Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 20 November 2013, At: 02:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceds20
Can teachers motivate students tolearn?Erik E.J. Thoonen a , Peter J.C. Sleegers b , Thea T.D. Peetsma a &Frans J. Oort aa Department of Education , University of Amsterdam ,Amsterdam, The Netherlandsb Department of Educational Organisation and Management ,University of Twente , Enschede, The NetherlandsPublished online: 07 Sep 2010.
To cite this article: Erik E.J. Thoonen , Peter J.C. Sleegers , Thea T.D. Peetsma & Frans J. Oort(2011) Can teachers motivate students to learn?, Educational Studies, 37:3, 345-360
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2010.507008
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Educational StudiesVol. 37, No. 3, July 2011, 345–360
ISSN 0305-5698 print/ISSN 1465-3400 online© 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/03055698.2010.507008http://www.informaworld.com
Can teachers motivate students to learn?
Erik E.J. Thoonena*, Peter J.C. Sleegersb, Thea T.D. Peetsmaa and Frans J. Oorta
aDepartment of Education, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; bDepartment of Educational Organisation and Management, University of Twente, Enschede, The NetherlandsTaylor and FrancisCEDS_A_507008.sgm10.1080/03055698.2010.507008Educational Studies0305-5698 (print)/1465-3400 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis0000000002010Erik [email protected]
Research on motivation has mainly concentrated on the role of goal orientationand self-evaluation in conducting learning activities. In this paper, we examine therelative importance of teachers’ teaching and their efficacy beliefs to explainvariation in student motivation. Questionnaires were used to measure the well-being, academic self-efficacy, mastery goal orientation, performance avoidance,intrinsic motivation and school investment of students (n = 3462) and the teachingpractices and teachers’ sense of self-efficacy (n = 194) in primary schools. Resultsof the multi-level analyses show that connection to the students’ world andcooperative learning methods had a positive effect on students’ motivation, whileprocess-oriented instruction by the teacher had a negative effect on motivationalbehaviour and motivational factors of students. Finally, the results lend credenceto the argument that teachers’ sense of self-efficacy has an impact on bothteachers’ teaching and students’ motivation to learn.
Keywords: student motivation; teachers’ self-efficacy; teaching practices; primaryschool
Introduction
A decrease in motivation for school in secondary education is a well-known phenom-enon in many countries (Peetsma et al. 2005; Peetsma and van der Veen, submitted).Some evidence for a possible decrease in motivation in primary school has also beenfound: students’ motivation seems to decrease throughout the primary years and thenincrease again just before the transition to secondary education (Gottfried, Fleming,and Gottfried 2001; Stoel, Peetsma, and Roeleveld 2003).
A dominant explanation for a decrease in motivation for school is the lack of“person–environment” fit, that is, poor integration of students’ personal world into theschool environment (Eccles and Midgley 1989). A school environment that is not welltuned to the interests, needs and values of students will adversely affect their identifi-cation with school and, as a consequence, will lead to a decrease in their motivationand efforts in the long run. Though scholars have recognised the supportive role ofteachers as part of the school environment (Vedder, Boekaerts, and Seegers 2005;Urdan and Schoenfelder 2006), researchers in educational psychology have concen-trated mostly on the role of students’ goals and self-concepts. Systematic research intothe supportive influence of the classroom as a learning environment on students’ moti-vation and the role of teachers in primary education is scarce. This study aimed tomake a contribution to this line of research by examining the relative importance of
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
02:
55 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2013
346 E.E.J. Thoonen et al.
teachers’ instructional behaviour and efficacy beliefs to explain variation in studentmotivation. We started from the assumption that the way teachers create supportivelearning environments that fit the learning needs and interests of students in primaryschools would positively affect different aspects of the motivation of their students.We used psychological theories on motivation and current conceptions of learning andinstruction to identify several elements of a supportive learning environment thataffect students’ motivation to learn.
Students’ motivation to learn
In motivation research a distinction has been made between motivational behaviourand motivational factors. Motivational behaviour, including investment in school andacademic achievement, is positively influenced by motivational factors (Maehr andBraskamp 1986; Roede 1989). School investment, or just “investment”, refers to“concrete behavioural manifestations which reflect the underlying motivation andwhich can be predicted by using a ‘motivation’ concept” (Peetsma 2000, 177).Motivational factors typically comprise three components: affective, expectancy andvalue components (Pintrich and De Groot 1990; Peetsma et al. 2005).
The affective component concerns students’ feelings or emotional reactions to thetask or school in general. If students feel worried or anxious, they need extraprocessing capacity to suppress this concern before they can turn back to the taskthey are working on. Earlier studies have found positive correlations betweengeneral well-being at school and school investment, academic achievement andacademic self-efficacy (Boekaerts 1993; Peetsma et al. 2005).
The expectancy component includes students’ beliefs about their ability to performa task, often referred to as students’ academic self-efficacy. Previous research has shownthat academic self-efficacy is related to students’ level of effort: students who are self-efficacious not only work harder and persist longer but also use more cognitive andmeta-cognitive strategies (Pintrich and Garcia 1996; Bandura 1997; Zimmerman 2000).
The value component comprises students’ goals for doing a task or taking a course(task value), their beliefs about its importance and their interest in the task. A numberof distinctions have been made, including the distinction between orientation onmastery goals and performance-avoidance goals (e.g. Schunk 1996) and betweenintrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Pintrich and De Groot 1990).
Goal orientation affects how students experience learning tasks in achievementsettings and how they give meaning to learning opportunities. Students with a masterygoal orientation have learning goals focused on the development of competence ortask mastery (Elliot and Harackiewicz 1996). Mastery-oriented students perceive theschool setting as a challenge, and this facilitates concentration and orients the studenttowards success-relevant and mastery-relevant information. Mastery orientation ispositively related to perceptions of academic efficacy (e.g. Middleton and Midgley1997) and leads to an increase in self-regulated learning and higher achievement (e.g.Urdan and Midgley 2000).
