Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 08 October 2014, At: 00:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational Psychology: AnInternational Journal of ExperimentalEducational PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20
A Measure of Teachers’ AchievementGoalsAthanasios Papaioannou a & Triantafyllos Christodoulidis ba University of Thessaly , Greeceb Democritus University of Thrace , GreecePublished online: 07 Jun 2007.
To cite this article: Athanasios Papaioannou & Triantafyllos Christodoulidis (2007) A Measure ofTeachers’ Achievement Goals, Educational Psychology: An International Journal of ExperimentalEducational Psychology, 27:3, 349-361, DOI: 10.1080/01443410601104148
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410601104148
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 PsychologyVol. 27, No. 3, June 2007, pp. 349–361
ISSN 0144-3410 (print)/ISSN 1469-5820 (online)/07/030349–13© 2007 Taylor & FrancisDOI 10.1080/01443410601104148
A Measure of Teachers’ Achievement Goals
Athanasios Papaioannoua* and Triantafyllos ChristodoulidisbaUniversity of Thessaly, Greece; bDemocritus University of Thrace, GreeceTaylor and Francis LtdCEDP_A_210353.sgm10.1080/01443410601104148Educational Psychology0144-3410 (print)/1469-5820 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & Francis273000000June [email protected]
Two studies were conducted to investigate the construct validity of a measure of teachers’ achieve-ment goals. The first study involved 143 teachers. Factor analysis of responses to the measurerevealed three factors assessing mastery, performance approach, and performance avoidance goals.In the second study, a nationally representative sample of 430 Greek teachers completed the goalsinstrument and a measure of job satisfaction. Confirmatory factor analysis established the three-factor structure of the goals measure. All scales had acceptable reliabilities. Job satisfaction waspositively related to mastery goals, unrelated to performance approach goals, and negativelyrelated to performance avoidance goals. Teachers of mathematics had lower scores on the perfor-mance avoidance scales than other teachers. These findings provide initial support for theconstruct validity of the teachers’ achievement goals measure.
Among the essential determinants of an educational system, teachers are the crucialintervening factor between curriculum and students. Although the decisive role ofmotivation on pupils’ learning is well established (Urdan & Turner, 2005), there isno extensive research into teachers’ motivation. Teachers’ work is carried out in ahighly achieving environment and therefore it is likely to be dependent on theireffort, persistence, and striving for improvement. Since motivation is defined as theforce that produces the initiation, direction, intensity, and persistence of a behaviour(Maehr & Braskamp, 1986), teachers’ motivation should be considered an impor-tant factor mediating the successful implementation and functioning of an educa-tional curriculum.
A contemporary conceptual framework for the understanding of motivation isthe cognitive approach taken by achievement goals theory (Nicholls, 1989; Ames,1992). Achievement goals theorists propose that individuals adopt two types ofgoals in achievement settings (e.g., sports, school, or work) in relation to how
*Corresponding author. Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, University ofThessaly, Trikala, 42100, Greece. Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
0:44
08
Oct
ober
201
4
350 A. Papaioannou & T. Christodoulidis
they perceive their competence and define success (Dweck, 1999): performancegoals (or ego orientation) and mastery goals (task or learning orientation). Amastery goal is employed when an individual is interested in an activity for itsown sake, aiming at achieving mastery. In this case perceptions of ability areself-referenced. A performance goal is employed when the individual is inter-ested in outperforming others, aiming to demonstrate superior competence.Performance-oriented individuals construe their ability through a process ofsocial comparison.
A growing body of goal theory-based research in work contexts demonstrates theapplicability and usefulness of this theoretical frame to the interpretation of workmotivation. In research with salespeople, mastery goal orientations were found to beassociated with an adaptive behaviour pattern (Silver, 2000). Sujan and colleaguesfound the mastery goal orientations of salespeople to be correlated to motivation towork hard and work smart (Sujan, Weitz, & Kumar, 1994). In another study (Coad,1999) the findings implied that management accountants with a high mastery orien-tation are more inclined to initiate and pursue the introduction of new managementaccounting systems, whereas those with a high performance orientation are likely toavoid such actions. An examination of the effects of a performance-oriented versus amastery-oriented post-training session on trainees’ negotiation skill maintenanceshowed that mastery-oriented trainees engaged in more interim skill maintenanceactivities, planned to exert more effort, and showed more positive affect than perfor-mance-oriented trainees (Stevens & Gist, 1997). Vande Walle and colleagues(Vande Walle, Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999) reported a positive relationship oflearning goal orientation with sales performance. Performance goal orientation wasreported to be unrelated to sales performance. These relationships were fully medi-ated by self-regulation tactics. The relationship of goal orientations to performance,intrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy was found to be moderated by factors such astask difficulty and task consistency (Steele-Johnson, Beauregard, Hoover, &Schmidt, 2000).
