Career choice motives represent reasons and related goals for the choice of a specific profession (Keller-Schneider, 2011; Richardson and Watt, 2016; Tillmann et al., 2020). These motives are categorized in accordance to distinctions made by the motivation theory of Deci and Ryan: Intrinsic motivation refers to the execution of an activity for its own value because it is enjoyable, whereas extrinsic motivation relies on factors outside the activity and is rather instrumental (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Ryan and Deci, 2000). In context of the career choice motives of the teaching profession, intrinsic motives are related directly to the teaching profession and may refer, for example, to pedagogical/altruistic reasons such as working with children or supporting special needs students, teaching-related/subject-related reasons such as general teaching interest or interest in a particular subject, or idealistic desires such as contributing to society (Cramer, 2012; Cramer and Neugebauer, 2023; Heinz, 2015). Extrinsic motives can be fulfilled by various professions that yield a similar desired effect. With regard to the teaching profession, those motives may refer to flexibility/self-determination of working time, family-friendly working hours, salary, or prestige of the teaching profession (Heinz, 2015). Another set of motives has been described in the literature as pragmatic reasons such as recommendation by others or lack of alternative career paths. As pragmatic motives are completely unrelated to the profession itself, whereas extrinsic motives are still related to characteristics of the profession (e.g., prestige) (e.g., Rauin and Römer, 2010), we will refer to pragmatic motives as a distinct category in this study.

Although previous research on motives for choosing teaching as a profession is characterized by a high heterogeneity regarding sample characteristics, methodology, and instruments (Richardson and Watt, 2016; Scharfenberg, 2020), the differentiation of motives and the pattern of results are quite consistent across studies and countries: Intrinsic motives are most dominant, especially pedagogical motives (e.g., working with children/youth), followed by subject/teaching-related motives and idealistic/altruistic motives (Heinz, 2015; König and Rothland, 2012; Nesje et al., 2018; Rothland, 2014; See et al., 2022; Syring et al., 2017; Wang and Houston, 2023). Extrinsic motives such as salary and prestige are less important, although the relative importance of particular motives varies depending on the country the study was conducted in (Bastick, 2000; Rothland, 2014). For German student teachers, particularly work–family balance, self-determined working time and job security were important reasons for choosing the teaching profession (Keller-Schneider et al., 2023a,b). Pragmatic motives such as teaching as a fallback career are usually rated lower than intrinsic or other extrinsic motives (Rothland, 2014). However, in some countries (e.g., China, Taiwan, Turkey, and Malaysia), extrinsic and/or pragmatic reasons were as important or more important than intrinsic motives (for review see Heinz, 2015; Keller-Schneider et al., 2023a).

Despite research findings revealing that intrinsic motives predominate student teachers’ career choice, individual differences can be observed regarding the importance of certain motives underlying the decision for a teaching career. Based on psychological theories of motivation (e.g., Ryan and Deci, 2000; Wigfield and Eccles, 2000), a broad variety of theoretical frameworks has been developed to describe career decisions and potential differences in this process (e.g., Holland, 1997; Watt et al., 2012; Watt and Richardson, 2007). For the current study, we will refer to Gottfredson’s (2005) dynamic-procedural model of circumscription and compromise as the model emphasizes the role of perceived gender fit for the consideration of possible career paths. Gottfredson’s model suggests that career development is influenced both by internal factors, such as the (social) self-concept (including gender), and by external factors, such as societal expectations and occupational information, and that career choices are gradually refined through circumscription and compromise (Gottfredson, 2005). As an individual’s chosen profession largely defines their status in society, gender—as part of the social self-concept—plays a crucial role in the consideration of potential career options as it supports one’s efforts to maintain their social identity (Gottfredson, 2005; Trojer, 2018). Consequently, a person’s preference for a specific profession is mostly due to the perceived comparability with the person’s self-image. Gottfredson’s perspective is supported by assumptions of social role theory, which posits that gender stereotypes lead individuals to act in ways that align with societal roles and expectations (Eagly and Wood, 2012). In fact, empirical studies have shown males’ and females’ preference for career paths they perceive as being gender-typical (Barth and Masters, 2024; Kleinert and Schels, 2020; Miller and Hayward, 2006). In particular, traditional female gender roles have been associated with nurturing and caregiving, and therefore, women have been perceived as more naturally suited for the teaching profession than men (Drudy, 2008; Moreau, 2019). With respect to the primary school teaching profession, Combe (1996) has referred to this gender-stereotypical perception as “professionalized motherliness” (p. 508).

