________________________________________________

Native Hawaiian 39 23.6 14.3
Filipino 33 20.0 6.3
Hispanic 1 .6 1.5
Mixed Asian 12 7.3 6.7
Mixed Race 18 10.9 13.1
White 30 18.2 22.4
American Indian/Alaska Native 1 .6 0.2
Chinese 4 2.4 4.3
Japanese 20 12.1 14.3
Korean 4 2.4 2.3
Laotian 2 1.2 0.1
Micronesian 1 .6 0.1
Total 165 100.0 86.5
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. The enrollment in the College of Education at Kiawe University in Fall 2012 served as the
reference population. Reference percentages do not add to 100%, as several groups were not
represented.

Several groups were noticeably overrepresented, including Native Hawaiian, Filipino,
American Indian/Alaska Native, and Laotian. Other groups were noticeably underrepresented,
including Hispanic, Chinese, and Micronesian. Additionally, other groups were completely
unrepresented. The total percentage of the Kiawe University population represented by the ethnic
groups in the sample is 86.5%; unrepresented groups in the sample include Samoan, African
American, Vietnamese, Guamanian, Asian Indian, Thai, and Tongan.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 100

Because Kiawe University does not represent the entire study population, and because the
ethnicity data represent all programs in the College of Education, these differences may not be
representative of the student population across all three institutions, but they may be useful in
interpreting other differences in the data. Additionally, the reporting of the Filipino group was
done differently than the UHM IRO scheme, placing additional emphasis on Filipino ethnicity,
which likely leads to an overreporting of Filipino ethnicity and underreporting of other groups.
Gender data were collected through a multiple-choice item with three possible responses,
female, male, and other. The majority of respondents (75.8%) were female and 24.2% were
male; no participants identified as other. These data can also be compared to the enrollment in
the Kiawe University College of Education (68.0% female, 32.0% male). A chi-square test for
goodness-of-fit indicates that the sample is not significantly different from the population at
Kiawe University, the reference population ("
2
= 2.941, p = 0.086). However, the population at
Kiawe University may not be representative of the entire study population across three
institutions. Thus, the sample may differ from the overall population.
Table 17

Quantitative Participant Gender (N = 165)
______________________________________________________________________________

Gender Frequency % Reference %*
______________________________________________________________________________

Female 125 75.8 68.0
Male 40 24.2 32.0
Total 165 100.0 100.0
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. The College of Education at Kiawe University in Fall 2012 was the reference population.

Table 17 shows the frequency and percentage of female and male students in the sample, as well
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 101

as the percentage of female and male students in the College of Education at Kiawe University,
which served as the reference population (N = 1861).
Overall, the participants in the quantitative portion of the study represent students from
three universities, across a variety of degree and licensure programs. A range of ethnic groups,
and male and female students, is also represented. Native Hawaiian and Filipino students are
well represented. However, it is difficult to assess how representative the sample is of the
population of students in teacher licensure programs across the state for a variety of reasons.
Demographic data are not provided by the Hawai‘i Teacher Standards Board (“Hawai‘i teacher
standards,” 2013) for recent program completers. Of the three participating institutions, only
Kiawe University makes disaggregated demographic data publicly available; these data are two
years old and include all programs, not just teacher preparation programs in reporting ethnicity
and gender. Although a majority of respondents currently attend Kiawe University, that student
population likely does not represent the overall population of preservice teachers in the state.
Qualitative Questionnaire Participant and Institutional Characteristics
This section describes the demographic characteristics of the qualitative questionnaire
participants and the institutions and programs to which they belong. Of 69 quantitative survey
respondents invited to participate, a total of 15 respondents completed the questionnaire (n = 15).
Participant and institutional characteristics are summarized in Table 18. All participants were
assigned pseudonyms. Demographic data were extracted from the quantitative survey results,
and were matched to qualitative questionnaire participants using participant provided email
addresses as identifiers.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 102

Table 18

Questionnaire Participant Characteristics (n = 15)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Name Gender Age Group Ethnicity Institution Program Year Licensure Hard-to-Staff?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Daisy Female 24–26 Filipino Hilltop University Bachelor's Senior Elementary No
Danielle Female 21–23 Native Hawaiian Kiawe University Bachelor's Junior Elementary No
Diana Female 18–20 Filipino Kiawe University Bachelor's Senior Elementary Yes
Emma Female 21–23 Japanese Kiawe University Bachelor's Senior Secondary No
Faith Female 40–49 White Kiawe University Bachelor's Senior Elementary Yes
Gabi Female 21–23 Native Hawaiian Kiawe University Bachelor's Junior Elementary Yes
Hunter Male 27–29 Native Hawaiian Kiawe University Post-baccalaureate Post-graduate Secondary No
Kimi Female 40–49 Japanese Hilltop University Bachelor's Senior Elementary Yes
Paige Female 24–26 White International College Master's Post-graduate Secondary No
Paul Male 24–26 White Kiawe University Post-baccalaureate Post-graduate Secondary No
Rick Male 27–29 Micronesian Kiawe University Bachelor's Senior K–12 No
Ryan Male 24–26 White Kiawe University Master's Post-graduate Elementary Yes
Stacey Female 21–23 Mixed Race Kiawe University Bachelor's Senior Secondary No
Troy Male 40–49 Mixed Asian Kiawe University Post-baccalaureate Post-graduate Secondary No
Vanessa Female 21–43 Filipino Kiawe University Bachelor's Senior Secondary No
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 103

Institutional characteristics. This section describes institutions attended by the
participants of the qualitative portion of the study. Each of the three institutions represented in
the quantitative study sample was represented in the qualitative study sample. From these three
institutions, 80% of participants attend Kiawe University, 13.3% attend Hilltop University, and
6.7% attend International College. This sample was compared to the overall sample that
participated in the quantitative survey. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test indicates that the sample
is significantly different from the quantitative sample (!
2
= 13.65, p = 0.001). International
College and Hilltop University were overrepresented compared to the quantitative sample, while
Kiawe University was underrepresented. Table 19 shows the frequency and percentage of
students attending each institution in both the qualitative and quantitative samples.
Table 19

Institutions Attended by Qualitative Participants (n = 15)
______________________________________________________________________________

Institution Qualitative Frequency % Quantitative Frequency %
______________________________________________________________________________

International College 1 6.7 28 17.0
Kiawe University 12 80 103 62.4
Hilltop University 2 13.3 34 20.6
Total 15 100.0 165 100.0
______________________________________________________________________________

Degree program characteristics. This section describes the degrees being pursued the
participants of the qualitative portion of the study. Of the qualitative sample, 66.7% of
participants were pursuing Bachelor’s degrees, 13.3% were pursuing Master’s degrees, and
20.0% were enrolled in post-baccalaureate certification programs. A chi-square goodness-of-fit
test indicates that the qualitative sample is significantly different from the quantitative sample
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 104

(!
2
= 21.825, p = 0.000). Students enrolled in Master’s degree programs were underrepresented,
while students enrolled in post-baccalaureate programs and Bachelor’s degree programs were
overrepresented relative to the quantitative sample. Table 20 shows the frequency and percentage
of students enrolled in each degree program in both the qualitative and quantitative samples.
Table 20

Degree Enrollment of Qualitative Participants (n = 15)
______________________________________________________________________________

Degree Program Qualitative Frequency % Quantitative Frequency %
______________________________________________________________________________

Bachelor's 10 66.7 103 62.4
Master's 2 13.3 47 28.5
Post-baccalaureate 3 20.0 15 9.1
Total 15 100.0 165 100.0
______________________________________________________________________________

Licensure program characteristics. This section describes the licensures being pursued
by the participants of the qualitative portion of the study. Of the qualitative sample, 46.7% were
pursuing licensure in Elementary/Early Childhood, 46.7% were pursuing licensure in Secondary
Education, and 6.7% were pursuing licensure in K–12 education. A chi-square goodness-of-fit
test indicates that the qualitative sample is not significantly different from the quantitative
sample (!
2
= 18.842, p = 0.133). Table 21 shows the frequency and percentage of students
enrolled in each licensure track in both the qualitative and quantitative samples.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 105

Table 21

Licensure Program Enrollment of Qualitative Participants (n = 15)
______________________________________________________________________________

Licensure Qualitative Frequency % Quantitative Frequency %
______________________________________________________________________________

Elementary/Early Childhood 7 46.7 106 64.2
Secondary 7 46.7 55 33.3
K–12 1 6.7 4 2.4
Total 15 100.1 165 100.0
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Qualitative frequency percents total over 100 due to rounding.
Participant characteristics. This section describes the ethnicity and gender of the
participants of the qualitative portion of the study. The largest percentage of qualitative
questionnaire respondents identified as White, and the smallest percentage of respondents
identified as Mixed Asian, Mixed Race, or Micronesian (see Table 22). A chi-square goodness-
of-fit test indicates that the sample is significantly different from the quantitative survey sample
(!
2
= 67.74, p = 0.000). Two ethnic groups were overrepresented, White and Micronesian. Other
ethnic groups were underrepresented, including Native Hawaiian, Filipino, Mixed Asian, Mixed
Race, and Japanese. Additionally, other ethnic groups from the quantitative sample were
unrepresented, including Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, Chinese, Korean, and
Laotian. Table 22 shows the frequency and percentage of students of each ethnic group in both
the qualitative and quantitative samples.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 106

Table 22

Qualitative Participant Ethnicity (n = 15)
______________________________________________________________________________

Ethnicity Qualitative Frequency % Quantitative Frequency %
______________________________________________________________________________

Native Hawaiian 3 20 39 23.6
Filipino 3 20 33 20.0
Mixed Asian 1 6.7 12 7.3
Mixed Race 1 6.7 18 10.9
White 4 26.7 30 18.2
Japanese 2 13.3 20 12.1
Micronesian 1 6.7 1 .6
Total 165 100.1 165 92.7
____________________________________________________________________________
Note. Qualitative frequency percents total over 100 due to rounding. Quantitative percents do not
add to 100, as some ethnic groups were unrepresented.

The majority of respondents (66.7%) were female and 33.3% were male. A chi-square
test for goodness-of-fit indicates that the qualitative sample is significantly different than the
quantitative sample (!
2
= 4.222, p = 0.040). Compared to the quantitative sample, females were
underrepresented and males were overrepresented in the qualitative sample. Table 23 shows the
frequency and percentage of male and female students in both the qualitative and quantitative
samples.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 107

Table 23

Qualitative Participant Gender (n = 15)
______________________________________________________________________________

Gender Qualitative Frequency % Quantitative Frequency %
______________________________________________________________________________

Female 10 66.7 125 75.8
Male 5 33.3 40 24.2
Total 15 100.0 165 100.0
______________________________________________________________________________

Overall, the participants in the qualitative portion of the study represent students from
three universities, across a variety of degree and licensure programs. A range of ethnic groups,
and male and female students, is also represented. Native Hawaiian and Filipino students are
well represented. However, over most measures, the qualitative sample is significantly different
from the quantitative sample.
Research Question 1: Motivations
The first research question (RQ1) asked why teacher candidates in Hawai‘i choose to
become teachers in terms of their expectations and values relative to the teaching profession. To
answer RQ1, motivation was assessed through 67 items from the FIT-Choice Scale (Watt &
Richardson, 2007). Motivation variables were extracted from the FIT-Choice Scale questions
using exploratory and confirmatory analysis, and these motivation factors were analyzed and
described. This section describes how motivation factors were determined and the motivations of
the study participants to enter the teaching profession.
Determining Motivation Factors
Motivation factors were determined using exploratory factor analysis followed by
confirmatory factor analysis. For each sub-scale on the FIT-Choice scale (Watt & Richardson,
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 108

2007), exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed in SPSS, using maximum likelihood
extraction and a direct oblimin rotation. Maximum likelihood extraction is a recommended fit
procedure in psychological research due to the wide range of fit indexes available for the model
(Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCullum, & Strahan, 1999). Oblique rotations allow for factors to be
correlated; no oblique rotation method is considered superior over others (Fabrigar, Wegener,
MacCullum, & Strahan, 1999). Maximum likelihood extraction and direct oblimin rotation were
used to extract factors by the developers of the FIT-Choice Scale (Watt & Richardson, 2007),
thus these methods were chosen for this analysis. Items with coefficients less than 0.3 were
excluded.
The EFA of the FIT-Choice motivation constructs resulted in a ten-factor solution with
two items excluded. The beliefs about teaching constructs of the FIT-Choice scale had a four-
factor solution and the D-items decision to become a teacher constructs of the FIT-Choice had a
two-factor solution, neither with any items excluded. For both the beliefs about teaching
constructs and the decision to become a teacher constructs, the factor solutions using EFA were
the same as the factor solutions determined by the developers of the instrument (Watt &
Richardson, 2007). However, the factor solution for the motivation constructs was different than
that of the instrument developers, who determined a twelve-factor solution (Watt & Richardson,
2007). Thus, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the fit of the factor solutions
from the EFA and of the developer’s original factor solution.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed using the lavaan package (Rosseel,
2012) for the R statistical software package (R Core Team, 2013). A number of goodness-of-fit
indicators are used to report and evaluate model fit (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008; Klein,
2011; Schreiber et al., 2006). Kline (2011) suggests reporting the chi-square statistic (!
2
), along
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 109

with associated degrees of freedom (df) and p-value, as well as the Steiger–Lind root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA), the Bentler comparative fit index (CFI), and the
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). A review by Hooper, Coughlan, and Mullen
(2008) also suggests including the normed chi-square, !
2
/df. The results of CFA for each factor
solution for the FIT-Choice scale are presented in Table 24.
Table 24

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for FIT-Choice Scale
______________________________________________________________________________

Factor Solution !
2
(df, p) !
2
/df RMSEA CFI SRMR

Motivation constructs
nine-factor solution
1031.7 (558, 0.000) 1.8 0.074 0.841 0.079
Motivation constructs
twelve-factor solution
1021.6 (599, 0.000) 1.7 0.068 0.864 0.074
Beliefs about teaching constructs
four-factor solution
119.7 (71, 0.000) 1.7 0.066 0.944 0.066
Decision to become a teacher
constructs
two-factor solution
7.5 (8, 0.48) 0.9 0.000 1.000 0.053
______________________________________________________________________________

There is a range of accepted values in interpreting results of CFA (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen,
2008; Klein, 2011; Schreiber et al., 2006). Based on a review of fit indices, Hooper, Coughlan,
and Mullen (2008) suggested the acceptable threshold levels summarized in Table 25.
The original 12-factor solution for the motivation constructs of the FIT-Choice Scale was
retained, based on the values of the fit indices. Although none of the scales fell within the
thresholds for all of the indices in Table 25, the factor solutions were retained. According to
Kline (2011), “The outcome of an approximate fit index is not the dichotomous decision to reject
or retain a null hypothesis. Instead, these indexes are intended as continuous measures of model–
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 110

data correspondence.” Thus, no further scale modifications were made. The complete list of
factors and items is in Appendix X.
Table 25

Acceptable Thresholds for CFA Fit Indices
______________________________________________________________________________

Fit Index Acceptable Threshold

Chi-square (!
2
) Low relative to degrees of freedom (df), p > 0.05
Relative !
2
(!
2
/df) 2:1 to 3:1
RMSEA < 0.07
CFI > 0.95
SRMR < 0.08
______________________________________________________________________________

Reliability analyses were run for each factor, resulting in a Cronbach’s alpha measure of
internal consistency (see Table 26). Of the 18 total factors, 11 had a Cronbach’s alpha value of >
0.8, which according to George and Mallery (2003) indicates “good” internal consistency. These
factors were ability, job security, time for family, shape future of children/adolescents, make
social contribution, work with children/adolescents, prior teaching and learning experiences,
social influences, expertise, social status, and salary. Four factors, fallback career, enhance
social equity, difficulty, and satisfaction with choice, had a Cronbach’s alpha value between 0.7
and 0.8, indicating “acceptable” internal consistency (George & Mallery, 2003). Two factors, job
transferability and social dissuasion, had Cronbach’s alpha values between 0.6 and 0.7, with
“questionable” internal consistency (George & Mallery, 2003). One factor, intrinsic career
value, had a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.531, indicating “poor” internal consistency (George &
Mallery, 2003). The intrinsic career value factor was excluded by the nine-factor solution
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 111

derived using EFA; however, due to the better fit of the 12-factor solution of the original
instrument, the factor was retained.
Table 26

Reliability Analysis for FIT-Choice Scale Factors
______________________________________________________________________________

Factor Number of Items Cronbach’s "

Ability 3 0.829
Intrinsic career value 3 0.531
Fallback career 3 0.708
Job security 3 0.805
Time for family 5 0.824
Job transferability 3 0.658
Shape future of children/adolescents 3 0.808
Enhance social equity 3 0.789
Make social contribution 3 0.840
Work with children/adolescents 3 0.883
Prior teaching and learning experiences 3 0.853
Social influences 3 0.854
Expertise 3 0.836
Difficulty 3 0.736
Social status 6 0.851
Salary 2 0.852
Social dissuasion 3 0.619
Satisfaction with choice 3 0.745
______________________________________________________________________________

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 112

Describing Motivation Factors
Across 18 factors, the number of respondents ranged from 149 to 161. On a seven-point
scale, the mean rating across all factors was 4.69. Descriptive statistics for the motivation factors
are summarized in Table 27. The items in each factor are in Appendix H, Table A2.
Table 27

Descriptive Statistics for Motivation Factors
______________________________________________________________________________

Factor Solution n M SD

Ability 161 5.84 1.034
Intrinsic career value 160 5.83 0.986
Fallback career 160 1.94 1.227
Job security 161 4.84 1.396
Time for family 158 3.91 1.456
Job transferability 160 4.03 1.535
Shape future of children/adolescents 160 6.40 0.870
Enhance social equity 161 5.60 1.398
Make social contribution 161 6.23 1.056
Work with children/adolescents 161 5.93 1.163
Prior teaching and learning experiences 160 5.51 1.378
Social influences 160 4.01 1.808
Expertise 159 5.47 1.090
Difficulty 158 6.47 0.746
Social status 159 4.09 1.280
Salary 158 2.68 1.195
Social dissuasion 148 2.36 0.866
Satisfaction with choice 149 3.25 0.532
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Items were measured using a seven-point Likert scale.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 113

The highest rated factor was difficulty (M = 6.47). The items in the difficulty factor included “Do
you think teachers have a heavy workload,” “Do you think teaching is emotionally demanding,”
and “Do you think teaching is hard work?”. The lowest rated factor was fallback career (M =
1.94). The items in the fallback career factor were “I was unsure of what career I wanted,” “I
was not accepted into my first-choice career,” and “I chose teaching as a last-resort career.”
Other highly rated factors included shape future of children/adolescents (M = 6.40) and make
social contribution (M = 6.23). Other low rated factors were social dissuasion (M = 2.36) and
“salary” (M = 2.68). Interestingly, one factor that rated below the overall mean and ranked 15
out of 18 factors was satisfaction with choice (M = 3.25).
The motivation factors and ratings can be analyzed in terms of the related expectancy–
value theory (EVT; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) constructs and general motivation classifications
(see Table 28). Overall, altruistic motivations, making social contributions (M = 6.23),
enhancing social equity (M = 5.60), shaping the future of children/adolescents (M = 6.40), and
working with children/adolescents (M = 5.93) were highly rated. These motivation factors are
classified by Watt and Richardson (2007) as social utility value, which in the FIT-Choice scale is
specifically related to how well teaching as a profession aligns with students’ goals to make a
social contribution. Intrinsic motivations, ability (M = 5.84) and intrinsic career value (M =
5.83) also rated relatively high, above the mean. Ability aligns with the EVT expectancies
construct, while intrinsic career value aligns with the intrinsic value EVT construct. Generally,
extrinsic motivations were rated below the mean. Extrinsic motivations include those
motivations in the personal attainment value EVT construct, including job security (M = 4.84),
time for family (M = 3.91), and job transferability (M = 4.03), as well as those in the cost EVT
construct, social status (M = 4.09), and salary (M = 2.68). Another extrinsic motivation factor,
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 114

social influences (M = 4.01), aligns with the influencing factors EVT construct and was also
rated below the mean. Three extrinsic motivations, expertise (M = 4.84), difficulty (M = 6.47),
and prior teaching and learning experiences (M = 5.51) had relatively high average ratings.
Table 28

Means of Motivation Factors by EVT Construct and Motivation Classification
______________________________________________________________________________

EVT Construct Motivation Classification Factor M

Expectancies Intrinsic Ability 5.84
Intrinsic Value Intrinsic Intrinsic career value 5.83
--
-- Fallback career 1.94
Job security 4.84
Time for family 3.91
Attainment Value Extrinsic
Job transferability 4.03
Shape future of children/adolescents 6.40
Enhance social equity 5.60
Make social contribution 6.23
Social Utility Value Altruistic
Work with children/adolescents 5.93
Prior teaching and learning experiences 5.51
Influencing Factors Extrinsic
Social influences 4.01
Expertise 5.47
Difficulty 6.47
Social status 4.09
Cost Extrinsic
Salary 2.68
Social dissuasion 2.36
Choice --
Satisfaction with choice 3.25
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Items were measured using a seven-point Likert scale.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 115

Qualitative Motivation Results
Qualitative data were collected using open-ended survey questions and analyzed using
constant comparison analysis (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007). Qualitative data for Research
Question 1 came from four questions, “What influenced you in your choice to become a
teacher?,” “How did your family react to your decision to become a teacher?,” “Compared to
others in your cohort, how confident are you that you will be a good teacher?,” and “How do you
think a career in teaching is beneficial?” The coded themes were aligned to expectancy–value
theory (EVT) constructs and FIT-Choice factors. Results are summarized in Table 29.
Generally, the qualitative themes were reflective of the quantitative data. For example,
the mean score on the ability factor was 5.84 and a majority of respondents (6/10) expressed that
they are confident or very confident in their ability to be a good teacher. A large number of
respondents (8/15) cited having a good teacher, either personally or of their children, and prior
teaching and learning experiences was also rated highly in the quantitative data (M = 5.51).
However, other highly rated factors, such as intrinsic career value (M = 5.83), were not widely
mentioned in the responses to the open-ended questions. Only one respondent, Stacey,
responded, “I have always had a draw to become a teacher from before I can remember,”
describing her lifelong attraction to the teaching profession. One motivation cited by a qualitative
participant for becoming a teacher, not addressed in the quantitative data, was having a religious
calling to the career. However, most of themes that emerged from the qualitative data aligned
with the factors from the quantitative survey.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 116

Table 29

Qualitative Themes of Motivation Factors
______________________________________________________________________________

EVT Construct FIT-Choice Factors Qualitative Themes

Expectancies Ability Most confident or very confident (6/10)

Some becoming less confident through program
(2/10)
Intrinsic value Intrinsic career value One respondent expressed always wanting to be
teacher (1/15)
-- Fallback career Two respondents described teaching as a
fallback career (2/15)
Job security
Time for family
Attainment Value
Job transferability
One respondent expressed desire for time for
coaching and family (1/15)
Shape future of
children/adolescents
Enhance social equity
Make social
contribution
Social Utility
Value
Work with
children/adolescents
Majority of respondents expressed desire to
provide service to children or society (12/15)
Prior teaching and
learning experiences
Influencing
Factors
Social influences
Nearly half (7/15) cited having good teacher

Families generally supportive (7/10)
Expertise
Difficulty
Social status
Cost
Salary
No respondents cited as reason to/not to teach,
but as reason families unsupportive (5/10)
Social dissuasion Choice
Satisfaction with choice
Many families unsupportive (5/10)

