1. Art and Diseño

TEACHER MOTIVATION
for
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
National Science Foundation • NSF DUE 0928103
MSP-MAP II • PDM — 1
2 — MSP-MAP II • PDM
TEACHER MOTIVATION
for
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Stuart A. Karabenick
&
AnneMarie Conley
Technical Report
Math and Science Partnership
Motivation Assessment Program II
(MSP-MAP II)
www.mspmap.org
ma.mspnet.org
National Science Foundation • DUE 0928103
MSP-MAP II • PDM — 3
MSP-MAP II
Stuart A. Karabenick (PI)
([email protected])
Combined Program in Education and Psychology
University of Michigan
AnneMarie Conley (Co-PI)
([email protected])
Department of Education
University of California • Irvine
Martin L. Maehr (Co-PI)
([email protected])
Combined Program in Education and Psychology
University of Michigan
Consultants: Deborah Ball, University of Michigan, USA—Ruth
Butler, Hebrew University, Israel—Joe Krajcik, Michigan State University, USA—Helen Watt, Monash University, Australia
Research Assistants: Amanda Berhenke, University of Michigan—
Colleen Kuusinen, University of Michigan—Fani Lauermann, University of Michigan—Kara Makara, University of Michigan—Loren
Marulis, University of Michigan—Teomara Rutherford, University
of California • Irvine—Nayssan Safavian, University of California •
Irvine—Jessica Turney, University of California • Irvine—Nicholas
Yoder, University of Michigan
Research Assistants & Technical Support: Pamela MacInnisWeir, University of Michigan—Glen B. Raulerson, University of
Michigan
—Please cite as—
Karabenick, S. A., & Conley, A. (2011).Teacher Motivation for
Professional Development. Math and Science Partnership Motivation Assessment Program, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
4 — MSP-MAP II • PDM
Table of Contents
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................7
Teachers Who Participated in PD...................................................................................................7
Teacher Preferred Features of PD....................................................................................................7
Teacher Characteristics and School Context...................................................................................8
Conclusions and Links to the PD Literature..................................................................................8
Introduction...............................................................................................................................................9
Motivation Theory...................................................................................................................................11
Expectancy-Value Theory..............................................................................................................11
Achievement Goal Theory.............................................................................................................11
Teacher Affect and Emotions........................................................................................................12
A Model of Teacher PDM.......................................................................................................................13
PD Process Cluster........................................................................................................................13
Predictors of PD Process Components..........................................................................................14
A Study of Teacher PDM.........................................................................................................................15
Sampling and Participants.............................................................................................................15
Data Collection Procedure............................................................................................................15
Motivation to Participate in PD..............................................................................................................16
Rate, Ratings, and Descriptions of Teacher Participation in PD...................................................16
Teachers’ PD Experiences..............................................................................................................16
Influence of Participation on Future Motivation...........................................................................17
Rated Effectiveness of PD.............................................................................................................17
Summary of PD Experiences and PDM.......................................................................................18
Analysis Description......................................................................................................................19
Motivational Correlates of PD Participation.........................................................................................20
MSP-MAP II • PDM — 5
PD Characteristics.........................................................................................................................20
Preferred PD Formats...................................................................................................................21
PD Help with Student Motivation...............................................................................................21
PDM and PD Content.................................................................................................................21
Other Factors Influencing PD Participation.................................................................................23
Teacher Characteristics and School Context..........................................................................................24
Motives for Teaching.....................................................................................................................24
School Context and Teacher Experiences......................................................................................24
Teacher Responsibility...................................................................................................................25
Teacher Emotions..........................................................................................................................26
Approaches to Instruction.............................................................................................................27
Conclusions and Future Directions........................................................................................................28
References................................................................................................................................................29
6 — MSP-MAP II • PDM
Executive Summary
Teacher professional development (PD) is an essential feature of instructional interventions in general,
and for the improvement of students’ math and science learning and achievement in particular. The more
motivated teachers are to participate and engage in PD, the more likely they will be to profit from the
experience. Teacher motivation in PD is directly linked with classroom enactment of PD approaches,
content and skills, and it is indirectly related to increasing the likelihood of desirable student outcomes.
Informed by theory and empirical evidence from research on student and teacher motivation, and by a
model of teacher motivation to participate in PD (PDM), a national study of teachers (n = 552) examined
the level of PDM, teachers’ experiences in PD, and their perceived benefits of PD. Also examined were
how perceived experiences and benefits were associated with features of PD programs and teacher and
contextual factors.
Among the most noteworthy findings — On average, teachers reported being positively motivated to
participate in PD. Approximately 40% of the teachers indicated they were highly motivated, whereas only
7% indicated they were not at all motivated. Most teachers reported having participated in PD during the
previous school year, and those with higher levels of PDM were more likely to have participated.
Teachers Who Participated in PD
Of the teachers who participated during the previous year, 64% reported that their
PD experiences were either positive or extremely positive, whereas only 13% reported having had a negative experience. 45% of the teachers indicated that past
PD experiences made them more motivated to participate in PD in the future,
and 16% reported they were less motivated. 62% judged PD useful for increasing
their teaching effectiveness, although 18% considered it useless. More specifically,
teachers indicated that PD helped them to improve students’ competence in the
following: subject area(s) taught, motivation to understand the material in depth,
and interest in and value for the subject area(s) taught. The teachers also indicated
improvement in their students’ motivation to work with classmates to study, seek
help when needed, perform well on state tests, attend class, and do their homework.
Improvement in all areas was directly related to teacher PDM, which was higher
for teachers who indicated that the PD required a significant amount of work to implement teaching
strategies, and that it required the teachers to bear some of the cost. PDM was also higher when the PD
addressed professional requirements or continuing education needs by earning continuing education credits and fulfilling state licensing and renewal requirements. Finally, PDM was higher when there were
such benefits for teachers as an included stipend for attendance or enhanced job security. PDM was
unrelated to whether PD took up a significant amount of teachers’ personal time, conflicted with other
scheduled school events, conflicted with their class time, or involved considerable travel time. In
addition, PDM was unrelated to whether or not it was part of their evaluation. PDM was lower when
PD fulfilled a district or school requirement.
Teachers’ Preferred Features of PD
Teachers indicated they would want to participate in PD to the extent they expected participation to do
the following: improve their subject-matter knowledge, be enjoyable and fun, enhance their career, and
not require too much time and effort. Teachers reported a preference for PD when other teachers in their
MSP-MAP II • PDM — 7
school were participating and when their principal encouraged them to participate. Teacher PDM was
directly related to all of these PD characteristics.
Teachers’ most preferred PD formats consisted of a single workshop with teacher participation, a series of
workshops with teacher participation, and PD delivered completely or partly online. Of these formats, the
more that teachers were motivated to participate in PD the more they preferred a series of workshops with
teacher participation. Less preferred were summer institutes, professional learning communities (PLCs),
and lectures.
Teachers’ desire to participate was directly related to whether PD would: make their lessons more engaging and more effective for student learning, improve their students’ achievement, improve the degree to
which their students learned the required material, capture students’ interest in the subject they taught,
show students they truly cared about them, and establish positive relationships with students. Teachers’
PDM was directly related to all of these ratings.
