1-s2.0-s0883035513001110-main.pdf

International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 199–209

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures

Teachers’ perceptions of the school goal structure: Relations with teachers’ goal orientations, work engagement, and job satisfaction Einar M. Skaalvik a,b,*, Sidsel Skaalvik a,b a b

Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway NTNU Social Research, Dragvoll Alle 38b, 7491 Trondheim, Norway

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 22 May 2013 Received in revised form 17 September 2013 Accepted 19 September 2013 Available online 17 October 2013

Research on goal theory has almost exclusively focused on students’ goals and their perception of the classroom goal structure. The purpose of this study was to explore teachers’ perception of the school goal structure as well as relations between goal structure, teaching related goal orientation, engagement for teaching, and job satisfaction. The participants were 2569 teachers in elementary and middle school. Data were analyzed by means of structural equation modeling. Mastery goal structure was directly and positively related to teachers’ work-related motivation (engagement and job satisfaction) whereas performance goal structure related to work-related motivation through the teachers’ personal goal orientation. ß 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Keywords: Goal theory School goal structure Teachers’ goal orientations Engagement Job satisfaction

1. Introduction Research on teachers’ motivation has primarily been concerned with reasons for seeking teacher education (e.g., Richardson & Watt, 2006) whereas surprisingly little theory-driven research has been done to explore teachers’ continuous motivation for teaching (Retelsdorf, Butler, Streblow, & Schiefele, 2010). However, recently researchers have used expectancy-value theory (Watt & Richardson, 2007), self-determination theory (Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, 2007), and achievement goal theory (Butler, 2007; Papaioannou & Christodoulidis, 2007) in studies of teacher motivation. For instance, in an attempt to establish a theoretical foundation for studying teachers’ motivation, Butler (2007) proposed that goal orientation might offer a promising framework for analyzing teachers’ motivation. Research on students has shown that goal orientation is predictive of motivational, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes. Following Butler’s suggestion the purpose of the present study was therefore to explore how teachers’ engagement in teaching and job satisfaction were related both to their personal goal orientation and to their perception of the school goal structure. Whereas goal structure is assumed to influence students’ goal orientation we know of no studies exploring both teachers’ perceptions of the goal structure at the school where they are teaching and their teaching related goal orientations.

* Corresponding author at: Department of Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Dragvoll, 7491 Trondheim, Norway. Tel.: +47 73591954/97169572; fax: +47 73591890. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E.M. Skaalvik), [email protected] (S. Skaalvik). 0883-0355 ß 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.09.004

200

E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 199–209

1.1. Goal orientation Research on goal theory has primarily been concerned with individual students’ goals or goal orientation. Students’ goal orientation may be perceived as purposes that students pursue as they engage in achievement tasks (Ames, 1992; Conley, 2012). Historically, researchers discriminated between mastery, learning, or task goals and performance or ego goals (Nicholls, 1983, 1989; Pintrich, 2000). Mastery goals means that learning, understanding, and solving problems are ends in themselves whereas performance goals means that the purpose of achievement behavior is to demonstrate high ability and to be positively perceived by others (Ames & Archer, 1988a, 1988b; Duda & Nicholls, 1992). During the last two decades researchers have discriminated between two dimensions of performance goals, performance-approach and performanceavoidance goals (Skaalvik, Vala˚s, & Sletta, 1994; Skaalvik, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Elliot & Church, 1997). Central to performance-approach goals is the desire to demonstrate superior abilities whereas performance-avoidance goals refer to the desire to avoid demonstrating inferior abilities. Research on students has consistently shown that mastery goals are associated with more adaptive motivational, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes (Anderman & Wolters, 2006; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, & Elloit, 2002; Meece & Miller, 2001; Wolters, 2004) whereas performance-avoidance goals are associated with less adaptive outcomes (Skaalvik, 1997; Kaplan & Meahr, 2007; Meece, Anderman, & Anderman, 2006). Research on performance-approach goals shows more inconsistent results; however, recent research shows that it is associated with a number of positive outcomes, for instance effort and persistence (Skaalvik, 1997; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Law, Elliot, & Murayama, 2012). Although most research on goal orientation has been concerned with students’ goals some researchers have used goal orientation in studies of work motivation. For instance, a mastery goal orientation has been found to predict effort (Sujan, Weitz, & Kumar, 1994) and performance (Vande Walle, Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999) among salespersons. Research on teachers’ goal orientation is scarce. However, Retelsdorf et al. (2010) found a positive correlation between teachers’ mastery goal orientation and interest in teaching whereas performance goal orientation was not systematically related to interest in teaching. Also, Papaioannou and Christodoulidis (2007) found that teachers’ job satisfaction was positively related to mastery goals, unrelated to performance-approach goals and negatively related to performance-avoidance goals. Butler and Shibaz (2008) also shoved that teachers’ achievement goals was related to students’ perceptions of the teachers and to their classroom behavior. Teacher mastery goals were associated with higher levels of perceived teacher support whereas performance avoidance goals were associated with lower levels of teacher support. Moreover, Butler and Shibaz also found a weak tendency that teacher performance avoidance orientation was predictive of student cheating behavior. 1.2. Goal structure Goal theory has been concerned not only with personal goals or goal orientation, but also with classroom or school goal structure. Researchers early argued that these achievement goals may be affected by the classroom or school goal structure (Ames, 1992; Ames & Ames, 1984). A mastery goal structure has been described as an environment in which the instructional practices and norms convey to students that learning and understanding is important, that effort and improvement are valued and that all students are valued (Wolters, 2004). In contrast, a performance goal structure has been described as an environment that communicates to students that achievement is more important than effort and that doing better than others is more valued than individual improvement. It is important to note that students in the same class may experience the educational context differently and therefore have different perceptions of the classroom goal structure (Ames, 1992; Patrick, Kaplan, & Ryan, 2011). Research evidence supports the expectation that students’ personal goal orientations correspond with their perceptions of the classroom goal structure (Luo, Hogan, & Paris, 2011; Urdan, 2004). Research also shows that classroom goal structure is not only related to students’ goal orientation, but to different cognitive and motivational responses. For instance, in a study of high school students Wolters (2004) found that a mastery structure was positively related to effort and persistence as well as adaptive learning strategies whereas it was negatively related to procrastination. In contrast, a performance goal structure was not significantly related to effort, negatively related to persistence and positively related to procrastination. A mastery goal structure has also been found to positively predict students’ acceptance of challenging tasks (Ames & Archer, 1988a, 1988b), students’ feeling of belonging (Walker, 2012), and students’ perception of emotional and academic support from teachers (Patrick et al., 2011; Polychroni, Hatzichristou, & Sideridis, 2012). Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2011a) argued that teachers also receive signals about which values are important in school. Whereas they conceptualized classroom goal structure as structures and practices that influence students’ perception of goals and values in the classroom the school level goal structure was conceptualized as structures and practices that influence teachers’ perception of the goals and values of the school. These structures and practices include goals, norms, and values that are emphasized both within each school and by the national school curriculum, the use of national and international achievement tests, and the public educational discourse. Similar to students we suggest that teachers at the same school do not necessarily perceive the school goal structure the same way. In a study of 231 Norwegian teachers, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2011a) found that teachers’ perception of the school goal structure was predictive of value consonance which they defined as the degree to which teachers feel that they share the prevailing norms and values at the school where they are teaching. Teachers’ perception of a mastery goal structure was