Three major themes emerge from the qualitative data. First, respondents were overall
confident in their ability to be good teachers. Four of ten who answered the question used the
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 117

phrase “very confident,” and another three also expressed a confidence in their abilities. For
example, Rick wrote,
I am very confident I will be a great teacher. I feel that my teachers have prepared me
well to be a great teacher. If I felt I was not going to be a good teacher I would have quit
by now.
However, other respondents gave more nuanced responses. Three of ten respondents expressed
that, while they were confident in their abilities, they felt that they had room to grow. Vanessa
shared,
I am very excited to be a teacher and very confident that I will be a great teacher. I'm still
curious and eager to learn and I think that's a trait of a good teacher. The best teachers are
hungry for knowledge and want to share that hunger with their students.
Two respondents suggested that they would make better teachers than others in their cohorts,
whom they felt were unprepared. Interestingly, two of ten respondents expressed having low
confidence and both of these respondents described becoming less confident as they progressed
through their teacher preparation programs. For example, Stacey stated,
I don't think that I have as much confidence in myself that I will become a good teacher. I
know what good teachers are like and what should be expected out of them, but the closer
I come to being in the class alone with these students and being responsible for them the
less confident I am in myself.
Troy described,
Based on immediate feedback from the student teaching semester (this semester), my
confidences may be shaken a bit. As a second career teacher, I am significantly older than
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 118

most of my cohorts. . .Bridging this emotional / generational divide may be more difficult
than I had originally anticipated.
Overall, the responses to the open-ended question about preservice teachers’ self-perceived
abilities support the high rating of the ability factor in the quantitative data. However, the
responses also reveal subtle distinctions not apparent from the quantitative data.
A second theme that supports the quantitative data is the desire of preservice teachers to
provide a service in some way to society. Of 15 respondents to the question “What influenced
you in your choice to become a teacher?,” two expressed a wish to give back to society, one
mentioned advocacy for disadvantaged children, two described making an impact on students,
and three expressed a desire to work with children. Danielle wrote, “I wanted to make a
difference in the school system and I wanted to be a positive influence on young children whom
[sic] sometimes don't get that kind of influence at home.” In another question, “How do you
think a career in teaching is beneficial?,” answers were coded into two overarching themes,
benefits to self and benefits to others. Benefits to self can be classified as intrinsic career value,
with respondents describing a fulfilling career that allows teachers to feel rewarded. Two of
twelve respondents listed only benefits to self, and five of twelve respondents listed benefits to
self in addition to benefits to others. An additional six respondents listed only benefits to others
as ways in which teaching is beneficial. These benefits to others included helping children,
serving as a positive influence to students, giving back to the community, and teaching
skills/content. Gabi captured several common themes, sharing
You can learn a lot about how others learn and how you as a teacher learn. You are
helping children build a foundation for a better life. You are sometimes the only one who
may believe in a child and that may have a significant impact on them.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 119

Overall, these themes echo the highly rated social utility value factors, shape future of
children/adolescents (M = 6.40), enhance social equity (M = 5.60), make social contribution (M
= 6.23) and work with children adolescents (M = 5.93).
Finally, a third theme that emerged from the qualitative data is the pull on potential
teachers between positive influencing factors and social dissuasion. Seven of 15 respondents
mentioned good teachers as an influence on their choice of becoming a teacher. Diana described,
In high school, my club advisor was a special ed teacher for students with severe autism.
She was very passionate and clearly loved her job. I thought it was rare to see someone
shine like that every day, especially with such a demanding job, and she inspired me.
Of ten respondents asked how their families responded to their choice of teaching, seven
described their families as being supportive, five described their families as being unhappy or
unsupportive, and one noted no particular family reaction. Paige was well supported in her
choice, describing how “everyone was very supportive and helped me with little gifts and words
of encouragement for what I wanted to do with my life.” Emma had a different reaction from her
family:
My mom doesn't want me to be a teacher because there isn't a high demand for Japanese
teachers. I always enjoyed my Japanese classes which is why I decided to major in
Japanese. She would rather I be an engineer since I excelled in math. My grandma also
doesn't want me to be a teacher since they aren't paid well and that I should work at [the]
airlines instead.
Within one response, multiple respondents described tension between positive and negative
influences and reactions. For example, Paul wrote
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 120

My parents were not thrilled, and they still worry about my financial future. I can still
remember the difference in their reaction from when I told them I was considering law
school compared to when I told them I had gotten accepted to the College of Education.
But my wife, also a teacher, was very supportive.
Interestingly, no respondent mentioned salary as a personal reason for considering or not
considering teaching. Salary was only mentioned in the context of families’ reactions to
respondents’ choice to teach. Overall, the qualitative data support the findings in the quantitative
data that those who have chosen to teach have had positive prior teaching and learning
experiences (M = 5.51). However, the qualitative responses point to greater social dissuasion and
more negative social influences than the quantitative data (M social dissuasion = 2.36; M social
influences = 4.01).
Findings for Research Question 1
The quantitative and qualitative data point to several findings:
1. The motivations of this sample align with both expectancy–value theory constructs
and the general motivation themes of intrinsic, altruistic, and extrinsic motivations.
2. Study participants have chosen the career with intent.
3. In spite of a purposeful choice, respondents have low satisfaction with their choice to
become a teacher
In general, study participants expressed higher levels of expectancy, intrinsic, and social utility
values (intrinsic and altruistic motivations), and lower ratings of influencing and cost factors
(extrinsic motivations). Participants quantitatively describe teaching as a career that provides
only a moderate social status and low salary–a career choice with a high cost. Many entered the
profession both due to a mixture of positive influences and in spite of a lack of support, as
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 121

evidenced by both quantitative and qualitative data. However, these preservice teachers chose the
career with intent, as evidenced by a low rating for fallback career. Overall, preservice teachers
seem to understand the costs of the profession, and yet have still chosen a career in teaching.
Survey respondents rated satisfaction with choice low on average. Although those who
participated in the qualitative portion of the survey were not asked directly about satisfaction,
several respondents indicated that their teacher preparation programs had shaken their
confidence and that teaching was harder than they realized. While these factors may play a role
in satisfaction, however, they do not provide a full understanding of the low satisfaction rating.
Although somewhat unsatisfied with the choice of teaching as a career, study participants still
feel that they will be good teachers and that they will be able to make a difference to students
and society. Respondents highly rated their ability to teach, a sentiment that was echoed and
expanded upon in the qualitative data.
Research Question 2: Differentiated Motivations
The second research question (RQ2) asked how motivations differ between teacher
candidates of different ethnic groups and different cultural attitudes and beliefs. Ethnicity was
self-reported and coded as previously described. Cultural attitudes and beliefs were assessed
through 27 items from the Pluralism and Diversity Attitude Assessment (PADAA; Dee &
Henkin, 2002; Stanley, 1996) and Teacher Belief Scale (TBS; Woolley, Benjamin, & Woolley,
2004). Cultural attitude and belief factors were determined using exploratory and confirmatory
analysis, and then these factors were analyzed and described. To determine relationships between
ethnicity and motivation factors, ANOVA and ANCOVA analyses were run. Relationships
between motivation and cultural attitude and belief factors were explored using bivariate
correlation analyses. This section describes differentiation of motivations by ethnicity,
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 122

determining cultural belief and awareness factors, and differentiation of motivations by cultural
belief and awareness factors, using quantitative and qualitative data.
Differentiating by Ethnicity
Research Question 2 first asked whether motivations differed between ethnic groups. A
one-way between groups analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine differences
in motivations between ethnic groups. There was no statistically significant difference between
ethnic groups across any of the motivation factors. However, it has been suggested that a variety
of factors may also influence motivations for teaching, including gender, type of program, and
type of licensure being pursued (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992). There is evidence in the literature
to support differences in motivation by gender (Johnston, McKeown, & McEwen, 1999; Manuel
& Hughes, 2006; Müller, Alliata, & Benninghoff, 2009; Topkaya & Uztosun, 2012; Watt &
Richardson, 2005), program (Richardson & Watt, 2006), and licensure (Müller, Alliata, &
Benninghoff, 2009).
To control for gender, program type, and licensure type, a one-way between–groups
analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted using a general linear model in SPSS. The
independent variable was ethnicity, the dependent variables were the motivation factors, and the
covariates were gender, type of program, and type of licensure. Preliminary analyses were
conducted to ensure that assumptions of ANCOVA were not violated. For five of the 18 factors,
there was an interaction between ethnicity and a covariate, violating the assumption of
homogeneity of regression slopes. There was interaction between ethnicity and type of program
for intrinsic career value, as well as between ethnicity and gender for job security, enhance
social equity, make social contribution, and expertise. Significant interaction effects are shown
in Table 30. These interactions effects range from medium to large (Cohen in Pallant, 2011).
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 123

Table 30
Interaction Effects of Ethnicity and Gender or Program Type for Motivation Factors
______________________________________________________________________________

Motivation Factor Interaction Effect F Sig. Partial #-Squared

Job security Ethnicity * gender 2.314 .037 .098
Enhance social equity Ethnicity * gender 2.641 .019 .110
Make social contribution Ethnicity * gender 2.448 .028 .103
Expertise Ethnicity * gender 3.283 .005 .135
Intrinsic career value Ethnicity * degree program 2.570 .022 .108

For job security, enhance social equity, make social contribution, and expertise,
ANCOVA revealed an interaction between ethnicity and gender. For job security, the interaction
between ethnicity and gender, F(6, 128) = 2.314, had a medium effect size (#
p
2
= .098). Native
Hawaiian, Mixed Asian, and Mixed Race females rated security higher than males; Filipino,
White, Chinese, and Japanese males rated security higher than females. The interaction effect
between ethnicity and gender, F(6, 128) = 2.641 for enhance social equity had a medium effect
size (#
p
2
= .110). Female Filipino, Mixed Race, and Chinese respondents rated enhance social
equity higher than male respondents; male Native Hawaiian, Mixed Asian, and Japanese
respondents rated enhance social equity higher than females. There was a medium effect size
(#
p
2
= .103) for the interaction between ethnicity and gender for make social contribution, F(6,
128) = 2.448. Filipino, Mixed Asian, and Mixed Race females rated make social contribution
higher than males; Native Hawaiian, White, and Japanese males rated make social contribution
higher than females. The interaction between ethnicity and gender for expertise, F(6, 126) =
3.283, had a large effect size (#
p
2
= .135). For Native Hawaiian, Mixed Race, and Chinese
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 124

respondents, females rated expertise higher than males; for Filipino, Mixed Asian, White, and
Japanese respondents, males rated expertise higher than females.
Finally, for intrinsic career value, ANCOVA revealed an interaction effect between
ethnicity and degree program, F(6, 127) = 2.570 with a medium effect size (#
p
2
= .108). For
Native Hawaiian respondents, those in Master’s programs rated intrinsic career value higher
than those in Bachelor’s degrees, who rated intrinsic career value higher than those in post-
baccalaureate programs. Filipino respondents in Bachelor’s programs rated intrinsic career value
the highest, followed by those in post-baccalaureate program, then those in Master’s programs.
Mixed Asian respondents in post-baccalaureate programs rated intrinsic career value the highest,
followed by those in Master’s programs, then those in Bachelor’s programs. For Mixed Race
respondents, those in Bachelor’s programs rated intrinsic career value the highest, with ratings
by those in Master’s and post-baccalaureate being statistically the same. White students in
Master’s and post-baccalaureate programs rated intrinsic career value the same, higher than
those in Bachelor’s programs. Chinese respondents in Bachelor’s programs rated intrinsic career
value the higher than those in Master’s programs. For Japanese respondents, those in post-
baccalaureate programs rated intrinsic career value the highest, followed by those in Bachelor’s
programs, and then those in Master’s programs. Finally, Korean respondents in post-
baccalaureate programs rated intrinsic career value higher than those in Bachelor’s programs.
There were no consistent patterns in ratings for intrinsic career value across ethnic groups. For
the remaining factors that did not violate the assumptions of ANCOVA, there were no significant
differences by ethnicity when controlling for gender, program type, and licensure type.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 125

Determining Cultural Belief and Awareness Factors
Cultural belief and awareness factors were determined using the same methodology as for
motivation factors. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed in SPSS, using maximum
likelihood extraction and a direct oblimin rotation. Items with coefficients less than 0.3 were
excluded. EFA for the Pluralism and Diversity Attitude Assessment (PADAA) resulted in a four-
factor solution. This four-factor solution was different from the previously published solutions, a
four-factor solution by Stanley (1996) and five-factor solution by Dee and Henkin (2002).
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the fit of the factor solution from the EFA
and of the previously published factor solutions of the PADAA. One subscale from the Teacher
Belief Survey (TBS) was also used and CFA was run on this subscale.
CFA was performed using the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012) for the R statistical
software package (R Core Team, 2013). The goodness-of-fit indicators used to report and
evaluate model fit (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008; Klein, 2011; Schreiber et al., 2006) were
the chi-square statistic (!
2
), along with associated degrees of freedom (df) and p-value, the
normed chi-square, !
2
/df, the Steiger–Lind root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA),
the Bentler comparative fit index (CFI), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR).
The results of CFA for each factor solution for the PADAA and TBS are presented in Table 31.
A range of values are used in interpreting results of CFA (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen,
2008; Klein, 2011; Schreiber et al., 2006), with acceptable threshold levels for fit indices
suggested by Hooper, Coughlan, and Mullen (2008) summarized in Table 25. Based on the
values of the fit indices, the four-factor solution for the PADAA derived from EFA was retained
and the one-factor solution of the TBS was retained.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 126

Table 31

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Cultural Belief and Awareness Factors
______________________________________________________________________________

Factor Solution !
2
(df, p) !
2
/df RMSEA CFI SRMR

PADAA four-factor solution
136.1 (113, 0.068) 1.2 0.037 0.968 0.059
PADAA Dee & Henkin (2002)
five-factor solution
252.2 (125, 0.000) 2.0 0.082 0.825 0.098
PADAA Stanley (1996)
four-factor solution
401.6 (146, 0.000) 2.8 0.107 0.686 0.092
TBS one-factor solution
555.9 (36, 0.000) 15.4 0.090 0.936 0.052
______________________________________________________________________________

The four factors and associated items of the PADAA were examined post-hoc for their
relationship to the six strands of Villegas and Lucas (2002, 2007) theoretical framework of
cultural responsiveness. The first factor extracted from the PADAA using EFA was limited in
scope, with only two items loading. These items, “Each student should have an equal opportunity
to learn and succeed in education” and “Each minority culture has something positive to
contribute to American society” speak to an appreciation of different cultures in society and a
desire for equity in education. These concepts are related to Strand One of the Villegas and
Lucas (2002) framework, “Sociocultural Consciousness.” The “Sociocultural Consciousness”
strand addresses teachers’ understanding of how social and cultural differences impact equity in
education and the links between schools and society. Both items imply a value of diversity. The
two items from the first PADAA factor are related to the ideas of Strand One, but do not cover
the depth of concepts in this strand. This factor was therefore identified as “Diversity Value,”
which is related to “Sociocultural Consciousness.”
Strand Six of the Villegas and Lucas (2002) framework is “Culturally Responsive
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 127

Teaching Practices.” The scope of culturally responsive teaching is wide, but Villegas and Lucas
(2002, p. 27) summarize such practices as “involving all students in the construction of
knowledge, building on students’ personal and cultural strengths, helping students examine the
curriculum from multiple perspectives, using varied assessment practices that promote learning,
and making the culture of the classroom inclusive of all students.” The items in the second factor
from the EFA analysis of the PADAA align with the “Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices”
strand, with items including “Educators should plan activities that meet the diverse needs and
develop the unique abilities of students from different ethnic backgrounds” and “Educators in
this country are responsible for teaching students about the ways in which various cultures have
influenced the subjects that they teach.” The eight items in this factor are well matched to the
constructs in Strand Six, thus this factor was identified as “Culturally Responsive Teaching
Practices,” or “Responsive Practices.”
The third PADAA factor derived from EFA contained reverse-scored items, including
“There is really nothing that educational systems can do for students who come from lower
socioeconomic groups” and “Students should give up their cultural beliefs and practices to fit in
with other students.” The second strand of the Villegas and Lucas (2002) framework is “An
Affirming Attitude Toward Students From Culturally Diverse Backgrounds.” Teachers with an
affirming attitude towards cultural diversity see all students “as learners who already know a
great deal and who have experiences, concepts, and languages that can be built on and expanded
to learn even more” (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, p. 23). The five items in the third PADAA factor
are representative of the themes in the second strand of Villegas and Lucas (2002), thus the
factor was identified as “An Affirming Attitude Toward Students From Culturally Diverse
Backgrounds” or “Affirming Attitude.”
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 128

Strand Three of the Villegas and Lucas (2002) framework is “Commitment and Skills to
Act as Agents of Change.” Villegas and Lucas (2002) explain that teachers’ job is to facilitate
the growth and development of other human beings. The items in the fourth factor extracted from
the PADAA using EFA partially align with Strand Three of the framework. The two
complimentary items indicate a belief that students should feel pride in their cultural heritage and
that it is an educator’s responsibility to help students develop respect for themselves and others.
As these items represent only a portion of the “Agents of Change” strand, this factor was
identified as “Student Development.” This factor aligns with the “Agents of Change” strand, but
does not represent the breadth of the constructs in this strand. In choosing the instruments to
address the Villegas and Lucas (2002) framework, however, it was understood that the items
would not directly assess the constructs in the framework, and would rather approximate these
concepts.
Finally, the one factor from the TBS was the “Constructivist Teaching” scale. This factor
aligns with Strand Four from the Villegas and Lucas (2002) framework, “Constructivist Views of
Learning.” This strand describes learning as “a process by which students generate meaning in
response to new ideas and experiences they encounter in school” (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, p. 25)
and in which students incorporate prior knowledge in making sense of new knowledge. The
items from the TBS factor included “I believe that expanding on students’ ideas is an effective
way to build my curriculum” and “I make it a priority in my classroom to give students time to
work together when I am not directing them.” This factor was identified as “Constructivist
Teaching.”
Reliability analyses were run for each PADAA and TBS factor, resulting in Cronbach’s
alpha measures of internal consistency. Of the five total factors, two had a Cronbach’s alpha
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 129

value of > 0.8, indicating “good” internal consistency (George & Mallery, 2003). One factor had
had a Cronbach’s alpha value of > 0.7, indicating “acceptable” internal consistency (George &
Mallery, 2003). Two scales had Cronbach’s alpha values of > 0.6, with “questionable” internal
consistency (George & Mallery, 2003). See Table 32 for Cronbach’s alpha for each of the
cultural beliefs and awareness factors. The full list of items for each factor is in Appendix X.
Table 32
Reliability Analysis for Cultural Belief and Awareness Scales
______________________________________________________________________________

Scale Factor Number of Items Cronbach’s "

PADAA 1 Diversity Value 2 0.873
PADAA 2 Responsive Practices 8 0.785
PADAA 3 Affirming Attitude 5 0.669
PADAA 4 Student Development 2 0.682
TBS Constructivist Teaching 8 0.858
______________________________________________________________________________

For five cultural beliefs and awareness factors, the number of respondents ranged from
154 to 157. On a six-point scale, the mean rating across five factors was 5.56, with every factor
rating above 5 on average. The highest rated factor was “Student Development” (M = 5.92). The
lowest rated factor was “Affirming Attitude” (M = 5.03). The number of respondents, mean, and
standard deviation are in Table 33 and the items in each factor are in Appendix H, Table A3.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 130

Table 33

Descriptive Statistics for Cultural Belief and Attitude Factors
______________________________________________________________________________

Factor Solution n M Std. Dev.

Student Development 157 5.92 .276
Diversity Value 156 5.90 .412
Responsive Practices 156 5.66 .489
Constructivist Teaching 154 5.31 .660
Affirming Attitude 154 5.03 .792
______________________________________________________________________________

Differentiating Motivation by Cultural Belief and Awareness Factors
Bivariate correlations between motivation and cultural beliefs factors were determined to
assess the linear relationship between these factors. Pearson’s r was calculated; factors with
significant correlations are listed in Table 34. There were a total of 27 correlations between 23
factors. Of these, 25 were strong, with r = .10 to .29 (Pallant, 2011). Two correlations were
moderate, with r = .30 to .49. The highest significant correlation between factors was between
shape future of children/adolescents and diversity value, with the two factors sharing
approximately 10.4% of their variability (r = .323). The lowest significant correlation between
factors was between ability and student development, which shared 2.56% of their variability (r =
.160).

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 131

Table 34

Pearson’s Correlations Between Motivation and Cultural Belief and Attitude Factors

Cultural Belief and Awareness Factors

Motivation Factors

Ability 0.041 0.146 0.028 .160* .189*
Intrinsic career value 0.071 0.151 0.055 0.098 .247**
Fallback career 0 -0.073 -.205* -0.15 -0.11
Job security 0.044 0.14 0.021 0.068 .264**
Time for family 0.158 0.044 -.164* 0.024 0.139
Job transferability 0.049 0.069 -0.077 0.142 .243**
Shape future of
children/adolescents
.323** 0.125 0.085 0.118 .314**
Enhance social equity 0.031 0.003 0.031 .207** .190*
Make social contribution .266** .191* 0.009 0.101 .249**
Work with
children/adolescents
0.036 0.011 -0.071 0.063 .265**
Prior teaching and learning
experiences
.191* 0.129 -0.036 .169* .199*
Social influences -.194* 0.082 -0.007 -0.104 0.119
Expertise -0.071 0.023 .213** 0.039 0.132
Difficulty 0.128 0.035 -0.092 0.042 .210**
Social status 0.081 -0.03 -0.004 -.195* 0.074
Salary -0.052 0.153 0.068 .185* .272**
Social dissuasion .081 -.030 -.004 -.195
*
.074
Satisfaction with choice -.052 .153 .068 .185
*
.272
**

Note. Correlations marked with an asterisk (*) were significant at p < 0.05. Correlations marked
with a double asterisk (**) were significant at p < .01.