Previous studies have indeed consistently reported that pedagogical and idealistic/altruistic motives were more relevant for female students, while subject-related intrinsic motives and extrinsic/pragmatic motives were more important for male students (for review see See et al., 2022). This pattern of results has been replicated across time (Ulich, 1998, 2000, 2004) as well as across a variety of countries (Bruinsma and Jansen, 2010; Jungert et al., 2014; Shang et al., 2022), although some studies indicate different result patterns for non-OECD/non-industrialized countries (e.g., Bastick, 2000; See et al., 2022). Previous studies with German student teachers provide a comparable picture. Studies by different research groups (e.g., Scharfenberg, 2020; Ulich, 1998, 2000, 2004; Weiß and Kiel, 2011) indicate that female students referred more frequently to interest in working with children/adolescents, supporting children with special educational needs, enjoying teaching, and work–family compatibility (extrinsic), while male students referred more frequently to interest in the subject, extrinsic motives such as salary, self-determined working time, and job security, or the lack of alternative career paths. The contemporary study by Scharfenberg (2020) showed that, overall, gender-based differences were more pronounced with regard to intrinsic motives (e.g., child-related vs. subject-related motives) than extrinsic and pragmatic motives.

Importantly, student teachers’ career choice motives differ also by school level (i.e., primary school level vs. secondary school level). Although in the majority of studies the predominant motives across school levels were pedagogical (e.g., Rothland, 2022), previous research has shown that pedagogical motives were more important for primary school student teachers than for secondary school student teachers, whereas subject interest was more important for secondary school student teachers than for primary school student teachers (Glutsch and König, 2019; Keller-Schneider et al., 2023b; Retelsdorf and Möller, 2012; Rothland, 2014; Scharfenberg, 2020; Weiß and Kiel, 2013). In addition, idealistic/altruistic reasons appeared to be more important and financial security to be less important for primary school student teachers than for secondary school student teachers (Cramer, 2012; Weiß and Kiel, 2013).

It is important to note that gender and school level are two highly related factors, that is, the proportion of women in primary school (OECD average 82.6%; Germany 87.3%) is higher than of men in primary school and higher than of women in secondary school (OECD average 68.1–62.8%; Germany 66.3–59.8%, for lower secondary level and upper secondary level, respectively) (Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder, 2024). Consequently, the effects of gender and school level on motives for choosing the teaching profession are confounding. For instance, Jungert et al. (2014) have shown that altruistic motives were most pronounced in male primary school student teachers in Sweden. Thus, it is important to consider individual and combined effects of those factors on student teachers’ career choice motives.

In addition, students’ perception of future demands of the teaching profession and their ability to cope with stress might differ by gender and may be crucial factors in the decision to enter the teaching profession. The perception of demands refers to general conditions such as flexible time management, workload or public appreciation of the profession as well as aspects of cooperation and perception of diversity in classrooms (Cramer, 2014; Tillmann et al., 2019). Previous research has shown that the experience of high demands and difficult conditions were related to emotional exhaustion and the intention to leave the teaching job (Dicke et al., 2014; Rajendran et al., 2020). At the same time, teacher collaboration was related to positive outcomes and perceived benefits for teachers and students such as experience of emotional support, decreased workload, higher teacher motivation, or better student performance (Muckenthaler et al., 2020; Vangrieken et al., 2015), although the effect of different indicators of collaboration differed depending on contextual factors (Reeves et al., 2017). Additional important factors for teachers’ mental health are personal characteristics and abilities in coping with stress, more precisely, their self-efficacy (Lazarides et al., 2020), dysfunctional cognitions/stress-inducing thoughts, and coping strategies (Brown and Beck, 2002; Montgomery and Rupp, 2005).