Performance-avoidance orientation refers to the aim of avoiding unfavourablejudgements on competence. A performance-avoidance orientation is focused onavoiding showing incompetence, and this avoidance orientation is viewed as evokingprocesses that are antithetical to the intrinsic motivation construct. Research hassuggested that performance-avoidance orientations reduce the opportunities to expandknowledge (Seegers, van Putten, and de Brabander 2002).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
02:
55 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2013
Educational Studies 347
In the motivation theories a distinction is made between intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation, based on the different reasons or goals that give rise to an action. Intrinsicmotivation refers to “doing an activity simply for the enjoyment of the activity itself,rather than its instrumental value” (Ryan and Deci 2000, 60). Extrinsically motivatedstudents do something only because it leads to a separable desired outcome. Intrinsicallymotivated behaviours are performed out of interest, do not require a reward other thanthe spontaneous experience of interest and enjoyment in doing a task and they resultin high-quality learning (Ryan and Deci 2000).
In this study, we focused on both motivational factors and motivational behaviourand examined the relative influence of different aspects of the learning environmentthat teachers create to explain variations in students’ motivation to learn.
Students’ motivation and teachers’ teaching
As mentioned earlier, research on motivation has mainly concentrated on the role ofgoal orientation and self-evaluation in conducting learning activities. Although somescholars have emphasised the importance of the teachers’ role with respect to students’motivation (e.g. Vedder, Boekaerts, and Seegers 2005; Urdan and Schoenfelder 2006),studies on relations between specific aspects of teaching practices and student moti-vation have been scarce. In this study we assumed that different aspects of teachers’teaching would affect their students’ motivation for school. We used current concep-tions of learning and instruction to identify the following four aspects of teaching thatmay affect students’ motivational behaviour and factors: process-oriented instruction,differentiation, connection to the students’ world and cooperative learning.
Recent research shows that increasing students’ self-regulation seems to havepositive effects on students’ motivation and performance, although it is unclearwhether these findings apply to all students (Oostdam, Peetsma, and Blok 2007). Amodel of teaching that facilitates and enhances self-regulated learning is calledprocess-oriented instruction (Vermunt 1995; Volet 1995; Bolhuis and Voeten 2001).Process-oriented instruction implies that the external control of the learning processby teachers shift gradually to an internal control over the learning process by studentsthemselves. Furthermore, teachers using process-oriented instruction focus on knowl-edge building in the domain (subject-area), pay attention to emotional aspects oflearning and treat learning process and results as social phenomena (Bolhuis 2003).Performing process-oriented instruction facilitates independent learning, supportsstudents to become proficient learners and prepares them for lifelong learning.
Besides the emphasis on self-regulated learning, constructivist conceptions oflearning also acknowledge differences between students’ learning due to differencesin social, cultural and cognitive characteristics such as socio-economic background,ethnicity, social and cultural capital, intelligence and cognitive strategies (Verschaffeland de Corte 1999). Teachers should therefore pay attention to these differences anddifferentiate in their instruction and tasks. Through attuning their instruction to thepotential competence of students, often referred to as Vygotsky’s zone of proximaldevelopment, teachers stimulate students’ competence and learning.
Current conceptions of learning also pay attention to the situated nature of learn-ing. Although the idea that learning is a situated activity has already been reflected inthe work of John Dewey in the beginning of the twentieth century, recently someeducational psychologists have started to systematically examine the situated natureof knowledge and learning (Anderson, Reder, and Simon 1996; Putnam and Borko
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
02:
55 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2013
348 E.E.J. Thoonen et al.
2000). These theorists emphasise that human thought and the appropriation of knowl-edge is inextricably linked to the social and cultural context and that learning cantherefore be fundamentally considered as a situated activity (Clancy 1997). Learningshould therefore take place in authentic contexts or so-called “practice-fields”, inwhich learners can practise skills and domain-related activities that they will encoun-ter outside school as well. This implies that student learning is less decontextualisedand that relevant tasks and types of learning activities are more connected to thepersonal world of students. Teachers who use these kind of instructional strategiesencourage a better person–environment fit and enhance students’ motivation andperformance in a positive way.
A rather well-conceived and studied teaching practice that influences studentoutcomes is cooperative learning. Both motivational and learning perspectives formthe theoretical basis of cooperative learning (Slavin 1996). Drawing on motivationaltheories, it is assumed that positive interdependence (cooperation) is based on intrinsicmotivation and interaction which encourage and facilitate learners’ efforts. This couldresult in high achievement, positive relationships and psychological well-being(Johnson and Johnson 1999; Krol-Pot 2005). Based on theories about learning, it isassumed that social interaction between students will increase student achievement(De Lisi and Golbeck 1999). From this view, students can learn from exchanges ofideas, information, perspectives and opinions from competent peers which mediate thedevelopment of higher mental functions such as language, thinking and reasoning(Piaget 1959; Vygotsky 1978; Tudge and Winterhoff 1993). Research into coopera-tive learning has shown that cooperative learning positively influences both cognitiveand non-cognitive outcomes (Johnson and Johnson 1989; Slavin 1995).
Teachers’ sense of self-efficacy
Although the four teaching practices discussed above are expected to have a positiveinfluence on students’ motivation, teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs also matter. Someresearchers have suggested that teachers’ self-efficacy influences students’ motiva-tion and achievement (e.g. Midgley, Feldlaufer, and Eccles 1989; Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, and Hannay 2001). Self-efficacy is a future-oriented belief about the level ofcompetence that a person expects he or she will display in a given situation (Bandura1997). When teachers have a high sense of self-efficacy, they are more creative intheir work, intensify their efforts when their performances fall short of their goals andpersist longer. Teachers’ sense of self-efficacy had to do with their belief in their abil-ity to influence the learning and motivation of students, even if their students wereunmotivated or considered difficult (Guskey and Passaro 1994). Studies have foundpositive correlations between teachers’ efficacy beliefs and several cognitive andnon-cognitive outcomes for students, such as achievement in core academic subjects(e.g. Anderson, Greene, and Loewen 1988; Ross and Cousins 1993; Moore andEsselman 1994), motivation (Roeser, Arbreton, and Anderman 1993), attitudestowards school (Miskel, McDonald, and Bloom 1983) and performance and skills(Midgley, Feldlaufer, and Eccles 1989; Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, and Hannay 2001).From this, we would expect teachers’ sense of self-efficacy to have a positiveinfluence on students’ motivation to learn.
