Antecedents and Consequences of Teachers' Goal Profiles

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

Abstract

Objectives. The ‘multiple-goals-framework’ (Pintrich, 2000) has been productively applied to students’ achievement goal profiles. Its value has not been yet been explored for teachers. In a climate of concern regarding teachers’ effectiveness, persistence and wellbeing, we examine i) how teachers’ goal dimensions combine, ii) potential motivational and contextual antecedents, and iii) instructional/engagement/wellbeing outcomes.

Framework. Seminal achievement goal theorists distinguished task(/mastery) from ego(/ability/performance) goals (Nicholls, 1979)–subsequently divided into approach/avoidance. Further differentiations have been proposed (Elliot et al., 2011). Butler (2012) added another “relational”task-goal for teachers, to capture their interpersonal work. Students’ (and teachers’) task-goals are generally adaptive for student achievement and affect, and ability-avoidance goals negative. A meta-analysis (Wormington et al., 2017) concluded benefits for student profiles containing high task or ability-approach goals.

Theory would predict that teacher profiles dominated by task-goals would benefit both teachers (planned persistence, wellbeing) and students (positive instruction). Because being a successful teacher is not the same as being a successful student –ability-approach profiles may benefit teachers, but not students. Low teacher ego goals instead may benefit students, when teachers are less focused on themselves. Low-task/high-ego goals should be worst for both outcomes. Relational school contexts may foster positive goals for teachers, and negative leadership undermine.

Methods. 476 mid-career (M=9.28 years’ experience; 80.04% women) Australian primary (n=220) and secondary teachers (n=256) reported goal-orientations for teaching (Butler, 2014), dimensions of school leadership/relational context (Chan et al., 2008; Shibaz, 2016; Goddard, 2002; Hart, 2000), teaching style (Watt & Richardson, 2007a), implicit theory of intelligence (Dweck et al., 1995), professional engagement (Watt & Richardson, 2008) and burnout (Maslach et al., 1996), using online surveys. At recruitment (beginning teacher-education) they had reported demographics and teaching motivations (Watt & Richardson, 2007b). Latent profile analysis was conducted across relational/mastery/ability-approach/ability-avoidance goals. Chi-square tested associations with gender/school-level; MANOVAs tested profile differences on potential antecedents/outcomes (Bonferroni-p-values/Tukey-post-hocs).

Results. Four profiles were supported by AIC/BIC/aBIC/entropy/aLMR/VLMR:
- “Hi-Task/Hi-Ego”(n=203): high Relational/Mastery/Ability-approach, Ability-avoidance just above the mean;
- “Lo-Task/Hi-Ego”(n=104): low Relational/Mastery, high Ability-approach/avoidance;
- “Low-Ego”(n=88): low Ability-approach/avoidance, Relational/Mastery scores at/slightly above the mean;
- “Very-Low-Ego”(n=80): pronounced low Ability-approach/avoidance, Relational/Mastery slightly below/above the mean.

Primary teachers were overrepresented among Hi-Task/Hi-Ego (49.09%/37.40%); secondary among Very-Low-Ego (21.26%/11.82%); no gender differences. Lo-Task/Hi-Ego reported highest “Fallback” teaching motivations, lowest school relational factors, lowest positive/highest negative instruction, strongest entity intelligence beliefs, lowest professional engagement, highest burnout. Very-Low-Ego seemed most positive: lowest negative instruction, entity beliefs and burnout. Low-Ego and Hi-Task/Hi-Ego had lowest Fallback motivations; Hi-Task/Hi-Ego equally highest negative instruction.

Significance. Distinct goal profiles were evident. The Lo-Task/Hi-Ego profile proved most maladaptive. Although tempting to interpret lower-perceived school relational factors as a cause, it is important to remember their highest initial Fallback motivation, suggesting intertwined motivations with workplace contexts (cf. Fredrickson’s “broaden-and-build”, 2004). There were no effects of perceived school leadership; school relational contexts were what mattered for teachers’ goals. The Very-Low-Ego appeared most adaptive for teacher/student outcomes followed by Low-Ego, as anticipated. Not evident in our sample was a high-task/low-ego profile; if existent in future studies, its merit relative to low-ego profiles could be ascertained.

Authors

• Helen M.G. Watt, The University of Sydney

• Paul W. Richardson, Monash University