With regard to gender differences in teachers’ perception of occupational demands and their abilities for coping with stress, research has shown mixed results. While some studies reported that female teachers generally perceived more job resources and greater teacher collaboration (Collie et al., 2020; Ronfeldt et al., 2015; Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2018), other studies reported that female teachers experienced higher levels of work–family conflict, workload, classroom stress, and student misbehavior compared to male teachers (Klassen and Chiu, 2010; Rajendran et al., 2020). Interestingly, previous research found positive relations between experience of high demands and emotional exhaustion as well as the intention to quit for both female and male teachers (Dicke et al., 2014; Rajendran et al., 2020). Regarding self-efficacy, the pattern of results is mixed, with some studies indicating lower classroom management self-efficacy of female teachers (Klassen and Chiu, 2010) and others reporting no gender differences in teachers’ classroom management self-efficacy (Lazarides et al., 2020). Studies investigating dysfunctional cognitions as well as coping strategies of student teachers and related gender differences are rare (e.g., Braun et al., 2020). However, studies on gender differences in college students have shown that female students reported higher levels of experienced stress and were more likely to use emotional and instrumental support and self-distraction as coping strategies than male students (Eisenbarth, 2019; Graves et al., 2021). Overall, current evidence on gender differences in (student) teachers’ perception of demands and coping with stress is inconclusive and restricted to traditional gender categories (i.e., male and female). Thus, our study aimed at contributing to a better understanding of this research gap by exploring possible gender differences in male, female, and diverse student teachers’ perception of future demands and their abilities to cope with stressful experiences.

The current study investigated gender differences in student teachers’ motives for choosing teaching as a career as well as in their perception of demands and their coping with stress by drawing on a large sample of student teachers in Germany. With regard to the aforementioned societal discussions about gender diversity and the dissolution of gender-specific role expectations, it is important to regularly examine whether or to what extent the theoretically proposed influence of gender on occupational choices and perceptions is still supported by empirical data. More precisely, young student teachers may perceive gender and ascribed roles as less strictly categorical, which could affect the role of gender in their social self-concept and consequently mitigate the restriction to certain professions. In accordance with these considerations, the current study aimed to investigate such differences in female and male students and aimed to include also diverse students, as so far studies on student teachers’ career choice motives have not considered gender beyond the two traditional categories. Please note that we have derived directed hypotheses from the literature only for specific differences on certain aspects (e.g., intrinsic motives) as the theoretical and empirical foundation seemed sufficient only for these derivations.

The main question of interest our study addressed was to determine whether gender differences exist in the current generation of student teachers regarding their career choice motives. Moreover, as student teacher’s career choice motives might differ also by school level, it is important to examine interaction effects between student gender and school level. Thus, research question 1 addressed the following question: Do student teachers’ motives for choosing teaching as a career differ by gender and school level?

A common approach in examining and describing differences in student teachers’ motives is the identification of different motivational groups (i.e., clusters) (Scharfenberg, 2020; Thomson et al., 2012; Tillmann et al., 2020). Moreover, previous research has shown that male and female student teachers are not equally distributed across clusters of career choice motives (e.g., Scharfenberg, 2020). Our study adds to this research by examining whether different motivational groups can be identified and how these clusters differ with regard to the proportion of female, male, and diverse students. Thus, research question 2 addressed the following question: Which groups of students with the same motives can be identified and (how) does the specific distribution of respondents in the individual clusters differ by gender?

Furthermore, based on literature suggesting gender-based differences in (student) teachers’ perception of occupational demands as well as gender-based differences in abilities to cope with stressful experiences, research question 3 addressed the following question: Does student teachers’ perception of demands of the teaching profession and their coping with stress (i.e., self-efficacy, dysfunctional cognitions, and coping strategies) differ by gender? As theoretical considerations and empirical findings for gender differences on perception of demands and coping with stress were mostly inconclusive, we state an undirected hypothesis for these domains.

The present study is based on an online tool developed within the context of the project Risk-Check for Teaching Profession under guidance of [blind for review]. The overarching project was conducted between 2015 and 2018 as part of the “Education Offensive for Increasing the Quality of Future Teachers’ Training” and aimed to identify criteria and conditions for successful teaching. Within the project, a self-developed online tool for preservice teachers was developed with the goal to support student teachers in determining their individual career choice motives, their expectations, and personal characteristics (i.e., coping with stress) and comparing these with real professional requirements. Such tools are quite popular and well-established in Germany (cf. CCT – Career Counselling for Teachers; Mayr et al., 2016). The finalized online tool [blind for review] was implemented in summer 2021 as a compulsory part of the accompanying online course of the pedagogical-didactical school internship at [blind for review]. The online tool is available online for high school graduates and university students who are interested in studying teaching as a profession.