Teachers’ perceived self-efficacy not only affects students’ motivation directly butalso indirectly via the instructional strategies they use to create a supportive learningenvironment (Dembo and Gibson 1985). Teachers with a strong sense of efficacy tend
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
02:
55 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2013
Educational Studies 349
to do more planning and be better organised, be more open to new ideas and morewilling to experiment with new methods, work longer with students who are strug-gling and exhibit greater enthusiasm for teaching (Tschannen-Moran and WoolfolkHoy 2001). Research has indeed shown that teacher efficacy positively influencesteachers’ practices (Smylie 1988; Wheatley 2002; Geijsel et al. 2009). Self-efficacytherefore seems to be a rather strong predictor for the way teachers shape their teach-ing practices in order to foster students’ motivation to learn. Based on these findingsand our earlier formulated expectation on teachers’ self-efficacy, we therefore hypoth-esised that the effect of teachers’ sense of self-efficacy on students’ motivation tolearn would be mediated by their teaching practices.
Method
Sample
This paper reports the results of a survey on school improvement in primary educa-tion. Participants were teachers from 34 primary schools (students aged 4–12 years).Schools were situated in the south and east of the Netherlands. The 34 schools hadvaried background characteristics (denomination, number of pupils and teachers,percentage of pupils with low socio-economic status [SES]).
All of the teachers in these schools participated in the survey. The questionnairewas submitted to 751 teachers, 621 of whom returned the questionnaire: a responserate of 82.6%. Of these 621 teachers, 194 taught Year 4, 5 or 6; some teachers taughtmore than just one class and many classes had more than one teacher. In addition tothe 194 teachers, we also asked all 3677 students in Years 4–6 to fill out a question-naire on student motivation. Three thousand four hundred and sixty-two students(58.2% male) returned the questionnaire (response rate of 94.2%), of which 1185 werein Year 4, 1222 in Year 5 and 1055 students in Year 6.
Measures
The concepts in this study were operationalised and measured using existing scalesand items on motivational factors and motivational behaviour of students (Roede1989; Pintrich and de Groot 1990; Midgley et al. 2000; Peetsma, Wagenaar, and deKat 2001; Seegers, van Putten, and de Brabander 2002), classroom practices (Roelofsand Houtveen 1999; van Zoelen and Houtveen 2000; Geijsel 2001) and teachers’sense of self-efficacy (van Woerkom 2003). Until now these scales and items havebeen used in secondary education. Given our sample of students in primary schools,we translated the items (some were originally in English) and adapted them to makethem appropriate for the primary school context. The teachers could in a questionnaireindicate the extent to which the item referring to the four teaching practices (process-oriented instruction, connection to students’ world, cooperative learning and differen-tiation) and their self-efficacy applied to them on a four-point scale (1 = hardly everapplies to me, 2 = sometimes applies to me, 3 = often applies to me and 4 = almostalways applies to me).
The students could indicate on a four-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 =disagree, 3 = agree and 4 = strongly agree) the extent to which the items referring toaffective (well-being in class and school), expectancy (academic self-efficacy) andvalue components (mastery goal orientation, performance avoidance, intrinsic
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
02:
55 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2013
350 E.E.J. Thoonen et al.
motivation) of motivation and their behaviour (school investment) applied to them.Items in the student questionnaire referring to expectancy and value components andstudents’ motivational behaviour were related to maths tasks. Items referring tostudents’ well-being in class and school were formulated in more general terms.
Confirmative factor analyses were used to guide scale construction, resulting inexclusion of a few items from the scales because of a lack of correlation or stablefactor structure. On the basis of the results of the factor analyses, for each variable ascale was constructed by averaging the item scores, and means were computed if theparticipant had completed at least 80% of the items. Where several teachers wereteaching the same class, the mean scores were averaged, allowing for the number ofdays worked by each teacher. The scaled variables, example items, number of itemsand reliabilities are summarised in Table 1.
Analyses
We conducted a series of regression analyses (using SPSS 16.0) to investigate thehypothesis that the effect of teacher efficacy on student motivation is mediated byteachers’ teaching. For each of the seven student motivation variables, a multi-levelmodel (Model 1) was fitted with teacher efficacy directly affecting student motivation(N = 3404 students). For each of the teaching practices variables, an ordinary regres-sion model (Model 2) was fitted with teacher efficacy affecting teaching practices
Table 1. Overview of scaled variables.
Variables Example item Items α
Teacher efficacy I have the feeling that I am successful in my work 5 .81
Classroom practicesProcess-oriented
instructionI ask students how they arrived at a solution, and
what the steps in their thought processes were6 .78
Connection to students’ world
I adapt the content of my lessons as much as possible to the students’ perceptions of their environment
3 .73
Cooperation In group assignments, I ask students to come up with a joint result
4 .73
Differentiation If more talented students are ready, I give them additional subject matter connected with the basic subject matter
5 .73
Student motivationWell-being in class I get along well with my classmates 4 .68Well-being in school I am settled in this school 4 .68Academic self-
efficacyI can do even the hardest maths tasks in this class
if I try4 .81
Intrinsic motivation I think what I am learning in maths is interesting 4 .59Mastery goals I prefer difficult work from which I can learn
something new, to easy work5 .69
Performance-avoidance goals
During maths tasks I am afraid that the other children will notice that I make mistakes
4 .71
School investment I put a lot of effort into maths 4 .75
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
02:
55 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2013
Educational Studies 351
(N = 160 teachers). Finally, for each of the seven student motivation variables, amulti-level model (Model 3) was fitted with teacher efficacy and teaching practicesboth affecting student motivation (N = 3404 students). Figure 1 gives a graphicalrepresentation of Model 3.Figure 1. Path diagram showing mediation.According to Baron and Kenny (1986), to support the mediation hypothesis, fourconditions must be met: (1) a significant effect of teacher efficacy on student motiva-tion in Model 1 (Path c in Figure 1); (2) a significant effect of teacher efficacy onteaching practices in Model 2 (Path a in Figure 1); (3) a significant effect of teachingpractices on student motivation in Model 3 (Path b in Figure 1); and (4) the effect ofteacher efficacy on student motivation (Path c in Figure 1) should be smaller in Model3 than in Model 1. If the effect of Path c is no longer significant, the mediation iscalled “full”.