The enhance social equity, make social contribution, and work with children/adolescents
motivation factors were all significantly positively correlated with the diversity value cultural
Diversity
Value
Responsive
Practices
Affirming
Attitude
Student
Development
Constructivist
Teaching
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 132

belief factor. The social influences motivation factor was significantly negatively correlated with
the diversity value cultural belief factor. The make social contribution motivation factor was
significantly positively correlated with the responsive practices cultural belief factor. The
fallback career and time for family motivation factors were significantly negatively correlated
with the affirming attitude cultural belief factor, while the expertise motivation factor was
positively correlated with the affirming attitude factor. Ability, enhance social equity, prior
teaching and learning experiences, salary, and satisfaction with choice motivation factors were
positively correlated with the student development cultural belief factor, while the social status
and social dissuasion motivation factors were negatively correlated with student development.
Finally, the constructivist teaching cultural belief factor was positively correlated with 12 of 18
motivation factors, ability, intrinsic career value, job security, job transferability, shape future of
children/adolescents, enhance social equity, make social contribution, work with
children/adolescents, prior teaching and learning experiences, difficulty, salary, and satisfaction
with choice.
Several correlations and patterns emerge from this analysis. Overall, altruistic motivation
(social utility) factors were most highly correlated with cultural beliefs and attitudes factors. The
two strongest correlations were between the shape future of children/adolescents motivation
factor and the diversity value and constructivist teaching cultural beliefs factors. Conceptually,
the social utility value motivation factors are related to the cultural belief and awareness factors.
The social utility motivation factors pertain to beliefs about the relationship between teachers
and students and teaching and society. Interestingly, the constructivist teaching factor was
correlated with 12 of 18 motivation factors. The constructivist teaching scale includes
perceptions of specific constructivist teaching practices. Some of these factors relate
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 133

conceptually to the motivation factors, including shape future of children/adolescents, enhance
social equity, make social contribution, and work with children/adolescents. However, other
factors are not conceptually related, yet significantly correlated to constructivist teaching,
including salary and job security.
Qualitative Ethnicity and Motivation Results
Qualitative data were collected using open-ended survey questions and analyzed using
constant comparison analysis (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007). Data for Research Question 2
came from four questions addressed to all questionnaire participants, “What influenced you in
your choice to become a teacher?,” “How did your family react to your decision to become a
teacher?,” “Compared to others in your cohort, how confident are you that you will be a good
teacher?,” and “How do you think a career in teaching is beneficial?”. The coded themes were
aligned to expectancy–value theory (EVT) constructs and FIT-Choice Factors. For qualitative
data collection and analysis, the focus was on Native Hawaiian and Filipino ethnic groups as
compared to the overall sample. Two respondents participated in the Native Hawaiian group and
two respondents participated in the Filipino group. In the hard-to-staff group, one additional
respondent identified as Native Hawaiian and another additional respondent identified as
Filipino. Results are summarized in Table 35.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 134

Table 35

Differentiated Qualitative Themes of Motivation Factors
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

EVT Construct FIT-Choice Factors Qualitative Themes Differentiated by Ethnicity

Expectancies Ability Most confident or very confident (6/10)
All Native Hawaiian (2/2) and Filipino (2/2)
confident or very confident
Intrinsic Value Intrinsic career value
One respondent expressed always wanting to be
teacher (1/15)
No Native Hawaiian or Filipino respondents
-- Fallback career
Two respondents described teaching as a fallback
career (1/15)
No Native Hawaiian or Filipino respondents
Job security
Time for family
Attainment
Value
Job transferability
One respondent expressed desire for time for
coaching and family (1/15)
This respondent identified as Native Hawaiian
(1/3)
Shape future of
children/adolescents
Enhance social equity
Make social contribution
Social Utility
Value
Work with children/adolescents
Majority of respondents expressed desire to
provide service to children or society (13/15)
All Native Hawaiian (3/3) and no Filipino (0/3)
respondents cited social utility value
Prior teaching and learning
experiences
No Native Hawaiian (0/3) and all Filipino (3/3)
respondents cited having good teacher Influencing
Factors
Social influences
Nearly half (7/15) cited having good teacher

Families generally supportive (7/10)
All Native Hawaiian (2/2) and half Filipino (1/2)
respondents cited supportive family
Expertise
Difficulty
Social status
Cost
Salary
No respondents cited as reason to/not to teach, but
as reason families unsupportive (5/10)
All Native Hawaiian (2/2) and half Filipino (1/2)
respondents described family concern about low
pay
Social dissuasion
Choice
Satisfaction with choice
Many families unsupportive (5/10)
Half Native Hawaiian (1/2) and half Filipino
(1/2) respondents cite unsupportive families
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 135

An examination of the qualitative data in terms of ethnicity generally reflected similar
trends as the overall sample. All Native Hawaiian (2/2) and Filipino (2/2) respondents expressed
confidence in their ability to teach, as compared to six of ten total respondents. No Native
Hawaiian or Filipino respondents commented on themes of intrinsic career value or fallback
career, as compared to one of 15 and two of 15, respectively, in the overall sample. The one
respondent who described the importance of having time for family and coaching identified as
Native Hawaiian. In the overall sample, 13 of 15 respondents described a theme that
corresponded to social utility value. Three of three Native Hawaiian respondents also described a
social utility value factor. No Filipino respondents, out of three, described a social utility value
factor. However, of the two questions that addressed a social utility value factor, only one was
asked of all three Filipino respondents, and the second was asked of only one. Nearly half (7/15)
overall respondents cited having a good teacher as a positive influence; none of the three Native
Hawaiian respondents cited this reason, while three of three Filipino respondents described
having a good teacher as a reason for becoming a teacher.
Overall, families of respondents were generally supportive (7/10 cited supportive
families); all Native Hawaiian respondents (2/2) and half of the Filipino respondents (1/2) cited
having family support. As with the overall sample, no Native Hawaiian or Filipino respondents
cited salary as in influencing factor in choosing teaching as a career, but did describe family
concern about the low salary of teaching (2/2 Native Hawaiian respondents and 1/2 Filipino
respondents). Finally, half of respondents in the overall sample described families as being
unsupportive, and half (1/2) each of Native Hawaiian and Filipino respondents described
families as being unsupportive. While the number of Native Hawaiian and Filipino students was
small, the answers to these questions provided by the respondents indicate, similarly to the
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 136

quantitative data, that there is not a substantial difference in motivations to teach by ethnic
groups.
Learning about students. The strand of the Villegas and Lucas (2002, 2007) framework
of cultural responsiveness, learning about students, that was not addressed through the
quantitative survey was addressed through one question on the open-ended questionnaire, “How
important is it for teachers to learn what students bring with them to the classroom–for example
home life, previous learning experiences, or extracurricular activities?” Of 15 respondents, 13
across all ethnic groups responded that learning about students was very important. Other themes
raised by respondents included how home life affects school life, how understanding what
students bring to school with them can help guide classroom instruction, and how a classroom
can serve as a place for students to experience equity. The two respondents who did not
explicitly state the importance of learning about students, did mention other themes, including
the classroom as a place of safety and equality and the impact of life outside of the classroom on
a student’s school experience. Faith’s response succinctly captured the themes of many of the
participants:
I think it is extremely important for teachers to know their students well. It makes it
easier to support them and to build that bond that is needed to build a healthy, productive
classroom. It also helps for differentiating instruction.
Role of teacher–student ethnicity match. An additional set of open-ended questions
specifically addressed issues pertaining to teacher–student ethnicity match. The Native Hawaiian
and Filipino groups were asked, “Do you believe that Native Hawaiian/Filipino culture or values
played a role in your choice to become a teacher?,” “Do you believe that Native
Hawaiian/Filipino culture or values played a role in your family's reaction to your choice to
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 137

become a teacher?,” “Is there a difference in what Native Hawaiian/Filipino and non-Native
Hawaiian/Filipino teachers can do for Native Hawaiian/Filipino students?”, and “Is there a
difference in what Native Hawaiian/Filipino and non-Native Hawaiian/Filipino teachers can do
for students of other ethnic groups?”. The non-Native Hawaiian or Filipino group was asked “Is
there a difference in what teachers can do for their students when they are from the same ethnic
group and when they are not?”.
In response to the question, “Do you believe that Native Hawaiian/Filipino culture or
values played a role in your choice to become a teacher?,” neither of two Native Hawaiian
respondents and one of two Filipino respondent believed that their culture played a role in their
choice to become a teacher. Danielle, who identified as Native Hawaiian wrote, “I do want to
give back to my community of Native Hawaiians, but the culture and the values itself was not the
reason behind me wanting to become a teacher.” Hunter, who also identified as Native Hawaiian,
wrote “In all honesty, learning and teaching in the Hawaiian culture is quite different than the
teacher that I have always hoped to become. Growing up and learning the "Hawaiian" way meant
watching and not asking questions.” The respondents from the Filipino group were mixed in
their responses. Vanessa wrote,
Education is very important in my culture and for most Filipinos. . .I felt that teaching
was the best way I could continue to learn and develop and. . .obviously the best way to
get students excited about school and learning.
Daisy, on the other hand, wrote “No, I went to a private school and I choose to hide my culture
because it was different from my peers. I was not proud of it because my peers were not proud of
it.”
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 138

Answers to the question “Do you believe that Native Hawaiian/Filipino culture or values
played a role in your family's reaction to your choice to become a teacher?” were also mixed.
Danielle (Native Hawaiian), noted that her family was supportive overall , yet also tried to talk
her out of choosing teaching as a career. Danielle believed that Native Hawaiian culture or
values did not play a role in her family’s reaction, but rather her mother’s personal experience as
a teacher and concern that teaching is a low-paying job. Hunter (Native Hawaiian), who
described his family as supportive of his decision, yet concerned about his financial future,
believed that Native Hawaiian culture or values may have played a role in their reaction. Hunter
wrote, “Maybe. I think that my family liked the idea that I would be giving back to my
community and giving young Hawaiian children (among other ethnicities) a chance at a better
life.” Vanessa (Filipino) described her family as being very unsupportive of her choice of
teaching, but did not clearly express whether her family’s culture played a role in this reaction.
Daisy, who felt that her culture was not important in her decision to become a teacher, felt that
her parents’ and grandparents’ supportive and nurturing response was due to their Filipino
culture.
In response to the question, “Is there a difference in what Native Hawaiian/Filipino and
non-Native Hawaiian/Filipino teachers can do for Native Hawaiian/Filipino students?”, Danielle
and Hunter both agreed that Native Hawaiian teachers can in some ways do more for Native
Hawaiian students than non-Native Hawaiian teachers, but for different reasons. Danielle wrote,
“I think that Native Hawaiian teachers know the struggles of what Hawaiians have to face in
today's society as well as the past that we come from,” while Hunter cited an ability to relate
through language. However, Danielle also wrote, “I also believe that if a non-Native Hawaiian
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 139

took the time to understand our struggles and showed empathy towards the issue that he/she
could do a great deal in a Native Hawaiian community.” Vanessa wrote,
The community I want to teach in is made up of 90%+ of Filipinos. I will be able to
culturally connect with them in ways non-Filipino teachers can't. We will be able to
understand their family's values and what motivates them and their parents.
Daisy, also Filipino, wrote, “I don't think so because there are some Filipino teachers who are not
in tuned [sic] with their culture,” mirroring her own feelings about her connection to her Filipino
culture.
Answers to the related question, “Is there a difference in what Native Hawaiian/Filipino
and non-Native Hawaiian/Filipino teachers can do for students of other ethnic groups?” were
also mixed. Danielle wrote, “Native Hawaiians faced many struggles of other ethnic groups
(Native Americans, etc.) so I think that Native Hawaiian teachers could probably relate really
well to students of that background.” Hunter, however, believed that there would be no specific
difference based on ethnicity and that “it's going to come down more to the individual.” Vanessa
and Daisy both believed that Filipino teachers are able to offer students things that non-Filipino
teachers cannot, in terms of personal experience and collective history, which would allow them
to share unique perspectives and empathy with other ethnic groups.
The non-Native Hawaiian or Filipino group was asked one question, in place of the two
questions asked of the Native Hawaiian and Filipino groups, “Is there a difference in what
teachers can do for their students when they are from the same ethnic group and when they are
not?”. Of the four participants who answered this question, one answered similarly to Native
Hawaiian and Filipino respondents; Rick, who identifies as Micronesian, wrote “the teacher will
understand the home culture of the students and will be able to relate to the problems that student
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 140

may have at home, because they have actual experience of how the culture works.” However, the
other three respondents indicated that there could be negative aspects of connections between
teachers who are of the same ethnic group as their students, something that was not discussed by
Native Hawaiian or Filipino respondents. Paul, who identified as White, wrote “all students
should be treated with the same respect and dignity, despite differences of culture,
socioeconomic status, and experiences. The classroom is a place to discuss these things and
explore our similarities.” Paige, who identified as White, wrote “ I think its [sic] a teachers job to
not be biased and to be able to relate to all ethnic groups.” Troy, who identified as Mixed Asian,
elaborated
Certainly there can be a difference or limitation of same-ethnic teacher-student
modeling/mentoring compared to the alternative. A possible pitfall is to create the
impression of classroom favoritism based on ethnicity which is of course distracting to
teaching effectiveness. Each relationship should be negotiated as best and as completely
as possible; while some common-ground [sic] with same-ethnic students may be helpful
in making those ties, more effort and care should be expended towards different-ethnic
students if unfamiliarity creates barriers to connections.
Native Hawaiian or Filipino teachers did not raise this potential for a negative side of student–
teacher ethnic match.
Overall, the qualitative data supports the quantitative data in demonstrating little
difference between ethnic groups across motivation factors. The answers to questions about
teacher–student ethnic match indicate differences within ethnic groups. However, one difference
between Native Hawaiian/Filipino respondents and respondents of other ethnic groups was that
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 141

non-Native Hawaiian and Filipino respondents indicated potential negative aspects of teacher–
student ethnicity match, but Native Hawaiian and Filipino respondents did not.
Findings for Research Question 2
The analysis of ethnicity and cultural beliefs and awareness relative to motivation factors
leads to three findings:
1. Motivations to teach do not differ significantly between ethnic groups.
2. Some motivation factors are related to some cultural belief and awareness factors, but
the possible causes of these correlations are not clear.
3. Although expectancies and values relative to the teaching profession, as measured by
the FIT-Choice sale, do not differ significantly between ethnic groups, preservice
teachers may have different expectancies about the abilities of teachers to impact
students of same and different ethnicity.
Quantitative and qualitative data suggest that motivations to teach do not significantly
differ between ethnic groups. When asked directly about how cultures and values relative to their
ethnic group affected their decision to teach, Native Hawaiian and Filipino participants gave
mixed responses. However, ethnicity may play a role in differentiation of motivations to teach,
particularly in combination with gender, for some motivation factors, as supported by
quantitative data. Taken together, these data suggest that for many motivation factors,
differences due to gender or other factors may cause larger differences within ethnic groups than
between ethnic groups.
There are some correlations between motivation factors and cultural belief and awareness
factors, but the possible causes of these correlations are not clear. For example, diversity value is
significantly positively correlated with shape future of children/adolescents, make social
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 142

contribution, and prior teaching and learning experiences, but not with enhance social equity, to
which it is conceptually related. Having an affirming attitude to diversity is significantly
correlated with several motivation factors with which it has no apparent conceptual tie, including
time for family and expertise. Additionally, constructivist teaching was correlated with 12 of 18
motivation factors. Cultural belief and awareness was highly rated across all factors and learning
about students, a cultural belief and awareness factor determined through the qualitative
questionnaire, was also consistent across all respondents. Consistently high ratings of cultural
belief and awareness factors may be due to required teacher preparation coursework at all three
institutions that emphasizes culturally responsive education and teaching diverse learners.
Quantitative results show that expectancies and values relative to the teaching profession
are not significantly different between ethnic groups; however, there may be differences between
the expectancies of preservice teachers about their abilities to impact students of the same and
different ethnicities. Although the sample size was small, Native Hawaiian and Filipino
respondents expressed a neutral to positive stance on what Native Hawaiian and Filipino
respondents could do for students of the same and different ethnicities. Native Hawaiian and
Filipino participants tended to view their cultural backgrounds as assets to all students. On the
other hand, non-Native Hawaiian or Filipino respondents generally tended to view teacher
ethnicity as a potential deficit, which could create bias in a classroom.
Research Question 3: Hard-to-Staff Schools
The third research question asked, “What motivates teacher candidates to pursue careers
in geographic areas with high teacher shortages? How are these motivations different or similar
to teacher candidates who do not wish to teach in these areas?” Desire to teach in hard-to-staff
schools was reported through a question in which participants were asked to choose the top three
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 143

complexes in which they would like to teach after graduation. Independent samples t-tests were
run to determine if those who wished to teach in hard-to-staff schools were statistically different
from the rest of the sample. Cross-tabulations were used to determine relationships between
residence in hard-to-staff complexes, determined by self-reported current and high school ZIP
codes, and desire to teach in hard-to-staff complexes. This section describes those who wish and
do not wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools, based on quantitative and qualitative data.
Desire to Teach in Hard-to-Staff Schools
This section describes the results of the quantitative data regarding intent to teach in hard-
to-staff schools. Of a total of 165 respondents, 152 (92.1%) indicated that they intended to teach
in Hawai‘i. Of those who intended to teach in Hawai‘i, 23 (15.1%) indicated that they would
prefer to teach in a hard-to-staff complex. Most of the 23 who would want to teach in hard-to-
staff schools (n = 18, 78.3%) indicated a preference to teach in the Nanakuli-Wai‘anae complex.
Results are summarized in Table 36.
To determine if the hard-to-staff group was statistically different from the rest of the
sample, independent samples t-tests were run for each motivation factor. Only one factor,
satisfaction with choice, was statistically different between the two groups (p = 0.015). Both the
hard-to-staff group and the rest of the sample rated satisfaction with choice below the mean of
the motivation factors; the hard-to-staff group rated satisfaction with choice higher (M = 3.55)
than the rest of the sample (M = 3.20).

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 144

Table 36

Intent to Teach in Hawai‘i and Hard-to-Staff Schools
______________________________________________________________________________

Intent to Teach Frequency %

Intend to teach in Hawai‘i
Yes 152 92.1
No 13 7.9
Total 165 100.0
Intend to teach in hard-to-staff schools
Yes 23 15.1
No 129 84.9
Total 152 100.0
Intend to teach in hard-to-staff complexes
Nanakuli-Wai‘anae 18 78.3
Ka‘u-Kea‘au-Pahoa 5 21.7
Total 23 100.0
______________________________________________________________________________

There is evidence to suggest that those who choose to teach in hard-to-staff schools have
a personal connection to these schools (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2005; Burton &
Johnson, 2010; Plunkett & Dyson, 2011). To determine if living in these complex areas impacted
desire to teach in hard-to-staff schools, cross-tabulations were run. First, current and high school
ZIP codes provided by respondents were aligned to census tracts and corresponding complex
areas (ProximityOne, 2014). Then, these data were coded into two groups, those who live or
have lived in hard-to-staff complexes (resident), and those who had not (non-resident). These
groups were cross-tabulated with an expressed preference for teaching in hard-to-staff schools.
Results are shown in Table 37.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 145

Table 37

Desire to Teach in Hard-to-Staff Schools by Residence in Hard-to-Staff Complexes (N = 165)
______________________________________________________________________________

Non-Resident Resident

Desire to Teach in Hard-to-Staff Schools n % n %
______________________________________________________________________________

No 142 88.8 0 0.0
Yes 18 11.2 5 100.0
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Fisher’s Exact Test (p = .000).

A total of five respondents reporting living in the hard-to-staff complex areas; all five
(100%) indicated a preference to teach in a hard-to-staff school. Of the 160 respondents who had
never lived in a hard-to-staff complex, 18 (11.2%) indicated a preference to teach in a hard-to-
staff school. Fisher’s Exact Test was used as a measure of association, due to violation of the
assumption of an expected cell frequency of greater than five for the chi-square test. The
resulting p-value (p = .000) indicates a significant relationship between the variables of residence
in hard-to-staff complex areas and desire to teach in hard-to-staff schools.
Qualitative Hard-to-Staff Schools Results
Qualitative data were collected using open-ended survey questions and analyzed using
constant comparison analysis (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007). Data for Research Question 3
came from two questions addressed to the hard-to-staff and non-hard-to-staff questionnaire
participants, “What might be easy about teaching in the hard-to-staff schools compared to other
schools?” and “What might be hard about teaching in the hard-to-staff schools compared to other
schools?.” The hard-to-staff group was also asked “What are you looking forward to about
teaching in these hard-to-staff schools?,” “How do you think working in these hard-to-staff
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 146

schools might benefit the teachers in those schools?,” “Why do you think that some people do
not wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools?,” “What influenced you to want to teach in these hard-
to-staff schools?,” and “Do you feel any personal connections to these hard-to-staff schools?”.
The non-hard-to-staff group was also asked “Why did the Nanakuli-Wai‘anae and Ka‘u-Pahoa-
Kea‘au school complexes not make your top three list on the initial survey?”.
Ease of teaching in hard-to-staff schools. In response to the question, “What might be
easy about teaching in the hard-to-staff schools compared to other schools?,” both those who do
and do not intend to teach in hard-to-staff schools mentioned that teaching in these schools
would not be easy, that there may be greater job availability in these schools, and that there may
be more money in terms of pay incentives. Ryan, who wishes to teach in a hard-to-staff complex
wrote “getting hired and re-hired. . .There are sometimes bonuses.”
The groups differed on two themes. Those who wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools
cited having new teachers in the schools as something that would make teaching easier. Diana
wrote, “Teachers may all be new and you can "build up" the school with fresh ways to be
successful.” Faith wrote, “There are many new teachers that are passionate about teaching.”
Those who do not wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools, however, cited having less oversight as
something that may make teaching in these schools easier. Stacey wrote, “one of the things that
might make it easy. . .is that the school is more desperate for teachers to be there so they may be
more lax about the structure used in the classrooms.” Paige described “less pressure from admin”
to complete curriculum or to “stay on top of the kids.” Overall, there was a great deal of overlap
between hard-to-staff and non-hard-to-staff groups regarding what might be easy about teaching
in hard-to-staff schools, but some differences, as summarized in Table 38.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 147

Table 38

Ease of Teaching in Hawai‘i and Hard-to-Staff Schools
______________________________________________________________________________

Intent to Teach in
Hard-to-staff Schools
What might be easy about teaching in hard-to-staff schools

Yes Not easy (1/5), job availability (1/5), money (1/5), new teachers (2/5)
No Not easy (1/6), job availability (1/6), money (1/6), less oversight (3/6)
______________________________________________________________________________

Motivations to teach in hard-to-staff schools. Several questions addressed specific
motivations of those who wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools. The hard-to-staff group was
asked “What are you looking forward to about teaching in these hard-to-staff schools?,” “How
do you think working in these hard-to-staff schools might benefit the teachers in those schools?,”
“What influenced you to want to teach in these hard-to-staff schools?,” and “Do you feel any
personal connections to these hard-to-staff schools?”. Respondents described similar themes to
the overall sample, including providing a service to children or society (3/5). However, several
different themes emerged, including building relationships in the community and providing a
different perspective to students.
Difficulty of and barriers to teaching in hard-to-staff schools. Participants in both
hard-to-staff and non-hard-to-staff groups were also asked “What might be hard about teaching
in the hard-to-staff schools compared to other schools?.” Answers to this question had far less
overlap than the previous question. One point of agreement was that these schools lack physical
and human resources. Faith, who wishes to teach in a hard-to-staff school wrote,
There seems to be a great inequity when it comes to resources for the schools on the
Waianae coast. The schools do not seem to be as well taken care of as other schools on
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 148

the island. It also seems harder to find skills trainers, and other supports for students that
have special needs.
Rick, who does not wish to teach in a hard-to-staff school, wrote “Not having enough resources
to do the basic. . .things would make it hard.”
Those who do wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools also cited a lack of family support, a
difficult home life, low socioeconomic status, and an overall academic deficit as reasons that
teaching in hard-to-staff schools may be more difficult. Diana described “little to no involvement
or help with homework” by parents, while Faith cited “students that are coming from very hard
home lives where they see things that children do not need to see.” Those who do not wish to
teach in hard-to-staff schools cited a difficulty in creating a connection with the community,
teacher turnover, disengaged and challenging students, and a fear for personal safety. Stacey
wrote “there must be a reason they are hard-to-staff. The students are often absent either
physically or just mentally in class. . .and the constant change of teachers makes it hard to create
a community of teachers within the school.” Emma wrote, “Students might get into fights or
teachers just might not feel safe.” Generally, while the two groups agreed on a lack of resources,
those who do not wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools cited students as a reason that teaching in
these schools would be hard, while those who wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools cited other
circumstances. These themes are summarized in Table 39.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 149

Table 39

Difficulty of Teaching in Hawai‘i and Hard-to-Staff Schools
______________________________________________________________________________

Intent to Teach in
Hard-to-staff Schools
What might be hard about teaching in hard-to-staff schools

Yes Lack resources (2/5), lack family support (3/5), difficult home life
(1/5), academic deficit (1/5, takes more work to make improvement)
No Lack resources (2/6), difficult community (2/6), teacher turnover (2/6),
students disengaged/challenging (2/6), fear for safety (1/6)
_____________________________________________________________________________

Finally, the hard-to-staff group was asked “Why do you think that some people do not
wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools?,” while the non-hard-to-staff group was asked “Why did
the Nanakuli-Wai‘anae and Ka‘u-Pahoa-Kea‘au school complexes not make your top three list
on the initial survey?”. Those who wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools cited fear (2/5), a belief
that the job will be difficult (3/5, including that students are hard to teach and that schools lack
resources), and distance (2/5) as reasons that others would not wish to teach in hard-to-staff
schools. Faith wrote,
They think that the neighborhoods are scary. They want to work at a school that has more
resources. They do not want to work in a school where the parents are not as involved.
They do not want to drive all the way to the Waianae coast.
While these themes reflect what those who do not wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools felt may
be difficult about teaching in these schools, these were not the predominant reasons that this
group cited for not wanting to teach in these schools. Overall, those who do not wish to teach in
hard-to-staff schools cited a long commute (5/6) and a desire to work in their own communities
(3/6) as predominant reasons for not wanting to teach in those schools. Troy wrote,
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 150

My household, spouse and children, has been established for years in East Honolulu. To
be an effective teacher and. . .an effective community member, I do believe that I would
have to be available and "present" for the students in more situations than just during the
school day.
Paul wrote simply, “I want to teach in my neighborhood and I live in Kaneohe.” One respondent
did cite a general fear or discomfort about teaching in the Nanakuli–Wai‘anae complex based on
prior knowledge about fights and lock–down situations in that complex. Results are summarized
in Table 40.
Table 40

Barriers to Teaching in Hard-to-Staff Schools
______________________________________________________________________________

Why do some people not wish to
teach in hard-to-staff schools?
Why you do not wish to teach in hard-
to-staff schools?