Feedback has been identified as an important correlate of goal orientations. Sujan,Weitz, and Kumar (1994) suggested that mastery orientations could be raised byboth positive and negative feedback, while performance orientations are not influ-enced by positive feedback. Coad (1999) found that their supervisor’s approach toleadership affected management accountants’ goal orientations. Vande Walle andcolleagues found that performance feedback did not affect the positive relationshipbetween a mastery goal orientation and performance (Vande Walle, Cron, &Slocum, 2001).
Recent developments in achievement goals theory differentiated the performancegoal into performance approach goals and performance avoidance goals (Elliot &Church, 1997). Performance approach goals direct people’s effort to the exhibitionof high competence, whereas the adoption of performance avoidance goals leads tothe avoidance of low competence. This distinction has not been examined withregard to teachers’ goals. Here, a measure of teachers’ mastery, performanceapproach, and performance avoidance goals is presented.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
0:44
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Teachers’ Achievement Goals 351
Two studies were conducted to investigate the factorial validity of this measure.Correlations between different goals were inspected to establish internal constructvalidity. A positive correlation between the two performance goals was hypothesisedbecause in both cases people espouse normative criteria to judge their competence.On the other hand, no correlation was expected between mastery and performanceavoidance goals.
To provide evidence of criterion validity, the association of job satisfaction withachievement goals was examined. Satisfaction generally concerns a set of positiveattitudes towards and beliefs about various aspects of an activity, task, work, orprofession. Work satisfaction could be viewed as a result of the interactions betweenthe ways people experience work and their expectations of it (Daniel, 1975). Gerhart(1987) defined work satisfaction as a function of “what a person wants from workand the perception of what work offers” (p. 366). Satisfied employees were hypothe-sised to be more motivated to meet a job’s demands successfully (Ilardi, Leone,Kasser, & Ryan, 1993), and even to exceed these demands in order to help theorganisation (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2000).
The way a teacher perceives success could affect satisfaction with work. Teachers’achievement goals are expected to determine job satisfaction. Past research providesevidence of a positive relationship between job satisfaction and the adoption of apersonal improvement goal. Chaplain (1995) reported teachers’ perception ofprofessional competence to be positively and significantly correlated to overall jobsatisfaction. Based on achievement goals theory, satisfaction with work was hypothe-sised to have a positive relationship with a mastery goal and zero or negative relation-ship with a performance avoidance goal.
Early research considered job satisfaction as a single variable (Hackman &Oldham, 1975), while the current trend is to consider it as a multidimensionalconstruct (Shouksmith, Pajo, & Jespen, 1990). Past research identified andmeasured several discriminably different dimensions of job satisfaction. An impor-tant dimension of job satisfaction is the intrinsic value of the job itself. Previousresearch in Greece, where this study was conducted, revealed that the intrinsic valueof the job itself corresponded positively to teacher ratings of personal accomplish-ment and negatively to teachers’ emotional exhaustion and depersonalisation (Kous-telios, 2001; Koustelios & Tsigilis, 2005). These findings reinforce our argumentthat satisfaction with the job itself should correspond positively to mastery goals butnegatively to performance avoidance goals.
In Greece education is mostly public; teachers are state employees and theirprofessional development is conditioned by the legislation valid for all civil servants.There are no specific, measurable criteria determining job promotion, and a newsystem for evaluating teacher performance has not been applied yet due to opposi-tion from teachers’ unions to certain aspects of it. Issues such as salary, promotion,working hours, and choice of workplace are determined by years of duty and socialcriteria such as marital status, number of dependents, and so on. Given the lack ofexternal motives for the enhancement of teachers’ performance, intrinsic motivesand mastery goals seem to be the major determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
0:44
08
Oct
ober
201
4
352 A. Papaioannou & T. Christodoulidis
On the other hand, the lack of variability in extrinsic aspects of teaching such as payand supervision could imply that satisfaction with these aspects of the job is irrele-vant to teachers’ achievement goals. This, in conjunction with the need to retain asmall number of items in order to make their completion attractive to teachers, led usto exclude from the measure any job satisfaction subscales covering areas such assatisfaction with pay, supervision, and the organisation as a whole (Koustelios &Bagiatis, 1997), and we focused on satisfaction with the job itself.