In all models we also included school year as a control variable, because previousstudies have shown that students’ investment in school seems to decrease (Stoel,Peetsma, and Roeleveld 2003). Students’ sex was also included as control variable.
Results
First, we present the mean scores and standard deviations on the scales to obtaina general insight into students’ motivation and teachers’ teaching and sense ofself-efficacy (Table 2).
The results show that the teachers involved in the study had moderate self-efficacybeliefs. Furthermore, the mean scores with regard to the four aspects of teaching werequite high, especially on process-oriented instruction. Teachers indicated that theypaid a lot of attention to process-oriented instruction, often related their instruction tothe students’ personal world, stimulated cooperation between students and oftendifferentiated their instruction to suit students’ needs and abilities.
The students who participated in this study scored very highly on both motiva-tional factors and behaviour. They indicated that they felt very happy in class and atschool, that they had great confidence in their ability to perform a maths task and thatthey were highly intrinsically motivated. Furthermore, the students reported that theydid not experience many situations in which they were afraid that others would noticetheir shortcomings, that they were particularly focused on mastery goals and that theirinvestment in maths was reasonably high.
As stated above, following Baron and Kenny (1986), three different regressionmodels were fitted to examine the relative influence of different aspects of teachers’teaching and sense of self-efficacy on students’ motivation to learn. Prior to theseanalyses we checked for possible dependence between students within classes andschools. As intra-class correlations of student motivation were both significant and
Figure 1. Path diagram showing mediation.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
02:
55 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2013
352 E.E.J. Thoonen et al.
substantial (Snijders and Bosker 1999), Models 1 and 3 parameters were estimatedthrough multi-level regression analyses. The results of Model 1 show that the effectsof teacher efficacy on student motivation were not significant, except for the effect onwell-being in school (b = .053, p = .029, 6.7% explained variance). We were thereforeable to reject the mediation hypothesis for six of the seven student motivation vari-ables.
Model 2 results show significant effects of teacher efficacy on all teaching prac-tices. Teachers with a high sense of self-efficacy showed more process-orientedinstruction (b = .214, p = .001, 7.6% explained variance), achieved a better fit betweenschool and students’ personal lives (b = .347, p = .000, 12.3% explained variance),stimulated cooperative learning in their class (b = .297, p = .000, 9.1% explained vari-ance) and showed more differentiation in their instruction (b = .436, p = .000, 19.5%explained variance). The school year, included as a control variable, did not have asignificant effect on any of the teaching practices.
The results of Model 3 are presented in Table 3.Table 3 shows that the control variables – year group and sex – affected most of
the student motivation variables. Older students scored significantly higher on well-being in class and lower on well-being in school, intrinsic motivation, mastery goals,performance avoidance and school investment. Girls scored higher on well-being inschool and performance avoidance and lower on academic efficacy and mastery goals.
As Table 3 shows that in Model 3 only one of the four classroom practice variables,process-oriented instruction, had a significant effect on students’ well-being in class.The effect was negative (b = −.06, p = .002): process-oriented instruction appeared tohave had an adverse effect on the students’ well-being in the class. The more a teacher
Table 2. Mean (M), standard deviation (SD) and number of respondents (N) per variable(range 1–4).
M SD N
Teacher motivationTeacher efficacy 2.99 .47 160
Classroom practicesProcess-oriented instruction 3.38 .36 160Connection to students’ world 3.00 .46 160Cooperation 3.06 .48 160Differentiation 3.03 .47 160
Student motivationWell-being: class 3.55 .56 3404Well-being: school 3.35 .57 3404Academic self-efficacy 3.16 .69 3404Intrinsic motivation 3.34 .51 3404Performance-avoidance goals 1.70 .70 3404Mastery goals 3.43 .49 3404School investment 3.21 .61 3404
Notes: With regard to performance-avoidance goals, a low score has to be interpreted as positive. On theother hand, a high score on performance-avoidance goals means that students avoid performance, whichcould correlate negatively with motivated behaviours such as school investment and academicachievement.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
02:
55 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2013
Educational Studies 353
Tabl
e 3.
Para
met
er e
stim
ates
for
mul
ti-l
evel
mod
els
of s
tude
nt m
otiv
atio
n pr
edic
ted
by t
each
er e
ffica
cy a
nd c
lass
room
pra
ctic
es (
scal
es 1
–4):
stan
dard
ised
reg
ress
ion
coef
fici
ents
and
sta
ndar
d er
rors
.
Wel
l-be
ing
(cla
ss)
Wel
l-be
ing
(sch
ool)
Aca
dem
ic
effi
cacy
Intr
insi
c m
otiv
atio
nM
aste
ry
goal
sP
erfo
rman
ce
avoi
danc
eS
choo
l in
vest
men
t
Inte
rcep
t3.
26 (
.14)
3.48
(.1
7)3.
50 (
.15)
3.75
(.1
3)3.
88 (
.12)
2.30
(.1
5)3.
78 (
.17)
Fix
ed e
ffec
tsY
ear
.04*
(.0
2)−.
04 (
.02)
−.01
(.0
2)−.
07**
(.0
1)−.
05**
(.0
2)−.
12**
(.0
2)−.
08*
(.02
)S
ex−.
00 (
.02)
.09*
* (.
02)
−.18
** (
.03)
.02
(.02
)−.
05**
(.0
2).1
3**
(.03
)−.
03 (
.02)
Tea
cher
eff
icac
y.0
2 (.
02)
.03
(.03
)−.
01 (
.02)
.00
(.02
)−.
01 (
.02)
−.01
(.0
2)−.
01(.
02)
Cla
ssro
om p
ract
ices
Pro
cess
-ori
ente
d in
stru
ctio
n−.