E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 199–209

201

predictive of higher value consonance. Moreover, a mastery goal structure was, through value consonance, predictive of teachers’ job satisfaction and feeling of belonging at the school where they were teaching whereas perception of a performance goal structure was negatively related to teachers’ feeling of belonging. Both this result and studies of reasons for seeking teacher education (e.g., Richardson & Watt, 2006) suggest that teachers motivation and values are in accordance with a mastery goal structure for a majority of teachers. We therefore expected mastery goal structure to positively predict engagement and job satisfaction. 1.3. Work engagement and job satisfaction Research in organizational psychology shows an increasing interest in work engagement (Sonnentag, 2011). This may partly be explained by a growing interest in the positive aspects of work and organizational life (Nelson & Cooper, 2007) and partly by an increasing understanding that companies need employees who are psychologically connected to their work (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011). Work engagement is a motivational concept (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011) and refers to how employees experience their work. It is often defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Bakker et al., 2011; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010; Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonza´lez-Roma´, & Bakker, 2002). Bakker et al. (2011) particularly emphasize the experience of energy (vigor) and the perception of the work as a significant and meaningful pursuit (dedication/involvement) whereas they claim that more research is needed to test if absorption should be considered a core dimension of work engagement.Empirical research on both teachers and other occupations reveals that work engagement is associated with positive outcomes like positive attitudes, lower intentions of leaving the profession, effort, and job performance (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009; Bakker & Bal, 2010; Demerouti & Cropanzano, 2010). In their discussion of drivers of engagement Bakker et al. (2011) emphasize both personal resources and job resources (see also Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006). As examples of job resources they mention autonomy and social support from colleagues. More generally, job resources include aspects of the job that stimulate personal growth (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) and help employees construe meaningfulness in their work (Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway, & McKee, 2007). Meaningfulness of work has been conceptualized as resulting from task characteristic, for instance task significance (Steele & Fullagar, 2009). We therefore expect a mastery goal structure to positively predict work engagement among teachers because previous research has shown a mastery goal structure to be positively related to teachers’ values, feeling of belonging in school, and job satisfaction and negatively related to motivation to leave the teaching profession (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011a). In contrast, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2011a) found that a performance goal structure was negatively related to teachers’ feeling of belonging. The definition of work engagement emphasizing vigor, dedication, and absorption shows that it primarily refers to how employees feel about their work while they are conducting it. This is particularly evident for the absorption dimension of engagement. Although work engagement and job satisfaction are overlapping motivational constructs (e.g., Steele & Fullagar, 2009), a difference in our conceptualization is that job satisfaction refers to how employees feel about their job in general, whereas work engagement refers more particularly to how they feel when they are conducting the work. Despite this difference we conceptualize work engagement and job satisfaction as overlapping dimensions of work-related motivation. In the research literature, job satisfaction is regarded as the positive or negative evaluative judgments people make about their jobs (Weiss, 2002). For instance, Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job. In accordance with these definitions, we conceptualize teacher job satisfaction as teachers’ overall affective reactions to their work or to their teaching role (see Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010; Zembylas & Papanastasiou, 2004). There is little agreement about how to measure job satisfaction (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). The construct has been studied as both: (a) a facet-specific job satisfaction measuring the extent to which teachers are satisfied with specific aspects of their job, and (b) an overall sense of satisfaction with the job (Moe, Pazzaglia, & Ronconi, 2010; Sargent & Hannum, 2005). Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2010) point out that a problem with the facet-specific approach is that different circumstances may be important to different teachers. As a result, such measures overlook the fact that the impact of different circumstances on overall job satisfaction is dependent on how important each of the circumstances is to the individual teacher. In this study, we therefore measured teachers’ overall sense of job satisfaction and analyzed the degree to which school goal structure and personal goal orientation predicted overall job satisfaction. Similar to engagement job satisfaction is influenced by the teachers’ working condition or their job resources. For instance, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2009, 2011b) found that autonomy, social support, and feeling of belonging predicted teacher job satisfaction and that work overload and emotional exhaustion predicted lower levels of job satisfaction. 1.4. Purposes The study by Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2011a) shows that teachers’ perception of the school goal structure may offer a promising framework for studying teachers’ motivation for teaching as well as for teacher well being. However, the perception of school goal structure may influence individual goal orientation for teachers as well as for students. Separate studies of how teachers’ motivation or well-being are related (a) to their goal orientations and (b) to their perceptions of the school goal structure fail to take into account the association between teachers’ perception of the goal structure and their personal goal orientation. The purposes of this study were therefore to investigate (a) relations between teachers’ perception of the school goal structure and their work-related motivation (work engagement and job satisfaction) and (b) if the relation