Pilot Study
The purpose of the pilot study was to examine the factor structure of the Teachers’Achievement Goals in Work Questionnaire and to inspect the factor correlationpattern.
Participants
The Greek educational system consists of three educational levels: elementary(Grades 1–6), secondary (junior high school, Grades 7–9; senior high school,Grades 10–12), and higher education. Elementary and junior high school education(Grades 1–9) is considered obligatory. In elementary education, elementary schoolteachers carry through the educational curriculum, but in addition, foreignlanguage, physical education, music, and fine arts teachers are employed. In second-ary education, adequately specialised teachers are employed for each class (i.e.,maths, language, physics, physical education, etc.).
The participants in this pilot study were 143 Greek teachers of physical education,mathematics, English language, and Greek language. All were working in publicschools in different parts of northern and central Greece. The participants wereworking in elementary schools (n = 57), junior high schools (n = 57), and seniorhigh schools (n = 29); 68 of them were males (47.5 %), 71 (71) were females (49.5%), and four of them (3%) did not answer the question.
Procedure
The participants, after they were given instructions, voluntarily responded to anony-mous questionnaires administered during the school year.
Instrument
The development of items for the Teachers’ Achievement Goals in Work Question-naire was largely based on past findings from factor and reliability analyses of individ-uals’ responses to existing goal orientation instruments that we developed in Greece(Papaioannou, 2001; Papaioannou, Marsh, & Theodorakis, 2004; Papaioannou,Tsiggilis, Kosmidou, & Milosis, in press). We focused on Greek items and findingsbecause several words and idioms have different meanings in different languages.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
0:44
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Teachers’ Achievement Goals 353
From the existing instruments we collected 22 items that best resembled achieve-ment goals in various work contexts. Then we adapted these items for the context ofteachers’ work. The participants marked their answers on a five-point Likert-typescale (1= disagree absolutely, 5 = agree absolutely). Examples of these items appearin Table 3.
Statistics
Exploratory factor analyses were used to examine the construct validity of the scales.Internal consistency was tested via the alpha reliability test. To examine the linearrelationships between the variables, the Pearson correlation coefficient was used.
Results
A principal components analysis with oblimin rotation was conducted, and fiveitems were excluded because their loadings were below .45. The analysis yieldedthree factors with eigenvalues larger than 1, explaining 60% of the total variance. Afactor termed “mastery,” with six items, an eigenvalue of 4.74, and loadings higherthan .70 (except to one loading .56), explained 28% of the total variance. A factortermed “performance approach,” with six items, an eigenvalue of 3.26, and loadingshigher than .66 (except to one loading .57), explained 19.1% of the total variance.Lastly, a factor termed “performance avoidance,” with five items, an eigenvalue of2.19, and loadings higher than .64, explained 12.9% of the total variance. Internalconsistency was satisfactory because the alpha reliability for all factors (Table 1) wasgreater than .82. Scale scores were computed for each of the three factors.
Correlation analysis (Table 1) of the three subscales revealed a positive relationbetween mastery goal and performance approach goal, and a weak positive relationbetween the two performance goals.
Discussion
The findings supported the factorial validity and internal consistency of the Teach-ers’ Achievement Goals in Work Questionnaire. The correlation results werecongruent with the framework of achievement goals theory. According to Elliot and
Table 1. Pilot study of Teachers’ Achievement Goals in Work Questionnaire: correlations between factors and scale alpha reliabilities (on the diagonal)
Teachers’ achievement goals in work 1 2 3
1 Mastery .852 Performance approach .34** .843 Performance avoidance .06 .19* .82
**p < .01; *p < .05
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
0:44
08
Oct
ober
201
4
354 A. Papaioannou & T. Christodoulidis
Church (1997), a positive correlation can be expected between the two approachforms of teachers’ motivation—and indeed, a relationship emerged between masteryand performance approach goals. Moreover, given the normative criteria for judgingone’s competence that are inherent in the two performance goals, the positive rela-tionship between these two goals was to be expected. Hence, these findings wereencouraging in terms of the scale’s validity.