The initial sample comprised 1,021 participants. We excluded 13 participants due to missing personal data (n = 4), multiple completion of the online tool (n = 6), and irrelevant types of schools (n = 3). Those types of schools (i.e., vocational training school and non-specified secondary school) were irrelevant for the current study because their educational focus lies on vocational education rather than general education. The final sample consisted of 1,008 participants, of which 97.2% were already enrolled as student teachers. The majority of students was studying in the third semester (56%) or the fifth semester (13.4%) (M = 4.66, SD = 1.70). Gender distribution was unbalanced, with 772 female students (76.6%), 218 male students (21.6%), and 18 diverse students (1.8%). Regarding school level, 427 (42.4%) participants studied/were interested in studying primary school teaching (88.1% female, 11% male, 0.9% diverse) and 581 (57.6%) studied/were interested in studying secondary level teaching (68.2% female, 29.4% male, 2.4% diverse). Within gender categories, female students were similarly distributed across primary (48.7%) and secondary school teaching (51.3%), whereas male students and diverse students more frequently studied secondary school teaching (78.4 and 77.8%, respectively) than primary school teaching (21.6 and 22.2%, respectively).

Data were collected between August 2021 and September 2023 via the online tool. When registering for the online tool, students indicated their gender, their student status (student teacher vs. interested in studying teaching), the school level of their teaching studies (i.e., primary school vs. different levels of secondary school), and their current semester. The online tool comprised three domains, namely, motives for choosing teaching as a career (career choice motives), perception of demands of the teaching profession (perception of demands), and coping with stress (coping with stress). Each domain is based on several measurement instruments of which each consist of several scales and subscales. Students were permitted to select the order in which they responded to the three domains.

Data exclusion, reduction, and statistical analyses were conducted in R Studio. Prior to data analyses, we excluded participants with data that were not relevant for the current study (see sample description). Moreover, we combined the different types of secondary schools in one category, resulting in two school levels (i.e., primary school level vs. secondary school level). As special needs schools (i.e., “Förderschulen”) constitute a distinct type of secondary school in the German educational system, it was unclear whether teacher candidates specializing in this field should be categorized under the secondary school level. Thus, we performed all analyses with and without special needs school student teachers. As both analyses yielded by-and-large similar patterns of results, we report results for the analyses with special needs school student teachers included to provide a more representative sample of teacher candidates. Please note, that for research questions 1 and 3 we decided to focus on the two gender groups female and male. This was done because the substantially smaller sample size in the third gender group “diverse” (n = 18) may reduce statistical power to detect true effects (Field et al., 2012). However, in the results section, we provide descriptive data and brief paragraphs on analyses that included the third gender category and that showed similar results.

To answer research question 1, we conducted a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each career choice motive, with main effects of gender and school level as well as the respective interaction effect. As our design was not balanced (i.e., unequal group sizes), we conducted ANOVA with Type III sums of squares using the Anova function of the car package. Prior to analyses, we conducted Levene’s tests to test the assumption of homogeneity of variance. In case of violation of homogeneity of variance, we used robust calculation methods according to Wilcox (Mair and Wilcox, 2018). Note that for this robust method, no degrees of freedom are provided. We used the cohens_f function of the effect size package to calculate partial Cohen’s f (f) as a measure of effect size. Cohen’s f values of 0.10, 0.25, and 0.40 represent small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively (Cohen, 1988).

To answer research question 2, we conducted cluster analyses for identifying student groups with similar motives. We applied k-means as an agglomerative partitioning method, which makes it necessary to determine the number of clusters (k) in advance. In a first step, we determined the optimal number of clusters graphically and mathematically. We created a scree plot with the fviz_nbclust function of the factoextra package displaying the development of the heterogeneity measure as a function of the cluster number (Backhaus et al., 2023) and applied the elbow criterion as a decision criterion for the number of clusters to be selected. Moreover, we calculated the Dunn index (Dunn, 1974) with the NbClust function of the NbClust package.

In a second step, we conducted k-means analysis using the kmeans function of the stats package to optimize cluster assignment until stable clusters had formed. We checked the overall cluster assignment with a discriminant analysis using the lda function of the MASS package and by calculating F-values at the level of the individual scales. The F-values examine whether the within-group variance of each motive and each cluster is smaller or larger than the variance in the overall sample. Subsequently, we analyzed mean differences between the clusters on each motive scale using univariate one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA). In case of homogeneity of variance, we used the aov function (base package), and in case of heterogeneity of variance, we used the bf.test function (onewaytest package) to conduct a one-way ANOVA according to Brown-Forsythe. Cohen’s f was calculated with the respective function of the effect size package. In case of significant differences in the overall group, we used robust post-hoc tests according to Games and Howell to conduct pairwise comparisons (cf. Games and Howell, 1976; Shingala and Rajyaguru, 2015). To characterize the individual clusters, t-values were used to describe for each cluster which motives were over- or underrepresented in comparison with the overall group/sample (Backhaus et al., 2023). A higher positive t-value of a motive indicates an overrepresentation in the corresponding cluster, while a lower or negative t-value represents an underrepresentation. In addition, pooled Cohen’s d values between individual clusters were calculated. Cohen’s d values of 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 represent small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively (Cohen, 1988).