Teacher Characteristics and School Context
Teachers who considered themselves more personally responsible for student achievement, student motivation, re- Those [teachers] who reported more
lations with students, and for quality teaching were more positive emotions...were more momotivated to engage in and had more positive experiences tivated to participate in PDM.
with PD. Those who reported more positive emotions (e.g.,
excitement and satisfaction) and with less negative emotions (e.g., anger and feelings of burnout) in their
teaching were more motivated to participate in PD. Teachers with higher PDM also reported more positive principal relations and collegial leadership, felt a sense of personal accomplishment, experienced fewer
school problems, emotional exhaustion, and stress. Those with higher PDM were more likely to adopt a
mastery approach to instruction that focused on individual student improvement and had high expectations for their students. To a lesser extent, PDM was related to the adoption of a performance approach to
instruction that focuses on student ability and interpersonal student comparisons.
Conclusions and Links to the PD Literature
Teachers in general indicated they were positively motivated to participate in PD. Most in this national
sample reported having participated in PD in the previous year, and a majority of those felt that PD was
useful for improving their teaching practice, student learning, and student motivation. Overall, teachers
who participated in PD reported moderate to high levels of motivation, even when participation involved
a considerable investment of time or resources. Teachers reported they are open to a variety of PD formats,
especially those that included teacher participation.
8 — MSP-MAP II • PDM
Introduction
Math and Science Partnership (MSP) teacher professional development (PD) interventions are designed to increase teacher content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge,
assuming that the resulting changes in instructional practices
will boost student learning and performance. However, while
there is considerable consensus for the features of PD programs that are necessary and sufficient for their success (e.g.,
Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Guskey, 2003; Hassel, 1999;
Hawley & Valli, 1998; Loucks-Horsley, et al., 2003; National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996; Weiss
& Pasley, 2009), there remains a need to establish empircal
support for these features (Weiss, 2009) as well as the need to
determine the impact of PD programs across a broad range of conditions (Borko, 2004). A recent review
of research and evaluation designs stressed the need to assess proximal outcomes of PD, most notably the
changes in teacher knowledge and teacher practices that mediate the effects of interventions on achievement (Wayne et al., 2008). Indeed, there is evidence that MSP and other NSF programs often do include
such mediators, as documented by recent studies of NSF’s Local Systemic Change initiative (Boyd et al., 2003; Heck et al., 2006) and MSP programs (Zhang et al., 2008).
In addition to the focus on teacher knowledge and practices, there are also urgent calls to examine the role
of teacher motivation for PD (PDM). That is because PD can influence teachers’ motivation for teaching math and science in general (Alexander, 2008; Tittle, 2006), and for attempting new instructional
practices (e.g., reform math and problem-based science) that incur costs and risks as well as benefits and
challenges (De Corte et al., 1996; Gregoire, 2003; Hargreaves, 1998; Richardson & Placier, 2001; Smith,
2000). Goldsmith and Schifter (1997), for example, suggested that descriptions of teacher development
need to add accounts of individual motivational and dispositional factors. Thus Boyd et al. (2003) highlighted the critical role of PDM as one of their four key recommendations: “A primary challenge for largescale professional development projects lies in attracting teachers and sustaining their involvement so that
they can receive the full dose of professional development” (p. 112).
As stated in the study of Local Systemic Change, “You have to make every effort to get the teachers there
and once you get them there, you have to make sure you have something of high quality that will encourage
them to come back” (Boyd et al., 2003, p. 47), for higher education faculty in particular (Zhang et al., 2008).
Similarly, in his more contemporary review, Tittle (2006) concluded that while “[t]here are references [in
the literature] to motivation and affective (or dispositional) charMotivational concerns, while acteristics as important to teacher learning…[f ]ew studies address
often alluded to in passing... these areas, areas that are likely to be important for assessments of
remain a critical yet under- long-term professional learning and development” (p. 976). Even
the evaluation of PD programs requires motivational considerstudied component of teacher ations to the extent that it results in differential rates of participaPD interventions.
tion and thus the potential for selection bias (Wayne et al., 2008).
And yet, recent work on PD in math and science (Weiss & Pasley,
2009) does not explicitly include motivation. Motivational concerns, while often alluded to in passing (e.g.,
with regard to participation incentives or teacher confidence), thus remain a critical yet understudied component of teacher PD interventions.
MSP-MAP II • PDM — 9
Fortunately, the recognized importance of PDM arises at a time of renewed interest in teacher motivation in general (Watt & Richardson, 2008), which can be applied to the more specific domain of teacher PD. What distinguishes this work is
its comprehensive application of contemporary motivation theory and research. As
discussed subsequently, these approaches include expectancy-value theories (Watt
& Richardson, 2008), achievement goals (Butler & Shibaz, 2008) and interest
theories (Hidi, & Renninger, 2006), and new ways to think about emotion and
affect (Pekrun, 2007). These conceptual frameworks offer a range of constructs and
their assessments that are especially relevant for PD in math and science instruction in general, and thus for the formative and summative evaluation of teacher PD
interventions in the MSP program in particular.
10 — MSP-MAP II • PDM
Motivation Theory
There are several dominant theoretical approaches to motivation that have focused primarily on student
learning and school performance: Expectancy-Value, Achievement Goals, Interest, and the related area of
Emotion. Highlights of these approaches to motivation are presented here, along with their relevance for
teacher motivation and professional development.
Expectancy-Value Theory
Recent work on teacher motivation within the framework of expectancy-value theory (Richardson & Watt,
2006; Watt & Richardson, 2007) provides evidence for links between teachers’ motivation and their engagement, commitment and persistence in teaching and their inclination to become involved in professional development. Much of the evidence for the effects of motivation focuses on teacher efficacy—their
self-perceived capabilities to affect outcomes. There is considerable agreement that teachers’ efficacy and
skepticism about affecting students is associated with enthusiasm, job commitment, and instructional
behavior (e.g., Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Furthermore, research has identified a link
between teacher efficacy and student efficacy and achievement as well (Feldhaufer et al., 1988; Ross &
Cousins, 1993).
There is evidence that the influence of teacher efficacy on student achievement is partially mediated by
teachers’ instructional behaviors (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Turner et al., in
press; Woolfolk Hoy & Davis, 2006). Thus, teachers’ confidence in their capacity to use instructional strategies (e.g., those promoted by PD) makes it more likely they will enact those strategies (Hart, 2002; Ross
& Bruce, 2007; Wilson & Cooney, 2002).
Recent work on teacher motivation...provides evidence for
links between teachers’ motivation and their engagement,
commitment and persistence
in teaching and their inclination to become involved in
professional development.
The value that teachers accord the tasks involved in teaching math
and science is also critical (Eccles, 2005; Eccles et al., 1998; Schunk, et al., 2008; Anderman & Wolters, 2006). Four components
of value have been proposed (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000): interest
value is the enjoyment the individual derived from performing the
task; utility value is how the task relates to future goals, attainment
value is the importance to the self of doing well on a task, linked
with identity (in this case teacher identity), and cost, which refers to
the accumulated negative aspects of engaging in the task, including
anticipated emotional states (performance anxiety, fear of failure),
and the amount of effort required to succeed at the task.
