Abstract
Understanding preservice teachers’ (PSTs) classroom preferences offers the potential to inform school hiring and reduce early career turnover. This large-scale qualitative study (n = 2,798) explores rich PST responses to the open-ended survey item: “Describe a classroom setting in which you would enjoy teaching.” Results indicate three categories of characteristics (classroom setting, pedagogical strategies, and student characteristics) and from those categories, two contrasting profiles. Flexible PSTs focus more on implementing their perception of effective pedagogy in any context. Rigid PSTs believe certain school, classroom, or student characteristics would facilitate their success. Categories meaningfully varied by certification level but not by gender or ethnicity. Findings advise teacher education to prepare PSTs toward effective pedagogy and district screening characteristics for improved hiring.
Keywords
Workplace conditions are critically important for the overall health of an educational setting and have been defined as the nonpecuniary elements related to a teacher’s ability to do their job (Merrill, 2021). Teachers’ preferences on these workplace conditions have been positively associated with outcomes such as teacher satisfaction (Ellis et al., 2017), retention (Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Kraft et al., 2016; Weiss, 1999), and student achievement (Johnson et al., 2012). Because beginning teachers are particularly susceptible to attrition (e.g., Raue & Gray, 2015), more needs to be understood about what conditions they find important prior to entering the workplace.
To such an end, focusing on preservice teachers (PSTs) and their workplace preferences is integral to understanding their future actions (DeAngelis et al., 2013). Research has yet to unearth how PSTs apprise workplace conditions, as the preponderance of the evidence has almost exclusively focused on in-service teacher preferences. Although Merrill (2021) established a comprehensive catalog organizing various teacher working conditions, it is solely formulated from empirical studies about in-service teachers. Instead, excavating these preferences from a formative PST population could strengthen the connection between teacher preparation and labor market decisions (Goldhaber, 2019). That is, learning about PST workplace preferences could inform better alignments between PSTs and district hiring (Cannata, 2010), which then fosters enduring relationships and improved educational experiences.
This exploratory study leverages data from one institution consisting of more than 2,500 PSTs across a 7-year period. Data are robust open-ended responses to the question, “Describe a classroom setting in which you would enjoy teaching,” which are qualitatively analyzed through the lens of the primary research question: “What are PST classroom preferences?” These preferences enlighten how PSTs perceive characteristics central to their future workplace and shape potential profiles for how individuals view their eventual settings. Subsequently, I examine the variation within these responses through a secondary research question: “Do classroom preferences differ by demographic characteristics?”
Background of Teacher Preferences and Workplace Conditions
Workplace conditions 1 embody a range of characteristics. A report produced by the National Education Association synthesized empirical evidence to identify how school contexts could play a role in instruction (Johnson, 2006). Seven features were stated to define working conditions (physical, organizational, sociological, political, cultural, psychological, and educational) to establish a conceptual frame of factors that could mitigate how teachers process or could be influenced in their work. Other studies have since prospected additional characteristics that could be embedded within these features, including collegial climate (Pogodzinski et al., 2013; Weiss, 1999), work pressure, administrative support (Aldridge & Fraser, 2016; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003), classroom autonomy, behavioral climate (Kukla-Acevedo, 2009), academic expectations, and school safety (Kraft et al., 2016). Recently, Merrill (2021) reviewed relevant empirical articles since 2002 and identified 12 unique working conditions. This study not only synthesized recent peer-reviewed evidence but also, different from Johnson (2006), created an accessible framework cataloging each characteristic for which to build a theoretical base. This framework encapsulates characteristics of the broader environment (e.g., facilities, school features) alongside conditions germane to classroom pedagogy (e.g., students, general, and instructional resources). This wide-ranging framework then allows for foundational pieces to transfer across various contexts, including this study.