Main Study
A year after the pilot study, the main study was conducted. Its aim was to exam-ine the psychometric properties of the Teachers’ Achievement Goals in WorkQuestionnaire, and an additional scale, the Teachers’ Satisfaction with the JobItself scale, and the relationship between these constructs. Moreover, variations inachievement goals between teachers differing in gender and specialisation wereexamined. Because there is no relevant research in this context, the latter investi-gation was exploratory.
Participants and Procedure
In all, 1200 questionnaires were distributed to eight schools in each region of Greeceand the two biggest urban areas (Athens and Thessaloniki). Participation was volun-tary and anonymous. Questionnaires were administered in envelopes with instruc-tions regarding the scope of the questionnaires and how to complete them. Wereceived 450 questionnaires back, of which 430 contained responses to all items.
Thus, participants were a nationally representative sample of 430 Greek teachers(Table 2); 390 of them (91%) were working in public schools and 39 were workingin private schools (9%); 163 of them were males (39%) and 255 were females(61%). Their specialisation appears in Table 2.
Table 2. Specialization of participants
Teacher specializationElementary education
Secondary education
Both elementary and secondary education Total
Elementary school teachers 92 – – 92Physical education 73 69 7 1491
Foreign Language 48 48 2 981
Maths – 50 – 50Others 5 27 1 33Did not report specialization 4 4 – 8Total 222 198 10 430
Note. In both elementary and secondary education, physical education and foreign language classes are taught by graduates from physical education and foreign language departments. In elementary education all academic subjects apart from foreign languages are taught by graduates from elementary education departments. The category “Others” in elementary education includes teachers of art and music.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
0:44
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Teachers’ Achievement Goals 355
Instruments
From the Teachers’ Achievement Goals in Work Questionnaire developed in thepilot study, we selected the four items with the highest loading on each of thefactors. We decided to use only 12 variables in order to compile the shortest possibleinstrument that could be completed easily by all participants. We also made surethat in the pilot study all subscales had acceptable alpha reliability (i.e., greater than.75). The answers were marked on a five-point Likert-type scale (1= disagree abso-lutely, 5 = agree absolutely).
As a measure of teachers’ job satisfaction, the subscale “work itself” (Koustelios &Kousteliou, 1998), from the Employee Satisfaction Inventory (Koustelios & Bagiatis,1997), was used. The subscale consisted of four items (e.g., “My job is worthwhile”)and the answers were given on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = disagree absolutely,5 = agree absolutely).
Statistics
Confirmatory factor analyses were used to examine the construct validity of thescales (using AMOS 5). Internal consistency was tested using the alpha reliabilitytest. To examine the linear relationships between variables, we used Pearson correla-tion coefficients. Differences between genders and specialisations were examined viamultivariate analyses of variance.
Results
Achievement goals. Based on our hypotheses, a three-factor model was specifiedwith correlated factors. All items were allowed to load only to one factor—the factorthat they were assumed to assess. No correlated residuals were permitted. The
Table 3. Factor loadings (standardized regression weights) for the items of the “Teachers’ Achievement Goals in Work Questionnaire”
Loadings
Item F1 F2 F3
I am absolutely satisfied when it looks that I’m better teacher than others .65It is my attitude to avoid teaching things for which I may be gibed at, for my abilities .68My goal is to continuously develop my abilities as a teacher .70I intend to try even more in order to learn new things for what I teach .75I’ll continue avoiding exercises in which I may look incapable .79It is important for me to learn new things all the time in the subject that I teach .79My attitude is to be better teacher than the others .86I will always try to outperform my colleagues .83I like learning new things on the subject that I teach, no matter how difficult they are .67It is important to my life to perform better as a teacher than others .71I want to avoid teaching things in which I may look incapable .83I feel relieved when I avoid teaching something in which I might look incapable .66
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
0:44
08
Oct
ober
201
4
356 A. Papaioannou & T. Christodoulidis
goodness-of-fit indices were satisfactory (χ2 = 122.5, df = 51, TLI = .943, CFI =.963, RMSEA = .056). These findings support a good factor structure for thisinstrument assessing teachers’ achievement goals in work (Hu & Bentler, 1999).Standardised regression weights (factor loadings) for the items are shown in Table3. All were statistically significant (p < .001) and their magnitude was mostly high.