202

E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 199–209

Mastery orientation

+ -

Mastry goal structure

+ +

-

Performanceavoidance orientation

+ Performance goal structure

Engagement Job satisfaction

-

? +

Performanceapproach orientation

Fig. 1. Theoretical model of relations between the study variables.

between perception of the goal structure and teachers’ work-related motivation was, at least partly mediated through teachers’ personal goal orientation. In order to test direct and indirect relations between perceived goal structure and workrelated motivation we specified a theoretical model in which teachers’ perceptions of mastery and performance goal structures are related to work-related motivation (work engagement and job satisfaction) both directly and indirectly through personal goal orientation (Fig. 1). 2. Method 2.1. Participants and procedure A total of 2569 teachers from 127 Norwegian elementary and middle schools (1st to 10th grades) participated in this study. Norway was divided into five geographical regions. From each region about 25 schools were drawn from one city, two towns and two rural areas. The first contact with each school was made with the school principal, and the only question put to the principal was whether he or she would agree to let data be collected at the school. Only two schools had to be replaced by other schools from the same region because of the principals not agreeing to the data collection. The next step was to contact the teachers’ representative at each school. The teachers’ representative informed the teachers about the data collection, that the purpose of the study was to explore working conditions for the teachers, and that the participation was anonymous and voluntary for the individual teachers. At that point, the decision to participate was made by the teaching staff at each school. The teachers’ representative also arranged for a specific period of time (60 min) to be set aside for teachers to simultaneously respond to the questionnaire. The data collection was administered by two trained research assistants visiting the schools and bringing the questionnaires back. The sample consisted of 72 percent females, and the age of the teachers varied from 23 to 69. The mean age was 45, and the average number of years in the teaching profession was 16. The schools varied with respect to size from schools with five teachers to schools with 82 teachers, with the average being 38. The average number of students in the schools was 370. Sixty-three percent of the teachers taught at the elementary level (grades 1–7); whereas 37 percent taught at the middle school level (grades 8–10). 2.2. Instruments 2.2.1. Teachers’ perception of the school goal structure The teachers’ perception of the goal structure at school (school goal structure) was measured by means of a twodimensional goal structure scale (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011a). Whereas Midgley, Maehr, and Hruda (2000) measure classroom goal structure by asking teachers about teaching practices, our scale measured the teachers’ perception of which goals and values were emphasized at the school where they were working. The items focused on signals about the goal structure that were received by the teachers. A mastery goal structure was indicated by an emphasis on individual student’s improvement and a safe and inspiring learning environment whereas a performance goal structure was indicated by an emphasis on grades, test scores and competition. Mastery goal structure was measured by means of a 3item scale. Translated from Norwegian the items measuring mastery goal structure were: ‘‘Developing a safe and inspiring learning environment is heavily emphasized at this school’’, ‘‘The primary emphasis at this school is on student improvement and that the students should be allowed to develop their abilities’’, and ‘‘Teachers at this school are more concerned with individual student improvement than with comparing students’’. Performance goal structure was also measured by a 3-item scale: ‘‘Students’ scores on achievement tests are heavily emphasized at this school’’, ‘‘The leadership at this school are concerned that our students should do better on achievement tests than students at other schools’’, and ‘‘The evaluation of teachers at this school is based on students achievement scores’’. Responses were