Much of the evidence regarding value is based on students (e.g., Eccles et al., 1998; Wigfield & Eccles,
2002). Watt and Richardson (2006, 2007, 2008) have systematically extended that work to teachers, with
scales to assess the intrinsic value, personal utility value and social utility value of teaching. However, their
work has yet to focus extensively on PD. Nevertheless, their work provides a framework for the assessment
of value that is of particular relevance for PDM. The combination of value in addition to efficacy can provide information for the predicted likelihood that teachers will opt to become involved in PD, profit from
it, and be motivated to change their practices as recommended by PD interventions.
Achievement Goal Theory
Achievement goals refer to the reasons for engaging in learning and performance tasks. The perspective is
MSP-MAP II • PDM — 11
that motivation differs in kind as well as magnitude. Mastery goals represent a focus on the development
of competence, and performance goals represent a concern for demonstrating competence (Pintrich, 2000;
Elliot, 2005). Mastery goals have been consistently related to a number of such favorable student outcomes
as persistence, students’ use of deep learning strategies and necessary help seeking (e.g., Karabenick, 2004;
Levy, Kaplan, & Patrick, 2004; Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2009; Wolters, 2004), as well as indirect positive
effects on performance that are mediated by those outcomes (e.g., Simons, DeWitte, & Lens, 2004; Wolters, 1998). Conclusions regarding the effects of students’ adoption of performance goals depend on whether they involve approach or avoidance. Whereas performance approach goals have been related to higher
achievement, adverse consequences are generally associated with the adoption of performance avoidance
goals (Hulleman, Schrager, Bodman, & Harackiewicz, 2010; Senko, Hulleman, & Harackiewicz, 2011).
Whatever the factors that contribute to and result from student goal adoption (e.g., mastery vs. performance, the multiple goals perspective, selective goals), it is clear that students adopt achievement goals and
that the goals adopted have important consequences for student self-regulation and achievement. Here we
focus on teachers’ approaches to instruction, specifically achievement goal structures (Meece et al., 2006),
which can influence the goals students adopt and the resulting consequences. Goal structures refer to the
ways that teachers organize their classes, respond to student success and failure, and stress normative performance and ability comparisons among students or individual
improvement and academic risk-taking, such as promoting beliefs that mistakes are part of the learning process.
Teacher Affect and Emotions
With the exception of anxiety (primarily math anxiety; e.g.,
McLeod & Adams, 1989), student emotions in academic learning settings have been relatively neglected. Recently, there is
renewed interest in the role of emotions in academic learning,
both for students and teachers (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Pekrun et al., 2002; Schutz & Pekrun,
2007). This work has been aided by Pekrun’s control-value theory (Pekrun, et al., 2007) that uses a twodimensional system (positive-negative and active-passive) to classify emotions. Teachers’ emotions have
been a consistent concern, although less so than teachers’ beliefs (Schuck & Grootenboer, 2004). Teacher
emotions, including anger and frustration (Sutton, 2007) are especially thought to be tied to their identities (Gregoire, 2003; van den Berg, 2002), to their beliefs and goals in the classroom (Schutz, Cross, Hong,
& Osbon, 2007), and thus the likely influence on PDM.
12 — MSP-MAP II • PDM
A Model of Teacher PDM
The model shown in Figure 1 is designed to capture the motivation-related dynamics of teacher PD, which
is meant to depict an episode in a process that is iterative and dynamic given the ongoing nature of interventions. The process is assumed to be embedded in a school/societal context that could influence the process, although its specific influences are not represented in the model in order to simplify its presentation.
PD Process Cluster
Four model components were designated as the PD Process Cluster. Within this cluster, PD participation
is assumed to be determined by whether teachers opt to participate and the degree of participation (e.g.,
number of workshops or PLC meetings attended). Also included in the model is the motivation to enact
PD recommended instructional practices, which summarizes the expected values of using them and the
likelihood that teachers will enact them, which in the PD Cluster are assumed to be influenced directly by
the extent of engagement (P7). Motivation for enacting practices is also assumed to be mediated by the
effects of participation (P6 -> P9), as well as being influenced directly by PD experiences (P9). The enactment of recommended PD practices is an outcome of participation, experiences and motivation to enact
those practices. The model provides for the direct (P8) and indirect effects of participation through PD
experiences (P6 -> P10) and motivation to enact practices (P7 -> P11). Further, the PD process cluster is
assumed to have a direct effect on student outcomes (P12).
Figure 1. PDM Process Model
MSP-MAP II • PDM — 13
Predictors of PD Process Components
The model proposes five general determinants of teachers’ approach to PD. The first determinant is teachers’ motivation to
teach math/science, which includes their self-efficacy beliefs,
value of teaching math/science and their teaching goals. Although teacher motivation is assumed to be relatively stable, the
model provides a reciprocal path to allow for participation in
the PD process to influence motivation (P1). Also represented
in the model is the direct influence of teacher motivation on
students’ outcomes (P12). The motivational relevance of PD
programmatic features is represented by P2. PD programmatic
features captures teachers’ understanding of the design and requirements of the PD program itself, including extrinsic inducements, beliefs about and perceived benefits of increased content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, and costs, which may include the time and effort of participation and penalties for non-compliance in the case of mandatory participation. The third determinant relates to teachers’
previous experiences with PD in math/science (P3). P4 includes the effects of how teachers are influenced
by other teachers (e.g., whether others intend to participate). Finally, administrative support for PD is also
included (P5).
Taken together, these five determinants are shown to influence the entire process of PD participation and
intended changes in practice. Although the details of each particular path are not shown in this presentation, the model allows for analysis of the direct effects of each component both on participation and the
remaining components as well.
14 — MSP-MAP II • PDM
A Study of Teacher PDM
Given the absence of existing research on teachers’ PDM discussed above, our study of PDM was conducted using research-based motivation theory and the proposed model shown in Figure 1 as a guide.
The purpose is to provide a snapshot of PDM for teachers in general, and math and science teachers in
particular. We first examined the associations between teachers’ PDM and their previous experiences with
PD, their preferred content characteristics of PD, and what they expect to gain from participation. We
examined teacher characteristics and features of the school context and we identified a set of factors that
potentially affect the likelihood of teacher participation in PD, engagement in PD and benefits from their
participation in PD.
Sampling and Participants
Participants consisted of 552 teachers recruited from a panel
provided by Qualtrics (qualtrics.com) who were screened for
eligibility for the study. First, the survey was distributed only
among individuals who indicated that their occupation is in the
field of education when they registered for the panel. Second,
because occupations may change over time and some individuals
may have non-traditional teaching-related positions (e.g., tutoring or home schooling), each participant responded to a series of
screening questions to determine eligibility. Only K-12 in-service teachers were retained in the sample. Overall, 736 participants were identified as eligible, 552 (75%) of whom provided adequate data to be included in the present
report. Of those, 33% were identified as elementary, 9% middle and 58% high school teachers; furthermore
24% were classified as teaching math or science, and 71% were female. Geographical representation of
teachers in the sample (by state) was similar to that of the U.S. population (2010 Census). Because the
results for math or science teachers compared to other teachers were either not statistically significant or
sufficiently small to be of no practical significance, the results are presented for the entire teacher sample.
