Interessenkongruenz, Belastungserleben und motivationale Orientierung bei Einsteigern im Lehramtsstudium

Abstract

Auf der Grundlage von Dozenten- (N = 41) und Studierendenbefragungen (N = 500) in unterschiedlichen Fachrichtungen der Lehramtsausbildung (Natur-/Geistes-/Sprach-/Sportwissenschaft) zielt das vorliegende Forschungsvorhaben (1) auf die Bildung psychosozialer und anforderungsbasierter Umweltprofile für das Lehramtsstudium und (2) auf die Validierung der in der Literatur diskutierten Berechnungsverfahren zur Interessenkongruenz. Untersucht werden die Zusammenhänge der unterschiedlich gebildeten Kongruenzmaße mit verschiedenen Merkmalen einer erfolgreichen Studienwahl (Zufriedenheit, Leistung, intrinsische Berufswahlmotivation, Umgang mit Belastungen). Die Ergebnisse zeigen deutliche Unterschiede in den Lehramtsprofilen je nach Fachrichtung und Bestimmungsmethodik (psychosozial vs. anforderungsbasiert) und sprechen eindeutig für die Validität eines dimensionsanalytischen im Gegensatz zu einem klassisch typologischen Kongruenzberechnungsverfahrens.

Interests and personality matter in the choice of teacher education program

“…However, the authors did not examine whether vocational interests differed as a function of the type of school the students intended to teach at later, and their sample did not include future primary or special school teachers. Similar results were reported in later publications by the same research group (Kaub et al, 2014(Kaub et al, , 2016. Regarding research on teacher students' vocational interests, it can be summarized that differences in vocational interests between teacher students intending to teach at different types of schools or striving to teach different (combinations of) school subjects have been found.…”

“…Substantial differences were found on the Openness and Agreeableness dimensions of personality as well as the Social and Investigative dimensions of vocational interests; however, several types of schools were grouped together in the comparisons. More research was done on differences in personality (Hartmann and Ertl, 2021) and vocational interests (Kaub et al, 2014;Hartmann et al, 2022) between teacher students intending to teach different subjects. Nonetheless, the question whether a career decision (i.e., decision for a specific type of school or school subject) could be predicted (i.e., explained) by differences in individual characteristics has only been examined by Klusmann et al (2009).…”

Work-related coping behaviour and experience patterns in university students: a review of 20 years of research

“…Adding to the above-mentioned evidence which shows that B-type students lack commitment to their career choice, several studies also suggest that B types, in contrast to G types, may be unsuitable for their future profession. Specifically, B-type teacher education students tend to lack beliefs, expectations, interests and competencies necessary for the teaching profession (Albisser and Kirchhoff, 2007;Kaub et al, 2014;Meier, 2015;Deiglmayr et al, 2018). Moreover, in medical students, patterns B and A were linked to lowered levels of empathy (Kötter et al, 2021).…”

“…In contrast, the most favorable career prospects were found in G-type students, who not only rated their career prospects the highest ( Rothland, 2011 ) but also displayed the highest levels of work-related vigor, dedication and absorption along with pedagogical, psychosocial and intercultural competence ( Nolle, 2013 ; Meier, 2015 ; Meiseneder, 2015 ; Genkova and Schreiber, 2021 ). Further, G-type teacher education students displayed the highest match between their own individual interests and the requirements of teacher education ( Kaub et al, 2014 ), and they expected the highest levels of success in their future career development ( Rothland, 2011 ; Cramer, 2012 ; Rumpler, 2013 ). In contrast to their counterparts assigned to the less desirable patterns, G types manifested the lowest tendency toward work avoidance ( Cramer, 2012 ).…”