As shown in Table 4, internal consistency was satisfactory: alpha reliabilities for allsubscales were larger than .82. Scale scores were computed for each of the threefactors.
Correlation analysis (Table 4) of the three subscales revealed a positive relation-ship between the two performance goals.
Teachers’ job satisfaction. A principal components analysis with oblimin rotation ofthe Teachers’ Satisfaction with the Job Itself subscale was conducted. The analysisyielded one factor with an eigenvalue of 2.30, explaining 57.3 % of the total vari-ance. The loadings were higher than .67, and the alpha reliability was satisfactory, at.84. Then the score for this scale was computed.
Correlations. Correlation analysis revealed that job satisfaction was positively relatedto mastery goal (r = .38, p <.001), unrelated to performance approach goal (r = -.02), and negatively related to performance avoidance goal (r = -.16, p < .01).
Gender differences. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed genderdifferences in achievement goals (Wilks’ λ = .97, p < .05). Follow-up ANOVAsshowed that female teachers had somewhat higher scores on performance avoidancegoals (M = 2.69, SD = .83) than male teachers (M = 2.47, SD = .78; F[1,361] =6.09, p < .02), but the effect size was small (η2 = .02, Cohen’s d = .28).
Differences between specialisations. MANOVA revealed statistically significant differ-ences in achievement goals between teachers of different specialisation (Wilks’ λ =.93, p < .01). Follow-up ANOVAs revealed that teachers of mathematics had lowerscores on performance avoidance goals than teachers from other specialisations(F[4,361] = 4.75, p < .001, η2 = .05, Cohen’s d = .55–.77; see Table 5).
Table 4. Main study of the Teachers’ Achievement Goals in Work Questionnaire: correlations between factors and scale alpha reliabilities (on the diagonal)
Teachers’ achievement goals in work 1 2 3
1 Mastery .822 Performance approach .03 .843 Performance avoidance −.05 .32** .82
**p < .01
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
0:44
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Teachers’ Achievement Goals 357
General Discussion
In the search for a better education, several approaches are possible. One approachfocuses on instructional practice: there is much research regarding effective instruc-tional strategies, but although the findings constitute an important factor for achiev-ing positive change in education, alone they are not enough to bring significantchange to the educational domain. Also needed are teachers who are keen to makechanges in their teaching in order to apply the new information. Teachers thatalways try to develop their skills are more likely to broaden their knowledge and touse instructional advancements. An increase in teachers’ mastery orientation couldlead to changes in the strategies teachers use, and promote a positive change ineducational practice (Nolen & Nicholls, 1994).
To investigate teachers’ achievement goals, we need sound measures to capturethese goals. Accordingly, the purpose of the present study was to develop an instru-ment measuring teachers’ goal orientations in work.
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic results from two studies using theTeachers’ Achievement Goals in Work Questionnaire revealed a three-factor struc-ture assessing mastery, performance approach, and performance avoidance goals.All factors had satisfactory reliability. Correlation analysis revealed that the twoperformance subscales were positively correlated with each other. Moreover, theperformance avoidance scale exhibited no correlations with the mastery subscale.These findings are within the theoretical framework of achievement goal theory andin line with past research involving students (Elliot & Church 1997; Middleton &Midgley, 1997).
When we examined the relationships between teachers’ achievement goals inwork and satisfaction with the job itself (Koustelios & Kousteliou, 1998), wefound that a mastery goal was moderately positively related to job satisfaction, andthat a performance approach goal was unrelated to job satisfaction. When masterygoals are adopted, the evaluation of competence and achievement is based onsubjective criteria. Any kind of progress constitutes proof of successful goal accom-plishment. In turn, this experience of success releases positive emotions, such asjob satisfaction. However, when performance approach goals are adopted, evalua-tion of competence and achievement is based on normative criteria, such as others’
Table 5. Means and standards deviations of teachers’ achievement goals in work
Physical education
Foreign languages Maths
Elementary school teaching Others
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Mastery 4.22 .50 4.33 .51 4.30 .65 4.49 .42 4.49 .48Performance approach 2.55 .90 2.57 .94 2.39 .90 2.47 .85 2.52 .90Performance avoidance 2.65b .83 2.74b .81 2.14a .72 2.53b .70 2.75b .93
Note. Means sharing a subscript aer significantly different at p < .05
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
0:44
08
Oct
ober
201
4
358 A. Papaioannou & T. Christodoulidis
performance. Sometimes these criteria are met but at other times they are not.This situation does not leave room for positive emotions and job satisfaction formost teachers, as found in this study.