Yes Fear (2/5), job difficult (3/5),
commute (2/5)
--
No -- Commute (5/6), desire to work in own
community (3/6), discomfort (1/6)
______________________________________________________________________________

Overall, those who do and do not wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools in Hawai‘i recognize
possible difficulties of teaching at these schools. For those who do not wish to teach in hard-to-
staff schools, these potential challenges are not of primary concern in wanting to teach
elsewhere.
Findings for Research Question 3
Overall, there were three major findings related to Research Question 3:
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 151

1. Only a small minority of those who wish to teach in Hawai‘i expressed a preference
for teaching in hard-to-staff complexes in the state.
2. The preference to teach in hard-to-staff schools is not statistically related to
differences in motivation factors, except for satisfaction with choice, with those who
wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools rated higher than those who do not.
3. Preference to teach in hard-to-staff schools is statistically related to residence in hard-
to-staff complex areas, with those who live or have lived in these areas more often
expressing a preference for teaching in those schools.
While there were a variety of cost factors under expectancy value theory (Wigfield & Eccles,
2000), or extrinsic motivators, that may influence perceptions about hard-to-staff schools,
including the demand and difficulty of teaching in those schools, qualitative data suggest that a
feeling of connection or disconnect with a community influence preservice teachers desire to
teach in particular geographic locations in Hawai‘i. Feelings of relating to and giving back to a
community are related to the social utility value and intrinsic value (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000)
that preservice teachers relate to teaching as a profession. These findings have implications for
teacher recruitment in Hawai‘i.
Summary
To answer the research questions, a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach was
used. The interpretation of quantitative data was supported by qualitative analyses. From three
research questions, a set of nine findings emerged, as summarized in Table 41. These findings
will be further discussed and related to the literature in Chapter 5.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 152

Table 41
Summary of Findings
______________________________________________________________________________

Research Question Findings

RQ1. Motivations of
teacher candidates
a. The motivations of this sample align with expectancy–value
theory constructs and the general motivation themes.

b. Teaching is a career chosen with intent.

c. Teacher candidates have low satisfaction with their career choice,
but have high levels of confidence in their abilities to teach and
make a positive impact.

RQ2. Motivations by
ethnicity and cultural
attitudes and beliefs
a. Motivations to teach do not differ significantly between teacher
candidates of different ethnic groups.

b. There is a statistically significant relationship between some
motivation factors and some cultural belief and awareness factors,
although the reasons for these correlations are unclear.

c. Teacher candidates may have different expectancies relative to the
effects of teacher–student ethnicity match in the classroom.

RQ3. Geographic
area and motivation
a. Few teacher candidates would prefer to teach in hard-to-staff
schools.

b. Those who wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools are more
satisfied with their choice to teach than those who do not,
although their level of satisfaction is relatively low.

c. The desire to teach in hard-to-staff schools differs significantly by
residence. The proportion of those who are or have been residents
in hard-to-staff complex areas, who wish to teach in those areas is
higher than those who have not been residents in those areas. A
feeling of connection to community is related to intent to teach in
particular complex areas in Hawai‘i.
______________________________________________________________________________

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 153

Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusions
This chapter provides a discussion of the findings of this study, including limitations,
implications for practice, and directions for future research. Motivation is a framework that can
be used to understand career choice (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Eccles, Barber, & Jozefowicz,
1999), specifically why preservice teachers have chosen to enter the teaching profession. Prior to
this study, the motivations of teacher candidates to enter the teaching profession in Hawai‘i had
not been systematically examined. In spite of this, a variety of programs have been implemented
to recruit teachers to the public school system, particularly into high-need content and
geographic areas, without an empirical understanding of what may be drawing people to the
profession in the state. In addition to teacher shortages, particularly in hard-to-staff complex
areas, the teacher workforce is not representative of the ethnic diversity of the student population
in public schools in the state (HIDOE, 2012b). Native Hawaiian and Filipino students are
particularly underrepresented, with the small number of Native Hawaiian and Filipino teachers in
the public school workforce. Evidence suggests that teacher shortages and a workforce that does
not represent the student population may have a negative impact on student success (Villegas &
Irvine, 2010).
The purpose of this study was to determine the motivations of preservice teachers in
Hawai‘i to choose teaching as a career and to understand how these motivations vary across
three factors, ethnicity, cultural responsiveness, and preference to teach in hard-to-staff schools.
The research questions asked in this study were
RQ1. Why do teacher candidates in Hawai‘i, specifically those who wish to teach in
Hawai‘i public schools, choose to become teachers? What expectations do they
have and what are their values relative to the teaching profession?
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 154

RQ2. How do motivations differ between teacher candidates of different ethnic groups,
and different cultural attitudes and beliefs? In particular, are there significant
differences in motivations between Native Hawaiian and Filipino preservice
teachers and their peers?
RQ3. What motivates teacher candidates to pursue careers in geographic areas with high
teacher shortages? How are these motivations different or similar to teacher
candidates who do not wish to teach in these areas?
To answer the research questions, a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach used
qualitative data to support the interpretation of quantitative data. Quantitative data were collected
using an online survey consisting of a researcher-designed demographic questionnaire, the
Factors Influencing Teaching Choice (FIT-Choice) scale (Watt & Richardson, 2007), the
Pluralism and Diversity Attitude Assessment (PADAA, Dee & Henkin, 2002; Stanley, 1996),
and one sub-scale from the TBS, Teacher Beliefs Survey (Woolley, Benjamin, & Woolley,
2004). Qualitative data were collected using four variations of a researcher-designed online
open-ended questionnaire. The questionnaire was originally created as focus group interview
protocol, one for each of four focus groups, to triangulate quantitative data with questions that
aligned with motivation constructs from the FIT-Choice scale (Watt & Richardson, 2007), as
well as aspects of culturally responsive teaching, and questions about teaching in hard-to-staff
schools. These protocols were adapted into four versions of the open-ended questionnaire.
The results of this study showed that the motivations of preservice teachers in Hawai‘i to
choose teaching as a profession generally did not differ across multiple factors, including
ethnicity, cultural responsiveness, and desire to teach in hard-to-staff schools. Although
motivations were not greatly differentiated across these factors, other interesting findings
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 155

emerged. Preservice teachers in Hawai‘i have chosen the career with intent, as opposed to a
fallback career, and are highly confident in their ability to teach; in spite of this intent and
confidence, teacher candidates have low satisfaction with their career choice, even prior to
starting as full-time, fully-licensed classroom teachers. Although the quantitative data showed
that motivations to teach did not differ significantly between ethnic groups, the qualitative data
suggested that teacher candidates may have different expectancies about teaching students of
their own and different ethnic groups. While motivations generally do not differ between those
who do and do not wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools, those who do wish to teach in hard-to-
staff schools are slightly more satisfied with their choice to teach. All participants recognized
potential benefits and challenges of teaching in hard-to-staff schools, and the data suggest that a
desire to work within one’s own community is likely the primary influencing factor in preference
for teaching location.
In this chapter, key findings are discussed and interpreted with regard to the relevant
literature and within the context of teaching and teacher preparation in Hawai‘i. Limitations of
the study area also discussed. The applications of the findings are addressed in terms of
implications for practice and future research.
Discussion of Findings
Overall, a set of nine findings emerged from the research, three for each research
question. These findings are presented here in terms of three major themes. The first theme is the
choice of teaching as a profession. The second theme is the expectancies of teacher candidates
relative to the teaching profession. The third theme is the desire of preservice teachers to teach in
hard-to-staff schools.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 156

Choosing Teaching as a Profession
Several findings addressed the motivations of preservice teachers to choose teaching as a
profession. This discussion primarily focuses on two of the three main findings for Research
Question 1, that the motivations of this sample align with expectancy–value theory constructs
and the general motivation themes, and that teacher candidates have low satisfaction with their
career choice.
In response to Research Question 1, the first finding is that the motivations of the
participants can be aligned to the constructs of expectancy–value theory and the FIT-Choice
Scale (Watt & Richardson, 2007), as well as to the broad motivation classifications: intrinsic,
altruistic, and extrinsic. Considering first the broad classifications, intrinsic and altruistic
motivations were rated highly in the online survey. These results were supported by the
qualitative questionnaire data. High ratings of intrinsic and altruistic motivations for teaching
have been found across many cultures (Chong & Low, 2008; Manuel & Hughes, 2006; Müller,
Alliata, & Benninghoff, 2009; Richardson & Watt, 2006; Topkaya & Uztosun, 2012; Watt &
Richardson, 2007; Watt & Richardson, 2008; Watt et al., 2012). Generally, extrinsic motivators
such as salary, social influences, and social dissuasion were rated low in the quantitative survey,
although the qualitative responses indicated a greater deal of social dissuasion than indicated on
the quantitative survey. Some quantitative factors, including job security, expertise, and
difficulty, were highly rated. While not as important as intrinsic and altruistic motivations, some
extrinsic motivators such as job security are cited across multiple cultures as reasons for
choosing teaching as a profession (Manuel & Hughes, 2006; Müller, Alliata, & Benninghoff,
2009; Richardson & Watt, 2006; Topkaya & Uztosun, 2012; Watt & Richardson, 2007; Watt &
Richardson, 2008; Watt et al., 2012).
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 157

The use of the FIT-Choice Scale (Watt & Richardson, 2007) allows this study to be
compared directly to several previous studies using the same instrument. The participants in this
study rated most factors in patterns similar to other studies using the FIT-Choice Scale (Watt et.
al, 2012; Watt, 2007; Watt, 2006), with expectancies, intrinsic value, and social utility value
factors, as well as prior teaching and learning experiences, expertise, and difficulty rated
relatively high (generally > 5 on a seven-point scale), and fallback career and salary rated
relatively low (generally < 3 on a seven-point scale) across all studies. Job security, time for
family, job transferability, social influences, and social status were generally rated between 3
and 5 on a seven-point scale across all studies. This study differs from other studies on the rating
for social dissuasion. In other studies, the rating for social dissuasion ranged from about 3.7 to
4.5 (Watt et. al, 2012; Watt, 2007; Watt, 2006); in this study, the rating for social dissuasion was
2.36. However, qualitative data from this study suggest that many students were, in fact,
unsupported in or actively dissuaded from choosing teaching as a career.
A second finding in response to Research Question 1 is that teacher candidates have low
satisfaction with their career choice. The participants in this study differed from those in
previous studies on the satisfaction with choice factor. In this study, the mean rating for this
factor was 3.25. In previous studies, the mean rating for satisfaction with choice ranged from
5.87 to 6.3 (Watt et. al, 2012; Watt, 2007; Watt, 2006). The authors in these studies suggested
that high intrinsic and altruistic motivations correlate positively with satisfaction, while high
ratings for fallback career negatively correlate with satisfaction (Watt et. al, 2012; Watt, 2007;
Watt, 2006). However, the ratings for intrinsic, altruistic, and fallback career factors were
similar in this study compared to the other studies, but with quite different ratings for satisfaction
with choice. The qualitative data suggest that one reason for low levels of satisfaction of this
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 158

study’s participants is a mismatch between expectations about the demands of a teaching career
prior to starting a teacher preparation program and the realities that students encounter as they
progress through their coursework and student teaching.
In response to Research Questions 2 and 3, with few exceptions, the motivations of the
study sample did not differ by ethnic group, cultural beliefs and awareness, or desire to teach in
hard-to-staff schools. This finding is in line with the suggestion that differences in motivations
within groups may be larger than those between groups (Wigfield & Eccles, 2002). However,
other studies have shown differences in motivation between preservice teachers of different
ethnic groups and different levels of cultural awareness (Cox, 2010; Kauchak & Burbank, 2003;
Su, 1997). Further, results from this study suggest that teachers of different ethnicities may have
different expectancies about their abilities to work impact students of the same and different
ethnicities, but the expectancies assessed by this study were limited primarily to those assessed
by the quantitative survey.
Expectancies of Teacher Candidates Relative to the Teaching Profession
Across Research Questions 1 and 2, several findings addressed the expectancies of
teacher candidates relative to the teaching profession. This discussion is focused on two findings.
First is one of the three findings for Research Question 1, that teacher candidates have high
levels of confidence in their abilities to teach and make a positive impact. Second is one of the
three findings for Research Questions 2, that teacher candidates may have different expectancies
relative to the effects of teacher–student ethnicity match in the classroom. Expectancies of the
preservice teachers in this study were examined through quantitative survey items and open-
ended questions. Expectancies are beliefs regarding one’s ability to accomplish tasks at the
present time or in the future (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 159

In response to Research Question 1, I found that preservice teachers had high levels of
confidence in their abilities to teach. The high rating of ability (M = 5.84 on a 7 point scale) was
supported by qualitative data that showed that 6 of 10 participants were confident or very
confident in their abilities and skills as teachers. This high level of confidence is not unique to
this study sample. Across different cultural contexts, in other studies using the FIT-Choice Scale
ratings for ability ranged from 5.5 to 6.0 (Watt et. al, 2012; Watt, 2007; Watt, 2006). However,
the items in the ability factor limit the understanding of preservice teachers’ expectancies to
general beliefs about their skills, abilities, and qualities as teachers.
A second, more specific, finding about expectancies relative to teachers’ abilities in the
classroom to work with students of same and different ethnic groups came out of the qualitative
data. In this study, three of four Native Hawaiian and Filipino respondents believed that teachers
of Native Hawaiian or Filipino ethnicity could provide something unique to students of the same
and different ethnic groups than teachers of other ethnic groups. Native Hawaiian and Filipino
participants tended to view their experiences as members of their ethnic groups as assets to all
students. Conversely, non-Native Hawaiian or Filipino respondents viewed teacher ethnicity as a
potential limitation or source of bias in the classroom and suggested focusing on similarities
between ethnic groups. Research suggests that while bias and negative differential treatment of
non-White students by White teachers does happen (den Brok & Levy, 2005), culturally
responsive education does not result from ignoring cultural differences. Instead, culturally
responsive teachers are aware of sociocultural differences, have an affirming attitude toward
students from culturally diverse backgrounds, are committed to act as agents of change, hold
constructivist views of learning, learn about their students, and engage in culturally responsive
teaching practices (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, 2007).
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 160

The expectancies described by the qualitative questionnaire participants relative to
teaching students of the same and different ethnic groups as themselves are not consistent with
the results of the quantitative cultural belief and attitude assessments. In this study, the cultural
belief and attitude factors, diversity value, responsive practices, affirmative attitude, student
development, and constructivist teaching, were all rated 5 or greater on a scale of 1 to 6, with no
differentiation between ethnic groups. Previous studies have also found mean ratings of these
factors of greater than 5 on a six-point scale (Brown & Chu, 2012; Çobanoglu, 2011; Hachfeld,
2013). However, when asked, “Is there a difference in what teachers can do for their students
when they are from the same ethnic group and when they are not?,” a question that reflects an
application of culturally responsive teaching, most non-Native Hawaiian or Filipino respondents
answered in a way that was not reflective of high levels of culturally responsive practice. This
suggests a disconnect between theory and practical application of culturally responsive
pedagogy. Each institution participating in this study requires one or more course on culture and
diversity as part their teacher preparation programs. Based on such coursework, some students
may theoretically and philosophically agree with principles of culturally responsive pedagogy.
These students, however, may find difficulty in recognizing opportunities to engage students of
different ethnic groups, preferring to ignore differences and focus on similarities between
students.
Desire to Teach in Hard-to-Staff Schools
Findings for Research Questions 3 pertained to the desires of preservice teachers to teach
in hard-to-staff schools. This discussion addresses two of the three findings for Research
Question 3, that few teacher candidates would prefer to teach in hard-to-staff schools and that the
desire to teach in hard-to-staff schools is related to a feeling of connection to the community.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 161

The finding that few teacher candidates would prefer to teach in hard-to-staff schools is
not surprising. As several respondents to the qualitative questionnaire described, “there must be a
reason” that these schools are hard-to-staff. Distance of commute, a disconnect from the
community, academic challenges, and lack of resources were cited by those who do not wish to
teach in hard-to-staff schools as possible difficulties of teaching in these schools or reasons that
they do not wish to teach in these schools. These reasons reflect some of the characteristics of the
complex areas considered hard-to-staff by State of Hawai‘i Department of Education: they are in
rural and isolated geographic areas within the state, including N!n!kuli and Wai‘anae in west
O‘ahu, and Kea‘au, P!hoa, and Ka"# on Hawai‘i island, they have notable achievement gaps
compared to the rest of the state, (HIDOE, 2011), and they serve relatively large Native
Hawaiian and Filipino communities (see Table 2 and Appendix A, Figures A3–A4) in areas of
high poverty (see Appendix A, Figure A5). Although new teachers in HIDOE do not have the
ultimate decision in their first placement after graduation, if they are placed in hard-to-staff
complexes, they may choose to transfer when they are able to, contributing to teacher turnover in
those complexes.
Results also suggest that discussion about potential teacher placement should be framed
in terms of connection to community, regardless of hard-to-staff status. Preservice teachers who
are or have been residents in hard-to-staff complex areas wish to teach in those areas in greater
proportions than preservice teachers who have not been residents in those areas. Those who wish
to teach in hard-to-staff schools cited a connection to those schools’ communities as one reason
for wanting to teach in these schools. Those who do not wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools
cited connections to their own communities as a reason for not wanting to commute to hard-to-
staff complex areas. While those who do and do not wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 162

recognize both potential positive and negative aspects of teaching in those schools, the preservice
teachers who wish to teach in those schools demonstrated a more holistic view of the community
when discussing potential challenges, rather than describing students as being disengaged or
difficult.
These findings are consistent with previous studies that showed that those who wish to
teach in hard-to-staff rural schools are motivated by a feeling of connectedness to the community
(Burton & Johnson, 2010; Plunkett & Dyson, 2011) and that new teachers are more likely to seek
positions in schools close to their hometowns or in areas similar to those where they grew up
(Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2005). The findings of this study also agree with those of
Yu (2011), who suggested that those who wish to teach in hard-to-staff urban schools are aware
of the challenges they might face in those schools. However, this study found no differences in
motivation between those who wish and do not wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools, while Yu
(2011) found a correlation between a perception of teaching as a difficult and demanding
profession and a desire to teach in urban schools.
Limitations
This study was designed to examine preservice teacher motivations in a manner that
would avoid the four major shortcomings of research examining entering teacher characteristics,
described by Brookhart and Freeman (1992), overemphasis on survey methodology, single
institution design, inadequate distinction among subpopulations, and an absence of theoretical or
historical contexts. However, several factors limit the interpretation and application of the
findings of the study, including the nature of the sample and population, limits on statistical
power, and threats to validity.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 163

Sample and Population
Efforts were made to involve multiple institutions in order to obtain a sample that was
representative of the population of preservice teachers in teacher preparation programs in the
state of Hawai‘i. Three of the six institutions invited declined to participate, including a private
institution that has the second largest teacher preparation program in the state and the only face-
to-face teacher preparation program in Hawai‘i not on the island of O‘ahu. This may limit the
generalizability of the findings of this study to the population of preservice teachers in the state.
The Hawai‘i Teacher Standards Board publishes some demographic data on teacher preparation
program completers (“Hawai‘i teacher standards,” 2013), but these data are not disaggregated by
ethnicity, gender, degree program, or type of licensure, making it difficult to determine how
representative the study sample is of the overall population of preservice teachers. Two of the
three participating institutions also do not make such data publicly available, making it difficult
to determine how representative the sample was of the population of preservice teachers at the
participating institutions. Also, all publicly available data reflects prior school years, which may
or may not be representative of the current population. Apart from the demographics of each
institution, it was beyond the scope of this study to compare the experiences provided to students
by each institution and program, or to compare how those experiences may have impacted
student expectancies and values.
Statistical Power
Many factors, including sample size, can affect the power of a statistical test, which is the
probability that the test will reject the null hypothesis (Salkind, 2011). The approximate number
of students currently in licensure track programs at the participating institutions, based on the
number of program completers from each institution in the 2011–2012 school year (“Hawai‘i
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 164

teacher standards,” 2013), may be 826 students. The total current population of students enrolled
in teacher preparation programs is unknown, making sample size calculations approximate. The
total number of respondents was 165, 20% of the approximate population. This sample size is
larger than the required sample size at a 95% level of confidence and a 10% margin of error,
which is 86 students (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970). However, the required sample size at a 95%
level of confidence and a 5% margin of error is 262 (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970), which is larger
than the sample. Based on these values, the sample size was acceptable, but could have been
larger for a smaller margin of error. Multiple measures were taken to maximize the response rate,
which was 48.1%, compared to an average response rate of 33% for email/web-based surveys
(Shih & Fan, 2009). The sample size could have been increased if more professors and classes
had been able to participate. A consideration for further research is how to create buy-in and
reach more institutions, professors, and students.
Threats to Validity
Threats to internal validity are those that impinge on the researcher’s ability to draw
correct inferences from the data (Creswell, 2009). Selection is one possible threat to internal
validity that may have affected the results of this study. While efforts were made to recruit
widely, selection threats may have occurred on several levels. Institutions agreed to participate,
professors volunteered to allow me to contact students, and individuals ultimately chose whether
or not to take the survey or questionnaire. At each of these levels, self-selection may have
resulted in a sample that was different from the population, which may have biased the sample
towards certain outcomes. Of particular concern to this study would be that students who chose
to participate had higher levels of intrinsic or altruistic motivation. When recruiting participants,
I highlighted the benefits of participation to the project, to future preservice teachers, and to the
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 165

participants themselves as an opportunity for self-reflection. If this self-selected sample of
students is predisposed to higher levels of intrinsic and altruistic motivation, this may have
biased the results toward higher ratings for intrinsic and altruistic motivations and lower ratings
for extrinsic motivations. An additional threat to internal validity related to selection is the lack
of a comparison group of students not in teacher preparation programs. Without such a
comparison group, it is difficult to determine if the motivation results are unique to preservice
teachers or if they more broadly reflect characteristics of participants’ peer groups.
Threats to external validity are those that affect the generalizability of the results to a
different population or situation (Creswell, 2009). As described previously, not having concrete
demographic information for the current population of preservice teachers makes it difficult to
assess how the sample reflects the overall population, or even the population of preservice
teachers at the participating institutions. Selection effects resulting in a biased sample, as well as
the relatively small sample size, may limit generalizability of the results to the population of
preservice teachers in Hawai‘i. Further, the unique cultural and geographic context of Hawai‘i
may limit the generalizability of the findings of the study to preservice teachers elsewhere.
Finally, assessments of preservice teacher motivation are limited to the motivations assessed by
the quantitative survey and qualitative questionnaire. The questionnaire allowed for exploration
of cultural contexts not addressed in the survey, but was limited by time, space, and lack of
interactivity. The qualitative sample size was also small and limits the generalizability of the
results to other populations.
The validity of the qualitative data was assessed using criteria from Whittemore, Chase,
and Mandle (2001, see Table 12). Criteria from this framework include credibility, authenticity,
criticality, integrity, explicitness, vividness, creativity, thoroughness, congruence, and sensitivity.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 166