06**
(.02
)−.
08**
(.0
2)−.
02 (
.02)
−.02
(.0
2)−.
02 (
.02)
−.00
(.0
2)−.
05*
(.02
)C
onne
ctio
n to
stu
dent
s’ w
orld
.03
(.02
).0
4 (.
03)
.02
(.02
).0
3 (.
02)
.05*
(.0
2)−.
03 (
.02)
.03
(.02
)C
oope
rati
on.0
2 (.
02)
.08*
* (.
03)
.02
(.02
).0
2 (.
02)
−.01
(.0
2)−.
00 (
.02)
.04
(.02
)D
iffe
rent
iati
on.0
1 (.
02)
−.02
(.0
2).0
3 (.
02)
−.02
(.0
2)−.
02 (
.02)
.02
(.02
).0
1 (.
02)
Exp
lain
ed v
aria
nce
of s
tude
nt s
core
sO
f cl
ass
mea
ns0%
of
.295
0% o
f .2
603%
of
.441
0% o
f .2
520%
of
.227
0% o
f .4
590%
of
.346
Of
scho
ol m
eans
13%
of
.017
12%
of
.036
10%
of
.025
6% o
f .0
1612
% o
f .0
1410
% o
f .0
1523
% o
f .0
149%
of
.031
*p <
.05,
**p
< .0
1.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
02:
55 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2013
354 E.E.J. Thoonen et al.
used the process-oriented instruction, the fewer the students in that class reported highwell-being. The mediation hypothesis was rejected, as Model 1 did not show a signif-icant effect of teacher efficacy on well-being in class (b = .03, p = .122).
Comparing these results with Model 3 results for well-being in school, it seemsthat process-oriented instruction adversely affected the students’ well-being in school(b = −.08, p = .002). On the other hand, stimulating cooperative learning in the classappeared to have a positive effect on students’ well-being in school. The Model 1effect of teacher efficacy on well-being in school was not found in Model 3. We there-fore concluded that the effect of teacher efficacy on well-being in school was fullymediated by teaching practices (process-oriented instruction and cooperation).
None of the classroom practices had a statistically significant effect on students’academic efficacy, intrinsic motivation or performance avoidance. However, someclassroom practices significantly influenced students’ orientation towards masterygoals and school investment. The more a teacher connected his or her teaching to thestudents’ world, the more the students oriented themselves towards mastery goals(b = .05, p = .012). Finally, contrary to our expectation, process-oriented instructionseemed to have had an adverse effect on students’ school investment.
Conclusion and discussion
In this study, we examined the relative importance of teaching and teachers’ sense ofself-efficacy in explaining students’ motivation to learn in primary education. In linewith previous research on student motivation, we focused on motivational behaviourand motivational factors, including affective, expectancy and value components. Weused current conceptions of teaching and learning and research on teachers’ cognitionsto hypothesise relations among four aspects of teaching (process-oriented instruction,connection to students’ world, stimulating cooperation and communication, anddifferentiation), teachers’ sense of self-efficacy and students’ motivation to learn. Wetested the expectations and we discuss our most important findings.
First, the results show that teachers’ mean scores on the teaching practices werequite high, especially on process-oriented instruction. In previous studies in which thesame teaching variables were used (Roelofs and Houtveen 1999; Roelofs and Visser2001), comparable mean scores were not found. A possible explanation for our highmean scores could be that the data are somewhat biased. Teachers were asked toassess their own teaching and to report how often they applied specific aspects to theirown classroom practice. The teachers participating in the study might have given a toorosy picture of their classroom practices and presented them more positively than theyactually are. More research using student assessments and classroom observations aswell as teacher questionnaires is needed to validate our findings.
Our data support the effect of teaching on students’ motivation to learn. Althoughthe effects were small, it appeared that three of the four teaching aspects affectedstudents’ motivational behaviour and affective and value components of motivation.Of the four teaching aspects, process-oriented instruction seemed to have the mostinfluence on students’ motivation to learn. Contrary to our expectations, however, theresults show that process-oriented instruction adversely affected students’ motiva-tional behaviour and factors. Furthermore, we did not find any correlation betweenprocess-oriented instruction and the expectancy and value components, such asstudents’ academic self-efficacy and mastery-oriented and performance-avoidancebehaviour. These results suggest that a model of teaching and learning that replaces
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
02:
55 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2013
Educational Studies 355
external control over the learning process by paying attention to meaningful goals andself-regulated learning would not always improve students’ motivation. More thanthat, in our study it decreased students’ well-being and investment in school. Thesefindings did not confirm other research results which indicate that increasingstudents’ self-regulation seems to have positive effects on their motivation (Oostdam,Peetsma, and Blok 2007). One possible explanation could be the type of studentsinvolved in our study. As mentioned earlier, research has shown that it remainsunclear whether the positive effects on motivation of increasing students’ self-regulated learning apply to all students. Students with learning disabilities andstudents who have difficulties regulating their own learning might be better off withtraditional teaching practices, in which the instruction and tasks are well structured.When these types of students receive process-oriented instruction, they may feelmore anxious and consequently they may need extra processing capacity and time tosuppress their worries and maintain their well-being. These feelings of discomfort notonly affect the well-being of students, but also decrease their investment in school.Although we do not have information about the students’ cognitive abilities andachievements, it might be that our sample contained a relatively large number ofstudents with learning disabilities or problems. Future research should include dataabout the type of students, including learning disabilities and other difficulties, andabout self-regulated learning activities, in order to increase our understanding of theinterplay between the nature of instruction and students’ motivation to learn as a keyto self-regulated learning.
