پروفایل های شخصی انگیزش معلمان برای تدریس: ارتباط با نیاز به رضایت در محل کار، آموزش نیاز حمایتی و فرسودگی شغلی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|30068||2014||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||9840 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Psychology of Sport and Exercise, Volume 15, Issue 4, July 2014, Pages 407–417
Abstract Objectives According to self-determination theory, teachers can engage in their job for a variety of reasons. Motivation can be controlled (feeling externally or internally pressured) or autonomous in nature (enjoying teaching or valuing its importance). The aim of this study was to identify motivational profiles (i.e., within-teacher combinations of autonomous and controlled motivation) and to examine associations between these motivational profiles and the following variables: experiences of need satisfaction, dimensions of teaching style, and burnout.
Introduction “I really enjoy my job as a physical education teacher, it makes me happy to see my students making progress, learning, and enjoying the lessons. That's what drives me as a teacher.” Peter, 35 Ideally, physical education (PE) teachers engage in their job because they find teaching enjoyable. However, other reasons can underlie teachers' functioning as well. Teachers can engage in teaching because they see the value of learning new skills to students, because they want to prove to themselves that they are good teachers, or because they feel pressured by others to perform well as a teacher. According to Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci and Ryan, 2000 and Deci and Ryan, 2002), these various reasons or motivational regulations have a differential impact on teachers' functioning (i.e., behavior and emotions). Teachers' functioning is not only of importance for the teachers themselves, but also for students because it is hypothesized that teachers' functioning is related to their teaching practices in the classroom. Most research to date on teacher motivation has taken a variable-centered approach, examining associations between the separate motivational orientations and teachers' functioning. Because teachers can have multiple reasons for engaging in the job, in the current study we adopted a person-centered approach, examining within-teacher combinations (i.e., profiles) of different motives. This approach allows for an examination of the interplay between different motives in relation to important features of teachers' personal functioning and interpersonal style. Therefore, this study aimed at investigating how PE teachers' motivational profiles relate to teachers' personal need satisfaction, need-supportive teaching behavior toward students, and burnout. Teacher's motivation from a self-determination theory perspective According to SDT, motivation to engage in specific behaviors can be situated on a continuum ranging from controlled to autonomous motivation, with autonomous motivation reflecting higher quality of motivation than controlled motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In contrast to theories examining motivation from a quantitative point of view and defining more motivation as ‘better’ (for example self-efficacy theory, Bandura, 1977), SDT identifies autonomous and controlled motivation as qualitatively different orientations, with autonomous motivation being more adaptive than controlled motivation. Controlled motivation refers to feeling pressured or coerced to engage in specific behavior or activities. This pressure can arise from external sources, such as a desire to obtain rewards or to avoid disapproval and criticism. With ‘external regulation’ a teacher would for instance dutifully prepare lessons because of a school inspection. Pressure can also originate from internal sources such as a desire to increase one's self-worth or a desire to avoid feelings of shame or guilt. With ‘introjected regulation’ a teacher might for instance want to prove herself and show off her skills as a good teacher. Autonomous motivation involves a sense of volition and self-endorsement. It can arise from the identification with the values and importance of a behavior. With ‘identified regulation’ a teacher might deeply value the importance of transferring certain skills to students. Autonomous motivation might also arise from the pleasure or inherent satisfaction coming from engaging in the teaching activity itself. With ‘intrinsic motivation’ a teacher may enjoy enriching students with new insights and knowledge. In most studies on antecedents and outcomes of teachers' quality of motivation to teach, a variable-centered approach has been taken. In these studies, autonomous motivation related to more optimal outcomes, such as more commitment and engagement in the work setting (Gagné & Deci, 2005), while controlled motivation related to more negative outcomes, such as burnout (Eyal and Roth, 2011 and Fernet et al., 2008). Based on these previous studies (Eyal and Roth, 2011, Fernet et al., 2008 and Gagné and Deci, 2005), it was expected in the present study that autonomous motivation would primarily relate positively to need satisfaction and need-supportive teaching behavior, while controlled motivation would more closely and positively relate to the more maladaptive outcome burnout. The value of a person-centered approach Although the variable-centered approach has yielded important insights in the role of quality of motivation in teachers' functioning, it has typically studied autonomous and controlled motivation as separate dimensions without focusing on their dynamic interplay. This is unfortunate because in reality, teachers can combine several reasons for engaging in their job. Some teachers can enjoy interacting with their students and value the learning outcomes, while at the same time feeling pressured to attain the goals set for their course because they want to prove themselves or because they want to avoid getting