A Cross-National Person-Centered Investigation of Teachers' Demands, Resources, and Motivation

• In Event: Supportive Teachers, Supportive Schools? Antecedents and Consequences of Teacher Motivations

Abstract

Objectives. Although it is well-known that job demands, job resources, and personal resources are implicated in teachers’ motivation, little is known about how these factors simultaneously align for different types of teachers. We used latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify demand-resource profiles among teachers and explored whether the profiles are associated with differences in motivation (occupational commitment). We examined two job demands (barriers to professional development; student misbehavior), two job resources (teacher collaboration; input in decision-making), and one personal resource (perceived preparedness to teach). We also investigated school-level profiles by identifying the proportion of teacher profiles evident in different school types, and tested links to school-average teacher motivation. The study was conducted cross-nationally (Australia and England).

Framework. We employed job demands-resources (JD-R; Bakker & Demerouti, 2017) theory, which establishes that every job comprises job demands that impede employee motivation and well-being, as well as job resources that support employee outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Personal resources (i.e., personal capacities) are also beneficial for employee motivation and well-being (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017).

Methods. Participants were 6,670 teachers from 369 Australian schools and 2,496 teachers from 154 English schools that participated in the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2013. Measures were drawn from the Teacher or School Questionnaires (OECD, 2014). In phase one, we used single-level LPA to identify demand-resource profiles among teachers in Australia and England. Then, we compared the profiles across the two countries and determined whether the profiles were differently associated with occupational commitment. In phase two, we conducted multi-level LPA to ascertain whether schools can be identified based on the prevalence of different teacher profiles. We then tested whether school characteristics (e.g., school location) predicted the school-level profiles, and whether the school profiles, in turn, predicted school-average teacher motivation.

Results. Four teacher-level demand-resources profiles were identified and were very similar across the two countries.
• Flourisher (~50%): low demands and high (job and personal) resources;
• Persister (~10%): high demands, low job resources, high personal resources;
• Coper (~34%): average demands and job resources, low personal resources; and,
• Struggler (~6%): high demands, low (job and personal) resources.
Profile membership was associated with different motivation levels (highest for the Flourishers, lowest for Persisters/Strugglers). In both countries, we found evidence of two school profiles: a Supportive School profile (comprising mostly of the Flourisher profile), and an Unsupportive School profile (comprising less of the Flourisher). Several school characteristics were associated with the school profiles. The supportive school profile was associated with significantly higher levels of school-average teacher motivation.

Significance. The findings yield knowledge about the types of teachers and schools in relation to demands and resources, and hold implications for practice at the teacher- and school-level. For example, the Persister profile would likely benefit from efforts to reduce job demands and increase job resources; personal resources are already quite strong. At the school-level, efforts for the Unsupportive School profile may focus on boosting resources and reducing job demands, whereas efforts for the Supportive School profile may focus on sustaining or further boosting resources.

Authors

• Rebecca J. Collie, University of New South Wales

• Lars-Erik Malmberg, University of Oxford

• Andrew J. Martin, The University of New South Wales

• Pam M. Sammons, University of Oxford