E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 199–209

203

given on a 6-point scale from ‘‘Completely disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘Completely agree’’ (6). Cronbach’s alphas for the mastery and performance goal structures were .71 and .72, respectively. 2.2.2. Teachers’ goal orientation Mastery orientation, performance-approach orientation, and performance-avoidance orientation were measured with three items each. Mastery orientation was indicated by an emphasis on student improvement and effort. Examples of items are ‘‘In my teaching I am concerned with individual student improvement’’ and ‘‘I feel successful when I get the students to do their best’’. Performance-approach orientation was indicated by a concern that one’s own students should achieve better than other students. Examples of items are ‘‘It is important to me that my students do better than other students’’ and ‘‘I try to show other teachers how good results my students achieve’’. Performance-avoidance orientation was indicated by a concern not to be perceived as a poor teacher. Examples of items are ‘‘I often worry about how I am perceived by the school leadership’’ and ‘‘I am concerned not to be one of the poorest teachers at school.’’ Cronbachs’ alphas for mastery orientation, performance-approach orientation, and performance-avoidance orientation were .65, .75, and .74, respectively. 2.2.3. Engagement Engagement for teaching was measured by the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). The scale includes items measuring three correlated dimensions of work engagement: vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and mental strength whereas dedication refers to experiencing enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. Absorption refers to being concentrated and involved in one’s own work. We used the short 9-item version of the scale (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010). In our study the scale displayed a Cronbachs’ alpha of .90. 2.2.4. Job satisfaction The teachers’ overall job satisfaction was measured by means of a four-item scale. The items were: ‘‘I enjoy working as a teacher,’’ ‘‘I look forward to going to school every day,’’ ‘‘Working as a teacher is extremely rewarding,’’ and ‘‘When I get up in the morning, I look forward to going to work.’’ Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .91. 2.3. Data analysis Data were analyzed by means of structural equation modeling (SEM analysis). SEM is a statistical methodology that takes a confirmatory approach to the analysis (Byrne, 2001). In this approach, a hypothesized model of relations between the variables is statistically tested to determine the extent to which it is consistent with the data, which is referred to as the goodness of fit. If the goodness of fit is adequate, it supports the plausibility of the relations between the variables. In order to assess the model fit, we used well-established indices such as CFI, IFI, TLI, and RMSEA, as well as the chi-square test statistics. For the CFI, IFI, and TLI indices, values greater than .90 are typically considered acceptable and values greater than .95 indicate a good fit to the data (Bollen, 1989; Byrne, 2001; Hu & Bentler, 1999). For well-specified models, a RMSEA of .06 or less reflects a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). We first tested two measurement models by means of confirmatory factor analysis using the AMOS 20 program. The purpose of the measurement models was to test that mastery and performance goal structures as well as the three dimensions of goal orientation were separate constructs as well as the correlation between the factors. The first measurement model specified mastery and performance goal structures as two separate constructs whereas the second measurement model specified both the two dimensions of goal structure and three dimensions of goal orientation (mastery, performance-approach and performance-avoidance orientations) as five separate constructs. The next step in the analysis was to test two theoretical models of relations between the study variables. We first tested a simple model in which we let teachers’ perception of mastery and performance school goal structures predict teachers’ work-related motivation. Work-related motivation was defined as a latent variable indicated by engagement and job satisfaction. We then tested an extended model corresponding to the theoretical model shown in Fig. 1. In this model we included personal goal orientations as possible mediating variables. 3. Results 3.1. Zero order correlations Table 1 shows the zero order correlations between the observed variables as well as statistical means and standard deviations. Perception of mastery and performance goal structures were negatively, but close to zero correlated. Perception of mastery goal structure was positively related to mastery orientation, negatively but weakly related to performanceavoidance orientation, and not significantly related to performance-approach orientation. In comparison, perception of performance goal structure was not significantly related to mastery orientation but positively related to both performanceapproach and performance-avoidance orientation. Mastery orientation correlated negatively but close to zero with both performance-approach and performance-avoidance orientation whereas the two dimensions of performance orientation were positively and moderately correlated. Engagement and job satisfaction was positively and strongly related (r. = .72).

E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 199–209

204

Table 1 Zero order correlations between the observed variables. Study variables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

1

Mastery goal structure Performance goal structure Mastery orientation Performance-approach orientation Performance-avoidance orientation Engagement Job satisfaction

Number of items Response Scale Maximum possible score M SD

2 –

3 1–6 18 12.85 2.41

3

4

5

6

7

.08 –

.22 .01 –

.01 .34 .06 –

.08 .26 .05 .40 –

.30 .06 .20 .04 .18 –

.31 .09 .19 .00 .20 .72 –

3 1–6 18 9.24 3.05

3 1–6 18 14.72 2.21

3 1–6 18 7.71 3.01

3 1–6 18 7.17 3.41

9 1–7 63 47.91 9.90

4 1–6 24 18.58 3.93

Note. Correlations above .04 are significant (p < .01).