To further answer research question 2, we calculated a χ² test of independence to examine the gender-specific distribution of students across the career choice motives. As a measure of effect size, Cramer’s V (corrected) was calculated.

To answer research question 3, we used the t.test function of the stats package to conduct two sample t-tests for examining gender differences in students’ ratings on each subscale of the domains, perception of demands, and level of stress experiences. Prior to analyses, we conducted Levene’s tests to test the assumption of homogeneity of variance. In case of violation of homogeneity of variance, a robust method according to Welch was used (Delacre et al., 2017; Welch, 1947). We used the cohens_d function of the effect size package to calculate Cohen’s d as a measure of effect size. For effect sizes that accompanied a Welch’s t-test, unpooled estimates were used.

Figure 1 displays the means of the career choice motive scales for all participants and separated by gender. Female and male participants rated the intrinsic motive of pedagogical work highest and recommendation as well as fallback career lowest, whereas diverse participants rated pedagogical work and subject interest highest. Supplementary Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the (sub-)scales of the other domains, that is, perception of demands and coping with stress.

Table 7 shows the results of the conducted t-tests for testing differences between the two genders with regard to the (sub-)scales of the domain perception of demands and level of stress experience.

Our findings that female students reported higher scores for pedagogical work, student support and idealism, whereas male students reported higher scores for subject interest, support our hypothesis and replicate previous findings on gender differences in student teachers’ career choice motives (for review see See et al., 2022). These findings align with Gottfredson’s (2005) theoretical framework, suggesting that the perceived gender fit of certain characteristics of the teaching profession is reflected in students reasoning about possible career paths. Moreover, they support ideas of the social role theory by Eagly and Wood (2012) which posits that gender stereotypes (e.g., traditional ideas of “feminine” and “masculine” traits) shape behavior, leading individuals to act in ways that align with societal roles. Thus, female and male students may focus on different aspects of the teaching profession. More precisely, female students may perceive pedagogical and social aspects as more appealing and fitting their gender, whereas male students may do so for subject-related or content-related aspects.

With regard to differences between school levels, our finding that secondary school level student teachers reported higher subject interest adds to previous research on school-level differences in student teachers’ career choice motives (Glutsch and König, 2019; Keller-Schneider et al., 2023b; Retelsdorf and Möller, 2012; Scharfenberg, 2020).

An interesting interaction of gender and school level appeared with regard to choosing teaching as a fallback career. Male primary school student teachers most frequently chose this motive, whereas female primary school student teachers least frequently did so. This finding supports the idea that female students may perceive primary school teaching as most fitting to their gender and their high pedagogical interest. At the same time, male primary school student teachers’ perception of primary school teaching may not fit as well to their intrinsic interest (i.e., interest in subject content) and may more likely choose it as a fallback career (Scharfenberg, 2020).

Flexibility of work was an equally important reason for male and female student teachers’ career choice. Whether this can be attributed to a more balanced distribution of family responsibilities or a greater emphasis on work balance in both genders has to be examined in further research. Finally, the finding that both genders based their career choice on recommendations to a similarly low extent indicates that recommendations of the social environment may depend more on individual characteristics than on the student’s gender.

As our analyses with three gender groups were underpowered, we mainly focused our discussion on the differences between male and female student teachers. Yet, we want to refer to the findings for diverse students at least on a descriptive level. Overall, mean scores of diverse students were more similar to scores of male students for subject interest, supporting students, flexibility, and recommendation, and more similar to female students’ scores for idealism. Interestingly, diverse student teachers reported the lowest pedagogical interest and at the same time reported most frequently that they choose teaching as a fallback career. While we cannot draw strong conclusions due to the small sample size, this last finding may be explained in a similar manner as for male primary school student teachers.