reprimanded. Other teachers might have a more pure autonomous motivational profile, engaging in teaching mainly for volitional reasons without feeling pressured. The advantage of a person-centered approach with cluster analyses lies in the possibility to identify naturally occurring combinations of teachers' reasons to teach. These within-teacher combinations constitute different motivational profiles. Also, by examining whether these profiles differ in terms of antecedents and outcomes of teacher motivation, this approach allows researchers to address important questions about the combined role of types of motivation. One important question, for instance, is whether a profile characterized by high quantity of motivation (i.e., a combination of autonomous and controlled motivation) yields benefits relative to a profile characterized by high quality of motivation (i.e., a profile characterized by autonomous motivation only). As SDT, in contrast to more quantitative theories of motivation, underscores the importance of qualitative differences in motivation, it would be considered more adaptive to predominantly endorse autonomous reason to teach, than to display high levels of both autonomous and controlled motivation. Similarly, SDT's qualitative view on motivation suggests that it would be better to endorse low autonomous and controlled motivation than to predominantly endorse controlled motivation to teach. As such, a person-centered approach allows for investigating the importance of a qualitative perspective on motivation. Person-centered analyses (e.g., cluster analyses) have been performed in different contexts, including employees' motivation to work (Van den Berghe et al., 2013 and Van den Berghe et al., 2013), athletes' motivation (Gillet et al., 2012 and Gillet et al., 2013), and students' motivation in general education (Hayenga and Corpus, 2010, Ratelle et al., 2007 and Vansteenkiste et al., 2009). There were also studies specifically investigating motivational profiles in the context of physical education, focusing both on students' motivation (Boiché et al., 2008, Haerens et al., 2010 and Ntoumanis, 2002) and on teachers' motivation (Van den Berghe, Cardon, et al., 2013). Most of the studies identifying motivational profiles have taken one of the following approaches. Whereas in some studies motivational profiles were identified on the basis of the four separate motivational regulations of SDT's continuum (i.e., intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation) (Boiché et al., 2008, Gillet et al., 2012, Gillet et al., 2013 and Ntoumanis, 2002), another strategy (Hayenga & Corpus, 2010) made use of the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to identify clusters. Other studies have identified profiles on the basis of composite scores for autonomous and controlled motivation (Van den Berghe et al., 2013, Van den Broeck et al., 2013 and Vansteenkiste et al., 2009). In addition to autonomous and controlled motivation, some studies also included a measure of amotivation in the analyses (Haerens et al., 2010 and Ratelle et al., 2007). Throughout the aforementioned studies (Boiché et al., 2008, Gillet et al., 2012, Gillet et al., 2013, Haerens et al., 2010, Hayenga and Corpus, 2010, Ntoumanis, 2002, Ratelle et al., 2007, Van den Berghe et al., 2013, Van den Broeck et al., 2013 and Vansteenkiste et al., 2009), six motivational profiles were identified, depending on the variation in the quantity of autonomous motivation (or intrinsic motivation and identified regulation), controlled motivation (or external and introjected regulation), and amotivation. A first motivational profile, identified in all of the studies (except for the study of Gillet et al., 2012), was generally referred to as the ‘good quality’ motivation group, because members typically endorsed high levels of autonomous motivation (or intrinsic motivation and identified regulation) and low levels of controlled motivation (or external or introjected regulation). Next, three profiles were identified that were defined as the ‘high, moderate, and low quantity’ group. These profiles were characterized by both a high (identified in eight studies, except for the studies of Ntoumanis (2002) and Boiché et al. (2008)), a moderate (Boiché et al., 2008, Gillet et al., 2012, Ntoumanis, 2002 and Ratelle et al., 2007), or a low quantity (Gillet et al., 2012, Haerens et al., 2010, Hayenga and Corpus, 2010, Ratelle et al., 2007, Van den Berghe et al., 2013, Van den Broeck et al., 2013 and Vansteenkiste et al., 2009) of autonomous and controlled motivation. Further, there was also a profile reflecting high scores on controlled motivation (or external or introjected regulation) and low scores on autonomous motivation (or intrinsic motivation and identified regulation), often referred to as the ‘poor quality’ group, because the reported motivation is mainly controlled in nature and thus of poor quality. This profile was found in all but one (Gillet et al., 2012) of the mentioned studies. The final profile, identified in two studies (Haerens et al., 2010 and Ratelle et al., 2007), incorporated a group of people scoring especially high on amotivation. When comparing the motivational profiles in relation to adaptive and maladaptive outcomes, two particularly interesting sets of hypotheses have been examined. In SDT, it is proposed that the presence of more motivation is not necessarily beneficial if the additional motivation is of poor quality (Deci and Ryan, 2000 and Vansteenkiste et al., 2009). Therefore, it is expected that individuals in the good quality group would report more adaptive outcomes than individuals in the high quantity group. This hypothesis was partially confirmed in previous studies. The good quality profile indeed showed higher academic achievement than the high quantity group in middle school students (Hayenga & Corpus, 2010). Similar results were found in the study of Gillet et al. (2013), in which tennis