Data Collection Procedure
[We] identified a series of
factors that potentially improve the likelihood that
teachers would participate,
be engaged in, and profit
from PD, as well as those
that render it less likely.
Invitations for survey participation were sent via email. The first
page of the survey included a consent form. Individuals who agreed
to participate after reading the consent form respond to a series
of questions related to their teaching position (e.g., whether they
are currently teaching any regularly scheduled K-12 classes, grade
levels, and subject areas that they currently teach). Some of these
questions were used for automatic screening: if a person’s responses
indicated that he or she was not currently a K-12 teacher, the survey
was automatically terminated.
MSP-MAP II • PDM — 15
Motivation to Participate in PD
Teachers’ general motivation to participate in PD (PDM) was assessed by their response to the direct question: “In general, how motivated are you, personally, to participate in PD activities?” The 7-point response
scale ranged from 0 “Not at all” to 6 “Extremely”. The entire sample Mean = 4.8 (SD = 1.7). The frequency
distribution of responses (in %) shown in Figure 2 provides evidence that most teachers (including math
and science teachers) described themselves as highly motivated to participate in PD. Subsequent analyses
will describe the characteristics of PD that may influence PD participation and of teachers who are more
or less motivated to participate.
Figure 2. Teachers’ Responses to the Question:
In general, how motivated are you, personally, to participate in PD activities?
Rate, Ratings, and Descriptions of Teacher PD Participation
Teachers were then asked whether they had participated in PD during the school year (including the previous summer). For the entire sample, 77% reported having participated in PD during the past year. Those
participating spent an average of 24.9 (SD = 21.2) hours in PD. As expected, those who participated were
more motivated, as shown in Figure 3. The average PDM score was significantly higher (p < .001) for those
who participated (Mean = 5.0, SD = 1.7) than for teachers who had not (Mean = 4.3, SD = 1.7).
Teachers’ PD Experiences
Those who participated in PD were asked: “In general, how would you rate your experiences with PD
during the current school year?” Teachers responded on a 5-point scale with the end-points labeled from
“Extremely Negative” to “Extremely Positive”. As shown in Figure 4, most teachers indicated that their experiences were positive rather than negative. Specifically, 64% rated their experiences as positive compared to
only 13% negative and 23% neutral. We coded the categories as follows: Extremely Negative = -2, Negative
= -1, Neutral = 0, Positive = 1 and Extremely Positive as 2, the Mean = 1.71 (SD = 1.0).
16 — MSP-MAP II • PDM
Figure 3. Teacher PDM and PD Participation
Influence of Participation on Future PDM
In order to assess the relationship between experiences with PD and future PDM (see Figure 1), teachers were asked: “In general, how much did your participation in PD this year affect your motivation to
participate in PD in the future?” Teachers responded on a 5-point scale from “Much less motivated” to
“Much more motivated”. As shown in Figure 5, whereas 39.8% of the teachers responded that there was
no change, 44.7% indicated they were more motivated to participate in the future, compared with only
15.6% who indicated they were less motivated. We coded the categories as follows: Much Less Motivated =
-2, Somewhat Less Motivated = -1, No Change = 0, Somewhat More Motivated = 1 and Much More Motivated
as 2, the Mean = 1.40 (SD = 1.0).
Figure 4. Teachers’ Rated Experiences with PD
PD and Changes in Teaching Effectiveness of PD
Teachers were also asked: In general, how useful were those PD experiences for increasing your teaching
effectiveness? The response categories ranged from “Completely Useless” to “Extremely Useful”. The results
MSP-MAP II • PDM — 17
shown in Figure 6 indicate that teachers thought their experiences were such that participation was useful
in increasing their teaching effectiveness. Specifically, whereas 62.3% thought that the PD was useful, only
18% considered it useless, with 20% rating it neither. The categories were coded as follows: Completely Useless = -2, Useless = - 1, Neutral = 0, Useful = 1 and Extremely Useful = 2, the Mean = 1.6 (SD = 1.1).
Figure 5. Effects of Current PD Participation on Subsequent PDM
Summary of PD Experiences and PDM
In general, information from this national sample of teachers (including significant numbers of math and
science teachers) indicates both a high rate of PD participation and that participation: (a) was a positive
rather than a negative experience, (b) was judged to be useful for increasing their teaching effectiveness, and
(c) made teachers more motivated to participate in PD in the future. As shown by the correlation coefficients in Table 2, as expected, teachers’ ratings on these dimensions were directly related to their motivation
to participate in PD. Although the association cannot unequivocably establish the direction of causation,
we can interpret this as evidence that prior PD experiences affected teachers’ PDM.
Figure 6. Perceived Utility of PD for Increasing Teaching Effectiveness
18 — MSP-MAP II • PDM
Analysis Description
Each of the tables that follow describe the relations between
PD and teacher motivation using correlational analyses. For
Yes/No questions the first column gives the percent of teachers who selected Yes. The remaining columns provide point
biserial correlations with four different indicators of teacher
motivation. The PDM column, for example, indicates the
strength and direction of the relation between checking yes
for an item and overall PDM. The other three columns describe relations with whether PD: (a) was a positive rather
than a negative experience, (b) made teachers more motivated
to participate in PD in the future, and (c) was judged to be
useful for increasing their teaching effectiveness. For PD features rated on a 0 to 6 scale, the first column
presents the mean responses and the remaining columns presents correlations with the same four indicators of teacher motivation.
Table 2. Relations Between Teachers’ Ratings of Their Experiences and PDM
Variable
Mean
r*
Degree of positive experiences with PD during the current
school year
3.7
.67
How much did your participation in PD this year affect
motivation to participate in PD in the future?
3.4
.60
How useful were PD experiences for increasing teaching
effectiveness?
3.6
.67
*Note: All r-values p < .00001
MSP-MAP II • PDM — 19
Motivational Correlates of PD Participation
PD Characteristics
Teachers were asked to indicate their PD experiences according to the characteristics listed in Table 3.
Whether those characteristics were selected was also related to teachers’ PDM and their PD experiences.
These are separated for convenience into groups of characteristics that increased versus those that decreased
or had no relation to motivation for PD. As expected, PDM was higher for teachers who received a stipend, earned CE credits, fulfilled licensing requirements, or indicated that participation enhanced their
job security. However, teachers who judged that implementing the PD-suggested strategies or who were
required to bear some of the costs were also those more motivated to participate. It should be emphasized
that the causal direction of these relations is unclear. For example, teachers who are more motivated may
be more willing to bear some of the cost; but it’s also possible that those who invested money in PD valued
it more, as research in cognitive dissonance would suggest. The only indication of a negative effect was the
tendency for teachers who engaged in PD because it was required to have a more negative experience and
judge it as less effective. The remaining characteristics were unrelated to PD motivation-related variables.
For example, even though 41% of the teachers indicated that participation took up a significant amount
of their personal time, whether it did was unrelated to their PD experiences or their motivation for PD.