Evidence largely indicates that teachers’ perceptions of their workplace conditions are significant contributors of teacher mobility and student achievement, even more so than factors such as salary and student demographics (Geiger & Pivovarova, 2018; Horng, 2009; Loeb et al., 2005). In general, the greater teachers perceive themselves as a fit within their school—especially prior to hiring—the more likely they are to have higher professional satisfaction (Ellis et al., 2017) and remain in teaching (Grogan & Youngs, 2011; Player et al., 2017). For instance, Ladd (2011) investigated rich administrative data from North Carolina and through full linear probability models recorded that working conditions are highly predictive of teacher mobility, independent of school characteristics. Although the author consistently identifies importance of leadership throughout models, she also detects school-level differences in the workplace characteristics of time spent working and professional development opportunities. This importance of workplace conditions, while importantly recognized, disproportionately affects underserved schools because of their limited resources and support (e.g., Jacob, 2007). Consequently, these schools churn out new and inexperienced teachers through high turnover positions, exacerbating educational discrepancies (Scafidi et al., 2007).
Nonetheless, two noticeable gaps persist in the existing literature base. First, few studies explore PST preferences despite some indication of variation in their working conditions perceptions (Kagan, 1992; Young, 1995). Instead, much of the previous research has focused on in-service teachers and their preferences amid their current context, understandably to retain teachers within the campus or profession (e.g., Kraft et al., 2016). There are some notable exceptions on which this study builds on. Ronfeldt, Kwok, and Reininger (2016) investigated PST preferences to work with different student demographic characteristics (e.g., high-poverty, racially diverse) through a large-scale pre-/postsurvey design from one large urban district. The authors found that PSTs who reported stronger preferences to instruct underserved student populations tended to student teach in schools with similar characteristics. These preferences were also marginally associated with PST gender and ethnicity, providing some evidence that preferences could differ by demographic characteristics. Cannata (2010) surveyed graduating teacher applicants across six preparation programs who were in search of their first teaching position as well as conducted multiple interviews throughout the process. The author found that these PSTs wanted to work in schools with induction and administrative support but, on seeking hire, often made decisions based on their assumptions of district features—such as student demographic characteristics and achievement—instead of campus-specific information. Their perceptions of school familiarity, fit, and comfort anchored their choices, even if unfounded, to eventually work in schools similar to their own experiences and backgrounds.
Second, the vast majority of these studies—including those on PST preferences—utilized a quantitative, deductive approach toward researching workplace characteristics. Most evidence revolves around different multiple-choice survey items that presume teachers’ preferences (e.g., Ronfeldt et al., 2016), which range in theoretical framings, including person-organization fit (e.g., Pogodzinski et al., 2013; Young, 1995; Youngs et al., 2015), co-constructing measures with the district (Horng, 2009), theory of job satisfaction (Kalleberg, 1977), and conducting a principal components analysis (Kraft et al., 2016). Depending on the approach, the workplace measures varied, restricting comparisons across findings. This theoretical discrepancy is problematic given that workplace preferences can differ by school level (Keith et al., 1986), teacher efficacy and experience (Chan et al., 2008), and ethnicity (Horng, 2009; Liu & Meyer, 2005; Rots et al., 2007; Su, 1997). Merrill (2021) indeed identified how few studies drew on similar theoretical frameworks throughout her review, preventing direct comparisons of findings, though, thankfully, researchers expressed a consistent underlying concept of teacher working conditions. And for the few studies derived from qualitative methods, these were conducted with relatively small sample sizes and from participants with prior experiences in classrooms, which may have shifted initial workplace preferences (Cannata, 2010; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003).
Altogether, this current study explores PST classroom preferences, the central part of their future workplace. An emergent approach was used on open-ended responses from a large sample of PSTs, and burgeoning profiles are created to organize PST classroom preferences toward their perceived professional success. From this, variation in preferences is examined by demographic characteristics (i.e., gender, ethnicity, and certification) to determine differences between PSTs.
Method
Sample and Data Collection
The study sample is college of education students enrolled in a Texas teacher preparation program. This program graduates approximately 500 PSTs per year and certifies the following areas: early childhood through sixth-grade (EC6) core subjects; middle grades fourth- through eighth-grade math/science or English language arts/social studies; and seventh through 12th grade (post-bachelor’s secondary program).
