Abstract:

Literature on the factors that influence career choice is gaining ground especially when considering recent data related to teacher shortage, turnover and the challenge to attract students to the teaching profession (Kwee, 2020; UNESCO, 2022). A specific focus is attributed to the values underpinning such choice such as: intrinsic career value (e.g. interest in teaching and the desire to pursue this career), social utility value (e.g. the contribution one wishes to offer the community), and personal utility value (e.g. the need for job security) (Watt and Richardson, 2007). These factors have often been studied in relation to other antecedents such as professional commitment, teacher self-efficacy and sense of responsibility. To date, little research within this area has been carried out among learning support teachers (LSTs) and data on the correlation among these factors in the Italian context is still scant. Based on these premises, the research questions identified were:
1. What values motivate future LSTs to choose this career in Italy?
2. What is the association between future LSTs’ values underpinning their career choice and their commitment to teaching?
3. Is there any association between the values motivating career choice, the commitment to teaching as a career, and the school level in which future LSTs choose to teach?

The multifactorial scale “Factors Influencing Teaching Choice (FITChoice)” (Watt and Richardson, 2007) was used. The tool was administered via Google Forms at the beginning of a Specialisation Course offered at the University of Salerno in the academic year 2022-2023 for those wishing to acquire the LST warrant to work in pre-schools, primary, lower secondary or upper secondary schools. Responses were collected from 1092 course participants.

The majority of respondents were motivated by intrinsic career value (M=6,10 D.S.=,90) and social utility value (“Shape future of children/adolescents”: M=5,79 D.S.=1,03; “Enhance social equity”: M=5,62; D.S.=1,30; “Making social contribution”: M=6,03; D.S. ,95; “Work with children”: M=6,15, D.S.=,87). The commitment to teaching as a career is positively correlated with intrinsic career value (r=,580, <0,05) and social utility value (“Shape future of children/adolescents”: r=,313, p<0,05; “Enhance social equity”: r=,313, p<0,05; “Making social contribution”: r=411, p<0,05; “Work with children”: r=,498, p<0,05). In addition, commitment to teaching as a career is negatively correlated with personal utility value (“Job security”: r= -,125, <0,05; “Time for family”: r=-,115, <0,05). This finding emerges more clearly when we take into consideration the grade to which the respondents were enrolled. The future higher secondary school LSTs had a lower average in the area of commitment to teaching (M=6,29; d.s.=, 78) and a higher average in terms of personal utility value (“Job security”: M=3,70, D.S.= 1,67; “Time for family”: M=2,70, D.S.=1,37) when compared to the rest of the sample.

In light of these findings, further analysis will be carried out on possible associations among other factors the FIT-CHOICE scale taps into, such as sense of responsibility, and scales measuring other antecedents to action such as teachers’ sentiments, attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs in implementing inclusive classroom practices (Aiello et al., 2017).

Keywords:

FIT-Choice, values, teacher commitment, learning support teachers, career motivation.