Besides the type of student, the negative effect could also be explained by the qual-ity of the teaching itself. Process-oriented instruction as a constructive model of teach-ing and learning is not an easy model to use. Most teachers in the Netherlands areeducated in and used to teaching with traditional teaching models, in which the teacheris the one who regulates the learning process of students. Process-oriented learningmeans that teachers need to focus on the learning and thinking activities of students togradually transfer control over learning processes from the teachers to students, tostimulate the development of students’ mental models and to take into account theirlearning orientations (Vermunt and Verschaffel 2000). Stimulating self-regulatedlearning and increasing students’ motivation require a shift from a classroom practicebased on a knowledge-transmission model towards a knowledge-construction model.Changing one’s teaching in this direction is not an easy thing to do for teachers and itneeds a lot of training and practice. It often takes years to master a new way of teachingeffectively, so that it benefits student learning and motivation. Although the teacherswho participated in our study reported that they often used process-oriented instruc-tion, it might be that they had just recently started to change their practices into a moreprocess-oriented model. This may have affected the quality of their teaching and assuch negatively influenced their students’ motivation to learn. More longitudinalresearch is needed to validate our findings and to test the relation between the natureand quality of process-oriented instruction and students’ motivational behaviour andfactors.
In addition to the influence of process-oriented instruction on students’ motiva-tion, the results also show that connection to the students’ personal world significantlyaffected their motivation to learn. Although we did not find a positive correlation withaffective motivational factors, the results clearly show that relating instruction tostudents’ personal world boosted goals focused on task mastery. This finding backsup the argument put forward by John Dewey at the beginning of the twentieth century,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
02:
55 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2013
356 E.E.J. Thoonen et al.
namely that education should provide students with opportunities to work on realisticand situated activities (Dewey, cited in Roelofs, Visser, and Terwel 2003).
Cooperative learning methods promote positive interdependence and social inter-action between students, meet student needs for relatedness and encourage and facil-itate learners’ efforts that result in psychological well-being. As in other studies (e.g.Cohen 1994; Slavin 1995, 1996; Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne 2000), our resultsconfirmed the role of cooperative learning in students’ motivation. It appeared thatstudents’ well-being in their own class correlated positively with the extent to whichteachers encouraged them to cooperate and communicate with other students.
Finally, the results lend credence to the argument that teachers’ sense of self-efficacy has an impact on both teachers’ practices and students’ motivation to learn.The findings show that teacher efficacy had significantly positive effects on all aspectsof their teaching. Highly effective teachers seemed to use more classroom practicesbased on new conceptions of learning than less effective teachers. These findings arein line with previous studies on the relationship between teachers’ efficacy and theirteaching (e.g. Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2001).
Furthermore, it appears that the effect of teachers’ sense of self-efficacy onstudents’ well-being in school was fully mediated by process-oriented instruction andcooperative learning. Although we know from other research that teachers’ sense ofself-efficacy appears to be an important psychological factor for understanding theirperformance, few studies have reported an indirect effect of teachers’ sense of self-efficacy on students’ motivation. As mentioned earlier, most of the studies havefocused on either the role of teachers’ sense of self-efficacy for students’ motivationto learn or for teachers’ teaching practices. More research is needed in which teachers’psychological states, their teaching and students’ motivational behaviour and factorsare combined to validate our findings, using more sophisticated techniques (multi-level structural equation modelling). This could lead to a better understanding of therole of teacher efficacy for both teachers’ teaching and students’ motivation.
Limitations and future directions
This study aimed to contribute to the development of models to understand how teach-ers’ teaching and sense of self-efficacy affect students’ motivational behaviour andmotivational factors. Although we used a large sample of teachers and students, ourstudy was limited by the relatively small class-level and school-level variance wefound (.014 to .036). These findings are not dissimilar to those of other studies on theinfluence of teachers’ teaching (Teddlie and Reynolds 2000; den Brok, Brekelmans,and Wubbels 2004; Houtveen, van de Grift, and Creemers 2004). Between 10% and30% of the variance in students’ behaviour and results is accounted for by the valueadded by schools (e.g. Scheerens and Bosker 1997; Reezigt, Houtveen, and van deGrift 2002). Greater class-level and school-level variance could help future research-ers to analyse the relations between teachers’ teaching and students’ motivation tolearn in more depth. Follow-up research with larger and more heterogeneous samples,allowing for multi-level structural equation modelling, could contribute to the testingof more complex models and the development of theories about the impact ofteachers’ cognitions and classroom practices on students’ motivational behaviour andmotivating factors.
A second limitation of our study was that the different aspects of teachingexplained only a small percentage of the variance between the different aspects of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
02:
55 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2013
Educational Studies 357
students’ motivation. It is therefore likely that other factors not included in our modelmay also have affected the students’ motivation. In future research, the influence ofother teacher- and student-related factors on student motivation should be explored.As mentioned earlier, we did not gather information about type of students, andstudent background variables (e.g. SES, ethnicity, past performances) should beincluded, as previous research has shown that these variables can affect students’motivation to learn (e.g. Vedder, Boekaerts, and Seegers 2003; Peetsma et al. 2005).Furthermore, the inclusion of classroom conditions (class size, population, academicheterogeneity) may also help us to understand the effect of peers on the motivation ofstudents. Finally, in addition to assessing the extent to which teachers apply certainaspects of teaching, as we did in this study, researchers should also pay attention tothe quality of teaching.
Notes on contributorsErik E.J. Thoonen (M.Sc.) is a PhD student at the Department of Education of the Universityof Amsterdam. His research interests include conditions for effective school improvement,building capacity to change, the sustainability of innovations and its effects on studentmotivation for school.
Dr Peter J.C. Sleegers is a professor of educational sciences at the University of Twente. Hehas published extensively on leadership, innovation and educational policy. His currentresearch projects are studies into the effects of educational leadership on student motivation forschool, longitudinal research into sustainability of reforms and design studies into professionallearning communities.
Dr Thea T.D. Peetsma is an associate professor of education at the Department of Education ofthe University of Amsterdam and programme director PhD training of the Graduate School ofEducational and Pedagogical Sciences of this university. She specialises in psychosocialdevelopment and learning motivation of children, as well children with special educationalneeds.
Dr Frans J. Oort is an associate professor of methods and statistics at the Department ofEducation of the University of Amsterdam. His research focuses on structural equationmodelling (SEM) with latent variables, non-standard applications of SEM and the use of SEMto detect bias in the measurement of psychological attributes.