players from the good quality group showed more optimal performance outcomes than tennis players in the high quantity group. Nevertheless, not all studies found systematic differences between the ‘good quality’ and ‘high quantity’ motivation group. Vansteenkiste et al. (2009) reported higher scores for academic performance and perceived autonomy support and lower scores on cheating attitude for the students in the good quality group relative to the high quantity group. However, no differences in favor of the good quality group were found for a range of other outcome variables such as cheating behavior, effort regulation or meta-cognitive strategy use. Also in the study of Haerens et al. (2010) among university students reporting on their motivational experiences during high school PE, differences between profiles were mixed. Although students in the good quality group reported higher levels of overall physical activity and in particular sport participation, no differences were found for active transportation. Another SDT-based hypothesis was that it would be better to display low levels of motivation (low quantity group), as opposed to being predominantly controlled motivated (poor quality group), because high levels of controlled motivation could have a detrimental effect on adaptive outcomes (Vansteenkiste et al., 2009). Again, studies found partial evidence for this hypothesis. PE teachers experienced more emotional exhaustion (Van den Berghe, Cardon, et al., 2013), university students reported less sport participation in high school (Haerens et al., 2010), and high school students perceived less need support from their teachers and reported more test anxiety and procrastination (Vansteenkiste et al., 2009) when they had a poor quality profile rather than a low quantity profile. However, no clear differences between these two profiles were found for employees' job satisfaction and work enthusiasm (Van den Broeck et al., 2013), university students' levels of physical activity and time spent active transportation (Haerens et al., 2010), and high school students' academic functioning in terms of cognitive processing or academic performance (Vansteenkiste et al., 2009). In conclusion, results regarding between-profile differences are somewhat inconsistent. We aimed to add to this literature by examining PE teachers' motivational profiles. To date, only one study addressed this issue (Van den Berghe, Cardon, et al., 2013). This study included only teachers' emotional exhaustion (as one dimension of burnout) as an outcome. The current study aimed to provide a more comprehensive examination of PE teachers' motivational profile by including a broader assessment of burnout, by examining associations with teachers' experiences of need satisfaction, and by examining associations with teachers' instructional style toward students. Basic psychological need satisfaction According to SDT, experiences of need satisfaction are the driving force behind quality of motivation. In Basic Psychological Needs theory, one of the mini-theories in SDT (Ryan and Deci, 2002 and Vansteenkiste et al., 2010), it is stated that the satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness is required to develop autonomous motivation. In contrast, frustration of these needs would elicit controlled motivation. The need for autonomy refers to a sense of volition and psychological freedom (Ryan and Deci, 2002 and Vansteenkiste et al., 2010). When teachers have their need for autonomy satisfied, they feel like they are allowed to express ideas and opinions, they experience authenticity, and they feel free to do things their own way. The need for competence involves feeling effective in one's actions or pursuits (White, 1959). Teachers will feel competent at work when they feel able to execute their job properly and when they can accomplish challenging tasks (Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, Soenens, & Lens, 2010). The need for relatedness refers to the feeling of belongingness to important others, to care and to be cared for (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). This need will be satisfied when teachers feel connected to their colleagues and important other people in their working environment (e.g., students and parents). Studies adopting a variable-centered approach have shown that the more teachers feel satisfied in their needs at school, the more likely they are to be autonomously motivated for the job (e.g., Carson and Chase, 2009 and Taylor et al., 2008). Relationships between need satisfaction at work and controlled motivation were less clear-cut. In one study, need satisfaction at work even showed a weak positive relation with introjected regulation (Carson & Chase, 2009). To our knowledge, no studies to date adopted a person-centered approach to investigate how perceived need satisfaction at work differs according to teachers' motivational profile. Based on previous variable-centered studies (Carson and Chase, 2009 and Taylor et al., 2008), it was expected that need satisfaction would be most elevated in the good quality motivational profile, perhaps even more so than in the high quantity group. It was also deemed interesting to examine whether, as predicted by SDT, individuals in the low quantity group would report more need satisfaction compared to individuals in the poor quality group. Need-supportive teaching behavior In SDT, the quality of a motivating teaching style is defined along the three key dimensions of autonomy support, structure, and involvement. Autonomy support refers to teachers who explain the importance of tasks, ask questions, and encourage the expression of a personal opinion, structure is characterized by the provision of positive feedback, instrumental help and support, and involvement refers to having warm interactions and gaining an understanding of the students (Belmont et al., 1988, Pelletier et al., 2002, Taylor and Ntoumanis, 2007 and Taylor et