Both these constructs were positively related to perception of mastery goal structure and to mastery orientation and negatively related to perception of performance goal structure and performance-avoidance orientation. 3.2. Testing measurement models The simple measurement model defining mastery and performance goal structures as separate, but correlated constructs had good fit to the data (x2 (8, N = 2569) = 53.834, CFI = .985, IFI = .985, TLI = .961 and RMSEA = .047). The correlation between the two latent constructs was negative, but weak (r .13). The second measurement model defining the two dimensions of goal structure and the three dimensions of goal orientation as five separate constructs also had acceptable fit to the data (x2 (80, N = 2569) = 691.647, CFI = .934, IFI = .935, TLI = .901 and RMSEA = .055). None of the correlations between the latent constructs were higher than .44. All standardized factor loadings were moderate to high, ranging from .53 to .90 (Table 2). The results support the conceptualization of teachers’ perception of the school goal structure and teachers goal orientations as separate and moderately to weakly correlated constructs. 3.3. SEM analysis predicting work-related motivation We then tested two SEM models predicting teachers’ work-related motivation. We first tested a simple SEM model letting perception of mastery and performance goal structures predict work-related motivation (Fig. 2). Work-related motivation was indicated by engagement and job satisfaction. We used three indicators of engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption) and the four items measuring job satisfaction as indicators of this construct. Mastery and performance goal structures were indicated by three items each. None of the error terms were allowed to correlate. The model had acceptable fit to the data (x2 (62, N = 2569) = 779.110, CFI = .949, IFI = .949, TLI = .925 and RMSEA = .067). In this model mastery goal structure was positively related to work-related motivation (b = .41) whereas performance goal structure was not significantly related to work-related motivation (b = .04).

Table 2 Confirmatory factor analysis of measures of school goal structure and goal orientation. Items

Factors 1

Mastery goal structure 1 Mastery goal structure 2 Mastery goal structure 3 Performance structure 1 Performance structure 2 Performance structure 3 Mastery orientation 1 Mastery orientation 2 Mastery orientation 3 Performance approach 1 Performance approach 2 Performance approach 3 Performance avoid 1 Performance avoid 2 Performance avoid 3

2

3

4

5

.62 .71 .70 .61 .70 .74 .53 .70 .65 .70 .90 .53 .60 .81 .75

E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 199–209

Mstr1

Mstr3

Mstr2 .62

205

.71

.70 .88 R2

Mastery goal structure

= .18

.41

Engagement

Dedication

.84

.87

Absorption

Work-related motivation

-.13 -.04

.89

Performance goal structure .72

.61

.81 .91

. Job .78 satisfaction .91 .73

Pstr2

Pstr1

.90

Vigor

Job satisf 1 Job satisf 1 Job satisf 1 Job satisf 1

Pstr3

Fig. 2. Simple structural model of relations between teachers’ perceptions of the school goal structure and their work-related motivation. Standardized regression coefficients reported.

The next step was to test an extended model including teachers’ goal orientation. The result of the model testing is shown in Fig. 3. The figure reports standardized regression coefficients and displays only significant coefficients. The model had acceptable fit to the data (x2 (198, N = 2569) = 2109,775, CFI = .924, IFI = .924, TLI = .903 and RMSEA = .061). Mastery goal structure was positively related to both work-related motivation (b = .34) and mastery orientation (b = .30) and negatively related to performance avoidance orientation (b = .08). Moreover, mastery orientation was also positively related to workrelated motivation (b = .16). Thus, mastery goal structure was both directly and indirectly associated with work-related

Mor1 Mor2 Mor3 .53

Mstr1

Mstr2 .63

.70

R2 = .09

.65

Mstr3

.70

.70

.30

R2 = .28

Mastery orientation

Mastry goal structure

.89 .34 R2 = .16

-.08

-.12

Performance goal structure .62

Pstr1

.69

Pstr2

.73

.88

.16

.39

-.29

.46

Work-related motivation

.87

Performanceavoid .56

Pav1

.82

Pav2

.76

Vigor Engagement .90 Dedication .84 Absorption .81 Job satisfaction

.91 .78 .91

.13

JS1 JS2 JS3 JS4

Pav3

Pstr23

Performanceapproach R2 = .21 .71

Pap1

.52

Pap2

.89

Pap3

Fig. 3. Structural model of relations between teachers’ perceptions of the school goal structure, their personal goal orientations, and their work-related motivation. Standardized regression coefficients reported. Non-significant regression coefficients are not included in the figure (performance avoid = performance avoidance orientation and performance approach = performance approach orientation).