Data are from a mandatory PST field placement preference survey, electronically administered since 2012. This survey is completed in the middle of the PSTs’ second semester (approximately midway through the program) with the primary intent of listing PSTs’ preferred district, content area, and grade level for their clinical teaching 2 placement, constituting the entirety of their third and final semester. Data at this programmatic stage allow for insight into PSTs’ beliefs prior to clinical teaching and, more important, prior to choosing where they would want to clinically teach, which is positively associated with their full-time teaching placement (e.g., Goldhaber & Ronfeldt, 2020). Several open-response items yield additional information about dispositions, which occasionally factored in placing PSTs in local districts. 3 This study focuses on one of these items, which states, “Describe a classroom setting in which you would enjoy teaching.”
Responses were from the 2012 to 2018, inclusive of 2,844 individuals. There were 46 incomplete responses, producing 2,798 usable responses and a 98% response rate. Of the participants, 45% were being certified in the EC6 program, 45% in the fourth- through eighth-grade program, and the remaining 10% were enrolled in the seventh- through 12th-grade post-bachelor’s program. Additional demographic data of gender and ethnicity were merged from college data by student ID. However, this information was unavailable for PSTs not majoring under the college of education (primarily PSTs attaining their secondary certification), who instead were certified by the college of their content area. Approximately 95% of the sample population were female, 80% were White—both of which are slightly higher than national trends (Taie & Goldring, 2017)—and 10% were Latinx.
Data Analysis
The sizable response set necessitated multiple rounds of analysis to make meaning of the data. First, a unit within a response was partitioned to determine the idea of interest (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This idea unit was defined as a description, characteristic, or preference of the PSTs’ classroom setting. There were several important nuances in identifying this unit. One, although the survey item queried about the classroom setting, several PSTs focused on elements beyond the confines of the classroom environment. Data that extended into the larger workplace context, which most often included characteristics of the school or community as cataloged by Merrill (2021), were excluded. Although these participants may have expressed how those broader contextual pieces could influence the classroom environment, the survey item was specific to classroom preferences. Thus, to improve the content validity of this item, I restricted responses beyond the scope of the classroom. 4
Two, an idea unit contained a sentiment, which most often was positive in nature, although there were instances of negative personal experiences and how PSTs would want to create the opposite setting. Statements that were neutral in nature and did not indicate a preference were excluded. Three, the unit could describe either preservice or in-service classrooms. The intent of the survey item was to gather descriptions of PSTs’ ideal classroom setting, regardless of whether it represented their clinical teaching or full-time teaching placement. Some PSTs specified their setting, and consequently, responses about either context were included. Units were several sentences long, on average, and multiple units were common per response. There was an average of three units and 111 separate words per response, indicating the strength of the data.
Second, codes were distinguished within each unit. An emergent approach was used to explore PSTs’ preferred classroom conditions through their own words. Each unit was open-coded by creating a summary of the main idea (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), which reduced data to the key ideas (Miles & Huberman, 1984). A random sample of 10% of the data (300 responses) was open-coded to identify potential codes and provide an initial familiarity with a manageable subset of data. This percentage represented a saturation of the data (Hodson, 1999; Trotter, 2012), as responses became repetitive there forward. These responses exemplified all time periods so as to not be biased by a particular semester. Units were singularly coded because characteristics were described in a straightforward manner and codes rarely overlapped. Analytic memos were constructed to overview the ideas produced throughout the data.
Third, axial coding was conducted to review across the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Emergent codes were grouped together by similar ideas to create categories using a constant comparative approach (Glaser, 1965). On establishing all necessary categories, themes were identified within and an initial coding scheme was created.
Fourth, the coding scheme was applied to the remainder of the data as well as reapplied to the initial set of data. Edits and clarification to the scheme were applied as necessary, with minimal adjustments needed. Data were coded and discussed alongside another researcher, who was trained to appropriately perform reliability checks. Periodic updates and validity checks were frequently conducted (Miles & Huberman, 1984). All coding was implemented in Dedoose, and the final coding scheme—shown in Table 1—includes frequencies calculated by the presence of each category within a response out of the total number of participants. This scheme was compared with Merrill’s (2021) teacher working conditions framework in the Discussion section, although two differences were translated. This study focused on a PST sample without full-time experience and utilized data specific to classroom preferences instead of the entire workplace. Descriptions of my study results’ categories and themes were compared with the author’s categories and components, respectively.