The positive association between the two performance goals might be based on aninteraction between these two goals. For example, a performance approach goalcould possibly turn into a performance avoidance goal when people consistently failto accomplish performance approach goals. This experience of failure could possiblyactivate performance avoidance goals. As Elliot and Church (1997) indicated, this islikely to generate negative affect and job dislike. The present negative associationbetween job satisfaction and performance avoidance goals is supportive of thisassumption.
In sum, the present findings from analyses of correlations between goals and jobsatisfaction are congruent with achievement goal theory (Elliot & Church, 1997;Nicholls, 1989) and support the external construct validity of the achievement goalsquestionnaire. Other indications of external construct validity are provided by thegender differences and the differences due to teacher specialisation. Female teachershad a somewhat higher score on the performance avoidance scale than male teach-ers. Nevertheless, the size effect for this difference was small.
On the other hand, the difference in performance avoidance goals between teach-ers of different specialisation was of moderate importance. This noteworthy differ-ence is due to teachers of mathematics, who had lower scores on performanceavoidance goals than other teachers. It seems likely that maths teachers are less likelyto be afraid of failure than other teachers, which may be due to differences inperceived competence. That is, in comparison to other teachers, maths teachers mayfeel much more competent in their subject than their students. Accordingly, mathsteachers are less likely to be afraid of challenges to their competence than otherteachers. Certainly, further studies are needed to verify this speculation.
Elaboration of the construct validity of an instrument is an ongoing process. Thesmall sample size in the first study did not allow cross-validation across the twosamples (Li et al., 1998), which would provide information about the replicabilityand generalisability of the model. Future research with larger and internationalsamples of teachers would provide better information about the generalisability ofthe present factor structure across different cultures. Longitudinal studies are alsoneeded to investigate the stability of the constructs over time, and the cause–effectrelationships of teachers’ goal orientations with other variables which are considereddeterminants or consequences of achievement goals. Concurrent examination of thepresent instrument with other measures will also provide more extensive informationabout the convergent and divergent validity of the present scales, because some ofthe present effect sizes were small and indicate trends only.
Conclusion
The results of this study provide initial evidence of the construct validity of theTeachers’ Achievement Goals in Work Questionnaire, which could be a useful tool
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
0:44
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Teachers’ Achievement Goals 359
to educational researchers interested in teacher motivation. The present findingssupport those theorists suggesting that achievement goal theory is an insightfulapproach to investigating the effectiveness of contemporary educational policies,such as the high-stakes testing policy (Ryan & Brown, 2005). The adoption ofnormative standards for evaluating teacher effectiveness is likely to promote perfor-mance goals but not mastery goals. This strategy can hardly promote teachers’ jobsatisfaction: one should wonder whether education could be improved with unsatis-fied teachers.
The enhancement of teachers’ mastery goals is determined by many factorsincluding educational administration and teacher education. Educational adminis-tration should focus on the promotion of mastery-oriented climates in schools. Thisincludes the determination of specific challenging goals for both teachers andstudents that can be easily adapted to the unique characteristics of each school,emphasis on cooperation between teachers, increased collaboration between teach-ers and parents, encouragement of teachers’ autonomy in the teaching process, andteacher evaluation systems that provide information about the teaching process butare not perceived as controlling (Dragoni, 2005; Maehr & Midgley, 1996). Thecontext of teacher education should be characterised by a mastery-oriented climateemphasising meaningful and challenging learning tasks, proximal personal improve-ment goals, self-determination in the learning process and critical thinking, task-related feedback, and evaluation of personal progress (Ames, 1992; Urdan &Turner, 2005). Educational administration and teacher education should provideincreased career-long opportunities for teachers’ competence development. In theend, if we want to improve education we should reinvest in teachers’ education(Nicholls, 1989).
Note
1. The higher percentage of responses from physical education and foreign language teachers isdue to the fact that the distribution of the questionnaires was facilitated by a Greek profes-sional association of physical education teachers and foreign language teachers.
References
Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In D. H. Schunk &J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327–348). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chaplain, R. P. (1995). Stress and job satisfaction: A study of English primary school teachers.Educational Psychology, 15, 473–489.