206

E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 199–209

motivation. The indirect relations were small and mediated through both mastery orientation (standardized indirect effect = .048) and performance avoidance orientation (standardized indirect effect = .023). Thus, although the relation between teachers’ perception of mastery goal structure and work-related motivation partly was mediated through teachers’ goal orientation, the relation seems primarily to be independent of the teachers’ personal goal orientation. In contrast, we found no direct relation between performance goal structure and work-related motivation. Performance goal structure was positively related to both performance-avoidance orientation (b = .39) and performance-approach orientation (b = .46). Moreover, performance-avoidance orientation was negatively related to work-related motivation (b = .29) whereas performance-approach orientation was positively but weakly related to work-related motivation (b = .13). Thus, performance goal structure was indirectly and negatively related to work-related motivation through performance-avoidance orientation whereas it was indirectly and positively related to work-related motivation through performance-approach orientation. Although the negative association was the largest of these opposite relations they to some extent balanced each other out. This explains the non-significant relation between performance goal structure and work-related motivation shown in Fig. 2. 4. Discussion 4.1. Relations between mastery and performance goal structures and between mastery and performance goal orientation The analysis of the present study reviled that the teachers’ perceptions of mastery and performance school goal structures were negatively, but weakly and close to zero correlated. The zero order correlation was .08 whereas the correlation between the latent constructs was .13. Hence, mastery and performance goal structures as perceived by the teachers appear as constructs that are practically unrelated to each other. Similar results have been found for students’ perceptions of the classroom goal structure. For instance, Wolters (2004) found a zero order correlation of .02 between high school students’ perception of mastery and performance classroom structure. Other studies, using different measures of goal structure, show weak negative correlations (Patrick et al., 2011; Walker, 2012; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). We can only speculate about the reason for the weak correlation found between mastery and performance school goal structures. As noted in Section 1, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2011a) conceptualized the school level goal structure as structures and practices that influence teachers’ perception of the goals and values of the school. These structures and practices include goals, norms, and values that are emphasized both within each school (by the colleagues and the school leadership), and by the national school curriculum, the use of national and international achievement tests, and the public educational discourse, often emphasizing test results. Previous research indicates that teachers are predominantly mastery oriented (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011a). The signals received from colleagues and from the testing practices in school and the public discourse may therefore convey different values. Teachers may therefore receive signals conveying both a mastery and a performance goal structure in school. However, this is merely a speculation and more research is needed to explore the effect of these contradicting signals. In accordance with previous findings by Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2011a) the present study indicates that teachers perceive the school goal structure as predominantly mastery oriented and also that their personal goal orientation is predominantly mastery oriented. As pointed out by Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2011a) the teachers’ responses to the items measuring mastery goal structure cannot be directly compared with their responses to the items measuring performance goal structure because the responses may vary according to how the items are formulated. This is also true for measures of goal orientation. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note, as can be calculated from Table 1, that on a 6-point response scale from completely disagree (1) to completely agree (6), the average response to items measuring mastery goal structure was 4.28 whereas the average response to the items measuring performance goal structure was 3.08. Also, the average response to items measuring mastery goal orientation was 4.91 whereas the average responses to the items measuring performance-avoidance and performance-approach orientation were 2.39 and 2.52, respectively. Although the measures of goal orientation differs the result concerning personal goal orientation is in accordance with previous research by Papaioannou and Christodoulidis (2007) and Retelsdorf et al. (2010) indicating a stronger mastery than performance orientation among teachers. A reasonable interpretation of these studies is that a mastery goal structure is most congruent with the teachers’ personal goals and values. Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2011a) draw the same conclusion based on a strong association between teachers’ perception of a mastery goal structure of the school and the teachers’ feeling of value consonance, the degree to which teachers feel that the prevailing goals, values, and procedures of the school are consonant with their personal goals and values. 4.2. Correspondence between perceived goal structure and personal goal orientation Previous findings show that students’ personal goal orientations correspond with their perceptions of the classroom goal structure (Luo et al., 2011; Urdan, 2004). The SEM analysis displayed in Fig. 3 indicates a similar tendency for teachers. Perception of a mastery goal structure was predictive of mastery orientation whereas perception of a performance goal structure was predictive of both performance-avoidance and performance-approach orientation. Although this is consistent with theory predicting that goal orientation is influenced by the school goal structure (Meece et al., 2006) one should be careful not to interpret the present study in causal terms. It is also possible that the teachers’ goal orientation influences their perception of the school goal structure or that perception of the school goal structure and individual teachers’ goal