In addressing research question 2, we identified four distinct motivational clusters among student teachers, ranging from highly intrinsic (Cluster 1), highly extrinsic pragmatic (Cluster 2), and moderately intrinsic with high subject-related interest (Cluster 3), to high pedagogical with low extrinsic motivation (Cluster 4). In line with the findings of research question 1, we found that female students were overrepresented and male students were underrepresented in the highly pedagogically motivated cluster, whereas male students were overrepresented and female students were underrepresented in the cluster of low pedagogical intrinsic but higher subject-related motivation. Similar profiles and gender differences have been found in previous research (cf. Scharfenberg, 2020).

Our third research question focused on gender differences in student teachers’ perception of demands and in their coping with stress. Female student teachers compared to male students indicated a higher openness to different forms of professional cooperation (i.e., student-related and teaching-related exchange, and joint work organization), as well as a higher interest in social and cultural diversity and special needs education. These findings are in line with previous research on teacher cooperation and coping with heterogeneity in classrooms (Collie et al., 2020; Ronfeldt et al., 2015; Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2018). They also align well with our interpretation that social characteristics of the teaching profession are more relevant in female student teachers’ perception. In contrast, for male students, a positive public judgment of their future profession appeared to be more important than for female students. This finding is in line with previous research (e.g., See et al., 2022) and may explain why the proportion of male teacher is considerably lower in primary school than in secondary school in Germany.

Regarding coping with stress, the only significant difference was found in the avoidance of social support. Male students reported more often than female students that they would avoid seeking social support in times of stress. This finding may be better explained in combination with our result of a trend toward higher self-efficacy perception in male students than in female students. More precisely, male students may be more confident in their ability to resolve stressful situations independently and therefore may not seek social support as much as female students do. However, this is only speculation, and more research is needed to investigate this question in more depth.

On a descriptive level, mean scores of diverse students were similar to female student teachers’ scores for most perception of demands subscales. Yet, diverse students reported lower scores for professional exchange, flexible time management, and freedom-requirements-balance and higher scores for effort-appreciation-balance than male and female student teachers. Moreover, diverse students reported similar levels of self-efficacy than female students as well as of risk avoidance and social support avoidance than male students. Interestingly, they reported the highest scores for dependence on sympathy and loss of value, and a considerably higher level of stress experience. In the light of mental health issues of teacher, these findings emphasize the need for future research to consider diverse students as a separate group to better understand their resources and needs in relation to their future profession.

It is interesting to note that the pattern of results of research questions 1 and 2 fits well to a classic typology regarding teacher characteristics mentioned by Caselmann (1949) several decades ago. Caselmann differentiated two poles of intrinsic motivation specific to the teaching profession, that is, between paidotropic motivation (i.e., child-related or pedagogical/educational motivation) and logotropic motivation (i.e., subject-related motivation). The findings of our cluster analyses suggest that these two motivational profiles are still relevant for student teachers today. Moreover, as discussed above, the results on differences between male and female student teachers’ specific intrinsic motivation support claims of the career choice theory by Gottfredson (2005) and the social role theory by Eagly and Wood (2012). In relation to Gottfredson’s model, our findings indicate that gender remains a significant component of the social self-concept and thus plays a key role in how individuals perceive occupations that align with their gender and alleged gender-specific traits. Our result that female students are more interested in cooperative work and diversity in classroom than male students adds to these theoretical perspectives. These characteristics align with the social aspects of teaching and the perception of female gender roles being associated with social and communal traits (e.g., communication and caretaking) (Froehlich et al., 2020) and a preference for “people-oriented occupations” (Hustad et al., 2020; Su et al., 2009). At the same time, the higher importance of job prestige for male students aligns with the perception of male gender roles being associated with agency-related traits (e.g., assertiveness, power, and leadership) (Froehlich et al., 2020). While this pattern of findings support theoretical accounts on the importance of gender stereotypes and perceived gender fit of career paths, we have to note that pedagogical reasons were still the most important career choice motive of male student teachers.

The question of whether men should be actively encouraged and recruited into the teaching profession remains a topic of ongoing debate (e.g., Skelton, 2002, 2012). While scientific evidence does not strongly support gender-specific recruitment strategies, our findings that male (as well as diverse) primary school student teachers most frequently indicated teaching as their fallback career, nevertheless informs practical implications for recruiting processes and teacher training. Despite being the lowest-rated motive, it is critical to consider that, especially in the primary school level, a proportion of student teachers may be pursuing a profession that does not appear as their first choice. Given that pedagogical interest and skills are especially important in primary school, this raises the question of whether students who view primary teaching as a fallback career possess the necessary commitment and aptitude. Thus, it is crucial to ensure that those entering the teaching profession are well-prepared and committed, regardless of whether primary school teaching was their first career choice. Overall, while the feminization of the teaching profession is not problematic and we do not suggest implementing gender-specific recruitment strategies, it is important to consider how to attract qualified candidates based on their abilities and competencies, regardless of gender. Given the teacher shortage in Germany (Seeliger and Håkansson Lindqvist, 2023), this is crucial for all school levels and types.