Coad, A. F. (1999). Some survey evidence on the learning and performance orientations ofmanagement accountants. Management Accounting Research, 10, 109–135.
Daniel, J. V. (1975). Faculty job satisfaction in physical education and athletics. In E. F. Zeigler &M. J. Spaeth (Eds.), Administrative theory and practice in physical education and athletics(pp. 152–175). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dragoni, L. (2005). Understanding the emergence of state goal orientation in organizational workgroups: The role of leadership and multilevel climate perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology,90, 1084–1095.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
0:44
08
Oct
ober
201
4
360 A. Papaioannou & T. Christodoulidis
Dweck, C. (1999). Self-theories and goals: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997) A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achieve-ment motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218–232.
Gerhart, B. (1987). How important are dispositional factors as determinants of job satisfaction?Implications for job design and other personnel programs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64,366–373.
Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 60, 159–170.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Employee and supervisor ratings ofmotivation: Main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and adjustment ina factory setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 23, 1789–1805.
Koustelios, A. (2001). Organizational factors as predictors of teachers’ burnout. PsychologicalReports, 88, 627–634.
Koustelios, A., & Bagiatis, K. (1997). The Employee Satisfaction Inventory (ESI): Developmentof a scale to measure satisfaction of Greek employees. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 57, 469–476.
Koustelios, A., & Kousteliou, I. (1998). Relations among measures of job satisfaction, roleconflict, and role ambiguity for a sample of Greek teachers. Psychological Reports, 82, 131–136.
Koustelios, A., & Tsigilis, N. (2005). The relationship between burnout and job satisfactionamong physical education teachers: A multivariate approach. European Physical EducationReview, 10, 189–203.
Li, F., Harmer, P., Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., Acock, A., & Yamamoto, T. (1998). Confirma-tory factor analysis of the Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire with cross-valida-tion. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 276–283.
Maehr, M. L., & Braskamp, L. A. (1986). The motivation factor. Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks.
Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An under-
explored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710–718.Nicholls, J. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.Nolen, S. B., & Nicholls, J. (1994). A place to begin (again) in research on student motivation:
Teachers’ beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 57–69.Papaioannou, A. (2001). Un modele multidimensionnel hierarchique du developpement person-
nel en education physique. In F. Cury & P. Sarrazin (Eds.), Theories de la motivation etpratiques sportives (pp. 298–329). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Papaioannou, A., Marsh, H. W., & Theodorakis, Y. (2004). A multilevel approach to motivationalclimate in physical education and sport settings: An individual or a group level construct.Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 90–118.
Papaioanou, A., Tsiggilis, N., Kosmidou, E., & Milosis, D. (in press). Measuring perceived moti-vational climate in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education.
Ryan, R. M., & Brown, K. W. (2005). Legislating competence: High-stakes testing policesand their relations with psychological theories and research. In A. J. Elliot & C. S.Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 354–374). New York: Guil-ford Press.
Shouksmith, G., Pajo, K., & Jespen, A. (1990). Construction of a multidimensional scale of jobsatisfaction. Psychological Reports, 67, 355–364.
Silver, L. S. (2000). A social-cognitive approach to salesperson work motivation. DissertationAbstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 61(6-A), 2385.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
0:44
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Teachers’ Achievement Goals 361
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: The rela-tionships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachers’ extra-role behavior. Teachingand Teacher Education, 16, 649–659.
Steele-Johnson, D., Beauregard, R. S., Hoover, P. B., & Schmidt, A. M. (2000). Goal orientationand task demand effects on motivation, affect, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,85, 724–738.
Stevens, C. K., & Gist, M. E. (1997). Effects of self-efficacy and goal orientation training on nego-tiation skill maintenance: What are the mechanisms? Personnel Psychology, 50, 955–978.
Sujan, H., Weitz, B., & Kumar, N. (1994). Learning orientation, working smart, and effective sell-ing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 39–52.
Urdan, T., & Turner, J. C. (2005). Competence motivation in the classroom. In A. J. Elliot & C.S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 297–317). New York: GuilfordPress.
Vande Walle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1999). The influence of goalorientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. Journalof Applied Psychology, 84, 249–259.
Vande Walle, D., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (2001). The role of goal orientation followingperformance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 629–640.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
0:44
08
Oct
ober
201
4