E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 199–209

207

orientation influences each other in a reciprocal manner. For instance, Roeser, Midgrey, and Urdan (1996) found that students’ personal goals in sixth grade predicted their perceived classroom goal structure in eighth grade. It is particularly interesting that perception of a performance goal structure is about equally strongly related to performance-avoidance orientation as to performance-approach orientation. Based on research showing that performanceapproach orientation is associated with several positive outcomes like effort and persistence school administrators and school leaders might come to believe that structures and procedures consistent with a performance goal structure have positive outcomes. However, the present study indicates that a performance goal structure might lead to a performanceavoidance orientation for some teachers. Such an orientation is in this study negatively related to teachers’ work-related motivation. Also, an unresolved question is whether a performance approach orientation may switch into a performance avoidance orientation after failure experiences. Such goal switching was suggested by Nicholls (1984). However, research offers stronger support for goal stability than for goal revision (Senko, Hulleman, & Harackiewicz, 2011). 4.3. Associations with work-related motivation Teachers’ perception of the school goal structure as mastery oriented was positively related to their work-related motivation, which was indicated by engagement and job satisfaction. For instance, the AMOS output for analyzing the model shown in Fig. 3 shows a standardized total effect of .41 of mastery goal structure on work-related motivation. This is explained by a direct effect of .34 and a total indirect effect of .07. This shows that only a small part of the relation between a mastery goal structure and teachers’ work-related motivation is mediated through individual teacher goal orientation. A mastery goal structure seems to be important for teachers’ work-related motivation in its own right. As pointed out above, a possible explanation for this is that a mastery goal structure is most congruent with the teachers’ personal goals and values. Fig. 2 reveals that in contrast to mastery goal structure teachers’ perception of a performance goal structure at school is practically unrelated to teachers’ work-related motivation. Our analysis indicates that the reason for this is that a performance goal structure predicts both performance-approach and performance-avoidance personal goal orientation among teachers which have opposite predictions of work-related motivation (see Fig. 3). Whereas performance-approach orientation is weakly but positively associated with work-related motivation our results show that performance-avoidance orientation is more strongly but negatively associated with this construct. These processes may balance each other out resulting in a non-significant relation between performance goal structure and work-related motivation as shown in Fig. 2. However, this means that a performance goal structure in school for many teachers may lead to a decrease in their workrelated motivation (engagement and job satisfaction). For other teachers it may lead to an increase in engagement and job satisfaction. 4.4. Implications The results of this study have several implications. Research on goal theory has primarily been concerned with students’ goal orientation. The results of the present analysis underscores the importance of focusing more strongly on goal structure in teacher research and on including both goal orientation and goal structure in the same studies. Our analysis shows that studies of goal structure should not be limited to students’ perception of the classroom goal structure, but that teachers’ perception of the school goal structure also needs to be studied. We suggest several important questions for future research. There is a need for studies of relations between teachers’ educational values, goal orientation, and perception of the school goal structure. These constructs have in most studies been analyzed separate from each other. We also welcome studies of sources of teachers’ perception of the school goal structure. The school goal structure represents goal-related messages that the teachers perceive at school. In Norway these messages are partly sent through the national school policy which includes the national curriculum and the use of national and international achievement tests. However, teachers also receive messages through norms and values that are emphasized within each school, both by the school administration and by the teaching staff. Thus, the teachers are not only passively exposed to the goal structure at a particular school, to varying degrees they also contribute to the goal structure. The goal structure of the school may therefore be conceptualized as the complex result of the general national and local school policy, the goals and values emphasized by the school administration, and the goals and values maintained by teachers at each school. These sources may transmit quite different and possibly conflicting messages. A third line of research should be to further investigate relations between teachers’ perception of the school goal structure and various measures of teacher motivation, well-being, and instructional practices. We should also note that teacher goal orientation is measured differently by different researchers, making comparison of results from different studies difficult. 4.5. Limitations This study has several limitations. Each dimension of school goal structure as well as goal orientation was in this study measured by 3-item scales. Our results should be verified using scales containing more items and with stronger internal consistency. This is particularly important when studying smaller samples. Furthermore, because the present study used a cross-sectional design we warn against causal interpretations of the model testing. As noted above, a possible interpretation of the relation between perceived goal structure and teachers goal orientation is that these constructs influences each other