ReferencesAnderson, J.R., L.M. Reder, and H.A. Simon. 1996. Situated learning and education. Educa-
tional Research 5, no. 4: 5–11.Anderson, R., M. Greene, and P. Loewen. 1988. Relationships among teachers’ and students’
thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educa-tional Research 34, no. 2: 148–65.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Baron, R.M., and D.A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 51, no. 6: 1173–82.
Boekaerts, M. 1993. Being concerned with well-being and with learning. EducationalPsychologist 28, no. 2: 149–67.
Bolhuis, S. 2003. Towards process-oriented teaching for self-directed lifelong learning: Amultidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction 13: 327–47.
Bolhuis, S., and M.J.M. Voeten. 2001. Toward self-directed learning in secondary schools:What do teachers do? Teaching and Teacher Education 17: 837–55.
Clancy, W.J. 1997. Situated cognition: On human knowledge and computer representations.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
02:
55 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2013
358 E.E.J. Thoonen et al.
Cohen, E.G. 1994. Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups.Review of Educational Research 64, no. 1: 1–35.
De Lisi, R.D., and S.L. Golbeck. 1999. Implications of Piagetian theory for peer learning. InCognitive perspectives on peer learning, ed. A.M. O’Donnell and A. King, 3–37.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dembo, M.H., and S. Gibson. 1985. Teachers’ sense of efficacy: An important factor inschool improvement. The Elementary School Journal 86, no. 2: 175–84.
den Brok, P., M. Brekelmans, and T. Wubbels. 2004. Interpersonal teacher behaviour andstudent outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 15, nos. 3–4: 407–66.
Eccles, J.S., and C. Midgley. 1989. Stage/environment fit: Developmentally appropriate class-rooms for early adolescents. In Research on motivation in education, ed. R.E. Ames andC. Ames, vol. 3, 139–81. New York: Academic Press.
Elliot, A.J., and J.M. Harackiewicz. 1996. Approach and avoidance achievement goals andintrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 70, no. 3: 461–75.
Geijsel, F.P. 2001. Schools and innovations. Conditions fostering the implementation ofeducational innovations. Ph.D. diss., Nijmegen University.
Geijsel, F.P., P.J.C. Sleegers, R.D. Stoel, and M.L. Krüger. 2009. The effect of teacherpsychological, school organizational and leadership factors on teachers’ professionallearning in Dutch schools. The Elementary School Journal 109, no. 4: 406–27.
Gottfried, A.E., J.S. Fleming, and A.W. Gottfried. 2001. Continuity of academic intrinsicmotivation from childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Journal ofEducational Psychology 93, no. 1: 3–13.
Guskey, T.R., and P.D. Passaro. 1994. Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions.American Educational Research Journal 31, no. 3: 627–43.
Houtveen, A.A.M., W.J.C.M. van de Grift, and B.P.M. Creemers. 2004. Effective schoolimprovement in mathematics. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 15, nos. 3–4:337–76.
Johnson, D.W., and R.T. Johnson. 1989. Cooperation and competition: Theory and research.Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
Johnson, D.W., and R.T. Johnson. 1999. Making cooperative learning work. Theory IntoPractice 38, no. 2: 67–73.
Johnson, D.W., R.T. Johnson, and M.E. Stanne. 2000. Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Krol-Pot, K. 2005. Toward interdependence, implementation of cooperative learning inprimary schools. Ph.D. diss., Nijmegen University.
Maehr, M.L., and L.A. Braskamp. 1986. The motivation factor: A theory of personal invest-ment. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Middleton, M.J., and C. Midgley. 1997. Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: Anunderexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology 89, no. 4:710–18.
Midgley, C., H. Feldlaufer, and J.S. Eccles. 1989. Student/teacher relations and attitudes towardmathematics before and after the transition to junior high school. Child Development 60:981–92.
Midgley, C., M.L. Maehr, L.Z. Hruda, E. Anderman, L. Anderman, K.E. Freeman, M. Gheen,et al. 2000. Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan.
Miskel, C., D. McDonald, and S. Bloom. 1983. Structural and expectancy linkages withinschools and organizational effectiveness. Journal of Leadership for Effective and Equita-ble Organizations 19, no. 1: 49–82.
Moore, W.P., and M.E. Esselman. 1994. Exploring the context of teacher efficacy: The role ofachievement and climate. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, March, in New Orleans, LA.
Oostdam, R., T. Peetsma, and H. Blok. 2007. Het nieuwe leren in het basisonderwijs envoortgezet onderwijs nader beschouwd: Een verkenningsnotitie voor het Ministerie vanOnderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen [New learning in primary and secondary education:An explorative study for the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sciences]. Amsterdam:SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
02:
55 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2013
Educational Studies 359
Peetsma, T.T.D. 2000. Future time perspective as a predictor of school investment. ScandinavianJournal of Educational Research 44, no. 2: 177–92.
Peetsma, T.T.D., T. Hascher, I. van der Veen, and E. Roede. 2005. Relations between adoles-cents’ self-evaluations, time perspectives, motivation for school and their achievement indifferent countries and at different ages. European Journal of Psychology of Education20, no. 3: 209–25.
Peetsma, T.T.D., and I. Van der Veen. Submitted. The development in students’ future timeperspectives on different life domains, school investment and achievement.
Peetsma, T.T.D., E. Wagenaar, and E. de Kat. 2001. School motivation, future time perspec-tive and well-being of high school students in segregated and integrated schools in theNetherlands and the role of ethnic self-description. In Education in Europe, cultures,values, institutions in transition, ed. J.K. Koppen, I. Lunt, and C. Wulf, vol. 14, 55–74.Münster/New York: Waxmann.
Piaget, J. 1959. The language and thought of the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Pintrich, P.R., and E.V. De Groot. 1990. Motivational and self-regulated learning component
of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 82, no. 1: 33–40.Pintrich, P.R., and T. Garcia. 1996. The effects of autonomy on motivation and performance
in the college classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology 21, no. 4: 477–86.Putnam, R.T., and H. Borko. 2000. What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to
say about research on teacher learning. Educational Researcher 29: 4–15.Reezigt, G.J., A.A.M. Houtveen, and W.J.C.M van de Grift. 2002. Ontwikkelingen in het
effect van adaptief onderwijs in de klas en integrale leerlingenzorg op schoolniveau[Developments in the effect of adaptive learning in the classroom and integral student careat school level]. Groningen: GION.