Coding Scheme to the Survey Item: “Describe a Classroom Setting in Which You Would Enjoy Teaching”
Note. PST = preservice teacher.
Fifth, meaning across categories and the corresponding themes within each category was investigated. Beyond identifying PST preferences, one pattern that surfaced was how PSTs expressed their preferences. Throughout analytic memos, I honed in on two themes (rigid, flexible) that represented connections across categories, themes, and the data.
Sixth, differences in classroom preferences were examined by demographic characteristics. Specifically, I focus on characteristics identified as having potential differences, including gender (Ronfeldt et al., 2016), ethnicity (e.g., Horng, 2009), and school level (Ladd, 2011). Frequencies were calculated by summing the presence of a code within a response out of the total number of participants to reveal code prevalence. Although multiple coding was an option, the presence of the same code rarely existed within the same response. Frequencies were then tabulated by individual demographic characteristic. Codes were uploaded into Stata Version 16. Student’s t tests were calculated to identify whether there were statistically different means in codes by gender and ethnicity, whereas analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were run for variation in certification program. The content of responses was also examined by comparing a random sampling of data within each characteristic. Analytic memos were extended to explore substantive differences in responses by characteristic, primarily focusing on the definitions established from the coding scheme.
Results
What Are PST Classroom Preferences?
PST responses vary widely in classroom preferences and are best explained by category. Each category is particularized in more detail below by theme through exemplar quotes and interpretation.
Classroom setting
PSTs portrayed ideal classroom characteristics, most often pertaining to aspects that they could control regardless of the school culture. Their preferences focused on three themes: the classroom physical organization, atmosphere, and relationships.
Initially, PSTs detailed their ideal classroom design. Broadly, many expressed the importance of setting up their classroom in a particular manner because “routine and organization . . . helps students know what to expect each day and keeps the class running smoothly” (2,421). Then, this organization would transform a physical space “that immediately resembles a place of learning, but one that refrains from too many distractions for students” (228). Many PSTs described what their classroom design would look like, as one PST detailed “a room with pictures of presidents, maps and influential people . . . On one side of the room there is wall of books . . . All in front of that wall there are students in chairs, bean bags, and laying on pillows spread around” (1,914). Another participant illuminated about “a class filled with things that stimulate students’ minds; displaying colorful pictures, interactive bulletin boards, and examples of the students’ own work would help to create a warm and inviting environment where students can flourish” (37). These portrayals illustrate how PSTs valued an inviting space that encourages student learning.
Next, PSTs desired a classroom atmosphere that was safe, respectful, and trusting. These descriptors were used interchangeably and reflected the overarching feel of the classroom. They longed for a “positive warm environment where the students feel safe and secure” (1,026), “a healthy and positive classroom environment” (270), and “all of my students having respect for one another and using kind words in order for our classroom to be one of inclusion” (1,001). Some PSTs further expounded visions of “a classroom environment in which every child feels as if they are a member of our classroom family” (1,243) and “an environment where children feel safe, encouraged, supported, valued, and loved” (1,548). Or, as best illustrated by one PST, I would love to teach in a classroom that feels like a second home, not only to me but also to my students. I want all of my students to feel comfortable when they enter my classroom. If someone is having a bad day, I want them to be able to leave their problems at the door and start new. (258)
Although descriptions of the atmosphere were broad in nature and focused on the classroom as a whole, PSTs also enunciated the importance of individual relationships. They would write about the interactional nature between teachers and students and how these connections were vital for classroom success. PSTs wanted to “promote positive relationships both between teacher and student and among students themselves,” which could afford “the opportunity to develop a role model relationship between the students in my classroom and me, their teacher” (8). Others complementarily expressed how a positive relationship “goes a long way in the classroom and leads to higher participation in classroom activities” (1,887). Related to these social-emotional benefits, positive relationships could prompt students to know that I believed in them and their abilities. I want to be the kind of teacher who encourages her students to always do their best and try to achieve things that they may think are out of reach. (55)
The emphasis on relationships was explicated by one PST: I would enjoy teaching in a classroom that the relationship between the teacher and students is strong and supportive. I think it is vital that our students know they are loved and cared for by their teacher in order for them to learn and grow. (560)
Pedagogical strategies
PSTs highlighted pedagogical characteristics that they could incorporate to facilitate an enjoyable classroom setting. Two areas were emphasized: classroom management and engaging lessons.