Overall, the validity of the qualitative data was most threatened by the mode of data collection.
Focus groups were initially planned, but an open-ended questionnaire was used instead. This
method constrained several of the secondary criteria, particularly vividness and thoroughness.
The online questionnaire was impersonal and no follow-up questions were asked, which limited
the depth and detail of the responses, and precluded nuances that would have emerged from an
interactive group discussion.
Implications for Practice
The findings of this study have several implications for teacher recruitment and teacher
education in Hawai‘i. In terms of general teacher recruitment, several types of incentives are
possible, including monetary bonuses, alternative certification programs, career ladder programs,
and “grow your own” programs. In response to some of the findings of this study, there are
implications for including more and earlier authentic experiences with K–12 students as part of
teacher preparation programs. This section discusses implications for teacher recruitment and
teacher education in Hawai‘i.
Teacher Recruitment
Different types of teacher recruitment programs and incentives have been employed in
Hawai‘i and elsewhere. Monetary incentives comprise base salary, bonuses, and expected
earnings. Non-monetary incentives include alternative certification and recruitment programs.
Both monetary and non-monetary incentives can play a role in teacher recruitment in Hawai‘i.
Monetary incentives. In Hawai‘i, monetary incentives have been one strategy for
teacher recruitment (Hamamoto, 2007). Contrary to the social cognitive motivation literature and
to the findings of this study, which suggest that extrinsic motivators are of less importance in
teacher career choice (Chong & Low, 2008; Manuel & Hughes, 2006; Müller, Alliata, &
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 167

Benninghoff, 2009; Richardson & Watt, 2006; Topkaya & Uztosun, 2012; Watt & Richardson,
2007; Watt & Richardson, 2008; Watt et al., 2012), there is some evidence that monetary
incentives can be effective in teacher recruitment. However, results of using financial incentives
to attract teachers to hard-to-staff schools have been mixed.
Some studies have found bonuses to be effective in recruiting teachers, while other
studies have found bonuses ineffective (Berry & Eckert, 2012; Guarino, Santibañez, & Daley,
2006; Loeb & Myung, 2010). Evidence suggests that monetary bonuses may not overcome the
importance of school leadership, access to resources, experienced coworkers, and opportunities
for professional and personal development in choosing where to teach, particularly for minority
teachers (Berry & Eckert, 2012; Guarino, Santibañez, & Daley, 2006; Ingersoll & May, 2011).
These results agree with what is known about choice from both social cognitive and economic
perspectives; individuals balance a range of factors when making decisions. For some people, in
some cases, monetary incentives may work (Gneezy, Meier, & Rey-Biel, 2011). Qualitative data
from this study support the notion that monetary incentives may be effective in some cases, with
several participants citing pay incentives as a benefit of teaching in hard-to-staff schools. In
addition to general recruitment bonuses, specific bonuses could be paid to teachers working in
hard-to-staff schools, or those willing to relocated from other complex areas. Monetary
incentives are one of several possible strategies for recruiting teachers to HIDOE schools.
Non-monetary and mixed incentives. Monetary incentives may be effective in
recruiting some teachers to the profession in Hawai‘i, but they are only one tool in a potentially
diverse kit of recruitment strategies. Preservice teachers in this and other studies report intrinsic
and altruistic motivations for choosing teaching as a career (Chong & Low, 2008; Manuel &
Hughes, 2006; Müller, Alliata, & Benninghoff, 2009; Richardson & Watt, 2006; Topkaya &
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 168

Uztosun, 2012; Watt & Richardson, 2007; Watt & Richardson, 2008; Watt et al., 2012).
Research on recruitment programs has shown that multiple non-monetary factors can outweigh
the offer of monetary bonuses when making choices regarding teaching as a career (Berry &
Eckert, 2012; Guarino, Santibañez, & Daley, 2006; Ingersoll & May, 2011).
While this study found no differences in motivation between teachers of different
ethnicities, alternative certification programs have been shown to increase minority participation
in the teaching profession (Guarino, Santibañez, & Daley, 2006; Loeb & Myung, 2010; Madkins,
2011; Peterson & Nadler, 2009). This study examined students currently in teacher preparation
programs, who had already overcome some common barriers to entering the profession. For
some, however, choices about how best to spend their time and money in increasing their
knowledge and skills (Guarino, Santibañez, & Daley, 2006; Madkins, 2011) can prevent students
from becoming teachers. Alternative certification programs include fast-track programs of fewer
than the traditional 30 credits required for post-baccalaureate certification (Peterson & Nadler,
2009), extended undergraduate programs (Guarino, Santibañez, & Daley, 2006), or
apprenticeship programs (Madkins, 2011).
Alternative certification pathways may increase the number of Native Hawaiian and
Filipino teachers in the state, as has been observed for minority teachers in other states (Guarino,
Santibañez, & Daley, 2006; Loeb & Myung, 2010; Madkins, 2011; Peterson & Nadler, 2009).
Although six alternative certification programs are approved by the Hawai‘i Teacher Standards
Board (2012), most are greater than or equal to 30 credits, which can be considered to be no
different than traditional programs (Peterson & Nadler, 2009). Alternative programs that offer no
advantage over traditional programs provide no incentive to enroll and are generally not chosen
over traditional programs (Peterson & Nadler, 2009). True fast-track certification pathways
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 169

could incentivize more potential teachers, including more minority teachers, in the state of
Hawai‘i. If the Hawai‘i Teacher Standards Board would accept fast-track programs for licensure,
teacher preparation institutions in the state may have more incentive to create alternative
licensure programs for recent college graduates or career changers.
Another recruitment strategy is professional development career ladder programs, which
generally provide compensation and other supports for participation in licensure programs
(Jacques, 2012). HIDOE may consider expanding its career ladder program for educational
assistants. A career ladder program for educational assistants would tap into a pool of talented
individuals who are already motivated to engage in the field of education. Including monetary
bonuses, credit for years of service, and expedited certification as part of the program may
provide additional incentives for educational assistants to transition to teaching. HIDOE could
focus on recruiting Native Hawaiian and Filipino educational assistants in order to increase the
number of Native Hawaiian and Filipino teachers entering the system via the career pipeline
program.
Finally, “grow your own” programs recruit prospective teachers from the neighborhoods
in which they would serve and can provide forgivable loans for teacher training in exchange for a
teaching commitment (Ramírez, 2007). These programs are particularly successful in training
minority teachers who serve the communities in which they reside. The Illinois Grow Your Own
Program has 85% minority candidates; 42% of its graduates teach in hard-to-fill positions such
as special education, math, or science (Hallett, 2012). Hawai‘i could consider implementing a
similar program, in which potential teachers could be identified in hard-to-staff geographical
areas. Findings from this study suggest that such programs would be successful, because those
who wish to teach in Hawai‘i are motivated by a desire to serve their communities. By recruiting
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 170

from predominantly Native Hawaiian and Filipino communities, “grow your own” programs
could increase the number of Native Hawaiian and Filipino teachers in the state, as well as
reduce teacher shortages in hard-to-staff schools.
Teacher Preparation
Two of the findings of this study may be addressed in teacher preparation programs.
First, is the finding that preservice teachers have relatively low satisfaction with their choice to
teach, especially as compared to other studies (Watt et. al, 2012; Watt, 2007; Watt, 2006). The
low level of satisfaction was surprising in light of the participants’ high levels of confidence in
their own abilities to teach and make a difference. However, participants also indicated that
teaching is a career with high costs. Qualitative data from the study suggested that low levels of
satisfaction might be due to these perceived high costs, particularly the revelation through the
teacher preparation program that teaching is more difficult than preservice teachers anticipated.
Second is the mismatch between participants’ beliefs and attitudes relative to culturally
responsive teaching and their views on teacher–student ethnicity match. All cultural belief and
attitude factors were rated highly by participants and there were no significant differences
between ethnic groups. However, non-Native Hawaiian or Filipino preservice teachers described
teacher and student ethnicity differences or match as something that could be detrimental to
teaching and should be ignored. The high ratings of cultural beliefs and awareness factors
compared to students’ responses about teacher–student ethnicity math suggests a discrepancy
between students’ theoretical and philosophical beliefs about diversity and their views about
classroom practice.
Both low satisfaction and students’ understanding of how to recognize and respond to
diversity in the classroom could be addressed by changing the nature of teacher preparation.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 171

Darling-Hammond (2010) describes traditional teacher education as requiring students “to take
batches of front-loaded coursework in isolation from practice, then adding a short dollop of
student teaching to the end of the program, often in classrooms that do not model the practices
previously described in abstraction.” This description is true of most of the undergraduate level
teacher preparation programs at the institutions participating in this study. Graduate level
programs, however, generally begin field experiences in the first semester. One recommendation
is for undergraduate teacher preparation programs in the state of Hawai‘i to expose potential
teachers to realistic teaching experiences and interactions with students earlier in their education.
According to Darling-Hammond (2010, p.40), “the most powerful programs require
students to spend extensive time in the field throughout the entire program, examining and
applying the concepts and strategies they are simultaneously learning about in their courses.” In
the Hawai‘i teacher preparation programs in this study, however, undergraduate students are not
able to enter teacher preparation programs until their junior year, before which they must go
through an application process. These students are expected to observe and interact with
students, but do little to no student teaching until their senior year; by the time they truly
understand the demands of teaching, and perhaps have second thoughts, they may find
themselves in a position of choosing between graduating with a degree and going into a career
they are not happy about, or having to stay at university for another two years to complete a
different major. If students were exposed to more comprehensive teaching experiences earlier in
their undergraduate careers, they may not experience the shock of the realities of teaching so late
in their career choice process. Students who find that they do not want to commit to the demands
of teaching could self-select out of teacher preparation programs before they feel too locked in to
change paths. Further, students who have engaged with students and culturally responsive
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 172

mentor teachers in a variety of settings may be better able to recognize how to enact their beliefs
as practices that are culturally responsive and may be more interested in teaching outside of the
communities in which they were raised. Starting teacher preparation and student teaching earlier
could be beneficial to preservice teachers in understanding the nature of teaching as a profession.
Future Research
This study was the first systematic investigation of preservice teacher motivations in
Hawai‘i. While the study revealed several findings with implications for practice in teacher
recruitment and preparation, there are opportunities for further research.
First, expanding data collection to include more participants would minimize many of the
limitations of this study. Access to more institutions would allow for a greater representation of
the population of preservice teachers in the state, while minimizing bias towards participating
institutions. Within each institution, access to more students would have increased statistical
power and reduced threats to validity. Adding a comparison sample of students not in teacher
preparation programs would have allowed me to distinguish between beliefs and motivations that
are unique to preservice teachers and those that may be held by more widely held. Finally,
increasing the number of participants in the qualitative portion of the study, preferably through
focus groups, would create more rich data for a deeper understanding of the quantitative data.
Second, this study raised several new questions. One question is why preservice teachers
in this sample rated so low their satisfaction with choosing teaching as a profession. Some
qualitative data from this study suggest that low satisfaction is due to the realization through the
course of a teacher preparation program that teaching is a difficult career. Further open-ended
questions, specifically probing causes of preservice teacher satisfaction or dissatisfaction, are
needed in order to understand low satisfaction levels. Another question emerged regarding
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 173

cultural belief and attitude factors related to culturally responsive teaching. Quantitatively, these
factors were all rated very highly; limited qualitative data, however, suggest that students may
struggle with implementing their beliefs in a classroom. Further qualitative assessments would
be useful in understanding how preservice teachers may translate and apply their beliefs about
culturally responsive education to a class setting. Finally, while this study showed few
significant differences between the study groups, further comparisons could be made across
motivation factors for variables such as gender, grade or subject intended to teach, and type of
program, as suggested by Brookhart and Freeman (1992), or participant age, institution, or
progress in program.
Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to understand the differentiated motivations of preservice
teachers in Hawai‘i. The intent was to use motivation as a lens through which to view teacher
career choice, which is related to teacher workforce and student achievement issues. Specifically
of interest were the underrepresentation of Native Hawaiian and Filipino students by teachers in
Hawai‘i public schools and teacher shortages in hard-to-staff complex areas. Qualitative data
were used to support the interpretation of quantitative data collected from preservice teachers in
teacher preparation programs at three institutions in Hawai‘i.
Overall, preservice teachers in this study cited predominantly intrinsic and altruistic
motivations for entering the profession. Teaching was a career chosen with intent, in spite of
dissuasion by others and an understanding of the costs and challenges of teaching. While
motivations to teach did not differ significantly between ethnic groups, as measured by the
quantitative instruments, qualitative data suggested that Native Hawaiian and Filipino preservice
teachers have different expectancies relative to working with students of the same and different
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 174

ethnic groups as compared to non-Native Hawaiian or Filipino preservice teachers. Motivations
also generally did not vary between those preservice teachers who do and do not wish to teach in
hard-to-staff schools, except that those who wish to teach in hard-to-staff schools were more
satisfied with their choice to teach than those who do not. Qualitative data indicate that
preservice teachers are motivated to teach by a feeling of connection to their home communities.
While the State of Hawai‘i Department of Education has used monetary incentives to
recruit teachers in the past, the effectiveness of these programs is unclear (“Report to
Legislature,” 2008). Results from this study suggest that teacher recruitment in Hawai‘i could be
improved by aligning incentive strategies with the values of potential teachers. For example,
alternative certification and career ladder programs can allow those who have expectancies and
values that align with a career in teaching, to overcome barriers to entering teacher preparation
programs. Career ladder programs allow those who are already motivated to engage in the field
of education to become classroom teachers. Finally, “grow your own” programs can support
those who wish to contribute to their home communities through teaching. A combination of
monetary and non-monetary incentives is likely to attract a range of potential teachers, which
may alleviate teacher shortages in hard-to-staff areas and increase the number of Native
Hawaiian and Filipino teachers in Hawai‘i public schools.
Understanding the expectancies and values relative to the teaching profession of those
who have chosen to teach could inform relevant changes to teacher recruitment and preparation
in the state of Hawai‘i. Such changes have multiple implications for student outcomes in the
public schools. Increasing the number of Native Hawaiian and Filipino teachers in the state
through recruitment incentives and facilitating culturally responsive education by putting beliefs
into practice in teacher education programs may help to improve learning environments for all
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 175

students. Creating a stable, qualified teacher workforce in hard-to-staff school complex areas
through targeted recruitment and appropriate placements can help catalyze achievement for
students in those complexes. Teacher and student success is intertwined and promoting positive
outcomes can be complicated; however, drawing on known motivations to enter the teaching
may play a role in crafting strategies to facilitate achievement in public schools in Hawai‘i.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 176

References
Achinstein, B., Ogawa, R. T., Sexton, D., and Freitas, C. (2010). Retaining teachers of color: A
pressing problem and a potential strategy for “hard-to-staff” schools. Review of
Educational Research, 80(1), 71-107.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: 7 research-based principles for smart teaching. (pp. 192-193). San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Babco, E. L. (2003). Trends in African American and Native American participation in STEM
higher education. Washington, D.C.: Commission on Professionals in Science and
Technology.
Bastick, T. (2000). Why teacher trainees choose the teaching profession: Comparing trainees in
metropolitan and developing countries. International Review of Education, 46(3/4), 343-
349.
Belfield, C., & Levin, H. (2009). School dropouts and the economic losses from juvenile crime
in California. California Dropout Research Project Report, 16, Retrieved from
http://www.cdrp.ucsb.edu/pubs_reports.htm
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational
Research, 71(2), 171-217.
Bensimon, E., Hao, L., & Bustillos, L. (2003). Measuring the state of equity in public higher
education. Paper presented at Harvard civil rights and UC conference on expanding
opportunity in higher education: California and the nation, Sacramento, CA. Retrieved
from http://www.wisconsin.edu/edi/equity/pdf/measuringthestateofequity.pdf
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 177

Berry, B., & Eckert, J. (2012). Creating Teacher Incentives for School Excellence and Equity.
Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: how different are
they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15(1).
Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation
and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416-440.
Breslau, J. (2010). Health in childhood and adolescence and high school dropout. California
Dropout Research Project Report, 17, Retrieved from
http://www.cdrp.ucsb.edu/pubs_reports.htm
Brookhart, S. M., & Freeman, D. J. (1992). Characteristics of entering teacher candidates.
Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 37-60.
Brown, C. S., & Chu, H. (2012). Discrimination, ethnic identity, and academic outcomes of
Mexican immigrant children: The importance of school context. Child Development, 83(5),
1477-1485.
Burton, M., & Johnson, A. S. (2010). “Where else would we teach?”: Portraits of two teachers in
the rural south. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(4), 376-386.
Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., & KewalRamani, A. (2011). Trends in high school dropout and
completion rates in the United States: 1972–2009 (NCES 2012-006). U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Chong, S., & Low, E. (2009). Why I want to teach and how I feel about teaching—formation of
teacher identity from pre-service to the beginning teacher phase. Educational Research
for Policy and Practice, 8, 59-72.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 178

Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2007). How and why do teacher credentials
matter for student achievement? (Working Paper 12828). Cambridge, MA: National
Bureau of Economic Research.
Çobanoglu, R. (2011). Teacher self-efficacy and teaching beliefs as predictors of curriculum
implementation in early childhood education. (Master's thesis, Middle East Technical
University, Ankara, Turkey).
Corcoran, S. P., Evans, W. N., & Schwab, R. M. (2004). Women, the labor market, and the
declining relative quality of teachers. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(3),
449-470.
Cox, M. L. (2010). Pre-service teachers: does cultural responsiveness affect anticipated self-
determination to teach in specific settings? (Doctoral Dissertation, The University of
Oklahoma). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Croninger, R., & Lee, V. (2001). Social capital and dropping out of high school: benefits to at-
risk students of teachers' support and guidance. Teachers College Record, 103(4), 548-
581.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Third annual Brown lecture in education research–the flat earth
and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our
future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318-334.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 179

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher
Education, 61(1-2), 35-47.
Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., & Thoreson, A. (2001). Does teacher certification matter?
Evaluating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 57-77.
Dee, T. S. (2005). A teacher like me: Does race, ethnicity, or gender matter?. The American
Economic Review, 95(2), 158-165.
Dee, T. S., & Cohodes, S. R. (2008). Out-of-Field Teachers and Student Achievement Evidence
from Matched-Pairs Comparisons. Public Finance Review, 36(1), 7-32.
Dee, J. R., & Henkin, A. B. (2002). Assessing dispositions toward cultural diversity among
preservice teachers. Urban Education, 37(1), 22-40.
Delialioglu, O., Cakir, H., Bichelmeyer, B. A., Dennis, A. R., & Duffy, T. M. (2010). Factors
impacting adult learner achievement in a technology certificate program on computer
networks . The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 97-107.
Deming, D., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. (2013). For-profit colleges. Postsecondary Education in the
United States, 23(1), 137-163.
den Brok, P., & Levy, J. (2005). Teacher–student relationships in multicultural classes:
Reviewing the past, preparing the future. International Journal of Educational Research,
43(1), 72-88.
Dolton, P. (2010). Teacher supply. In D. Brewer & P. McEwan (Eds.), Economics of
education (pp. 251-259). Oxford, England: Academic Press.
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley,
C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. Spence (Ed.),
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 180

Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75-146). San Francisco, CA: W.H.
Freeman.
Eccles, J. S., Barber, B., & Jozefowicz, D. (1999). Linking gender to educational, occupational,
and recreational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related
choices. In W. B. Swann, J. H. Langlois, & L. A. Gilbert (Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes
in modern society: The gender science of Janet Taylor Spence (pp. 153-192).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the achiever: The structure of adolescents'
academic achievement related-beliefs and self-perceptions. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215-225.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Flanagan, C., Miller, C., Reuman, D., & Yee, D. (1989). Self-
concepts, domain values, and self-esteem: Relations and changes at early adolescence.
Journal of Personality, 57, 283-310.
Education Week. (2014). Quality counts 2014: state report cards. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/qc/index.html
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCullum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use
of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3),
272-299.
Fan, W., & Yan, Z. (2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic
review. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 132-139.
Feather, N. T. (1988). Values, valences, and course enrollment: testing personal values within an
expectancy-valence framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 381-391.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 181

Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Ford, D. Y. (2010). Underrepresentation of culturally different students in gifted education:
Reflections about current problems and recommendations for the future. Gifted Child
Today, 33(3), 31-35.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice (2
nd
Ed).
Teachers College Press, New York
Gay, G., Dingus, J. E., & Jackson, C. (2003, July). The presence and performance of teachers of
color in the profession (monograph). Washington, D.C.: Community Teachers Institute.
Gay, G., & Howard, T. C. (2000). Multicultural teacher education for the 21st century. The
Teacher Educator, 36(1), 1-16.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2013). IBM SPSS statistics 21 step by step: A simple guide and
reference. (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Goe, L. (2007). The link between teacher quality and student outcomes: a research synthesis.
Washington, D.C.: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
Goldhaber, D.D., & Brewer, D.J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher
certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
22(2), 129-145.
Goldhaber, D., Gross, B., & Player, D. (2011). Teacher career paths, teacher quality, and
persistence in the classroom: Are public schools keeping their best?. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 30(1), 57-87.
Gonyea, R. M. (2005). Self-reported data in institutional research: Review and
recommendations. New Directions for Institutional Research, (127), 73-89.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 182

Guarino, C. M., Santibañez, L., & Daley, G. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A
review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 173-
208.
Haberman, M. (2004). Teacher burnout in black and white. Milwaukee, WI: The Haberman
Educational Foundation.
Hachfeld, A. (2013). Kulturelle Überzeugungen und professionelle kompetenz von lehrenden im
umgang mit kultureller heterogenität im klassenzimmer. (Doctoral dissertation, Freie
Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany). Retrieved from http://www.diss.fu-
berlin.de/diss/receive/FUDISS_thesis_000000048892?lang=en
Halagao, P. E. (2004). Teaching Filipino-American Students. Multicultural Review, 13(1), 42-48.
Hamamoto, P. (2007). Highly qualified teacher equity plan . Honolulu, HI: State of Hawai‘i
Department of Education.
Hanushek, E. (2010). The economic value of higher teacher quality. Washington, D.C.: The
Urban Institute.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal
of Human Resources, 39(2), 326-354.
Hanushek, E. A., & Pace, R. R. (1995). Who chooses to teach (and why)?. Economics of
Education Review, 14(2), 101-117.
Hawai‘i Educational Policy Center, Teacher Education Work Force Research Group.
(2008). Report to the legislature on senate concurrent resolution 56 s.d. 1 requesting the
Hawaii educational policy center to report on the retention and change in assignment of
teachers within the department of education.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 183

