Links Between Teacher-Reported Sense of Responsibility and Student-Reported Instructional Approaches

• In Event: 46.062 - Why Teacher Motivation Matters: Implications for Instructional Practice, Professional Engagement, and Well-Being

Abstract

The present study contributes to a growing body of research on teacher motivation by focusing on the relations between teachers’ sense of professional responsibility and student-reported instructional approaches. Responsibility has motivational implications since individuals engage in various behaviors out of a sense of obligation and duty (Authors, 2011). Indeed, meta-analyses confirm that professional responsibility is systematically linked to intrinsic motivation and job performance across various occupations (Humphrey, Morgeson, & Mannor, 2009). The available evidence with teachers, however, is limited in three important ways: there are few empirical studies, researchers have rarely distinguished between responsibilities for different educational outcomes, and there is little evidence linking teachers’ motivational beliefs to actual practices.

In a sample of Israeli teachers (n = 62) and their students (n = 1519), the present study examined associations between teachers’ beliefs about responsibility and teaching ability, reported at the beginning of the school year, and student-perceived instructional approaches, reported at the end of the school year. Measures and sample items are presented in Table 1. Controlling for beliefs about ability (teacher self-efficacy, Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), we expected that teachers who are willing to assume responsibility for four types of outcomes—student motivation, achievement, relationships with students, and the quality of their teaching—would be perceived by their students as more enthusiastic about teaching, more mastery-oriented, and paying attention to all students. These expectations follow directly from prior evidence with teacher-reported instructional approaches (Authors, 2013; 2014).

A multilevel path analysis (Figure 1) indicated the following associations (χ2=1.33, df=4, CFI=1.000, TLI=1.012, RMSEA<.01, SRMRbetween=.018, SRMRwithin<.01): Teacher self-efficacy was a positive predictor of all four responsibility factors, suggesting that teachers who believed they had high teaching ability were more likely to assume responsibility both for their students, and the quality of their teaching. Self-efficacy alone was unrelated to the student-reported instructional approaches. As expected, responsibility for student achievement, relationships, and teaching negatively predicted differential treatment, indicating that responsible teachers tend to pay attention to all of their students. Responsibility for student motivation was not correlated with differential treatment but emerged as a positive predictor in the path analysis, after controlling for the remaining responsibility factors.

Student-perceived teacher enthusiasm and mastery-oriented instruction were predicted only by responsibility for having positive relationships with students. Although prior evidence linked all four responsibility factors to teacher-reported enthusiasm (Authors, 2013), the present study suggests that responsibility for relationships may be most important for students’ perceptions. Analogous to prior research on teachers’ social goals (Author, 2012) and professional roles (Roeser, Marachi, & Gehlbach, 2002), mastery-oriented practices were linked to responsibility for relational outcomes. Converging evidence thus indicates that mastery-oriented instruction seems grounded in social motivation.

Overall, the present study indicates that teacher responsibility has positive implications for the instructional process not only from the perspective of teachers (as reported in prior research), but also from the perspective of students. Thus, the study helps to clarify the motivational underpinnings—in terms of professional responsibility, and beyond ability beliefs—of desirable instructional approaches.

Authors

• Fani Lauermann, University of Bonn

• Stuart A. Karabenick, University of Michigan

• Ruth Butler, Hebrew University of Jerusalem