al., 2008). Research has shown that teachers' own motivation is a crucial determinant of the interactional style they use toward students (Pelletier et al., 2002, Taylor and Ntoumanis, 2007 and Taylor et al., 2008). Pelletier et al. (2002), for instance, found that teachers' self-determined motivation to teach (i.e., a composite score of autonomous versus controlled motivation) was related positively to provided autonomy support. Similarly, studies by Taylor and Ntoumanis (2007) and Taylor et al. (2008) showed that teachers' self-determined motivation to teach related to more teacher autonomy support, structure, and involvement. The current study aims to add to these studies by examining the association between teacher motivation and teaching style from a person-centered approach. It was hypothesized that teachers displaying a good quality motivational profile would report the highest levels of autonomy support, structure, and involvement, perhaps even more so than teachers with a high quantity profile. We also expected that teachers with a poor quality motivational profile would report the lowest levels of autonomy support, structure, and involvement, perhaps even lower than teachers with a low quantity profile. Burnout For teachers and school policy members, burnout and absenteeism are phenomena raising significant concern. Unfortunately, teachers sometimes suffer from feelings of burnout, and the quality of their motivation to teach might explain differences in this maladaptive outcome. Burnout is typically characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization (i.e., an impersonal response toward others), and decreased feelings of personal accomplishment (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). When experiencing burnout, teachers are no longer able to be intensively involved and to have a meaningful impact at work (Maslach and Jackson, 1981 and Schaufeli et al., 2009). It has been theorized and shown that pressures teachers experience at work, such as work overload or students' disruptive behaviors, hamper autonomous motivation and, in turn, increase the risk for burnout (Fernet, Guay, Senecal, & Austin, 2012). Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Cuevas, and Lonsdale (2014) hypothesized that processes of need satisfaction also play a role and showed that teachers who feel frustrated in their basic psychological needs (as a consequence of job pressure) showed more burnout. To our knowledge, only two studies adopted a person-centered approach to investigate how motivational profiles relate to the occurrence of burnout, one among employees more generally (Van den Broeck et al., 2013) and one among PE teachers (Van den Berghe, Cardon, et al., 2013). These studies showed that employees with a motivational profile characterized by high levels of autonomous motivation are less susceptible for cynicism and emotional exhaustion. No difference in terms of burnout was found between employees with a good quality and a high quantity motivational profile. The current study further addresses the association between PE teachers' motivational profile and burnout, thereby relying on a larger sample of teachers and using a more comprehensive measure of burnout than in the Van den Berghe, Cardon, et al. (2013) study. The present study The first aim of this study was to determine PE teachers' motivational profiles on the basis of their scores for autonomous and controlled motivation. We decided to perform our analyses on the basis of the composite scores for autonomous and controlled motivation (rather than on the four separate motivational regulations) because we did not have differential predictions about the two subdimensions of the autonomous and controlled composite scores. It was hypothesized that four motivational profiles would be identified when performing cluster analysis. We expected a good quality group, a high quantity motivation group, a low quantity group, and a poor quality group. A second, more important, aim was to examine associations between the motivational profiles and key hypothesized antecedents and outcomes of teacher motivation, that is, experiences of need satisfaction, burnout, and quality of teaching style. It was expected that the good quality and the high quantity group would show the most optimal pattern of antecedents and outcomes (e.g., more need satisfaction and more need-supportive teaching), because both groups are characterized by high levels of autonomous motivation. If anything, we expected the good quality motivational profile to be even more adaptive than the high quantity profile. It was also expected that teachers in the poor quality motivation group would show the most maladaptive antecedents and outcomes (e.g., burnout), because this group is characterized by high levels of controlled motivation. This profile was expected to be even more maladaptive than the low quantity profile.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Conclusions The results of the current study shed new light on PE teachers' motivation by looking at their motivation from a person-centered perspective. The most optimal motivational profile is one characterized by high levels of autonomous motivation and low levels of controlled motivation. Such a good quality motivational profile seems beneficial not only for the teachers' personal functioning but also for the quality of the teacher's interactional style toward students. The least adaptive motivational profile was one characterized by high levels of controlled motivation and low levels of autonomous motives. These teachers seem to be most vulnerable to burnout and most likely to interact with their students in a less need-supportive fashion. Overall, results of the present study partially confirmed SDT's qualitative view on motivation, stating more motivation is not always better. As such, quality of motivation in PE teachers is an important concept to consider both in research and practice.