Table 3. Percent Selecting and Correlations between Characteristics of PD Experiences and PDM
Characteristics of Experienced PD
%
Selecting
PDM
Degree
Positive
Exper.
Affect
Future
PDM
Increase
Teacher
Effective
Significant amount of work to implement teaching strategies
39
.14b
.16b
.15b
.17c
Earned continuing education credits
37
.20c
.19c
.11a
.12a
Fulfilled state licensing and renewal requirements
37
.13b
.11a
.08
.06
Required you to bear some of the cost
23
.16b
.12a
.06
.10a
Included a stipend for attendance
20
.13b
.20d
.16b
.16b
Enhanced your job security
16
.17c
.15b
.16b
.16b
Fulfilled a district or school requirement
57
-.06
-.13b
-.09
-.12a
Took a significant amount of personal time
41
.03
-.04
-.05
-.01
Conflicted with other scheduled school events
12
-.01
.01
-.05
.03
Conflicted with your class time
23
-.01
.01
-.06
.01
Involved considerable travel time
16
.05
.08
.05
.08
Was part of your evaluation
19
.05
.02
.04
.06
Note: Point-biserial correlations.
20 — MSP-MAP II • PDM
p < .05
a
p < .01
b
p < .001
c
d
p < .0001
Preferred PD Formats
To determine whether teacher PDM depended on the way that PD was offered, teachers were presented
with a list of formats and asked to select up to three that they preferred the most. The percentage of teachers
who selected each of the formats is shown in Table 4 (in order of preference), along with the correlations
between selecting each format and PD-related teacher motivation. A single workshop with teacher participation was clearly the most preferred, followed by a series of workshops, again with teacher participation.
These were followed by online programs, summer institutes and PLCs. Lectures were preferred the least. In
addition, there is also evidence that teachers who preferred a series of workshops were higher in PDM and
had the most positive PD experiences. Also related to PDM, but to a lesser extent, were preferences for
PLCs and a series of lectures. There was also a tendency for less motivated teachers to prefer single lecture
and online PD formats that require the least time and effort.
Table 4. Preferred PD Formats and PDM
%
Selecting
PDM
Degree
Positive
Exper.
Affect
Future
PDM
Increase
Teacher
Effective
Single workshop (w/ teacher participation)
39
.05
.08
.09a
.03
Series of workshops (w/ teacher participation)
33
.29c
.30c
.29c
.32c
Program available completely online
32
-.03
-.06
-.06
-.07
Blended (f-t-f and online)
27
.10a
.04
.02
.09
Summer institute
23
.12b
.08
.08
.08
Professional Learning Community (PLC)
20
.15c
.15b
.09a
.17c
Single lecture
18
-.08
-.04
-.07
-.08
Series of lectures
14
.12b
.10a
.16c
.13b
Preferred PD Format
Note: Point-biserial correlations presented
p < .05
a
b
p < .01
p < .001
c
p < .0001
d
PD Help with Student Motivation
To examine how teachers believed that PD influenced their capacity to work with students, specifically to
affect students’ competence and motivation, those who participated in PD were asked: “To what extent were
the PD activities in which you participated during the current school year helpful” for motivating students
in the ways that are listed in Table 5. Teachers responded on a 7-point scale from 0 = “Not at all helpful” to
6 = “Extremely helpful”. Table 5 also presents the mean ratings and the correlations between those ratings
and teachers’ PD-related motivational variables. Means indicate that PD helped the most for increasing
students’ competence in the subject that teachers teach and students’ motivation to understand material
in depth, whereas PD helped the least with students’ motivation to attend class and do their homework.
Results clearly indicate that teachers with higher PDM and those who had more positive PD experiences
were more likely to indicate that PD helped them with student motivation in all of the areas included.
PDM and PD Content
In order to determine the PD content that would be more or less attractive to teachers, participants were
asked to rate on a 5-point scale, from “Definitely would not” to “Definitely would”, how likely it would
MSP-MAP II • PDM — 21
Table 5. Teacher Ratings of How PD Helped Them with Student Motivation
and Relations with PD-Related Teacher Motivation
Mean
PDM
Degree
Positive
Exper.
Affect
Future
PDM
Increase
Teacher
Effect
Students’ competence in subject area(s) I teach
4.2
.52
.63
.60
.69
Students’ motiv. to understand material in depth
4.0
.51
.62
.64
.68
Students’ interest in subject area(s) I teach
3.9
.51
.61
.60
.66
Students’ motiv. to work w/ classmates to study my subject area(s)
3.9
.53
.60
.63
.66
Students’ beliefs in importance of subject area(s) I teach
3.8
.49
.56
.61
.64
Students’ motiv. to seek help when needed
3.8
.47
.58
.61
.64
Students’ beliefs in utility of subject area(s) I teach
3.7
.49
.58
.60
.63
Students’ motiv. to perform well on state tests
3.6
.45
.54
.56
.60
Students’ motiv. to attend class
3.5
.48
.55
.59
.63
Students’ motiv. to do homework
3.4
.47
.54
.59
.60
PD activities helped me to increase…
Note: All correlations are statistically significant at p < .0001
Table 6. PDM and Expected PD Content
Mean
PDM
Degree
Positive
Exper.
Affect
Future
PDM
Increase
Teacher
Effect
How to make my lessons more effective for student learning
4.2
.42
.33
.36
.39
How to improve my students’ achievement
4.2
.43
.36
.33
.35
How to make my lessons more engaging for students
4.2
.40
.29
.32
.34
How to improve degree to which my students learn required material
4.1
.42
.36
.35
.39
How to get my students interested in the subject I teach
3.9
.39
.31
.35
.34
How to get my students to like the subject I teach
3.8
.39
.33
.37
.35
How to show students that I truly care about them
3.6
.36
.33
.35
.34
How to establish positive relationships with students
3.7
.38
.30
.35
.33
I would want to participate in PD if I expected to learn…
Note: Rating choices were: Definitely would not; Probably would not; Undecided; Probably would; Definitely would.
All correlations are statistically significant at p < .0001
22 — MSP-MAP II • PDM
be that they would want to participate in PD if they expected to learn about the areas listed in Table
6. Means indicate that teachers would be somewhat more motivated to learn about learning (Mean = 4.2)
and achievement (Mean = 4.2). Making lessons more engaging (Mean = 4.2) was rated higher but other
aspects of motivation (interest and liking) were less so, and least were PD content about relations with
students. As would be expected, teachers with higher PDM indicated, with considerable uniformity, they
would be more likely to participate across all areas of PD content.
Other Factors Influencing PD Participation
To probe other factors in the model (see Figure 1), teachers also rated (on the same 1 to 5 scale) the likelihood they would participate given the factors listed in Table 7. Expected improvement in subject-matter
knowledge and enjoyment were rated highest on average (Means = 4.2) and principal encouragement the
least (Mean = 3.7). PDM variables were significantly related to all factors. Whether teachers expected that
PD would require less effort, however, was not as highly related (r = .18) as the others.
Table 7. Factors Influencing PDM
Mean
PDM
Degree
Positive
Exper.