Overall, our findings suggest that gender (and corresponding internalized role expectations) is more relevant in explaining differences in student teachers’ specific intrinsic reasons (such as pedagogical interest or subject interest) for choosing the teaching profession. However, gender does not appear to influence reasons related to extrinsic or pragmatic aspects (such as job flexibility) or social influences (such as recommendations).

The current study expands our knowledge on gender differences in current student teachers’ career choice motives and their perception of the teaching profession in Germany but contains some limitations and open questions future research should address. First, while the overall sample size of the current study exceeded sample sizes in the majority of previous studies on teacher motivation (Heinz, 2015; Watt et al., 2012), our group sizes were neither equally distributed across gender and school level nor representative of the distribution of currently enrolled student teacher in Bavaria across school levels (Bayerisches Landesamt für Statistik, 2023). Although different group sizes were accounted for in our analysis using robust calculation methods, the overrepresentation of female students and primary school student teacher limits the representativeness and generalizability of our findings. Future studies may attempt to recruit more student teachers of other school levels.

Second, only 1.8% (n = 18) of student teachers indicated their gender as “diverse,” making reliable and powerful analyses including this group not possible. However, based on the discussed descriptive differences, it may be interesting to specifically target this group of student teachers. Future research may also examine the unique challenges and motivations of student teachers who identify as diverse and develop tailored support mechanisms to enhance their career development. Please note that unlike previous studies on gender differences in student teachers, we offered the students the option to indicate their gender as diverse. Providing this option is important because higher education statistics often do not assess or separately consider this group (Bayerisches Landesamt für Statistik, 2023; München, 2023; Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, 2019). In addition, as “Geschlecht” in German refers to both sex and gender, future research should follow Muschalik et al.’s (2021) recommendation to assess gender in two steps, in which the first step assesses gender assigned at birth and the second step the subjective gender identity. Future research could also explore the implications of this two-step assessment on the accuracy and depth of gender-related findings.

Third, our online tool focused on few selected career choice motives. Although we intentionally focused on most commonly investigated motives and demands, a more differentiated list of possible reasons (e.g., subject interest vs. general interest in teaching) as well as additional open questions may help to get a more detailed understanding of future teachers’ motivation and expectations. Future studies could also employ mixed-method approaches to gain deeper insights into student teachers’ motivations. In addition, it may be valuable to conduct longitudinal studies to track changes in career choice motives and perceptions of the teaching profession over the course of teacher education and early career stages and examine the long-term impact of initial career choice motives on job satisfaction, retention, and professional development.

Finally, in the scientific literature, potential limitations of self-report measures with Likert-scale response options have been discussed that refer to potential validity problems caused by response biases such as social desirability, central tendency, or idiosyncratic response biases (Barker et al., 2025; Grimmond et al., 2025). While we acknowledge the possibility of such biases, we consider self-report measures as particularly valuable for assessing personal motives, perceptions, and subjective experiences because they provide direct insights in respondents’ mental content that cannot reasonably or accurately be obtained by other means such as observation, informant reports, or implicit measures (Barker et al., 2025; Corneille and Gawronski, 2024). Moreover, except for one scale we applied 4-point Likert scales without a midpoint, which may minimize social desirability bias (Nadler et al., 2015). Nevertheless, future research should critically evaluate the number of response options and attempt to combine closed-ended self-reports with other approaches (McDonald, 2008) such as additional open-ended questions or semi-structured interviews (Barker et al., 2025).

Overall, our findings suggest that gender (and corresponding internalized role expectations) is more relevant in explaining differences in student teachers’ specific intrinsic reasons (such as pedagogical interest or subject interest) for choosing the teaching profession and in student teachers’ openness to future professional cooperation and classroom diversity. However, gender does not appear to influence reasons related to extrinsic or pragmatic aspects (such as job flexibility) or recommendations by others, and perceptions on structural conditions of the teaching profession.