Hawai‘i State Department of Education. (2011). Zones of School Innovation. Retrieved from
http://hawaiidoereform.org/Zones-of-School-Innovation
Hawai‘i State Department of Education. (2012a). Annual employment report, 2010-2011.
Retrieved from doe.k12.hi.us/reports/employmentreports/employmentreport10-11.pdf
Hawai‘i State Department of Education. (2012b). Appendix C: data tables. Retrieved from
http://arch.k12.hi.us/PDFs/state/superintendent_report/2011/AppendixCDataTbl11.pdf
Hawai‘i State Department of Education. (2013). HSA 2012–2013 statewide and school summary
– censored. Retrieved from
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/TeachingAndLearning/Testing/StateAssessment/Pag
es/home.aspx
Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. (Cartographer) (2011a). Island of Hawaii: Filipino population
by census tracts [Print]. Available from
http://www.state.hi.us/dbedt/gis/2010_census_thematic_maps.htm
Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. (Cartographer) (2011b). Island of Hawaii: Native Hawaiian
population by census tracts [Print]. Available from
http://www.state.hi.us/dbedt/gis/2010_census_thematic_maps.htm
Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. (Cartographer) (2011c). Island of Hawaii: Percent of persons
below poverty level by census tracts [Print]. Available from
http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/op/gis/maps/ACS2011_Poverty_Persons.pdf
Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. (Cartographer) (2011d). Island of Oahu: Filipino population by
census tracts[Print]. Available from
http://www.state.hi.us/dbedt/gis/2010_census_thematic_maps.htm
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 184

Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. (Cartographer) (2011e). Island of Oahu: Native Hawaiian
population by census tracts [Print]. Available from
http://www.state.hi.us/dbedt/gis/2010_census_thematic_maps.htm
Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. (Cartographer) (2011f). Island of Oahu: Percent of persons
below poverty level by census tracts [Print]. Available from
http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/op/gis/maps/ACS2011_Poverty_Persons.pdf
Hawai‘i Teacher Standards Board, (2013). Hawai‘i teacher standards board annual report.
Honolulu, HI.
Henke, R. R., Chen, X., & Geis, S. (2000). Progress through the teacher pipeline 1992-93
college graduates and elementary secondary school teaching as of 1997 (NCES 2000-
152). Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics.
Henke, R. R., Geis, S., & Giambattista, J.. (1996). Out of the lecture hall and into the classroom:
1992–93 college graduates and elementary/secondary school teaching (NCES 96–899).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. Retrieved from website: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/96899.pdf
Henry, G. B. (1986). Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory = Inventario Sobre el
Reconocimiento de Diversas Culturas. Washington, D.C.: Handicapped Children's Early
Education Program.
Hoeffel, E. M., Rastogi, S., Kim, M. O., & Shahid, H. (2012). The Asian population: 2010
(C2010BR-11). U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for
determining model fit. Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 185

Houle, C. O. (1988). The inquiring mind: A study of the adult who continues to learn. Norman,
OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education.
Ingersoll, R. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? Philadelphia, PA: The Consortium for
Policy Research in Education and The Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Ingersoll, R., & Merrill, L. (2010). Who's Teaching Our Children?. Educational Leadership,
67(8), 14-20.
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). NAEP state
profiles. Retrieved from website: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/
Institutional Research Office. (2009). University of Hawai‘i, changes in reporting race and
ethnicity data for students. Retrieved from University of Hawai‘i website:
http://www.hawaii.edu/iro/RECollection/Race Ethnicity - Student.pdf
Johnston, J., McKeown, E., & McEwen, A. (1999). Choosing primary teaching as a career: The
perspectives of males and females in training. Journal of Education for Teaching:
International research and pedagogy, 25(1), 55-64.
Kamehameha Schools. (2009). Native Hawaiian educational assessment update 2009: A
supplement to Ka Huaka‘i 2005. Honolulu, HI: Kamehameha Schools, Research &
Evaluation Division.
Kana‘iaupuni, S., Ledward, B., & Jensen, U. (2010). Culture-Based Education and Its
Relationship to Student Outcomes. Honolulu, HI: Kamehameha Schools, Research &
Evaluation.
Kana‘iaupuni, S. M., Malone, N. J., & Ishibashi, K. (2005). Income and poverty among Native
Hawaiian ancestry of Ka Huaka‘i findings. Honolulu, HI: Kamehameha Schools.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 186

Kauchak, D., & Burbank, M. D. (2003). Voices in the classroom: Case studies of minority
teacher candidates. Action in Teacher Education, 25(1), 63-75.
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2005). Reflective judgment: theory and research on the
development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. In M. Wilson & L. Wolf-
Wendel (Eds.), ASHE Reader on college student development theory (pp. 59-67). Boston,
MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Kirby, S. N., & Grissmer, D. W. (1993). Teacher attrition: Theory, evidence, and suggested
policy options (Vol. 7827). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Krauskopf, K., Zahn, C., & Hesse, F. W. (2012). Leveraging the affordances of youtube: The
role of pedagogical knowledge and mental models of technology functions for lesson
planning with technology. Computers & Education, 58, 1194-1206.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishing Co.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159-165.
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A
descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37-62.
Larke, P. J. (1990). Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory: Assessing the Sensitivity of
Preservice Teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 12(3), 23-30.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 187

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for
data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(4), 557-584.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career
choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(1), 36-49.
Loeb, S. & Myung, J. (2010). Economic approaches to teacher recruitment and retention. In D.
Brewer & P. McEwan (Eds.), Economics of Education. Amsterdam: Academic Press
(Elsevier).
Love, P. G., & Guthrie, V. L. (2005). Kegan's orders of consciousness. In M. Wilson & L. Wolf-
Wendel (Eds.), ASHE Reader on college student development theory (pp. 59-67). Boston,
MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Lucas, D. J. (2011). The effects of a service-learning introductory diversity course on pre-service
teachers’ attitudes toward teaching diverse student populations (Doctoral dissertation,
Liberty University).
Madkins, T. C. (2011). The black teacher shortage: A literature review of historical and
contemporary trends. The Journal of Negro Education, 80(3), 417-427.
Manuel, J., & Hughes, J. (2006). ‘It has always been my dream’: exploring pre‐service teachers’
motivations for choosing to teach. Teacher Development: An International Journal of
Teachers' Professional Development, 10(1), 5-24.
Matayoshi, K.S. (2012). Highly qualified/highly effective teacher & administrator equity plan for
effective teaching and leading . Honolulu, HI: State of Hawai‘i Department of Education.
Matusovich, H. M., Streveler, R. A., & Miller, R. L. (2010). Why do students choose
engineering? A qualitative, longitudinal investigation of students’ motivational values.
Journal of Engineering Education, 99(4), 289-303.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 188

Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its
consequences for young adolescents’ course enrollment intentions and performances in
mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 60–70.
Müller, K., Alliata, R., & Benninghoff, F. (2009). Attracting and retaining teachers: a question of
motivation. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(5), 574-599.
NCATE. (2008). Unit standards in effect 2008: Diversity. Retrieved from
http://www.ncate.org/Standards/NCATEUnitStandards/UnitStandardsinEffect2008/tabid/
476/Default.aspx
Ngidi, D. P. (2011). Academic optimism: an individual teacher belief. Educational Studies,
38(2), 139-150.
OECD. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers.
Retrieved from website:
http://www.oecd.org/education/preschoolandschool/34990905.pdf
Office of the President, Board of Regents. (2002). Hawai‘i higher education system strategic
plan.
Ololube, N. P. (2007). Professionalism, demographics, and motivation: Predictors of job
satisfaction among Nigerian teachers. International Journal of Education Policy &
Leadership, 2(7).
Otsuka, S., & Smith, I. D. (2005). Educational applications of the expectancy-value model of
achievement motivation. Change: Transformations in Education, 8(1), 91-109.
Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual. (4th ed.). Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Parkes, K. A., & Jones, B. D. (2011). Students’ motivations for considering a career in music
performance. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 29(2), 20-28.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 189

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686.
Plunkett, M., & Dyson, M. (2011). Becoming a teacher and staying one: Examining the complex
ecologies associated with educating and retaining new teachers in rural Australia?.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 32-47.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual
Review of Sociology, 24, 1-24.
Poythress, K. (2010, July 21). Administrator vague about teacher incentives. Honolulu Civil
Beat. Retrieved from http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2010/07/21/2974-administrator-
vague-about-teacher-incentives/
ProximityOne. (2014). Zip code to census tract equivalence table. Retrieved from
http://proximityone.com/ziptractequiv.htm
Pryor, J. H., Eagan, K., Palucki Blake, L., Hurtado, S., Berdan, J., & Case, M. H. (2012). The
American freshman: National norms fall 2012. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research
Institute, UCLA.
R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In Vienna,
Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-
project.org.
Richardson, P. W., & Watt, H.M.G. (2006). Who chooses teaching and why? Profiling
characteristics and motivations across three Australian universities. Asia-Pacific Journal
of Teacher Education, 34(1), 27-56.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 190

Rogers, M. E., & Creed, P. A. (2011). A longitudinal examination of adolescent career planning
and exploration using a social cognitive career theory framework. Journal of
Adolescence, 34(1), 163-172.
Roness, D., & Smith, D. (2010). Stability in motivation during teacher education. Journal of
Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 36(2), 169-185.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An r package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical
Software, 48(2), 1-36. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/
Roy, L. (2012). On measures of racial/ethnic disproportionality in special education: An
analysis of selected measures, a joint measures approach, and significant
disproportionality. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
Rumberger, R., & Lim, S. (2008). Why students drop out of school: a review of 25 years of
research. California Dropout Research Project Report, 15, Retrieved from
http://www.cdrp.ucsb.edu/pubs_reports.htm
Sang, G., Valcke, M., Tondeur, J., Zhu, C., & van Braak, J. (2012). Exploring the educational
beliefs of primary education student teachers in the Chinese context. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 13(3), 417-425.
Schreiber, J. B., Stage, F. K., King, J., Nora, A., & Barlow, E. A. (2006). Reporting structural
equation modeling and confirmatory factory analysis results: A review. The Journal of
Educational Research, 99(6), 323-337.
Scott, J. (2000). Rational choice theory. In G. Browning, A. Halcli & F. Webster (Eds.),
Understanding contemporary society: Theories of the present. London, England: Sage
Publications.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 191

Shih, T., & Fan, X. (2009). Comparing response rates in e-mail and paper surveys: A meta-
analysis. Educational Research Review, 4, 26-40.
Sinclair, C., Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. M. (2006). Motivations to teach: Psychometric
perspectives across the first semester of teacher education. Teachers College Record,
108(6), 1132-1154.
Snyder, Thomas D. (2011). Mini-Digest of Education Statistics, 2010 (NCES 2011-016).
Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Spanierman, L. B., Oh, E., Heppner, P. P., Neville, H. A., Mobley, M., Wright, C. V., Dillon, F.,
& Navarro, R. (2011). The multicultural teaching competency scale: Development and
initial validation. Urban Education, 46(3), 440-464.
State & county quickfacts: Hawaii. (2012). Retrieved from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/15000.html
State of Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. (2013). Census–
selected population and housing characteristics by county, island and census tract for the
state of Hawaii: 2007-2011 (hsdc 2013-1 released February 2013). Retrieved from
http://dbedt.hawaii.gov/census/acs/acs2011/acs2011_5_year/
State of Hawaii Office of Planning. (2013a). Download GIS data, administrative and political
boundaries, census tracts–2010. Retrieved from http://planning.hawaii.gov/gis/download-
gis-data/
State of Hawaii Office of Planning. (2013b). Download GIS data, administrative and political
boundaries, public high school districts. Retrieved from
http://planning.hawaii.gov/gis/download-gis-data/
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 192

Stanley, L. S. (1996). The development and validation of an instrument to assess attitudes toward
cultural diversity and pluralism among preservice physical educators. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 56(5), 891-897.
Stolovitch, H. D., Clark, R. E., & Condly, S. J. (2002). Incentives, motivation and workplace
performance: Research & best practices. St. Louis, MO: The Incentive Research
Foundation.
Su, Z. (1997). Teaching as a profession and as a career: minority candidates'
perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(3), 325-340.
System Evaluation and Reporting Section. Office of the Superintendent, Systems Accountability
Office. (2012a). School status and improvement report school year 2011-2012: Kau high
& Pahala elementary school. Honolulu, HI: Hawaii State Department of Education.
System Evaluation and Reporting Section. Office of the Superintendent, Systems Accountability
Office. (2012b). School status and improvement report school year 2011-2012: Keaau
high school. Honolulu, HI: Hawaii State Department of Education.
System Evaluation and Reporting Section. Office of the Superintendent, Systems Accountability
Office. (2012c). School status and improvement report school year 2011-2012: N!n!kuli
high & intermediate school. Honolulu, HI: Hawaii State Department of Education
System Evaluation and Reporting Section. Office of the Superintendent, Systems Accountability
Office. (2012d). School status and improvement report school year 2011-2012: P!hoa
high & intermediate school. Honolulu, HI: Hawaii State Department of Education.
System Evaluation and Reporting Section. Office of the Superintendent, Systems Accountability
Office. (2012e). School status and improvement report school year 2011-2012: Waianae
high school. Honolulu, HI: Hawaii State Department of Education.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 193

Tamir, E. (2009). Choosing to teach in urban schools among graduates of elite colleges. Urban
Education, 44(5), 522-544.
Taylor, J., Roehrig, A. D., Soden Hensler, B., Connor, C. M., & Schatschneider, C. (2010).
Teacher quality moderates the genetic effects on early reading. Science, 328(5977), 512-
514.
Tollefson, N. (2000). Classroom applications of cognitive theories of motivation. Educational
Psychology Review, 12(1), 63-83.
Tondeur, J., Hermans, R., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). Exploring the link between
teachers’ educational belief profiles and different types of computer use in the classroom.
Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2541-2553.
Topkaya, E. Z., & Uztosun, M. S. (2012). Choosing teaching as a career: Motivations of pre-
service English teachers in turkey. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(1),
126-134.
U.S. Census Bureau, (2010a). 2010 census: California profile. Retrieved from http://www2.
census.gov/geo/maps/dc10_thematic/2010_Profile/2010_Profile_Map_California.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau, (2010b). 2010 census: Hawai‘i profile. Retrieved from http://www2.
census.gov/geo/maps/dc10_thematic/2010_Profile/2010_Profile_Map_Hawaii.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau, (2010c). 2010 census: New York profile. Retrieved from http://www2.
census.gov/geo/maps/dc10_thematic/2010_Profile/2010_Profile_Map_New_York.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau, (2010d). 2010 census: Texas profile. Retrieved from http://www2.
census.gov/geo/maps/dc10_thematic/2010_Profile/2010_Profile_Map_Texas.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau, (2010e). 2010 census: United States profile. Retrieved from http://www2.
census.gov/geo/maps/dc10_thematic/2010_Profile/2010_Profile_Map_United_States.pdf
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 194

Villegas, A. M., & Irvine, J. J. (2010). Diversifying the teaching force: An examination of major
arguments. The Urban Review, 42, 175-192.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers rethinking the
curriculum. Journal of teacher education, 53(1), 20-32.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2007). The culturally responsive teacher. Educational Leadership,
64(6), 28.
Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2007). Motivational factors influencing teaching as career
choice: development and validation of the fit-choice scale. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 75(3), 167-202.
Watt, H. M. G., & 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.
Watt, H. M. G., 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.
Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research.
Qualitative health research, 11(4), 522-537.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental
perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49-78.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical
analysis. Developmental review, 12(3), 265-310.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 195

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs, expectancies for
success, and achievement values from childhood through adolescence. In A. Wigfield &
J. Eccles (Eds.), Development of Achievement Motivation. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Mac Iver, D., Reuman, D. A., & Midgley, C. (1991). Transitions
during early adolescence: Changes in children’s domain-specific self-perceptions and
general self-esteem across the transition to junior high school. Developmental
Psychology, 27(4), 552-565.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A., Freedman-Doan, K., &
Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Changes in children's competence beliefs and subjective task
value across the elementary school years: A three-year study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89, 451-469.
Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Eccles, J. S. (2004). Expectancy value theory in cross-cultural
perspective. In D. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited: Volume 4 of
Research on Sociocultural Influences on Motivation and Learning, (pp. 165-198).
Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Woolley, S. L., Benjamin, W. J., & Woolley, A. W. (2004). Validity of a self-report measure of
teacher beliefs related to constructivist and traditional approaches to teaching and
learning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(2), 319-331.
Yong, B. C. S. (1995). Teacher trainees' motives for entering into a teaching career in Brunei
Darussalam. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(3), 275-280.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 196

Yu, Y. (2011). Pre-service teachers motivations for choosing a teaching career and intention to
teach in urban settings: A Multilevel Analysis. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University
of Pennsylvania).

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 197

Appendix A: Maps of HIDOE Complexes and Associated Census Tracts

Figure A1. Map of HIDOE complexes on O‘ahu. Highlighted are Wai‘anae and N!n!kuli complexes and associated Census tracts.
Map created using data from the State of Hawai‘i Office of Planning (2013a, b), using Cartographica software.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 198

Figure A2. Map of HIDOE complexes on Hawai‘i Island. Highlighted are Ka"#, Kea‘au, and P!hoa complexes and associated Census
tracts. Map created using data from the State of Hawai‘i Office of Planning (2013a, b), using Cartographica software.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 199

Figure A3. Maps of Native Hawaiian (a) and Filipino (b) populations in census tracts in Wai‘anae and N!n!kuli complexes. Tracts
with Native Hawaiian or Filipino populations higher than state percentages (21.3% Native Hawaiian, 25.1% Filipino) are highlighted.
Numbers represent tract number (top) and Native Hawaiian or Filipino percent of population (bottom). Maps adapted from Hawaii
Statewide GIS Program (2011d, e) using Cartographica software.
a
b
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 200

Figure A4. Maps of Native Hawaiian (a) and Filipino (b) populations in census tracts in Ka"#, Kea‘au, and P!hoa complexes. Tracts
with Native Hawaiian or Filipino populations higher than the state percentages (21.3% Native Hawaiian, 25.1% Filipino) are
highlighted. Numbers represent tract number (top) and Native Hawaiian or Filipino percent of population (bottom). Maps adapted
from Hawaii Statewide GIS Program (2011a, b) using Cartographica software.
a
b
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 201

Figure A5. Maps of persons living below the poverty level in census tracts in hard-to-staff complexes on O‘ahu (a) and Hawai‘i Island
(b). Numbers represent tract number (top) and percent of population living below poverty level (bottom). Maps created using data
from State of Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism (2013), using Cartographica software.
a
b
Percent of Persons Living Below Poverty Level

0-10% 10.1-20%

20.1-30% 30.1-40%
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 202

Appendix B: Combined Survey

Note that online survey progresses in smaller sections and is not presented as one continuous
document.
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 203

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 204

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 205

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 206

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 207

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 208

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 209

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 210

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 211

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 212

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 213

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 214

Appendix C: Survey Permissions

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 215

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 216

Appendix D: Open-Ended Questionnaires

Note that online surveys progress in smaller sections and are not presented as one continuous
document.

Questionnaire A for Native Hawaiian Participants
' H I D X O W 4 X H V W L R Q % O R F N $ O R K D 7 K D Q N \ R X I R U S D U W L F L S D W L Q J L Q W K L V V W X G \ D E R X W Z K \ \ R X K D Y H F K R V H Q W R W H D F K 3 O H D V H W D N H D P R P H Q W W R U H D G W K H F R Q V H Q W L Q I R U P D W L R Q E H O R Z 3 O H D V H S U L Q W W K L V S D J H I R U \ R X U U H F R U G V % \ F O L F N L Q J I R U Z D U G W R W K H V X U Y H \ \ R X D J U H H W R S D U W L F L S D W H L Q W K L V V W X G \ 7 K H S X U S R V H R I P \ S U R M H F W L V W R G H W H U P L Q H W K H P R W L Y D W L R Q V R I S U H V H U Y L F H W H D F K H U V L Q + D Z D L µ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µ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µ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¶ V + X P D Q 6 X E M H F W V 3 U R W H F W L R Q 3 U R J U D P W K H 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ R I + D Z D L µ L + X P D Q 6 W X G L H V 3 U R J U D P D Q G W K H + D Z D L µ L 3 D F L I L F 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ , Q V W L W X W L R Q D O 5 H Y L H Z % R D U G P D \ D F F H V V W K H G D W D 7 K H V H D J H Q F L H V U H Y L H Z V D Q G P R Q L W R U U H V H D U F K V W X G L H V W R S U R W H F W W K H U L J K W V D Q G Z H O I D U H R I U H V H D U F K V X E M H F W V 9 R O X Q W D U \ 3 D U W L F L S D W L R Q < R X F D Q I U H H O \ F K R R V H W R S D U W L F L S D W H R U Q R W S D U W L F L S D W H < R X Z L O O Q R W E H S H Q D O L ] H G L I \ R X F K R R V H Q R W W R S D U W L F L S D W H , I \ R X D J U H H W R S D U W L F L S D W H \ R X P D \ V W R S D W D Q \ W L P H Z L W K Q R S H Q D O W \ 4 X H V W L R Q V " , I \ R X K D Y H D Q \ T X H V W L R Q V D E R X W W K L V V W X G \ S O H D V H F R Q W D F W P H D W R U O N D X S S # X V F H G X R U F R Q W D F W P \ ) D F X O W \ $ G Y L V R U ' U ' D U Q H O O & R O H D W G D U Q H O O F # X V F H G X ) R U P R U H L Q I R U P D W L R Q D E R X W \ R X U U L J K W V D V D U H V H D U F K S D U W L F L S D Q W \ R X P D \ F R Q W D F W W K H 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ R I 6 R X W K H U Q & D O L I R U Q L D 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ 3 D U N , Q V W L W X W L R Q D O 5 H Y L H Z % R D U G 8 3 , 5 % 6 R X W K ) O R Z H U 6 W U H H W / R V $ Q J H O H V & $ R U X S L U E # X V F H G X $ O W H U Q D W H O \ \ R X P D \ F R Q W D F W W K H D S S U R S U L D W H D J H Q F \ I R U \ R X U X Q L Y H U V L W \ 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ R I + D Z D L µ L + X P D Q 6 W X G L H V 3 U R J U D P X K L U E # K D Z D L L H G X + D Z D L µ L 3 D F L I L F 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ , Q V W L W X W L R Q D O 5 H Y L H Z % R D U G L U E F K D L U # K S X H G X : K D W L V \ R X U H P D L O D G G U H V V " 3 O H D V H H Q W H U \ R X U V F K R R O H P D L O D G G U H V V Z K L F K V K R X O G V K R X O G K D Y H D H G X G R P D L Q Q D P H ) R U H [ D P S O H # E \ X K H G X F K D P L Q D G H H G X K D Z D L L H G X R U K S X H G X
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 217