PSTs focused intently on classroom management to establish structure and organization. They discussed the importance of ensuring “consistent rules, procedures, and expectations for all students” (268) and that these “classroom rules and procedures are stated and implemented in the classroom” (2,318). These structures were used for “students to always know what to expect and get into a routine, that way we can maximize our learning time” (2,500). PSTs often spotlighted how they “want my classroom to be well managed and for my students to understand the importance of safety” (1,603). However, several participants exhibited an internal struggle between establishing structure and becoming overbearing. For instance, one PST preferred a classroom where the “teacher still maintains overall control but the students have choices and is not so uptight. I’m a big organizer/planner, but I am also very laid back” (1,365). This was in comparison with others who said the likes of “I do not want to have to restrict my students to sitting in a classroom with no noise or interaction and not being able to enjoy themselves because that is when you lose their interest” (231). This internal struggle indicates a difference in classroom management beliefs as well as understanding how to balance control and engagement.
PSTs consistently documented engaging students through authentic activities. As best typified, “I want to do a lot of hands on learning activities with my students because I believe that is when the best kind of learning takes place” (1,705). Thus, many PSTs revealed how they sought to create and teach in “student centered classrooms that thrive on creativity” (2,565). Within this environment, “students [would] discover things on their own . . . I would like to be in a class that strays away from the traditional lecture and worksheet and focuses more on engaging activities that the students are excited about participating in” (2,164), insinuating a stated notion of a traditional classroom. PSTs discussed how students should be actively engaged in their own learning and have “students excited to come into the room and get to work on their project or presentation to show their understanding of the content” (2,675). Ultimately, PSTs felt that this type of instruction would be most effective, as specified by one PST: I want my classroom to be interactive. I want my students to constantly be asking or wondering “why” things happen and “what if” this happened or you changed that. I want to relate my lessons to everyday things so that students understand why it is important that they continue their education and all of the amazing things they can do with it. (506)
Within these lessons, PSTs asserted the importance of group work and teamwork. Although there was some explanation of social-emotional or interpersonal skill development, 5 the emphasis was primarily on academic learning. PSTs recounted how “I am a big fan of student work stations and group work, so I enjoy classrooms that are set up to facilitate such activities” (2,390) because “classrooms [are] where the students are able to collaborate with one another, when it is appropriate, because I think that students can learn from one another” (10).
Student characteristics
PSTs presented two types of students they would want to teach, which was often implicitly juxtaposed against one another: diverse student groups and students who are motivated to learn.
Many PSTs preferred to work in challenging settings, generally stated as teaching diverse and underprivileged students. They believed that certain types of students would provide specific teaching experiences. For example, one PST notes, “Lower income schools present an additional aspect to teaching that extends far beyond the academic content, creating a challenge that I am willing to accept” (260). Or another respondent cherishes “the challenge of teaching in a multicultural classroom so that I can bridge the cultural and social gaps that have lasted for generations” (72). Relatedly, there was a desire to work in diverse classrooms, which they thought would require a unique form of instruction, almost similar to differentiation. There was a belief that “low socio-economic classroom settings offer unique opportunities to build relationships with students that have been difficult in the past” (1,162). Further exemplified by another PST, I would most enjoy teaching in a classroom with diversity. I love the idea of having a classroom of students who come from all over and bring with them their unique cultures, backgrounds, learning styles, and personalities. Not only would I enjoy this, but also I feel it is the best environment for students to learn in order to develop communication and cooperative learning abilities. (2,063)
This enthusiasm for a challenging experience was prompted—through a misguided belief—by a personal intrinsic reward gained from such arduous work. PSTs felt that they could make a bigger impact in these types of classrooms and with students that are struggling in school or simply unmotivated, I feel that there is a greater opportunity to positively impact that student’s life. That, to me, is more rewarding than helping someone who is already doing well, but is much harder to accomplish. (2,015)
Some even presumed that “students who do come from lower income families are a little more appreciative and respectful” (17), enlightening why they would choose self-proclaimed difficult contexts.
In contrast, other PSTs preferred to teach students who wanted to be in their classroom. These participants representatively said, “I want to have motivated students that are ready to learn” (1,510). They focused on the opportunity to hone instruction and teach without challenges. These PSTs relished a setting “where students are engaged and motivated to learn” (1,330) because otherwise “if they do not enjoy being in my class and are not willing to participate then there is no way that I am going to enjoy it” (230). These PSTs expressed that their enjoyment of teaching would largely be dependent on their students’ joy. As further illustrated by one PST, I would love to have a classroom that was just so into learning that I did not have to pull teeth trying to get them to desire knowledge. Also, a class that loves to discuss books and history with me openly without having to coax answers out of my students, would be just fantastic. (188)
Classroom Preference Profiles
Exploring throughout responses and across codes, there was a distinct divergence between PSTs who focused on their own personal actions (or expressed self-efficacy in those actions) and those who had preferences for a particular context, shown in Figure 1. 6 The former could be defined as flexible PSTs, or those who felt like they could go into any classroom and succeed if enacting certain strategies. They did not express many preferences about the setting itself and is characterized by explicit responses like, “I feel confident in my ability to learn to adapt to any classroom setting” (264) and “I strongly believe that you can make a difference in any classroom no matter what setting you are placed in. As a teacher you need to be flexible with your surroundings and work with what you are given” (1,075). However, this also highlighted a broader pattern by PSTs who described their own instructional success through personal responsibility and skill, exemplified throughout the Pedagogical Strategies and Classroom Settings responses. 7 These categories often contained a stated desire to create a certain environment or enact a type of lesson. They generally focused on their own abilities, which could then be enacted in any context.
PST classroom preference profiles.
Although flexible PSTs were adaptable in where they would teach, they tended to emphasize one definitive model of pedagogical success. As representatively explicated by one PST, “I am very structured, but I still value hands-on learning and student interaction . . . but I would also want a class where students can voice their opinions, interact in the lessons, and have hands-on instruction” (2,879). These types of PSTs were open to where they would ultimately teach, but there was a commonality among their classroom descriptions. They promisingly wanted to create a classroom that promotes critical thinking and higher-level questions would be a great atmosphere to teach in . . . Having an orderly classroom would also be a nice touch but honestly, I will go wherever there is a spot for me. (1,134)
Otherwise, many of these PSTs believed that the classroom would devolve into chaos with unengaged students and create an undesirable teaching atmosphere. That is, these PSTs were flexible in their preference for a setting, but they had a restrictive understanding of effective instruction and classroom management. They felt that “if a teacher is not consistent, then his or her students might believe that the rule in question is no longer a rule. This leads quickly to a chaotic classroom where no one has the ability to learn” (2,562). Or from an academic perspective, I would like to be in a classroom that is a fun learning environment and not just a sit and read type classroom, but at the same time I would like it to have some structure to it and not chaotic and wild. (173)
They largely felt that there was a singular effective mode of instruction regardless of the school context or students’ background and culture. As best illustrating a flexible PST profile, “Although I have learned a great deal about being flexible in a classroom setting, I do my best when routine and order and instilled on a daily basis” (579).
Contrastingly, rigid PSTs expressed a desire for a specific type of classroom to be successful. These PSTs were passionate about teaching in a designated context, though contexts differed. Most saliently were those who mentioned that their success was predicated on a precise grade or subject area: “I would really enjoy a fourth or fifth grade social studies classroom” (1,027), and “I believe my favorite would be a Kindergarten or First Grade class with less than twenty students” (147). These responses were individual in nature, yet revealed a personal desire for distinct aspects of their future classrooms. Other rigid PSTs were broader in their responses, detailing the type of students that they preferred to teach. Some PSTs desired to work with diverse and/or difficult students 8 and embraced an opportunity to work in a challenging environment. These PSTs felt that working with a certain type of student group would maximize their teaching experience. Regardless of a comfortable, challenging, or specified context, these rigid PSTs provided responses mostly coded under Student Characteristics. 9
Do Classroom Preferences Differ by PST Demographic Characteristic?
In further exploring PST preferences, I explored whether there is variation by demographic characteristics. Table 2 indicates the counts and frequencies of classroom preferences codes by PST gender, ethnicity, and certification program.
Cross-Tabulations of PST Classroom Preference Codes by Demographic Characteristic, Count (Frequency)
Note. Frequencies were calculated by the code presence out of the total number of participants. Frequencies sum to greater than 100 because multiple coding was available per response/participant. Bolded values denote statistically significant differences at a 95% confidence level. PST = preservice teacher.
Classroom preferences notably varied by certification program. A complementary numerical and content variation existed within the 32% of PSTs in secondary education program who had a response about Student Characteristics, which was nearly double the percentage of EC6 PSTs. ANOVA results confirm statistically different means in these results (F = 13.05, ρ = .00). Although much of the substance of these responses aligned with the description of the Student Characteristics code, a disproportionate number of secondary PSTs desired teaching motivated students who “are as passionate and excited about my subject as I am. They should all work hard while never feeling too frustrated” (90). However, these responses also emphasized the PSTs’ subject area and that they would teach students who had a similar interest in the content as they did. These PSTs hoped to teach “in a classroom where all of the students were as passionate about mathematics as me” (2,727) and “open-minded students who are willing to learn about the interesting subject of English . . . I would love for my students to just be willing to learn from me” (1,155). There was some recognition that not all students would share this passion, but at the very least, they wanted secondary classrooms where students tried their best. I know not every student wants to be there or wants to learn, but I think that if they at least try, that is half of the battle, and I can show them that they can do math. (2,467)
A slightly higher percentage of PSTs getting certified in EC6 had responses that incorporated Pedagogical Strategies than PSTs in the other certification programs, although ANOVA results were not significant (F = 2.59, ρ = .75) and an examination of these responses revealed little substantive differences. Similar nonsubstantive findings were found for Classroom Setting responses. Additionally, there were few substantive differences comparing data by gender and ethnicity. Although means statistically differed in Classroom Setting (t = 5.24, ρ = .00), Pedagogy Strategies (t = 4.57, ρ = .00), and the Flexible code (t = −3.97, ρ = .00) by gender, much of that could likely be attributed to the limited male sample. The lack of statistical difference by ethnicity, along with an analysis of responses, indicates little substantive variation.
Discussion
This large-scale qualitative study explores PST classroom preferences. Results identify salient categories and themes defining each preference, profiles that extend throughout these preferences, and the variation between PSTs. Each of these beliefs suggests perceived characteristics important for beginning teacher success and indicates several pertinent findings.
There are three codes related to PST classroom preferences. When considering an enjoyable classroom setting, PST descriptions were categorized by aspects of the classroom setting, pedagogical strategies, and student characteristics. This provides a foundation for PST beliefs across classroom characteristics and reiterates the importance of student characteristics (Cannata, 2010; Ronfeldt et al., 2013). Relative to Merrill’s (2021) framework of working conditions, there is interpretable overlap even on translating to a PST and classroom context, shown in Table 3. PSTs consistently discussed preferences relating to her established teacher working conditions categories of facilities, orientation-climate, students, school features, and instructional resources, each of which has been identified throughout previous literature as positively associated with educational outcomes. Particularly as it relates to classroom preferences—as some of the working conditions do not fully apply—this result provides meaningful organization around similar areas that PST perceive as important for their classroom success.
Classroom Preference Category and Theme Aligned to Comparable Merrill (2021) Teacher Working Condition Category and Component
Note. Categories not included from Merrill (2021) include Leadership and Teacher Empowerment, Faculty, Parents and Community, Time, Professional Development, and Safety. PST = preservice teacher.
However, characteristics defining rigid and flexible PSTs as well as some aspects of the Student Characteristics code press against this framework. Although these components could be related to school features “that are demographic in nature and are usually difficult to change” (p. 14), Merrill (2021) is quick to point out that student characteristics do not constitute as a working condition in her framework; justifiably, these are not malleable characteristics for either policy or practice. Although accurate for in-service teachers, the PST context differs in that student characteristics have a stated influence of where they end up choosing to teach. PSTs can research student demographics of a district or campus and decide to clinically teach or work in a school based on that information, much like the participants in Cannata (2010) who considered these district features and made corresponding application decisions based on this information. So, for PSTs, student characteristics should still be considered as a potential workplace characteristic.
There may be a relationship between classroom preferences and certification program. Although there were no consistent, substantive differences in the frequencies and content by gender and ethnicity, opposing previous evidence (Ronfeldt et al., 2016), there was additional support of variation by certification (Ladd, 2011). A number of secondary PSTs focused on student characteristics and intently focused on working with learners who would appreciate their subject area. These PSTs were rigid in their preference of students but, more important, prompt whether they will receive sufficient preparation in adolescent development, student motivation, and engagement strategies.
Limitations
Findings should be held in the context of this study. The PST sample is from one institution, from one survey, and given at one distinct point in their program. Future studies should explore how PSTs from another institution would respond to the survey item or how preferences compare on the completion of clinical teaching. Prior evidence indicates that clinical teachers tend to align their pedagogical perceptions (and actions) with their mentor teacher (e.g., Rozelle & Wilson, 2012). Thus, this study provides a unique initial perspective that could inform PSTs’ choice of clinical teaching placement; it may not mimic a traditional preservice learning trajectory. Additionally, data collection could directly capture PSTs’ school or working condition preferences. This study measured classroom preferences to hone their perceptions to a designated area of the profession, but a more direct connection to Merrill (2021) would explicitly query PST working conditions. However, the data collected would still entail future preferences without having had any formal professional experiences.
Another limitation is that PST preferences do not indicate the type of schools that they will teach in on graduation. It is vital to first establish how PSTs describe classroom preferences because there is a positive relationship between preferences and mobility decisions (DeAngelis et al., 2013; Ronfeldt et al., 2013). Cautiously, though, preferences may not be enacted (Cannata, 2010) and do not account for the complexity of the separate supply and demand processes of a hiring decision (Liu, 2005; Liu & Johnson, 2006). Future research should examine whether PST classroom preferences predict for labor market decisions of clinical teaching and full-time placement.
Implications
Findings suggest underlying PST beliefs about instruction, specifically, and the profession, broadly. First, PSTs wrote about effective pedagogical strategies, but there was little indication about whether they could create these environments. Teacher preparation must support PSTs to establish classroom management structures, design engaging lessons, and build relationships with students, so that they could create their own ideal classroom. Additionally, although structure and engaging lessons are vital and indeed effective, it may suggest a limited or narrow perception of instruction. Given the dichotomy between rigid and flexible PSTs in imagining future classrooms, teacher preparation should emphasize culturally responsive pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 2014) and classroom management (Weinstein et al., 2003) to promote success (and inevitably joy) within any context by learning about and teaching to every student. This would also clarify misperceptions that some PSTs had about challenging environments synonymously or innately containing diverse student demographics.
Second, teacher educators should furnish PSTs with realistic professional expectations. This encapsulates providing guidance about applying to districts that fit their preferences, asking questions about supporting personal areas for success, and preparing to teach in challenging environments. Teacher preparation should discuss potential struggles as a beginning teacher—as new teachers are more likely to teach in more difficult schools (e.g., Boyd et al., 2010)—and be honest about potential variations in campus support, instruction, and, for secondary PSTs in particular, student motivation. This would aid in reconciling preconceptions and alleviate some prospective beginning teacher challenges. Guidance away from idealized imaginings of the profession might in turn lead to more satisfied and resilient novice teachers.
Third, districts could consider these workplace preferences as screening measures for new hires. This includes the penchant for student relationships, curriculum adjustment, and district classroom management programs that could provide PSTs with a clearer sense of what they offer in comparison with other districts. Transparency within the prehire process between teachers and districts would identify a better fit and potential future success (e.g., Liu & Johnson, 2006). Relatedly, identification of teacher preferences could trigger necessary support on hire. For flexible PSTs, they may need support to develop their pedagogical strategies within context. For rigid PSTs, districts may consider providing not only certain classroom preferences, if possible, but also mentorship aimed at recalibrating expectations.