Affect
Future
PDM
Increase
Teacher
Effect
I expected to improve my subject-matter knowledge
4.2
.29c
.24c
.25c
.26c
I expected that the PD would be enjoyable
4.2
.33c
.25c
.24c
.27c
I expected that the PD would be fun
4.1
.30c
.23c
.23c
.25c
I expected that the PD would enhance my career
4.1
.36c
.20c
.24c
.26c
I expected PD would not require too much time & effort
3.8
.18c
.16b
.16b
.11a
Other teachers in my school were participating
3.8
.36c
.35c
.35c
.38c
My principal encouraged me to participate
3.7
.39c
.39c
.38c
.41c
I would want to participate in PD if…
Note: Rating choices were: Definitely would not; Probably would not; Undecided; Probably would; Definitely would.
p < .05
a
p < .01
b
p < .001
c
p < .0001
d
MSP-MAP II • PDM — 23
Teacher Characteristics and School Context Factors
Motives for Teaching
Recent international research (Watt & Richardson, 2007, 2008) has developed scales to assess teachers according to the reasons why they decided to
pursue teaching as a career. One set of motives is social in origin, which includes the opportunity to influence the next generation, to raise the ambitions of less fortunate youth, and to make a worthwhile social contribution.
A second set is intrinsic, such as being interested in and liking teaching, and
that teaching is suited to one’s abilities. The third set is extrinsic; teaching offers a secure career path and a reliable source of income. As shown in Table
8, teachers who were more motivated were those who went into teaching for
intrinsic and social reasons, but less so for extrinsic reasons.
Table 8. Reasons for Choosing Teaching as a Career and PDM
Motivation
For
Teaching
Mean
PDM
Degree
Positive
Exper.
Affect
Future
PDM
Increase
Teacher
Effect
Social
6.1
.23c
.17c
.17c
.17c
Intrinsic
6.3
.25c
.23c
.22c
.24c
Extrinsic
4.9
.10a
.04
.10a
.02
p < .05
a
b
p < .01
p < .001
c
p < .0001
d
School Context and Teacher Experiences
Teachers were asked to describe their relationship with the principal at their school, including the degree to
which the principal fostered collegiality, by indicating their agreement with a series of characteristics, such
as the statement of clear expectations for all teachers, the principal’s treatment of all teachers as his or her
equals, the concern for each teacher’s personal welfare, and the conduction of meaningful evaluations. The
items were adapted from the Organizational Health Inventory, developed by Hoy and colleagues (e.g., Hoy
& Tarter, 1997; Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991): “The principal at this school is friendly and approachable”, and “The principal at this school looks out for the personal welfare of faculty members”. As shown
in Table 9, the more positively teachers viewed their principal, the higher
...Teachers who were their PDM (r = .27, p < .001) and the more positive their PD experiences
motivated were those (r = .42, p < .001). Similar relations were found for teachers’ sense of satiswho went into teach- faction and personal accomplishment. There is also evidence that teachers’
negative experiences had a detrimental influence on their PDM. Teachers
ing for intrinsic and were asked about the extent to which several problematic conditions existed
social reasons, but in their school, such as high student dropout, disorder in the classrooms,
less so for extrinsic low student achievement and student disrespect of teachers. The items were
adapted from the Survey of Chicago Public Schools, conducted by the Conreasons.
sortium on Chicago School Research.
24 — MSP-MAP II • PDM
Table 9. Context and Experiences of PDM
Context and Experiences
Mean
PDM
Degree
Positive
Exper.
Affect
Future
PDM
Increase
Teacher
Effect
Principal relations and collegial leadership
5.1
.27c
.42c
.36c
.37c
Personal accomplishment
5.5
.27c
.31c
.29c
.31c
School problems
3.2
-.09a
-.15b
-.15b
-.13b
Emotional exhaustion
4.0
-.17c
-.24c
-.24c
-.21c
Teacher stress
4.1
-.11b
-.17c
-.20c
-.16b
p < .05
a
b
p < .01
p < .001
c
d
p < .0001
Teacher Responsibility
A newly developed measure was used to assess teachers’ willingness to assume personal responsibility for
four types of educational outcomes: responsibility for student motivation (interest, liking, and value of the
subject taught by the teacher), student achievement (academic performance and progress throughout the
school year), for having positive relationships with students (students trust the teacher, rely on the teacher
when they need help, and know that the teacher truly cares about them), and for providing the best possible instruction (the teacher’s lessons are as effective and engaging as the teacher can possibly make them).
Sample items are: “I would feel personally responsible if a student of mine was not interested in the subject
I teach” and “I would feel personally responsible if a student of mine failed to learn the required material.”
We anticipated that teachers who are willing to accept personal responsibility for the academic outcomes
of their students would be more interested in PD as a resource that would help them to fulfill their professional responsibilities.
Table 10. Teacher Beliefs About Their Responsibilities and PDM
Mean
PDM
Degree
Positive
Exper.
Affect
Future
PDM
Increase
Teacher
Effect
Responsibility for student achievement
4.6
.30c
.21c
.25c
.24c
Responsibility for student motivation
4.6
.24c
.15b
.20c
.16c
Responsibility for relationships with students
5.6
.17c
.14b
.10a
.11a
Responsibility for teaching
5.6
.17c
.12a
.10a
.11a
Area of Responsibility
p < .05
a
b
p < .01
p < .001
c
d
p < .0001
Unlike general questions about the school context, teachers were asked to evaluate their responsibility
with regard to one particular “target class.” This provided a higher degree of specificity, which was necessary since teachers may provide instruction in different subject areas and types of classes. The procedure
MSP-MAP II • PDM — 25
for determining the target class was adapted from the Survey of Chicago Public Schools. Specifically, the
teachers were instructed to think about the second period class they teach on Mondays, or—if they do not
teach a class second period—to think about the next class they teach in the day.
As shown in Table 10, teachers’ sense of responsibility was positively related to
their PDM. Although all four responsibility factors had significant positive associations with motivation for PD, teachers’ responsibility for students’ academic
outcomes (motivation and achievement) was somewhat more strongly associated
than the remaining two responsibility factors.
Teacher Emotions
Teachers were asked to report their experience of 33 emotions when they thought
about teaching. Similar to the responsibility scale, teachers were asked to think
of their “target class.” The emotion items were introduced in the following way:
“Teachers experience various emotions when they think about teaching. How
do you feel currently when you think about teaching your target class?” Teachers
responded on 7-point scales anchored by: 0 = “Does not describe my feelings at all” to 6 = “Describes my feelings extremely well”. The list of emotions is based on Pekrun’s control-value theory (Pekrun, et al., 2007)
which uses a two-dimensional system (positive-negative and activating-deactivating) that results in four
categories. In addition to grouping the emotions by three of the categories (positive-activating, positivedeactivating, negative-activating, negative-deactivating), we were able to distinguish three groups of negative-activating emotions shown in Table 11.
Table 11. Teacher Emotions When Thinking About Teaching and PDM
Mean
PDM
Degree
Positive
Exper.
Affect
Future
PDM
Increase
Teacher
Effect
Positive activating emotions – Excited (enthusiastic,
thrilled, proud, happy, inspired)
4.9
.29c
.25c
.26c
.25c
Positive deactivating emotions – Relaxed(peaceful, pleased,
calm, content)
4.7
.22c
.23c
.25c
.20c
Negative activating emotions – Anger (angry, frustrated,
irritated)
2.6
-.14b
-.18c
-.16b
-.15b
Negative activating emotions – Dissonance (worried, tense,
concerned, bothered, uneasy, uncomfortable)
2.5
-.05
-.08
-.03
-.03
Negative deactivating emotions – Burnout (hopeless,
bored, disinterested, worn out, tired)
2.5
-.17c
-.21c
-.17c
-.16b
Negative activating emotions – Anxiety (anxious, afraid,
scared)
2.0
-.01
-.01
-.05
-.05
Negative activating emotions – Guilt (regretful, remorseful,
guilty, blameworthy, ashamed)
1.7
-.01
-.02
.04
.03
Emotions
p < .05
a
p < .01
b
p < .001
c
d
p < .0001
It is very clear that teachers who reported experiencing positive emotions had greater PDM, had more
positive PD experiences, became more likely to participate in the future, and experienced increased effec26 — MSP-MAP II • PDM
tiveness as teachers. The opposite was true for negative emotions; however, not all negative emotions were
associated with PDM. Instead, PDM was inversely related to the negative activating emotions generally
associated with anger and negative deactivating emotions generally associated with burnout. Statistically
significant relations were not found, however, for emotions generally considered dissonance, anxiety, or
guilt. Thus, as would be expected, the more teachers are excited, but also those more relaxed when they
think about their classes, the more motivated they are to participate in PD. The angrier and the more
burned out they are the less their PDM, which is consistent with previous work on teacher emotions (Sutton, 2007). However, that was not the case for dissonance, anxiety, and guilt. Thus not all negative emotions
are equal in their possible impact on PDM.
Approaches to Instruction
A final issue examined whether teachers’ PDM varied depending on their approaches to instruction that,
according to the motivation literature, have implications for student learning and performance. Since
teachers’ approaches to instruction may vary across different classes, the teachers were asked to refer to
their “target class” to prevent ambiguity. Mastery and performance approaches to instruction are based
on the literature in achievement goal theory (e.g., Pintrich, 2000; Elliot, 2005). As described previously, a
mastery approach to instruction represents a focus on student improvement and the deep understanding of
material. A mastery approach to teaching has been associated with improved student learning and the use
of more beneficial study skills (e.g., “I give a wide range of assignments, matched to students’ needs and skill
level). Performance approaches to teaching focus more on student ability and normative comparisons between students (e.g., “I encourage students to compete with each other”). We also included what is termed
“academic press”, which is similar to mastery approach to instruction but with a somewhat different focus.
Academic press refers to whether teachers pushed students to take on challenging work, whether students
were allowed to get away with doing easy work, and whether students were expected to put forth their full
effort. Teachers responded by indicating their agreement or disagreement on a 7-point Likert scale, with
anchors of: 0 = “Strongly disagree” to 6 = “Strongly agree”.
Results indicate that both a mastery approach to instruction and to a lesser extent academic press were directly related to PDM. Thus the more that teachers indicate that they focus on individual student improvement and insisting that students are challenged the more motivated they are for PD. To a lesser extent,
PDM is also somewhat higher for teachers who endorse statements indicating that they focus on student
ability and normative comparisons.
Table 12. Approaches to Instruction and PDM
Mean
PDM
Degree
Positive
Exper.
Affect
Future
PDM
Increase
Teacher
Effect
Mastery approach to instruction
5.4
.31c
.22c
.26c
.22c
Performance approach to instruction
4.0
.16c
.07
.14b
.13b
Academic press
5.9
.20c
.09a
.09a
.10a
Approaches to
Instruction
p < .05
a
b
p < .01
p < .001
c
d
p < .0001
MSP-MAP II • PDM — 27
Conclusions and Future Directions
The present national study confirmed that PD was a common experience for teachers. Teachers in general
indicated they were positively motivated to participate in PD. Most of them reported some experience
with PD in the last year, and a majority of those felt that PD was useful for improving teaching practice,
student learning, and student motivation. Overall, teachers who participated in PD reported moderate to
high levels of motivation, even when participation involved a considerable investment of personal time or
resources. Teachers were open to a variety of PD formats, most notably those that included teacher participation. This suggests a picture of teachers eager to improve
their teaching practices and to participate in continuing educa- Overall, teachers who particition. Administrative support, not district imperatives, appeared pated in PD reported moderate
to be a key factor in influencing teachers’ PDM. Understanding to high levels of motivation, even
and measuring the malleable factors that increase PDM sug- when participation involved a
gests ways to improve teachers’ PD experiences and the likeliconsiderable investment of perhood they will enact recommended instructional practices that
sonal time or resources.
facilitate student learning and performance.
Evidence in the present study is generally consistent with suggestions based on recent reviews of PD practices (e.g., Avalos, 2011; Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, & Fung, 2007), including the importance of taking
PDM into consideration. As Timperley et al. (2007, p. 12) noted:
The final important condition identified in the professional growth paradigm...is motivation. While motivation plays a key role for all learners, as adults, teacher learners are less
likely than school-aged students to engage in new learning experiences if they do not see
the relevance to their professional lives. The immediate demands of everyday teaching inevitably compete with the demands of professional learning. For busy and often overworked
teachers to devote effort to engaging with new learning and changing their practice, they
need a good reason. Faced with a new teaching strategy, teachers want to know that it is
practical and useful and they are unlikely to sustain their involvement if the learning experience is not sufficiently meaningful.
Day and Leitch (2001) stress that the cogntitive aspects of teaching function in interaction with the emotional aspects of teaching: “Teaching at its best requires motivation, commitment and emotional attachment, and this ... interaction [has] a central role in programmes of teacher education and continuing professional development in all phases of teachers’ lives (p. 403).” Results of this national study support these
views and suggest that further research is needed that focuses on PDM, not as an afterthought or ancillary
precursor or byproduct of PD, but rather an essential condition for its success.
28 — MSP-MAP II • PDM
References
Alexander, P. A. (2008). Charting the course for the teaching profession: The energizing and sustaining
role of motivational forces. Learning & Instruction, 18(5), 483-491.
Anderman, E. M., & Wolters, C. A. (2006). Goals, values and affects: Influences on student motivation.
In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 369-389).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986) Making a difference: Teacher efficacy and student achievement. Monogram. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10-20.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Re-
searcher, 33(8), 3-15.
Boyd, S. E., Banilower, E. R., Pasley, J. D., & Weiss, I. R. (2003). Progress and pitfalls: A cross-site look at
local systemic change through teacher enhancement. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research. Retrieved
1/17/09 from: http://www.horizon-research.com/reports/2003/progress_and_pitfalls.php.
Butler, R. (2000). What learners want to know: The role of achievement goals in shaping information seeking, learning, and interest. In C. Sansone, & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 161-194). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Butler, R., & Shibaz, L. (2008). Achievement goals for teaching as predictors of students’ perceptions of
instructional practices and students’ help seeking and cheating. Learning & Instruction, 18(5), 453-467.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional
learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and
abroad. National Staff Development Council.
Day. C., & Leitch, R. (2001). Teachers and teacher education lives: The role of emotion. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 17(4), 403-415.
De Corte, E., Greer, B., & Verschaffel, L. (1996). Mathematics teaching and instruction. In: D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee. (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 491–549), New York: Macmillan.
Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In
A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105-121). New York:
Guilford Publications.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology,
53, 109–132.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg
(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, 5th ed.: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (pp.
1017-1095). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck
(Eds.). Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52-72). New York: Guilford Publications.
MSP-MAP II • PDM — 29
Flint, A. S., Zisook, K., & Fisher, T. R. (2011). Not a one-shot deal: Generative professional development
among experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1163-1169.
Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C. & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student, teacher and observer perceptions of the classroom environment before and after the transition to junior high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 8,
133-156.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept,
state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
Goldsmith, L., and Schifter, D. (1997). Understanding teachers in transition: Characteristics of a model
for the development of mathematics teaching. In E. Fennema & B. S. Nelson (Eds.) Mathematics
Teachers in Transition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gregoire, M. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model of teachers’ cognition and appraisal
processes during conceptual change. Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 147-179.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 748–750.
Guskey, T. R., & Huberman, M. (Eds.) (1995). Professional development in education: New paradigms and
practices. New York: Teachers College Press.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Predicting success in college: A
longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance
from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 562-575.
Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 14, 835–854.
Hart, L. N. (2002). A four-year follow-up study of teachers’ beliefs after participating in a teacher enhancement project. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education (pp. 161-176). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hassel, E. (1999). Professional development: Learning from the best. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory.
Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1998). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus.
In L. S. Darling Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy
and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Heck, D. J., Rosenberg, S. L., & Crawford, R. A. (2006). LSC teacher questionnaire study: Indicators of
systemic change — a longitudinal analysis of data collected between 1997 and 2006. Chapel Hill,
NC: Horizon Research. Retrieved 1/17/09 from http://www.PDMathsci.net/reports/heck_rosenberg_crawford_2006b.pdf.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, A. (2006). A four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist,
41, 111-127.
Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A., & Krapp, A. (2004). Interest, a motivational variable that combines affective and cognitive functioning. In D. Dai & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition:
Perspectives on intellectual development and functioning (pp. 89-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools: Measuring organizational
30 — MSP-MAP II • PDM
climate. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: A handbook for change, Secondary Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hulleman, C., Schrager, S. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement
goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels?
Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 422-449.
Karabenick, S. A., Woolley, M. E., Friedel, J. M., Ammon, B. V., Blazevski, J., Bonney, C. R., DeGroot, E.,
Musu, L., Gilbert, M. C., Kempler, T. M., & Kelly, K. L. (2007). Cognitive processing of self-report
items in educational research: Do they think what we mean? Educational Psychologist, 42(3), 139-151.
Kellam, S. G., & Langevin, D. J. (2003). A framework for understanding “evidence” in prevention research
and programs. Prevention Science, 4(3), 137–153.
Koller, O., Baumert, J., & Schnabel, K. (2001). Does interest matter? The relationship between academic
interest and achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(5), 448470.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S. E., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional
development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McLeod, D. B., & Adams, V. M. (1989). Affect and mathematical problem solving: A new perspective. New
York, NY: Springer-Verlag Publishing.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K., Gheen, M., Kaplan,
A., Kumar, R., Middleton, M., Nelson, J., Roeser, R., & Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of
Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics
classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 424-436.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s
future. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
Pekrun, R., Frenzel, A., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2007). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: An integrative approach to emotions in education. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion
in education (pp. 13-36). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pelletier, L. G., Seguin-Levesque, C., & Legault L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below
as determinants of teachers’ motivation and teaching behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94,
186-196.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544–555.
Richardson, P. W., & Watt, H. (2006). Who chooses teaching and why? Profiling characteristics and motivations across three Australian universities. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 27-56.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In: Richardson, V. (ed.), Handbook of research on
teaching (4th Ed.) (pp. 905–947), Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Ross, J., & Bruce, C. D. (2007). Teacher self-assessment: A mechanism for facilitating professional
MSP-MAP II • PDM — 31
growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(2), 146-159.
Schiefele, U. (2001). The role of interest in motivation and learning. In J. M. Collis & S. Messick (Eds.),
Intelligence and personality: Bridging the gap in theory and measurement (pp. 163-194). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schuck, S. & Grootenboer, P. (2004). Affective issues in mathematics education. In B. Perry, G. Anthony,
& C. Diezmann (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2000-2003 (pp. 53-74). Flaxton, Qld: Post Pressed.
Schuck, S., & Grootenboer, P. (2004). Affective issues in mathematics education. In B. Perry, G. Anthony,
& C. Diezmann (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia (pp. 5374). Flaxton, Qld: Post
Pressed.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., Meece, J. L. (2007). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications.
Prentice Hall.
Schutz, P. A., Cross, D. I., Hong, J. Y., & Osbon, J. N. (2007). Teacher understandings, thoughts and
beliefs about emotions in the classroom. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun, (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp
215-233). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Inc.
Senko, C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Achievement goal theory at the crossroads:
Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 26-47.
Smith, L. F. (April 2000). The effects of confidence and perception of test-taking skill on performance. Paper
presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Sutton, R. E. (2007). Teachers’ anger, frustration and self-regulation. In P. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.),
Emotions and education (pp. 259-274). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Tittle, C. K. (2006). Assessment of teacher learning and development. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne
(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2ndEdition) (pp. 953-980). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive concept.
Teaching and Teacher Education 17, 783-805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure.
Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development:
Best evidence synthesis iteration [BES]. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Turner, J. C., Christensen, A., & Meyer, D. K. (in press).The new international handbook of teachers and
teaching. Springer Verlag.
Van den Berg, R. (2002). Teachers’ meanings regarding educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 72(4), 577–625.
Watt, H., & Richardson, P. W. (2007). Motivational factors influencing teaching as a career choice: development and validation of the FIT-Choice Scale, Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 167–202.
Watt, H., & Richardson, P. W. (2008). Motivation for teaching. Learning & Instruction, 18(5), 405-498.
Wayne, A. J., Yoon, K. S., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, S. (2008). Experimenting with teacher professional
32 — MSP-MAP II • PDM
development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37(8), 469–479.
Weiss, I. (2009). Presentation on Professional Development at the Learning Network Conference, Washington, DC.
Weiss, I. Personal communication, 1/26/2009.
Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2009). Mathematics and science for a change: How to design, implement, and sustain high-quality professional development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wigfield, A. L., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs and values from childhood
through adolescence. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp.
92–120). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Wilson, M. S., & Cooney, T. (2002). Mathematics teacher change and development: The role of beliefs.
In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education (pp.
127-148). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Zhang, X., McInerney, J., Frechtling, J., Nyre, G., Michie, J., & Wells, J. (2008). Effect of STEM faculty
engagement in MSP—A longitudinal perspective: A Year 4 RETA Report. Rockville, MD: Westat.
MSP-MAP II • PDM — 33