) R U H D F K R I W K H I R O O R Z L Q J T X H V W L R Q V S O H D V H D Q V Z H U W R W K H E H V W R I \ R X U D E L O L W \ 7 K H U H D U H Q R U L J K W R U Z U R Q J D Q V Z H U V < R X U H [ S H U L H Q F H V D Q G R S L Q L R Q V D U H L P S R U W D Q W ( D F K T X H V W L R Q L V G H V L J Q H G W R J D L Q D G H H S H U X Q G H U V W D Q G L Q J R I W K H P R W L Y D W L R Q V G H V F U L E H G E \ W K H D Q V Z H U V L Q W K H P X O W L S O H F K R L F H V X U Y H \ < R X D U H Q R W O L P L W H G L Q W K H O H Q J W K R I \ R X U U H V S R Q V H E \ W K H V L ] H R I W K H E R [ < R X U W K R X J K W I X O D Q V Z H U V D U H D S S U H F L D W H G < 2 8 5 ' ( & , 6 , 2 1 7 2 % ( & 2 0 ( $ 7 ( $ & + ( 5 : K D W L Q I O X H Q F H G \ R X L Q \ R X U F K R L F H W R E H F R P H D W H D F K H U " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H + R Z G L G \ R X U I D P L O \ U H D F W W R \ R X U G H F L V L R Q W R E H F R P H D W H D F K H U " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H & R P S D U H G W R R W K H U V L Q \ R X U F R K R U W K R Z F R Q I L G H Q W D U H \ R X W K D W \ R X Z L O O E H D J R R G W H D F K H U " + R Z G R \ R X W K L Q N D F D U H H U L Q W H D F K L Q J L V E H Q H I L F L D O " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H ) R U H D F K R I W K H I R O O R Z L Q J T X H V W L R Q V S O H D V H D Q V Z H U W R W K H E H V W R I \ R X U D E L O L W \ 7 K H U H D U H Q R U L J K W R U Z U R Q J D Q V Z H U V < R X U H [ S H U L H Q F H V D Q G R S L Q L R Q V D U H L P S R U W D Q W ( D F K T X H V W L R Q L V G H V L J Q H G W R J D L Q D G H H S H U X Q G H U V W D Q G L Q J R I W K H P R W L Y D W L R Q V G H V F U L E H G E \ W K H D Q V Z H U V L Q W K H P X O W L S O H F K R L F H V X U Y H \ < R X D U H Q R W O L P L W H G L Q W K H O H Q J W K R I \ R X U U H V S R Q V H E \ W K H V L ] H R I W K H E R [ < R X U W K R X J K W I X O D Q V Z H U V D U H D S S U H F L D W H G & 8 / 7 8 5 ( , 1 7 + ( & / $ 6 6 5 2 2 0
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 218

+ R Z L P S R U W D Q W L V L W I R U W H D F K H U V W R O H D U Q Z K D W V W X G H Q W V E U L Q J Z L W K W K H P W R W K H F O D V V U R R P ± I R U H [ D P S O H K R P H O L I H S U H Y L R X V O H D U Q L Q J H [ S H U L H Q F H V R U H [ W U D F X U U L F X O D U D F W L Y L W L H V " : K D W V K R X O G W H D F K H U V G R W R D G G U H V V F X O W X U D O G L Y H U V L W \ L Q W K H L U F O D V V U R R P V " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H : K D W U R O H V K R X O G W H D F K H U V S O D \ L Q W K H L U F R P P X Q L W L H V " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H < R X Z H U H F K R V H Q I R U W K L V I R F X V J U R X S V X U Y H \ L Q S D U W E H F D X V H \ R X L G H Q W L I L H G D V 1 D W L Y H + D Z D L L D Q R U S D U W 1 D W L Y H + D Z D L L D Q R Q W K H L Q L W L D O V X U Y H \ 1 D W L Y H + D Z D L L D Q V W X G H Q W V D U H X Q G H U U H S U H V H Q W H G E \ 1 D W L Y H + D Z D L L D Q W H D F K H U V L Q + D Z D L µ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
V U H D F W L R Q W R \ R X U F K R L F H W R
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 219

E H F R P H D W H D F K H U " : K \ R U Z K \ Q R W " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H , V W K H U H D G L I I H U H Q F H L Q Z K D W 1 D W L Y H + D Z D L L D Q D Q G Q R Q 1 D W L Y H + D Z D L L D Q W H D F K H U V F D Q G R I R U 1 D W L Y H + D Z D L L D Q V W X G H Q W V " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H , V W K H U H D G L I I H U H Q F H L Q Z K D W 1 D W L Y H + D Z D L L D Q D Q G Q R Q 1 D W L Y H + D Z D L L D Q W H D F K H U V F D Q G R I R U V W X G H Q W V R I R W K H U H W K Q L F J U R X S V " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H , V W K H U H D Q \ W K L Q J H O V H \ R X Z R X O G O L N H W R D G G D E R X W \ R X U G H F L V L R Q W R W H D F K R U D E R X W D Q \ R I W K H R W K H U T X H V W L R Q V D V N H G R Q W K L V V X U Y H \ " 3 O H D V H V K D U H D Q \ U H O H Y D Q W L Q I R U P D W L R Q 7 K D Q N \ R X I R U F R P S O H W L Q J W K L V V X U Y H \ % H I R U H \ R X V X E P L W \ R X P D \ F K R R V H W R J R E D F N W R W K H S U H Y L R X V S D J H V D Q G U H Y L H Z \ R X U D Q V Z H U V $ I W H U \ R X K L W V X E P L W \ R X U D Q V Z H U V Z L O O E H U H F R U G H G % \ F R P S O H W L Q J W K L V V X U Y H \ \ R X D U H D J U H H L Q J W K D W \ R X U D Q V Z H U V F D Q E H X V H G L Q W K L V U H V H D U F K S U R M H F W < R X U D Q V Z H U V Z L O O U H P D L Q F R Q I L G H Q W L D O , I \ R X K D Y H D Q \ T X H V W L R Q V D E R X W W K L V V W X G \ S O H D V H F R Q W D F W W K H U H V H D U F K H U D W O N D X S S # X V F H G X
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 220

Questionnaire B for Filipino Participants
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µ L ( V V H Q W L D O O \ , Z D Q W W R X Q G H U V W D Q G Z K \ S H R S O H D U H F K R R V L Q J W R W H D F K D Q G Z K D W P L J K W L Q I O X H Q F H W K D W F K R L F H 3 D U W L F L S D W L R Q L Q W K L V V W X G \ Z L O O L Q Y R O Y H W K H F R P S O H W L R Q R I D Q R Q O L Q H , Q W H U Q H W V X U Y H \ , D P D V N L Q J \ R X W R S D U W L F L S D W H L Q W K L V S U R M H F W E H F D X V H \ R X D U H D W O H D V W \ H D U V R O G H Q U R O O H G L Q D S U R J U D P W K D W O H D G V W R W H D F K H U O L F H Q V X U H L Q + D Z D L µ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µ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¶ V + X P D Q 6 X E M H F W V 3 U R W H F W L R Q 3 U R J U D P W K H 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ R I + D Z D L µ L + X P D Q 6 W X G L H V 3 U R J U D P D Q G W K H + D Z D L µ L 3 D F L I L F 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ , Q V W L W X W L R Q D O 5 H Y L H Z % R D U G P D \ D F F H V V W K H G D W D 7 K H V H D J H Q F L H V U H Y L H Z V D Q G P R Q L W R U U H V H D U F K V W X G L H V W R S U R W H F W W K H U L J K W V D Q G Z H O I D U H R I U H V H D U F K V X E M H F W V 9 R O X Q W D U \ 3 D U W L F L S D W L R Q < R X F D Q I U H H O \ F K R R V H W R S D U W L F L S D W H R U Q R W S D U W L F L S D W H < R X Z L O O Q R W E H S H Q D O L ] H G L I \ R X F K R R V H Q R W W R S D U W L F L S D W H , I \ R X D J U H H W R S D U W L F L S D W H \ R X P D \ V W R S D W D Q \ W L P H Z L W K Q R S H Q D O W \ 4 X H V W L R Q V " , I \ R X K D Y H D Q \ T X H V W L R Q V D E R X W W K L V V W X G \ S O H D V H F R Q W D F W P H D W R U O N D X S S # X V F H G X R U F R Q W D F W P \ ) D F X O W \ $ G Y L V R U ' U ' D U Q H O O & R O H D W G D U Q H O O F # X V F H G X ) R U P R U H L Q I R U P D W L R Q D E R X W \ R X U U L J K W V D V D U H V H D U F K S D U W L F L S D Q W \ R X P D \ F R Q W D F W W K H 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ R I 6 R X W K H U Q & D O L I R U Q L D 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ 3 D U N , Q V W L W X W L R Q D O 5 H Y L H Z % R D U G 8 3 , 5 % 6 R X W K ) O R Z H U 6 W U H H W / R V $ Q J H O H V & $ R U X S L U E # X V F H G X $ O W H U Q D W H O \ \ R X P D \ F R Q W D F W W K H D S S U R S U L D W H D J H Q F \ I R U \ R X U X Q L Y H U V L W \ 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ R I + D Z D L µ L + X P D Q 6 W X G L H V 3 U R J U D P X K L U E # K D Z D L L H G X + D Z D L µ L 3 D F L I L F 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ , Q V W L W X W L R Q D O 5 H Y L H Z % R D U G L U E F K D L U # K S X H G X : K D W L V \ R X U H P D L O D G G U H V V " 3 O H D V H H Q W H U \ R X U V F K R R O H P D L O D G G U H V V Z K L F K V K R X O G V K R X O G K D Y H D H G X G R P D L Q Q D P H ) R U H [ D P S O H # E \ X K H G X F K D P L Q D G H H G X K D Z D L L H G X R U K S X H G X
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 221

) R U H D F K R I W K H I R O O R Z L Q J T X H V W L R Q V S O H D V H D Q V Z H U W R W K H E H V W R I \ R X U D E L O L W \ 7 K H U H D U H Q R U L J K W R U Z U R Q J D Q V Z H U V < R X U H [ S H U L H Q F H V D Q G R S L Q L R Q V D U H L P S R U W D Q W ( D F K T X H V W L R Q L V G H V L J Q H G W R J D L Q D G H H S H U X Q G H U V W D Q G L Q J R I W K H P R W L Y D W L R Q V G H V F U L E H G E \ W K H D Q V Z H U V L Q W K H P X O W L S O H F K R L F H V X U Y H \ < R X D U H Q R W O L P L W H G L Q W K H O H Q J W K R I \ R X U U H V S R Q V H E \ W K H V L ] H R I W K H E R [ < R X U W K R X J K W I X O D Q V Z H U V D U H D S S U H F L D W H G : K D W L Q I O X H Q F H G \ R X L Q \ R X U F K R L F H W R E H F R P H D W H D F K H U " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H + R Z G L G \ R X U I D P L O \ U H D F W W R \ R X U G H F L V L R Q W R E H F R P H D W H D F K H U " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H & R P S D U H G W R R W K H U V L Q \ R X U F R K R U W K R Z F R Q I L G H Q W D U H \ R X W K D W \ R X Z L O O E H D J R R G W H D F K H U " + R Z L P S R U W D Q W L V L W I R U W H D F K H U V W R O H D U Q Z K D W V W X G H Q W V E U L Q J Z L W K W K H P W R W K H F O D V V U R R P ± I R U H [ D P S O H K R P H O L I H S U H Y L R X V O H D U Q L Q J H [ S H U L H Q F H V R U H [ W U D F X U U L F X O D U D F W L Y L W L H V " : K D W V K R X O G W H D F K H U V G R W R D G G U H V V F X O W X U D O G L Y H U V L W \ L Q W K H L U F O D V V U R R P V " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H : K D W U R O H V K R X O G W H D F K H U V S O D \ L Q W K H L U F R P P X Q L W L H V " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 222

< R X Z H U H F K R V H Q I R U W K L V I R F X V J U R X S V X U Y H \ L Q S D U W E H F D X V H \ R X L G H Q W L I L H G D V ) L O L S L Q R R U S D U W ) L O L S L Q R R Q W K H L Q L W L D O V X U Y H \ ) L O L S L Q R V W X G H Q W V D U H X Q G H U U H S U H V H Q W H G E \ ) L O L S L Q R W H D F K H U V L Q + D Z D L µ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
V U H D F W L R Q W R \ R X U F K R L F H W R E H F R P H D W H D F K H U " : K \ R U Z K \ Q R W " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H , V W K H U H D G L I I H U H Q F H L Q Z K D W ) L O L S L Q R D Q G Q R Q ) L O L S L Q R W H D F K H U V F D Q G R I R U ) L O L S L Q R V W X G H Q W V " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H , V W K H U H D G L I I H U H Q F H L Q Z K D W ) L O L S L Q R D Q G Q R Q ) L O L S L Q R W H D F K H U V F D Q G R I R U V W X G H Q W V R I R W K H U H W K Q L F J U R X S V " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 223

, V W K H U H D Q \ W K L Q J H O V H \ R X Z R X O G O L N H W R D G G D E R X W \ R X U G H F L V L R Q W R W H D F K R U D E R X W D Q \ R I W K H R W K H U T X H V W L R Q V D V N H G R Q W K L V V X U Y H \ " 3 O H D V H V K D U H D Q \ U H O H Y D Q W L Q I R U P D W L R Q 7 K D Q N \ R X I R U F R P S O H W L Q J W K L V V X U Y H \ % H I R U H \ R X V X E P L W \ R X P D \ F K R R V H W R J R E D F N W R W K H S U H Y L R X V S D J H V D Q G U H Y L H Z \ R X U D Q V Z H U V $ I W H U \ R X K L W V X E P L W \ R X U D Q V Z H U V Z L O O E H U H F R U G H G % \ F R P S O H W L Q J W K L V V X U Y H \ \ R X D U H D J U H H L Q J W K D W \ R X U D Q V Z H U V F D Q E H X V H G L Q W K L V U H V H D U F K S U R M H F W < R X U D Q V Z H U V Z L O O U H P D L Q F R Q I L G H Q W L D O , I \ R X K D Y H D Q \ T X H V W L R Q V D E R X W W K L V V W X G \ S O H D V H F R Q W D F W W K H U H V H D U F K H U D W O N D X S S # X V F H G X
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 224

Questionnaire C for Participants Who Wish to Teach in Hart-to-Staff Schools
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µ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µ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µ L D Q G K R Z W R L P S U R Y H W H D F K H U U H F U X L W P H Q W S O D F H P H Q W D Q G U H W H Q W L R Q 7 K H U H L V O L W W O H U L V N W R \ R X L Q S D U W L F L S D W L Q J L Q W K L V S U R M H F W & R Q I L G H Q W L D O L W \ D Q G 3 U L Y D F \ < R X Z L O O E H D V N H G W R S U R Y L G H \ R X U V F K R R O H P D L O D G G U H V V 7 K L V H P D L O D G G U H V V Z L O O E H X V H G D V X Q L T X H L G H Q W L I L H U W R P D N H V X U H W K D W H D F K S D U W L F L S D Q W W D N H V W K H V X U Y H \ R Q O \ R Q F H : K H Q W K H U H V X O W V R I W K H V W X G \ D U H S X E O L V K H G R U S U H V H Q W H G \ R X U D Q V Z H U V Z L O O Q R W E H L Q G L Y L G X D O O \ L G H Q W L I L D E O H 7 K H G D W D Z L O O E H V W R U H G L Q D V H F X U H P D Q Q H U $ I W H U W K H V W X G \ L V R Y H U H P D L O D G G U H V V H V Z L O O E H S H U P D Q H Q W O \ G H O H W H G I U R P W K H G D W D V H W 2 Q O \ W K H U H V H D U F K H U V D Q G O H J D O O \ D X W K R U L ] H G D J H Q F L H V L Q F O X G L Q J W K H 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ R I 6 R X W K H U Q & D O L I R U Q L D ¶ V + X P D Q 6 X E M H F W V 3 U R W H F W L R Q 3 U R J U D P W K H 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ R I + D Z D L µ L + X P D Q 6 W X G L H V 3 U R J U D P D Q G W K H + D Z D L µ L 3 D F L I L F 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ , Q V W L W X W L R Q D O 5 H Y L H Z % R D U G P D \ D F F H V V W K H G D W D 7 K H V H D J H Q F L H V U H Y L H Z V D Q G P R Q L W R U U H V H D U F K V W X G L H V W R S U R W H F W W K H U L J K W V D Q G Z H O I D U H R I U H V H D U F K V X E M H F W V 9 R O X Q W D U \ 3 D U W L F L S D W L R Q < R X F D Q I U H H O \ F K R R V H W R S D U W L F L S D W H R U Q R W S D U W L F L S D W H < R X Z L O O Q R W E H S H Q D O L ] H G L I \ R X F K R R V H Q R W W R S D U W L F L S D W H , I \ R X D J U H H W R S D U W L F L S D W H \ R X P D \ V W R S D W D Q \ W L P H Z L W K Q R S H Q D O W \ 4 X H V W L R Q V " , I \ R X K D Y H D Q \ T X H V W L R Q V D E R X W W K L V V W X G \ S O H D V H F R Q W D F W P H D W R U O N D X S S # X V F H G X R U F R Q W D F W P \ ) D F X O W \ $ G Y L V R U ' U ' D U Q H O O & R O H D W G D U Q H O O F # X V F H G X ) R U P R U H L Q I R U P D W L R Q D E R X W \ R X U U L J K W V D V D U H V H D U F K S D U W L F L S D Q W \ R X P D \ F R Q W D F W W K H 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ R I 6 R X W K H U Q & D O L I R U Q L D 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ 3 D U N , Q V W L W X W L R Q D O 5 H Y L H Z % R D U G 8 3 , 5 % 6 R X W K ) O R Z H U 6 W U H H W / R V $ Q J H O H V & $ R U X S L U E # X V F H G X $ O W H U Q D W H O \ \ R X P D \ F R Q W D F W W K H D S S U R S U L D W H D J H Q F \ I R U \ R X U X Q L Y H U V L W \ 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ R I + D Z D L µ L + X P D Q 6 W X G L H V 3 U R J U D P X K L U E # K D Z D L L H G X + D Z D L µ L 3 D F L I L F 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ , Q V W L W X W L R Q D O 5 H Y L H Z % R D U G L U E F K D L U # K S X H G X : K D W L V \ R X U H P D L O D G G U H V V " 3 O H D V H H Q W H U \ R X U V F K R R O H P D L O D G G U H V V Z K L F K V K R X O G V K R X O G K D Y H D H G X G R P D L Q Q D P H ) R U H [ D P S O H # E \ X K H G X F K D P L Q D G H H G X K D Z D L L H G X R U K S X H G X
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 225

) R U H D F K R I W K H I R O O R Z L Q J T X H V W L R Q V S O H D V H D Q V Z H U W R W K H E H V W R I \ R X U D E L O L W \ 7 K H U H D U H Q R U L J K W R U Z U R Q J D Q V Z H U V < R X U H [ S H U L H Q F H V D Q G R S L Q L R Q V D U H L P S R U W D Q W ( D F K T X H V W L R Q L V G H V L J Q H G W R J D L Q D G H H S H U X Q G H U V W D Q G L Q J R I W K H P R W L Y D W L R Q V G H V F U L E H G E \ W K H D Q V Z H U V L Q W K H P X O W L S O H F K R L F H V X U Y H \ < R X D U H Q R W O L P L W H G L Q W K H O H Q J W K R I \ R X U U H V S R Q V H E \ W K H V L ] H R I W K H E R [ < R X U W K R X J K W I X O D Q V Z H U V D U H D S S U H F L D W H G < 2 8 5 % ( / , ( ) 6 $ % 2 8 7 7 ( $ & + , 1 * : K D W L Q I O X H Q F H G \ R X L Q \ R X U F K R L F H W R E H F R P H D W H D F K H U " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H + R Z G R \ R X W K L Q N D F D U H H U L Q W H D F K L Q J L V E H Q H I L F L D O " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H + R Z L P S R U W D Q W L V L W I R U W H D F K H U V W R O H D U Q Z K D W V W X G H Q W V E U L Q J Z L W K W K H P W R W K H F O D V V U R R P ± I R U H [ D P S O H K R P H O L I H S U H Y L R X V O H D U Q L Q J H [ S H U L H Q F H V R U H [ W U D F X U U L F X O D U D F W L Y L W L H V " : K D W V K R X O G W H D F K H U V G R W R D G G U H V V F X O W X U D O G L Y H U V L W \ L Q W K H L U F O D V V U R R P V " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H : K D W U R O H V K R X O G W H D F K H U V S O D \ L Q W K H L U F R P P X Q L W L H V " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 226

< R X Z H U H F K R V H Q I R U W K L V I R F X V J U R X S V X U Y H \ L Q S D U W E H F D X V H \ R X L G H Q W L I L H G W K D W \ R X Z R X O G E H L Q W H U H V W H G L Q W H D F K L Q J L Q R Q H R I W K H K D U G W R V W D I I F R P S O H [ H V L Q + D Z D L µ L 7 K H V H F R P S O H [ H V L Q F O X G H W K H 1 D Q D N X O L : D L D Q D H F R P S O H [ R Q 2 µ D K X D Q G W K H . D µ X 3 D K R D . H D µ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
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 227

: K \ G R \ R X W K L Q N W K D W V R P H S H R S O H G R Q R W Z L V K W R W H D F K L Q K D U G W R V W D I I V F K R R O V " : K D W L Q I O X H Q F H G \ R X W R Z D Q W W R W H D F K L Q W K H V H K D U G W R V W D I I V F K R R O V " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H ' R \ R X I H H O D Q \ S H U V R Q D O F R Q Q H F W L R Q V W R W K H V H K D U G W R V W D I I V F K R R O V " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H , V W K H U H D Q \ W K L Q J H O V H \ R X Z R X O G O L N H W R D G G D E R X W \ R X U G H F L V L R Q W R W H D F K R U D E R X W D Q \ R I W K H R W K H U T X H V W L R Q V D V N H G R Q W K L V V X U Y H \ " 3 O H D V H V K D U H D Q \ U H O H Y D Q W L Q I R U P D W L R Q 7 K D Q N \ R X I R U F R P S O H W L Q J W K L V V X U Y H \ % H I R U H \ R X V X E P L W \ R X P D \ F K R R V H W R J R E D F N W R W K H S U H Y L R X V S D J H V D Q G U H Y L H Z \ R X U D Q V Z H U V $ I W H U \ R X K L W V X E P L W \ R X U D Q V Z H U V Z L O O E H U H F R U G H G % \ F R P S O H W L Q J W K L V V X U Y H \ \ R X D U H D J U H H L Q J W K D W \ R X U D Q V Z H U V F D Q E H X V H G L Q W K L V U H V H D U F K S U R M H F W < R X U D Q V Z H U V Z L O O U H P D L Q F R Q I L G H Q W L D O , I \ R X K D Y H D Q \ T X H V W L R Q V D E R X W W K L V V W X G \ S O H D V H F R Q W D F W W K H U H V H D U F K H U D W O N D X S S # X V F H G X
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 228