208

E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 199–209

in a reciprocal manner. It is even possible that teachers’ work-related motivation (engagement and job satisfaction) is both a course and an effect of perceived goal structure and goal orientation. We therefore call for longitudinal studies of teachers’ perception of the school goal structure, their goal orientation and different measures of motivation. Moreover, in this study we examined two dimensions of performance goals (approach and avoidance) but only one dimension of mastery goals (mastery approach goals). Future research on teachers’ goal orientation should also analyze the concept of mastery avoidance orientation, both theoretically and empirically. Researchers should analyze what a mastery avoidance orientation related to teaching mean, how is differs from performance avoidance orientation, and how is it related to other constructs. Acknowledgement This research was supported by a grant from the Research Council of Norway. References Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student-motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271. Ames, C., & Ames, R. E. (1984). Systems of student and teacher motivation: Toward a qualitative definition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 535–556. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988a). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students learning strategies and motivational responses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–270. Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007). Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 193–203. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988b). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivational responses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–270. Anderman, E. M., & Wolters, C. A. (2006). Goals, values, and affects: Influences on student motivation. In P Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 369–389). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Skaalvik, E. M., Vala˚s, H., & Sletta, O. (1994). Task involvement and ego involvement: Relations with academic achievement, academic self-concept and selfesteem. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 38, 231–243. Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego-orientation: Relations with task and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 71–81. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Does school context matter? Relations with teacher burnout and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 518–524. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1059–1069. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2011a). Teachers’ feeling of belonging, exhaustion, and job satisfaction: The role of school goal structure and value consonance. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 24, 369–385. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2011b). Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1029–1038. Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 4–28. Bakker, A. B., & Bal, P. M. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 189–206. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328. Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural models. Sociological Methods and Research, 17, 303–316. Butler, R. (2007). Teachers’ achievement goal orientations and associations with teachers’ help-seeking: Examination of a novel approach to teacher motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 241–252. Butler, R., & Shibaz, L. (2008). Achievement goals for teaching as predictors of students’ perceptions of instructional practices and students’ help seeking and cheating. Learning and Instruction, 18, 453–467. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS. Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89–136. Conley, A. M. (2012). Patterns of motivation beliefs: Combining achievement goal and expectancy-value perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 32–47. Demerouti, E., & Cropanzano, R. (2010). From thought to action: Employee work engagement and performance. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 147–163). New York: Psychology Press. Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290–299. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218–232. Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461–475. Elliot, A., McGregor, H., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A meditational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549–563. Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495–513. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316–330. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., & Elloit, A. J. (2002). Predicting success in college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 562–575. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. Kaplan, A., & Meahr, M. L. (2007). The contribution and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 141–184. Law, W., Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2012). Perceived competence moderates the relation between performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 806–819. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. Dunette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago: Rand-McNally. Luo, W., Hogan, D., & Paris, S. G. (2011). Predicting Singapore students’ achievement goals in their English study: Self-construal and classroom goal structure. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 526–535. Moe, A., Pazzaglia, L., & Ronconi, L. (2010). When being able is not enough. The combined value of positive affect and self-efficacy for job satisfaction in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1145–1153. Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487–503.

E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 199–209

209

Meece, J. L., & Miller, S. D. (2001). A longitudinal analysis of elementary school students’ achievement goals in literacy activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 454–480. Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., et al. (2000). PALS. Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales. Michigan: The University of Michigan. Nelson, D., & Cooper, C. (2007). Positive organizational behavior. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nicholls, J. G. (1983). Conceptions of ability and achievement-motivation: A theory and its implications for education. In S. G. Paris, G. A. Olson, & H. W. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 211–237). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conception of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346. Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic-education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Papaioannou, A., & Christodoulidis, T. (2007). A measure of teachers’ achievement goals. Educational Psychology, 27, 349–361. Patrick, H., Kaplan, A., & Ryan, A. M. (2011). Positive classroom motivational environments: Convergence between mastery goal structure and classroom social climate. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 367–382. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintirich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451– 502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Polychroni, F., Hatzichristou, C., & Sideridis, G. (2012). The role of goal orientations and goal structures in explaining classroom social and affective characteristics. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 207–217. Retelsdorf, J., Butler, R., Streblow, L., & Schiefele, U. (2010). Teachers’ goal orientations for teaching: Associations with instructional practices, interest in teaching, and burnout. Learning and Instruction, 20, 30–46. Richardson, P. W., & Watt, H. M. G. (2006). Who chooses teaching and why? Profiling characteristics and motivations across three Australian universities. AsiaPacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(27), 65. Roeser, R. W., Midgrey, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perception of the school psychological environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408–422. Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 761–774. Sargent, T., & Hannum, E. (2005). Keeping teachers happy: Job satisfaction among primary school teachers in rural northwest China. Comparative Education Review, 49, 173–204. Schaufeli, W. H., & Bakker, A. (2004). UWES Utrecht Work Engagement Scale Preliminary manual. New York: Wiley. Schaufeli, W. H., & Bakker, A. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement. A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 10–24). New York: Psychology Press. Schaufeli, W. H., Salanova, M., Gonza´lez-Roma´, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. Senko, C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2011). Achievement goal theory at the crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational Psychologist, 46, 26–47. Sonnentag, S. (2011). Research on work engagement is well and alive. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 29–38. Steele, J. P., & Fullagar, C. J. (2009). Facilitators and outcomes of student engagement in a college setting. Journal of Psychology, 143, 5–27. Sujan, H., Weitz, B., & Kumar, N. (1994). Learning orientation, working smart, and effective selling. Journal of Marketing, 58, 39–52. Urdan, T. (2004). Predictors of academic self-handicapping and achievement: Examining achievement goals, classroom goal structure, and culture,. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 251–264. Vande Walle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. (1999). The influence of goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 249–259. Walker, C. O. (2012). Student perceptions of classroom achievement goals as predictors of belonging and content instrumentality. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 97–107. Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2007). Motivational factors influencing teaching as a career choice: Development and validation of the FIT-Choice Scale. Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 167–202. Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173–194. Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 236–250. Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teachers’ sense of efficacy: Their relation and association to teaching experience and academic level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 181–193. Zembylas, M., & Papanastasiou, E. (2004). Job satisfaction among school teachers in Cyprus. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 357–374.