Roede, E. 1989. Explaining student investment: An investigation of high school students’retrospective causal accounts of their investment in school. Ph.D. diss., Universiteit vanAmsterdam.
Roelofs, E.C., and A.A.M. Houtveen. 1999. Didactiek van authentiek leren in de Basisvorm-ing. Stand van zaken bij docenten Nederlands en Wiskunde [Didactics of authentic learningin basic secondary school curriculum. The balance at Dutch and Mathematics]. Pedago-gische Studiën 76, no. 4: 237–57.
Roelofs, E., J. van der Linden, and G. Erkens. 1999. Leren in dialoog: Een discussie oversamenwerkend leren in onderwijs en opleiding [Learning in dialogue: A discussionabout cooperative learning in education and training]. In Leren in dialoog. Een discussieover samenwerkend leren in onderwijs en opleiding, ed. J. van der Linden and E.Roelofs, 7–34. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Roelofs, E., and J. Visser. 2001. Leeromgevingen volgens ouders en leraren: voorkeuren enrealisatie [Learning environments according to parents and teachers: Preferences and real-isation]. Pedagogische Studiën 78, no. 3: 151–68.
Roelofs, E., J. Visser, and J. Terwel. 2003. Preferences for various learning environments:Teachers’ and parents’ perceptions. Learning Environments Research 6: 77–110.
Roeser, R., A. Arbreton, and E. Anderman. 1993. Teacher characteristics and their effects onstudent motivation across the school year. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, April 12–16, in Atlanta, GA.
Ross, J.A., and J.B. Cousins. 1993. Enhancing secondary school students’ acquisition of corre-lational reasoning skills. Research in Science & Technological Education 11, no. 2: 191–205.
Ross, J.A., A. Hogaboam-Gray, and L. Hannay. 2001. Effects of teacher efficacy on computerskills and computer cognitions of Canadian students in Grades K-3. The ElementarySchool Journal 102, no. 2: 141–56.
Ryan, R.M., and E.L. Deci. 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions andnew directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25: 54–67.
Scheerens, J., and R. Bosker. 1997. The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford:Pergamon.
Schunk, D.H. 1996. Goal and self-evaluative influences during children’s cognitive skilllearning. American Educational Research Journal 32, no. 2: 359–82.
Seegers, G., C.M. van Putten, and C.J. de Brabander. 2002. Goal orientation, perceived taskoutcome and task demands in mathematic tasks: Effects on students’ attitude in actual tasksettings. British Journal of Educational Psychology 72: 365–84.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
02:
55 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2013
360 E.E.J. Thoonen et al.
Slavin, R.E. 1995. Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. 2nd ed. Boston, MA:Allyn & Bacon.
Slavin, R.E. 1996. Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, whatwe need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology 21, no. 1: 43–69.
Smylie, M.A. 1988. The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational andpsychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational ResearchJournal 25, no. 1: 1–30.
Snijders, T.A.B., and R.J. Bosker. 1999. Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic andadvanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.
Stoel, R.D., T.T.D. Peetsma, and J. Roeleveld. 2003. Relations between the development ofschool investment, self-confidence, and language achievement in elementary education:A multivariate latent growth curve approach. Learning and Individual Differences 13:313–33.
Teddlie, C., and D. Reynolds, eds. 2000. The international handbook of school effectivenessresearch. London: Falmer Press.
Tschannen-Moran, M., and A. Woolfolk Hoy. 2001. Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusiveconstruct. Teaching and Teacher Education 17, no. 7: 783–805.
Tudge, J., and P. Winterhoff. 1993. Can young children benefit from collaborative problemsolving? Tracing the effects of partner competence and feedback. Social Development 2,no. 3: 242–59.
Urdan, T., and C. Midgley. 2000. Developmental changes in the relations among goal struc-tures, motivational beliefs, affect, and performance. Paper presented at the 7th WATM,May 12–15, in Leuven.
Urdan, T., and E. Schoenfelder. 2006. Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal struc-tures, social relationships, and competence beliefs. Journal of School Psychology 44,no. 5: 331–49.
van Woerkom, M. 2003. Critical reflection at work: Bridging individual and organisationallearning. Ph.D. diss., Twente University.
van Zoelen, L., and A.A.M. Houtveen. 2000. Scholen op weg naar effectieve schoolverbeter-ing. Bijlage van het rapport: Naar effectieve schoolverbetering. Resultaten van het onder-zoek naar de effecten op leerkracht- en leerlingniveau van het adaptief onderwijsproject“Kwaliteitsversterking Rekenen en Wiskunde” [Schools moving towards effective schoolimprovement. Appendix of the report: Towards effective school improvement. Results ofresearch into the effects on teacher and student level of the adaptive learning project“Strengthen the Quality of Mathematics”]. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht/Onderwijskunde/ISOR.
Vedder, P., M. Boekaerts, and G. Seegers. 2005. Perceived social support and well being inschool: The role of students’ ethnicity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 34, no. 3: 269–78.
Vermunt, J.D. 1995. Process-oriented instruction in learning and thinking strategies.European Journal of Psychology of Education 10: 325–49.
Vermunt, J., and L. Verschaffel. 2000. Process-oriented teaching. In New learning, ed. R.J.Simons, J. van der Linden, and T. Duffy, 209–25. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Verschaffel, L., and E. de Corte. 1999. Actief en constructief leren binnen krachtigeonderwijsleeromgevingen [Active and constructive learning in meaningful learningenvironments]. In Onderwijskundig Lexicon III, ed. L. Verschaffel and J.D. Vermundt,15–27. Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom
Volet, S. 1995. Process-oriented instruction: A discussion. European Journal of Psychologyof Education 10, no. 4: 449–60.
Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in society. London: Harvard University Press.Wheatley, K.F. 2002. The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform.
Teaching and Teacher Education 18: 5–22.Zimmerman, B.J. 2000. Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational
Psychology 25: 82–91.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
02:
55 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2013