Questionnaire D for Other Participants
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µ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µ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µ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¶ V + X P D Q 6 X E M H F W V 3 U R W H F W L R Q 3 U R J U D P W K H 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ R I + D Z D L µ L + X P D Q 6 W X G L H V 3 U R J U D P D Q G W K H + D Z D L µ L 3 D F L I L F 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ , Q V W L W X W L R Q D O 5 H Y L H Z % R D U G P D \ D F F H V V W K H G D W D 7 K H V H D J H Q F L H V U H Y L H Z V D Q G P R Q L W R U U H V H D U F K V W X G L H V W R S U R W H F W W K H U L J K W V D Q G Z H O I D U H R I U H V H D U F K V X E M H F W V 9 R O X Q W D U \ 3 D U W L F L S D W L R Q < R X F D Q I U H H O \ F K R R V H W R S D U W L F L S D W H R U Q R W S D U W L F L S D W H < R X Z L O O Q R W E H S H Q D O L ] H G L I \ R X F K R R V H Q R W W R S D U W L F L S D W H , I \ R X D J U H H W R S D U W L F L S D W H \ R X P D \ V W R S D W D Q \ W L P H Z L W K Q R S H Q D O W \ 4 X H V W L R Q V " , I \ R X K D Y H D Q \ T X H V W L R Q V D E R X W W K L V V W X G \ S O H D V H F R Q W D F W P H D W R U O N D X S S # X V F H G X R U F R Q W D F W P \ ) D F X O W \ $ G Y L V R U ' U ' D U Q H O O & R O H D W G D U Q H O O F # X V F H G X ) R U P R U H L Q I R U P D W L R Q D E R X W \ R X U U L J K W V D V D U H V H D U F K S D U W L F L S D Q W \ R X P D \ F R Q W D F W W K H 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ R I 6 R X W K H U Q & D O L I R U Q L D 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ 3 D U N , Q V W L W X W L R Q D O 5 H Y L H Z % R D U G 8 3 , 5 % 6 R X W K ) O R Z H U 6 W U H H W / R V $ Q J H O H V & $ R U X S L U E # X V F H G X $ O W H U Q D W H O \ \ R X P D \ F R Q W D F W W K H D S S U R S U L D W H D J H Q F \ I R U \ R X U X Q L Y H U V L W \ 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ R I + D Z D L µ L + X P D Q 6 W X G L H V 3 U R J U D P X K L U E # K D Z D L L H G X + D Z D L µ L 3 D F L I L F 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ , Q V W L W X W L R Q D O 5 H Y L H Z % R D U G L U E F K D L U # K S X H G X : K D W L V \ R X U H P D L O D G G U H V V " 3 O H D V H H Q W H U \ R X U V F K R R O H P D L O D G G U H V V Z K L F K V K R X O G V K R X O G K D Y H D H G X G R P D L Q Q D P H ) R U H [ D P S O H # E \ X K H G X F K D P L Q D G H H G X K D Z D L L H G X R U K S X H G X
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 229

) R U H D F K R I W K H I R O O R Z L Q J T X H V W L R Q V S O H D V H D Q V Z H U W R W K H E H V W R I \ R X U D E L O L W \ 7 K H U H D U H Q R U L J K W R U Z U R Q J D Q V Z H U V < R X U H [ S H U L H Q F H V D Q G R S L Q L R Q V D U H L P S R U W D Q W ( D F K T X H V W L R Q L V G H V L J Q H G W R J D L Q D G H H S H U X Q G H U V W D Q G L Q J R I W K H P R W L Y D W L R Q V G H V F U L E H G E \ W K H D Q V Z H U V L Q W K H P X O W L S O H F K R L F H V X U Y H \ < R X D U H Q R W O L P L W H G L Q W K H O H Q J W K R I \ R X U U H V S R Q V H E \ W K H V L ] H R I W K H E R [ < R X U W K R X J K W I X O D Q V Z H U V D U H D S S U H F L D W H G < 2 8 5 ' ( & , 6 , 2 1 7 2 % ( & 2 0 ( $ 7 ( $ & + ( 5 : K D W L Q I O X H Q F H G \ R X L Q \ R X U F K R L F H W R E H F R P H D W H D F K H U " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H + R Z G L G \ R X U I D P L O \ U H D F W W R \ R X U G H F L V L R Q W R E H F R P H D W H D F K H U " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H & R P S D U H G W R R W K H U V L Q \ R X U F R K R U W K R Z F R Q I L G H Q W D U H \ R X W K D W \ R X Z L O O E H D J R R G W H D F K H U " + R Z G R \ R X W K L Q N D F D U H H U L Q W H D F K L Q J L V E H Q H I L F L D O " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H ) R U H D F K R I W K H I R O O R Z L Q J T X H V W L R Q V S O H D V H D Q V Z H U W R W K H E H V W R I \ R X U D E L O L W \ 7 K H U H D U H Q R U L J K W R U Z U R Q J D Q V Z H U V < R X U H [ S H U L H Q F H V D Q G R S L Q L R Q V D U H L P S R U W D Q W ( D F K T X H V W L R Q L V G H V L J Q H G W R J D L Q D G H H S H U X Q G H U V W D Q G L Q J R I W K H P R W L Y D W L R Q V G H V F U L E H G E \ W K H D Q V Z H U V L Q W K H P X O W L S O H F K R L F H V X U Y H \ < R X D U H Q R W O L P L W H G L Q W K H O H Q J W K R I \ R X U U H V S R Q V H E \ W K H V L ] H R I W K H E R [ < R X U W K R X J K W I X O D Q V Z H U V D U H D S S U H F L D W H G & 8 / 7 8 5 ( , 1 7 + ( & / $ 6 6 5 2 2 0
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 230

+ R Z L P S R U W D Q W L V L W I R U W H D F K H U V W R O H D U Q Z K D W V W X G H Q W V E U L Q J Z L W K W K H P W R W K H F O D V V U R R P ± I R U H [ D P S O H K R P H O L I H S U H Y L R X V O H D U Q L Q J H [ S H U L H Q F H V R U H [ W U D F X U U L F X O D U D F W L Y L W L H V " : K D W V K R X O G W H D F K H U V G R W R D G G U H V V F X O W X U D O G L Y H U V L W \ L Q W K H L U F O D V V U R R P V " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H , V W K H U H D G L I I H U H Q F H L Q Z K D W W H D F K H U V F D Q G R I R U W K H L U V W X G H Q W V Z K H Q W K H \ D U H I U R P W K H V D P H H W K Q L F J U R X S D Q G Z K H Q W K H \ D U H Q R W " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H < R X Z H U H F K R V H Q I R U W K L V I R F X V J U R X S V X U Y H \ L Q S D U W E H F D X V H \ R X L G H Q W L I L H G W K D W \ R X Z R X O G Q R W E H L Q W H U H V W H G L Q W H D F K L Q J L Q R Q H R I W K H K D U G W R V W D I I F R P S O H [ H V L Q + D Z D L µ L 7 K H V H F R P S O H [ H V L Q F O X G H W K H 1 D Q D N X O L : D L D Q D H F R P S O H [ R Q 2 µ D K X D Q G W K H . D µ X 3 D K R D . H D µ D X F R P S O H [ R Q W K H % L J , V O D Q G 7 K H Q H [ W V H W R I T X H V W L R Q V L V V S H F L I L F W R W H D F K L Q J L Q W K H V H V F K R R O V ) R U H D F K R I W K H I R O O R Z L Q J T X H V W L R Q V S O H D V H D Q V Z H U W R W K H E H V W R I \ R X U D E L O L W \ 7 K H U H D U H Q R U L J K W R U Z U R Q J D Q V Z H U V < R X U H [ S H U L H Q F H V D Q G R S L Q L R Q V D U H L P S R U W D Q W ( D F K T X H V W L R Q L V G H V L J Q H G W R J D L Q D G H H S H U X Q G H U V W D Q G L Q J R I W K H P R W L Y D W L R Q V G H V F U L E H G E \ W K H D Q V Z H U V L Q W K H P X O W L S O H F K R L F H V X U Y H \ < R X D U H Q R W O L P L W H G L Q W K H O H Q J W K R I \ R X U U H V S R Q V H E \ W K H V L ] H R I W K H E R [ < R X U W K R X J K W I X O D Q V Z H U V D U H D S S U H F L D W H G 7 ( $ & + , 1 * , 1 + $ 5 ' 7 2 6 7 $ ) ) 6 & + 2 2 / 6 : K D W P L J K W E H H D V \ D E R X W W H D F K L Q J L Q W K H K D U G W R V W D I I V F K R R O V F R P S D U H G W R R W K H U V F K R R O V " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 231

: K D W P L J K W E H K D U G D E R X W W H D F K L Q J L Q W K H K D U G W R V W D I I V F K R R O V F R P S D U H G W R R W K H U V F K R R O V " * L Y H V S H F L I L F H [ D P S O H V L I S R V V L E O H : K \ G L G W K H 1 D Q D N X O L : D L D Q D H D Q G . D µ X 3 D K R D . H D µ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
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 232

Appendix E: Request to Participate in Research (Administrators and Professors)

Why Teach in Hawaii?
Understanding and Differentiating the Motivations of Pre-Service Teachers

Aloha Dr. (Last name),

As you are (position) at (institution), I am contacting you to determine the possibility of
inviting your teacher education students to participate in a research project. The study is
part of my dissertation work through the University of Southern California Rossier School of
Education. The research seeks to answer three questions:

RQ1. Why do teacher candidates in Hawai‘i, specifically those who wish to teach in
Hawai‘i public schools, choose to become teachers? What expectations do
they have and what are their values relative to the teaching profession?
RQ2. How do motivations differ between teacher candidates of different ethnic
groups, and different cultural attitudes and beliefs? In particular, are there
significant differences in motivations between Native Hawaiian and Filipino
preservice teachers and their peers?
RQ3. What motivates teacher candidates to pursue careers in geographic areas
with high teacher shortages? How are these motivations different or similar to
teacher candidates who do not wish to teach in these areas?

This work has the potential to inform the recruitment of teacher preparation students in the
state of Hawai‘i, as well as teacher placement and retention. See the attached information
sheet for more information about the conceptual framework and methodology of the project.

Please let me know if it may be possible to conduct this research with your education
students. I look forward to discussing the next steps with you.

Take care,

Lauren Johanna Kaupp

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 233

Why Teach in Hawaii?
Understanding the Motivations of Pre-Service Teachers to Enter the Profession

Why study motivation?
• Motivation, including expectancies and values, has been shown to mediate career planning and
choice.
1

• Pre-service teacher expectancies and values related to teaching have been linked to later teacher
burnout and retention.
2

Why focus on ethnicity and cultural awareness and beliefs?
• Cultural awareness and beliefs are one component of culturally responsive teaching.
3

• The importance of culturally responsive teachers of all ethnicities has been widely recognized.
3

• Native Hawaiian and Filipino students are extremely underrepresented by Native Hawaiian and
Filipino teachers in the public school workforce in Hawai‘i, by factors of 3 to 4.

• The use of pedagogy that is culturally responsive to Native Hawaiian or Filipino students is important
to the academic success of these student groups.
4

Why focus on “hard to staff” schools?
• Assigning teachers out-of-field or hiring substitute teachers in areas of teacher shortages may have
a significant impact on teacher quality.
5

• The Nanakuli, Wai‘anae, Kea‘au, Pahoa, and Ka‘u complexes are considered to be “hard to staff
and also have notable achievement gaps as compared to the rest of the state.
6

What are the implications for teacher recruitment and teacher prep programs?
• Typical incentive strategies, including monetary compensation, are unlikely to significantly affect the
intrinsic and altruistic motivations usually cited for choosing teaching as a career.
7

• Basing incentive programs in Hawai‘i on the motivations of pre-service teachers in Hawai‘i may
lead to more effective teacher recruitment, placement, and retention.

1. Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Eccles, Barber, & Jozefowicz, 1999; Rogers & Creed, 2011
2. Haberman, 2004; Guarino, Santibañez, and Daley, 2006
3. Gay, 2010; Villegas & Lucas, 2002; 2007; NCATE, 2008
4. Halagao, 2004; Kana‘iaupuni, Ledward, & Jensen, 2010
5. Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2007; Darling-Hammond, 2007
6. HIDOE, 2011
7. Müller, Alliata, & Benninghoff, 2009

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 234

Appendix F: Consent Information
Why Teach in Hawaii?
Understanding the Motivations of Pre-Service Teachers to Enter the Profession
Survey

Aloha! My name is Lauren Kaupp and I am a specialist in the College of Education at the University
of Hawai‘i at Manoa and a graduate student at the University of Southern California. One
requirement of my Doctorate in Education program is to conduct a research project. The purpose of
my project is to determine the motivations of pre-service teachers in Hawai‘i. Essentially, I want to
understand why people are choosing to teach and what might influence that choice. Participation in
this study will involve the completion of an online (Internet) survey. I am asking you to participate in
this project because you are at least 18 years old and enrolled in a program that leads to teacher
licensure in Hawai‘i. Approximately 400 participants may take the survey.

Activities and Time Commitment
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to fill out a survey that is posted on the
Internet. Survey questions are primarily multiple choice. You do not have to answer any question
that you do not want to answer. The survey will take approximately 30 minutes. Based on your
survey answers, you may be invited to participate in a focus group. Focus groups will be composed
of participants with similar characteristics and/or ideas about becoming a teacher. No single survey
answer will automatically qualify or disqualify you from being selected for a focus group. If you are
selected for a focus group, more information will be provided to you at that time.

Benefits and Risks
There will be no direct benefit to you from the results of the research. However, while taking the
survey, you will have the opportunity to reflect on your ideas about teaching. The results of this
study may contribute to a better understanding of why people go into the teaching profession in
Hawai‘i and how to improve teacher recruitment, placement, and retention. There is little risk to you
in participating in this project.

Confidentiality and Privacy
You will be asked to provide your school email address. This email address will be used as unique
identifier to make sure that each participant takes the survey only once. Also, if you are selected for
a focus group, your email address will be used to contact you. When the results of the study are
published or presented, your answers will not be individually identifiable. The data will be stored in a
secure manner. After the study is over, email addresses will be permanently deleted from the data
set. Only the researchers and legally authorized agencies, including the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program, the University of Hawai‘i Human Studies Program,
and the Hawai‘i Pacific University Institutional Review Board may access the data. These agencies
reviews and monitor research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

Voluntary Participation
You can freely choose to participate or not participate. You will not be penalized if you choose not to
participate. If you agree to participate, you may stop at any time with no penalty.

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 235

Why Teach in Hawaii?
Understanding the Motivations of Pre-Service Teachers to Enter the Profession
Survey

Questions?
If you have any questions about this study, please contact me at 808.754.5396 or lkaupp@usc.edu
or contact my Faculty Advisor, Dr. Darnell Cole, at darnellc@usc.edu. For more information about
your rights as a research participant, you may contact the University of Southern California
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles,
CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

Alternately, you may contact the appropriate agency for your university:

University of Hawai‘i
Human Studies Program
uhirb@hawaii.edu
808.956.5007
Hawai‘i Pacific University
Institutional Review Board
irbchair@hpu.edu

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 236

Appendix G: Census Tract, Complex, and ZIP Code Alignment

Table A1

Census Tract, Complex, and ZIP Code Alignment
______________________________________________________________________________

Island Census Tract Complex ZIP Code

9400.02 N!n!kuli 96792
96.03 N!n!kuli/Wai‘anae 96792
96.08 N!n!kuli/Wai‘anae 96792
97.01 Wai‘anae 96792
97.03 Wai‘anae 96792
97.04 Wai‘anae 96792
98.01 Wai‘anae 96792
O‘ahu
98.02 Wai‘anae 96792
210.03 Kea‘au/P!hoa 96749
96760
96778
210.05 Kea‘au/P!hoa 96749
210.10 Kea‘au 96760
96771
96785
210.11 Kea‘au 96771
96785
210.13 Kea‘au (& Waiakea) 96749
96760
96771
211.01 P!hoa 96778
211.06 P!hoa 96749
96778
Hawai‘i Island
212.02 Ka"# 96737
96772
96777
______________________________________________________________________________

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 237

Appendix H: Reliability Analysis Results

Table A2

Reliability Analysis for FIT-Choice Scale
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Factor Items Cronbach’s !

Ability I have the qualities of a good teacher.
I have good teaching skills (extremely important).
Teaching is a career suited to my abilities.
0.829
Intrinsic career value I am interested in teaching.
I’ve always wanted to be a teacher.
I like teaching.
0.531
Fallback career I was unsure of what career I wanted.
I was not accepted into my first-choice career.
I chose teaching as a last-resort career.
0.708
Job security Teaching will offer a steady career path.
Teaching will provide a reliable income.
Teaching will be a secure job.
0.805
Time for family Part time teaching could allow more family time
Teaching hours will fit with the responsibilities of having a family.
School holidays will fit in with family commitments.
0.824
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 238

As a teacher I will have lengthy holidays.
As a teacher I will have a short working day.
Job transferability Teaching will be a useful job for me to have when traveling.
A teaching qualification is recognized everywhere.
A teaching job will allow me to choose where I wish to live.
0.658
Shape future of children/adolescents Teaching will allow me to shape child/adolescent values
Teaching will allow me to influence the next generation
Teaching will allow me to have an impact on children/adolescents
0.808
Enhance social equity Teaching will allow me to raise the ambitions of underprivileged youth
Teaching will allow me to benefit the socially disadvantaged
Teaching will allow me to work against social disadvantage
0.789
Make social contribution Teaching allows me to provide a service to society
Teachers make a worthwhile social contribution
Teaching enables me to ‘give back’ to society
0.840
Work with children/adolescents I want a job that involves working with children/adolescents
I want to work in a child/adolescent-centered environment
I like working with children/adolescents
0.883
Prior teaching and learning
experiences
I have had inspirational teachers
I have had good teachers as role-models
I have had positive learning experiences
0.853
Social influences My friends think I should become a teacher
My family think I should become a teacher
0.854
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 239

People I’ve worked with think I should become a teacher
Expertise Do you think teaching requires high levels of expert knowledge?
Do you think teachers need high levels of technical knowledge?
Do you think teachers need highly specialized knowledge?
0.836
Difficulty Do you think teachers have a heavy workload?
Do you think teaching is emotionally demanding?
Do you think teaching is hard work?
0.736
Social status Do you believe teachers are perceived as professionals?
Do you believe teaching is perceived as a high-status occupation?
Do you believe teaching is a well-respected career?
Do you think teachers have high morale?
Do you think teachers feel valued by society?
Do you think teachers feel their occupation has high social status?
0.851
Salary Do you think teaching is well paid?
Do you think teachers earn a good salary?
0.852
Social dissuasion Were you encouraged to pursue careers other than teaching?
Did others tell you teaching was not a good career choice?
Did others influence you to consider careers other than teaching?
0.619
Satisfaction with choice How carefully have you thought about becoming a teacher?
How satisfied are you with your choice of becoming a teacher?
How happy are you with your decision to become a teacher?
0.745

MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 240

Table A3

Reliability Analysis for PADAA and TBS
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Scale Factor Items Cronbach’s !

PADAA 1 Diversity
Value
Each student should have an equal opportunity to learn and succeed in education.

Each minority culture has something positive to contribute to American society.
0.873
PADAA 2 Responsive
Practices
All students should learn about cultural differences.

Cultural diversity is a valuable resource and should be preserved.

Education activities should be representative of a wide variety of cultures.

Educators should plan activities that meet the diverse needs and develop the unique abilities
of students from different ethnic backgrounds.

The perspectives of a wide range of ethnic groups should be included in the curriculum.

Educators in this country are responsible for teaching students about the ways in which
various cultures have influenced the subjects that they teach.

In education it does not matter if a student is rich or poor, everyone should have the same
chance to succeed.

I enjoy being around people who are different from me.
0.785
PADAA 3 Affirming
Attitude
Cultural diversity is a negative force in the development of American society.

There is really nothing that educational systems can do for students who come from lower
socioeconomic groups.
0.669
MOTIVATIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN HAWAI‘I 241

Minority students are hard to work with in education activities.

Students should give up their cultural beliefs and practices to fit in with other students.

Minority individuals should adopt the values and lifestyles of the dominant culture.
PADAA 4 Student
Development
Students should feel pride in their heritage.

Educators should help students develop respect for themselves and others.
0.682
TBS Constructivist
Teaching
I believe that expanding on students’ ideas is an effective way to build my curriculum.

I would prefer to cluster students’ desks or use tables so they can work together

I will invite students to create many of my bulletin boards.

I will involve students in evaluating their own work and setting their own goals.

I will make it a priority in my classroom to give students time to work together when I am
not directing them.

I will make it easy for parents to contact me at school or home.

I will invite parents to volunteer in or visit my classroom almost any time.

I would prefer to assess students informally through observations and conferences.
0.858
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study uses expectancy value theory to understand the motivations to enter the teaching profession of preservice teachers in Hawai‘i. The purpose of the study was to determine how motivations vary between teacher candidates along three factors, ethnicity, cultural beliefs and awareness, and preference to teach in hard‐to‐staff schools. Using a mixed‐methods approach of Likert‐type and open‐ended questions, the motivations of a sample of preservice teachers were determined. Comparisons of motivations were made across factors and preservice teacher groups. Findings from the study indicate that preservice teachers in Hawai‘i have chosen the career with intent, and have high confidence in their abilities to teach, yet low satisfaction with their choice of teaching as a profession. While motivations did not vary significantly between ethnic groups, there were some indications that preservice teachers of different ethnic groups may have different expectancies relative to the effects of teacher‐student ethnicity match in the classroom. Finally, preservice teachers are motivated by a wish to contribute to their communities, which is related to their preferences for teaching in hard‐to‐staff complex areas. This study has implications for teacher education and recruitment, as well as improving student achievement in Hawai‘i.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Understanding science and math teacher retention in Hawai‘i public schools

PDF

Nursing students' perceptions of formal faculty mentoring

PDF

Values and beliefs related to diversity amongst students being prepared as teachers

PDF

A case study on influences of mainstream teachers' instructional decisions and perceptions of English learners in Hawai'i public secondary education

PDF

An examination of prospective teacher qualities related to teacher efficacy and teacher commitment

PDF

Changing nature of preservice teacher concerns in an accelerated, graduate-level teacher education program

PDF

Representation in the teaching force: recruitment of teachers of color

PDF

Linking theory and practice in teacher education: an analysis of the reflective-inquiry approach to preparing teachers to teach in urban schools

PDF

Preservice teacher preparation for engineering integration in K-5

PDF

A comparison of student motivation by program delivery method: self-efficacy, goal orientation, and belongingness in a synchronous online and traditional face-to-face environment

PDF

Preservice teachers' understanding's of how to teach literacy

PDF

Improving hospital readmission rates: the benefit of a transitional case management program

PDF

Home and school factors and their influence on students' academic goal orientation and motivation

PDF

A professional development program evaluation: teacher efficacy, learning, and transfer

PDF

Self-efficacy beliefs and intentions to persist of Native Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors

PDF

Uneven development of perspectives and practice: Preservice teachers' literacy learning in an era of high-stakes accountability

PDF

The Education Teacher Performance Assessment: a model for teacher preparation?

PDF

The influence of teacher characteristics on preference for models of teaching

PDF

Evaluating the effects of diversity courses and student diversity experiences on undergraduate students' democratic values at a private urban research institution

PDF

Teachers’ experiences and preparedness to teach in an inclusive environment

Asset Metadata

Creator Kaupp, Lauren Johanna (author)

Core Title Differentiated motivations of preservice teachers to enter the teaching profession in Hawai‘i

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/15/2014

Defense Date 04/12/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag expectancy value theory,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,preservice teachers

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Cole, Darnell G. (committee chair), Rueda, Robert (committee member), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member)

Creator Email lauren.kaupp@gmail.com,lkaupp@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-441134

Unique identifier UC11286718

Identifier etd-KauppLaure-2688.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-441134 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KauppLaure-2688.pdf

Dmrecord 441134

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Kaupp, Lauren Johanna

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA