This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Teacher well-being and motivation play important roles in teacher and student experiences at
school. When teachers are faring well and feeling motivated to teach, they are more effective
in their teaching, leave the profession less often, and promote motivation and achievement
among their students. In this dissertation, three studies that investigated teacher well-being
and motivation were conducted with the aim of advancing our understanding of the two
constructs, as well as how they can be promoted among teachers. Study 1 involved
conceptualising, developing, and testing the Teacher Well-Being Scale, which measures
three factors of teacher well-being: workload well-being, organisational well-being, and
student interaction well-being. Among a sample of 603 practicing teachers, results revealed
that the new measure functioned similarly across the different demographic groups in the
sample and that the three factors of well-being related as expected with other constructs
(stress, job satisfaction, and flourishing). Study 2 involved elaborating and testing an
explanatory model of teacher well-being, motivation, job satisfaction, and affective
organisational commitment that was based in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985,
2002). Using the same sample as Study 1, structural equation modelling provided support for
the model’s main relationships. In addition, there were some unexpected findings that
provide directions for future research (e.g., a double-sided view of autonomy revealing that it
can be associated with positive and negative types of motivation). Study 3 involved
examining growth curve models of change in teacher well-being and self-efficacy for
teaching over two to three months. Among a sample of 71 practicing teachers, the findings
showed that teacher well-being was stable over time, whereas self-efficacy for classroom
management increased (the other two types of self-efficacy that were examined, self-efficacy
ii
for student engagement and instructional strategies, did not change over time). Findings also
revealed the significance of the basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and
relatedness) in predicting teacher well-being and self-efficacy. Taken together, the three
studies help to improve our understanding of the highly important variables of teacher well-
being and motivation. Implications of the findings for both research and practice are
discussed.
iii
PREFACE
This dissertation is original, unpublished, independent work by the author, R. Collie. The
three studies were approved by The University of British Columbia’s Behavioral Research
Ethics Board. Certificate number for Studies 1 and 2: H11-03417. Certificate number for Study
3: H10-02457.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ..................................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................x
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................. xi Dedication ............................................................................................................................... xii Chapter 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................1
2.4.1. Research Question 1: What is the Nature of Teacher Well-being? ........................57
2.4.2. Research Question 2: How do Scores on the New Measure Differ Across Demographic Groups? ......................................................................................................63
2.4.3. Research Question 3: Are Interpretations of Scores from the New Measure Supported by Evidence of Validity? ................................................................................65
2.5. Limitations and Future Directions ............................................................................... 67
Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, 2007). Other research, however, has suggested that social
desirability is less of an issue in anonymous online questionnaires than in paper
questionnaire (Joinson, 1999). Study 1 included a measure of social desirability to see
whether it played a role in teacher well-being. In addition, this inclusion helps to temper the
limitation of single-source bias that occurs in self-report research (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Participants
Participants included 603 teachers from four different district-level teachers’
associations in British Columbia, Canada. The sample sizes for the four districts were 135,
138, 146, and 184 and ranged from 12% to 23% of the district populations (support for the
representativeness of these samples is provided below). Participants were from 218 different
schools (19% of participants chose not to identify their school) and had an average teaching
23
experience of 15.8 (SD = 9.93) years and an average age of 44.2 (SD = 10.83) years. Table
2.1 shows the frequencies of personal demographic characteristics among the participants
including sex, birth country, ethnic origins, and previous education. It reveals that most of
the sample was female (76%), born in Canada (86%), had northern and western European
ethnic origins, and had completed a bachelor’s degree. Participants also reported having one
(86%), two (10%), or three (1%) ethnic backgrounds (3% chose not to answer this question).
Table 2.2 shows the frequencies of job-related demographic characteristics including
teaching level, role, time spent teaching, and school setting. Overall, it reveals that most of
the participants taught at the elementary level (53%), were classroom teachers (81%), spent
the majority of their working time teaching (89%), and worked in a suburban setting (48%).
Participants were also asked to rate the average socio-economic status (SES) of students and
their families and the average academic achievement of students at their schools compared to
most other people/schools in the province. Teachers indicated that they taught students from
the full range of SES and academic achievement levels. Table 2.3 shows the frequencies of
the different levels reported.
24
Table 2.1
Frequencies of Personal Demographic Characteristics of the Participants
Frequency
Sex
Female 76%
Male 21%
Birth country
Canada 86%
United Kingdom 4%
Mainland Europe 2%
United States 2%
Asia 1%
Othera 2%
Ethnic origins
Northern and western European 82%
Eastern and southern European 16%
Aboriginal 3%
East Asian 3%
South Asian 2%
Other 4%
25
Table 2.1 (Continued)
Frequency
Previous education
Bachelor 51%
Master 30%
Post-graduate diploma or extra credits 12%
Undertaking a master’s degree 4%
Doctorate 1%
Note. Where percentages do not add up to 100, the remaining participants chose not to respond. Northern and Western European origins refers to British, Scottish, German, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Dutch, etc. Eastern and Southern European origins refers to Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Italian, Greek, Spanish, etc. Aboriginal origins refers to First Nations, Inuit, Metis, etc. East Asian origins refers to Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. South Asian origins refers to East Indian, Punjabi, Pakistani, etc. a The other category included Africa, South and Central America, the Middle East, and Oceania.
26
Table 2.2
Frequencies of Job-Related Demographic Characteristics of the Participants
Frequency
Teaching level
Elementary school 53%
Middle school 29%
Secondary school 10%
Multiple levels 8%
Teaching rolea
Classroom teacher 81%
Support teacherb 12%
Substitute teacher 3%
Teacher librarians 3%
Other rolesc 1%
Time spent teachingd
0-50% of working time 8%
51-75% of working time 13%
76-100% of working time 76%
27
Table 2.2 (Continued)
Frequency
School setting
Urban 34%
Suburban 48%
Small town 10%
Rural 7%
Note. Where percentages do not add up to 100, the remaining participants chose not to respond. a All participants were teachers or undertook teaching roles in addition to their other positions and were, therefore, classified as teachers in the results. b Support teachers refers to resource teachers, special education teachers, and counsellors. c Other roles included administrators (e.g., principals) and distance educators. d This refers to how much of the teachers’ work was spent teaching (as opposed to doing administrative tasks for example)
Table 2.3
Frequencies of Perceived Socio-Economic Status and Academic Achievement Levels
Low Low-average
Average High-average
High
SES of students 18% 21% 39% 15% 5%
Academic achievement
9% 20% 45% 19% 4%
Note. SES = socio-economic status.
28
In order to gain a sense of the representativeness of the sample, the sample
characteristics were compared to the district populations from which they were drawn on
three variables: gender, age, and years of teaching experience. Table 2.4 provides the data
comparing individuals participating in Study 1 with the population (i.e., the four districts
involved in the study). As can be seen from Table 2.4, the sample data were very similar to
the population parameters, which offers support for the representativeness of the sample.
Details about the procedures for participant recruitment appear in the following section after
the description of measure development.
Table 2.4
Demographics of Study Sample and Population
n Female Average age Average years of experience
Study 603 78% 44.2 15.8
Population 3700 71% 44.8 12.7 Note. Population columns represent combined data/averages for the four districts involved in the study (Ministry of Education, 2012) 2.2.2. Procedures
2.2.2.1. Measure development. In order to develop psychological instruments, there
are several recommended steps that should be followed. In the current study, I followed steps
that Miller et al. (2011) have outlined. The first step involves defining the test universe (i.e.,
the content that the researcher wants to measure), target audience, and test purpose. The test
universe is a broad range of teachers’ daily work experiences, the target audience is
29
practicing teachers, and the purpose of the test is to gain an understanding of how individual
factors affect teacher well-being as well as an overall score of well-being.
The second step involves creating an operational definition of the construct, the
format for the questions, and how the test will be scored (Miller et al., 2011). The operational
definition of teacher well-being is the definition noted in the Introduction (i.e., flourishing at
work involving the factors of purpose and meaning, supportive relationships, engagement,
contributing to others, competence, being a good person, optimism, and feeling respected).
Because I was interested in teachers’ own interpretations of how aspects of their work affect
their well-being, a simplified definition of this was included in the test instructions (details
below). The format for the questions was determined as a scale ranging from negatively to
positively such that teachers could indicate the degree to which different aspects of their
work affected their well-being in positive and negative ways. A 7-point Likert-type scale was
chosen to score the test.
The third step involves composing the test items (Miller et al., 2011). At this point, a
pool of items based on the many different aspects of teaching work (e.g., interpersonal
relationships, workload, leadership support) was created. The items included in the initial
pool were adapted from related instruments including the Teacher Stress Inventory (Boyle et
al., 1995) and the Job Satisfaction Scale (Spector, 1997), as well as additional experiences
not covered by existing measures (e.g., interacting with the parents of students, lesson
planning). These items were chosen to give a broad representation of teachers’ work
experiences. In addition, item selection was guided by SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002) and
socio-ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1978) to provide an understanding of whether these
30
two theories are relevant for the consideration of teacher well-being as measured by the new
instrument.
Because self-report questionnaires rely on participants’ accurate interpretations of the
items, several steps were taken to build the strength of the questionnaire. First, language that
is familiar to teachers in British Columbia was used. Karabenick and colleagues (2007)
identified this as an important consideration in the development of self-report items and
explained that unfamiliar language can negatively affect the participants’ understanding of
the item and, thus, reduce the ability of the item to accurately measure the phenomenon of
interest. Similarly, examples were provided in parentheses for items that may have been
ambiguous (e.g., ‘Relations with students not in my class [e.g., in hallways, etc.]’). This
consideration in item design can help to improve participant comprehension and reduce
measurement error (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Furthermore, items were described in straight-
forward, non-pejorative language to increase the likelihood of truthful responses (Simms,
2008).
The fourth step in measure development involves writing the test instructions (Miller
et al., 2011). For this, teachers were asked, “Currently, how do the following aspects of being
a teacher affect your well-being as a teacher?” As you will have noticed, the item stem asked
participants about their current experiences, rather than their experiences over a previous
time period. This is an important step in reducing the cognitive load required for
remembering (Winne, Jamieson-Noel, & Muis, 2002) and aids in the accuracy of responses.
However, there was an exception to this. At the time of data collection, teachers were
involved in industrial action (called job action in British Columbia) due to stalled
negotiations with the provincial government about a new work contract. This industrial
31
action meant that there was a reduction in some administrative tasks normally completed by
teachers (further details are provided below). In this circumstance, if teachers were not
engaging in certain activities due to industrial action, they were asked about their previous
experiences.1
As described above, the instructions also included a brief definition of well-being:
“Well-being refers to open, engaged, and healthy functioning as a teacher.” In order to aid
understanding, an example relating to the first item about relations with teaching colleagues
was also provided: “For example, in your current working environment how do your
relations with fellow teachers influence your well-being? Do your relations have a positive or
negative influence on your well-being as a teacher?”
The fifth step of measurement development involves piloting the instrument (Miller
et al., 2011). Using the large pool of items, a small sample of practicing teachers (n = 5) was
invited to examine the items and suggest additional aspects of teaching work not covered.
This led to the sixth step, which involves analysing the items and making changes based on
results from pilot testing (Miller et al., 2011). Two additional items were suggested leading
to a final pool of 60 items that was used in data collection for the study. The seventh step
involves collecting evidence of validity for the test (Miller et al., 2011). This reflects the
investigations conducted for Research Question 3.
2.2.2.2. Measure testing. The TWBS was tested among practicing teachers who
were recruited from four district-level teachers’ associations in British Columbia. The four
districts enabled the collection of data from a variety of school settings and locations.
1 Although this contradicts the aim to focus on current experiences in the measure, it was necessary to refer to prior experiences in data collection given the constraints placed on teachers by the industrial action (i.e., some tasks were not being undertaken at the time of data collection).
32
Presidents of the four teachers’ associations were emailed details of the study including the
invitation letter for teachers (Appendix A shows the invitation letter). The research
instrument involved an online questionnaire. Presidents forwarded the study invitation
letter—including the URL to the online questionnaire—to teachers who then decided
whether or not they wanted to participate Teachers were given three weeks to complete the
questionnaire and were sent an email reminder after two weeks.
Data was collected during the 2011/2012 school year. Although the nature of the
recruitment process did not allow for the calculation of accurate response rates (i.e., it is not
possible to ascertain how many teachers actually viewed the study’s invitation email), there
are several factors, all of which have been used successfully in the past (e.g., Collie et al.,
2012; Mertler, 2002), that provide confidence in the representativeness of the findings. First,
the demographics of the study’s sample were very similar to the population (see Table 2.4).
Second, average scores found in the current study are comparable to those found using
similar measures in other studies (see below). Finally, Mertler (2003) conducted research
showing that teachers’ responses to paper and online questionnaires were not significantly
different, revealing that both methods obtain similar data and offering support for online
questionnaires as an appropriate method for data collection among teachers.
As noted earlier, during the time of data collection teachers were involved in
industrial action over contract negotiations with the provincial government. This industrial
action restricted their work to varying degrees (i.e., it involved work slowdown as opposed to
a full strike). All teachers were teaching their regular classes; however, most teachers were
not undertaking administrative duties such as writing report cards and attending meetings
throughout the data collection timeline (discussed in further detail in the limitations section).
33
Given this situation, teachers were provided with the following statement in the instructions
for the TWBS: “If the current job action means that you are not currently engaging in some
of the different items below, please answer based on your experiences prior to job action, or
if you are a beginning teacher, please leave these items blank.”
In addition, comparative measures were used to help ascertain the representativeness
of the data and these suggest that the results are similar to findings in previous studies despite
the industrial action that was taking place. For example, the mean for stress in the current
study was 3.53 (see Table 2.6). This falls within the range of average stress scores among
Canadian teachers in other studies. Teachers in Klassen and Chiu’s study (2011) reported
stress levels that corresponded to means ranging from 3.45 to 3.78 out of 5. Furthermore,
Collie (2010) found a similar mean (M = 3.24, not significantly different) among a sample
from the same population as the current study (i.e., British Columbia teachers) in data
collected when industrial action was not taking place. Similarities also exist for teacher job
satisfaction (Klassen, Usher, & Bong, 2010), and flourishing (Diener et al., 2010). These
comparisons provide support for the fact that the industrial action did not significantly affect
teachers’ responses.
2.2.3. Measures
Participants completed an online, self-report questionnaire that included the new
measure, along with the measures of stress, job satisfaction, flourishing, and social
desirability to provide evidence for representativeness and validity. In addition, there were
questions pertaining to demographics. Table 2.5 shows the constructs that were examined in
Study 1, along with those examined in Studies 2 and 3. It also shows the location in the
Appendices in which the items for the different scales can be found.
34
2.2.3.1. Teacher well-being. The TWBS consists of items relating to teachers’
experiences at work. Originally, 60 items were included in the questionnaire (see Appendix
B, Section 6, Questions 1 through 60). Teachers were asked to indicate the degree to which
different aspects of teaching work affect their well-being as a teacher. A brief definition of
the construct of teacher well-being was included in the opening question: “Currently, how do
the following aspects of being a teacher affect your well-being as a teacher? Well-being
refers to open, engaged, and healthy functioning as a teacher.” The items were scored on a
seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from Negatively (1), Mostly negatively (2), More
negatively than positively (3), Neither positively not negatively (4), More positively than
negatively (5), Mostly positively (6), to Positively (7). These anchor points were chosen to
allow teachers to report the positive or negative influence of work experiences on their well-
being. Given that the scale was being developed, no evidence of validity or reliability
previously existed for this scale. Evidence for reliability and validity are provided below in
the results section.
2.2.3.2. Additional constructs. For the purpose of providing some support for the
representativeness of the data and preliminary convergent evidence of validity, three
additional constructs were assessed: teacher stress, job satisfaction, and flourishing. In
addition, a social desirability measure was administered to ascertain whether teachers’
responses to the well-being items were subject to biases. Table 2.6 shows the reliability
indexes, means, standard deviations, and ranges for these variables. Composite variables
were created by taking the mean of all the items for each construct.
35
Table 2.5
Constructs Under Examination in Each of the Three Studies and Item Location in the Appendices
Appendix B Appendix D
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3
Teacher well-being Yes (see Section 6) Yes (see Table 2.7) Yes (see Section 2)
Stress Yes (see Section 5, Q. 5) — —
Job satisfaction Yes (see Section 5, Q. 1-4) Yes (see Section 5, Q. 1-4) —
Flourishing Yes (see Section 2, Q. 7-14) Yes (see Section 2, Q. 7-14) —
Social desirability Yes (see Section 5, Q. 6-12) — —
Perceived autonomy support — Yes (see Section 2, Q. 1-6) —
Need satisfaction — Yes (see Section 3) Yes (see Section 3)
Autonomous and controlled motivation — Yes (see Section 4) —
Organisational commitment — Yes (see Section 2, Q. 15-20) —
Self-efficacy for teaching — — Yes (see Section 4)
36
The first construct to provide convergent evidence of validity was a single-item
teacher stress measure: “In general, how stressful do you find being a teacher?” (Boyle et al.,
1995; see Appendix B, Section 5, Question 5). Teachers responded to this on a scale ranging
from Not Stressful (1) to Extremely Stressful (7). This approach to measuring stress has been
used in previous research involving teachers (e.g., Chaplain, 2008).
The second construct was job satisfaction and this was assessed using four items that
Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, and Steca (2003) developed (see Appendix B, Section 5,
Questions 1 through 4). The items (e.g., “I am satisfied with my job”) were measured on a
scale ranging from Never (1) to Almost Always (7). Previous studies have found evidence for
reliability (with Cronbach’s alphas between .83 and .85) and validity (Caprara et al., 2003;
Klassen et al., 2010) of scores from this scale. In the current study, a similar level of
reliability was found (α = .87).
The third construct was the Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010; see Appendix B,
Section 2, Questions 7 through 14). The scale consists of eight items covering purpose and
meaning, supportive relationships, engagement/interest, contributing to others, competence,
being a good person, optimism, and feeling respected (e.g., “I am engaged and interested in
my daily activities”). The items are measured on a scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1)
to Strongly Agree (7). In several samples of college students (Diener et al., 2010), high
convergence with conceptually similar scales and a robust factor structure were found, as
was evidence of reliability through internal consistency (α = .87) and temporally (α = .71). In
the current study, a Cronbach’s alpha of .86 was found.
The fourth construct was the Revised Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
(Form X1; Fischer & Fick, 1993; see Appendix B, Section 5, Questions 6 through 12). This
37
scale consists of seven items used to assess the degree to which participants’ answers are
influenced by social desirability (e.g., “I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and
forget”). Participants indicated whether the items were true or false for them. In the current
study, the Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was low (α = .52). Unfortunately, this low alpha is
common for this scale (e.g., Beretvas, Meyers, & Leite, 2002; Brackett, et al., 2010) and may
reflect several minor dimensions (cf. Loo & Thorpe, 2000). The presence of multiple, albeit
minor, dimensions can result in a lower Cronbach’a alpha because there is less
interrelatedness between the items (Cortina, 1993). Despite the low internal consistency,
support for the use of this scale was provided by a confirmatory factor analysis that revealed
good fit (details below). Nevertheless, the results involving this scale should be interpreted
with caution.
2.2.3.3. Demographic information. Teachers were asked to supply demographic
information (see Appendix B, Section 1, Questions 1 to 14) including age, sex, subjects
taught, highest level of education, school name, ethnic/cultural heritage, country of birth,
average SES of students in their school, average academic achievement of students in their
school, years of teaching experience, roles and responsibilities, including school level and
teaching position (e.g., general classroom teachers, special education teachers), time spent
teaching per week, and school setting (urban, suburban, small town, or rural).
38
Table 2.6
Reliability Indexes, Means, and Standard Deviations of the Additional Measures
Note. Correlations with an absolute value equal to or greater than r = .90 are significant at p < .05, those with an absolute value equal to or greater than r = .117 are significant at p < .01, and those with an absolute value equal to or greater than r = .150 are significant at p = .001. All other correlations are not significant. PAS = perceived autonomy support. Rel. = relatedness. WB = well-being. Aff. org. commitment = affective organisational commitment.
112
3.3.3. Structural Modelling
Following the factor analyses, the relationships between the variables in Figure 3.1
were analysed with SEM on the full dataset in order investigate whether they related to one
another as predicted. A model was specified in Mplus 7.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012)
that corresponded with paths elucidated in the explanatory model. The constructs specified in
this model referred to the items that were confirmed through the factor analyses (i.e., the
measurement model provided by the CFA was used). By running the SEM, coefficients were
estimated for the relationships specified in the explanatory model. When a parameter
estimate was significant, it indicated that there was a reliable relationship between the two
constructs as expected. In contrast, non-significant parameter estimates indicated that there
was no significant path between those variables in the model. Non-significant paths, starting
with the lowest standardised coefficients, were deleted for reasons of parsimony one at a
time until only significant paths remained in the model. This provided the final model, which
was then examined for goodness of fit. The fit indices suggested adequate to good fit of the
final model: χ2 (1680, N = 485) = 4036.828, p < .001, RMSEA = .054, and CFI = .933
(SRMR was not available for this estimation method).
Figure 3.3 shows the final model. Given that non-significant paths were removed
from the model, all of the path coefficients are statistically significant at p < .05.
Standardised direct, total indirect, and total effects are shown in Table 3.5. These effects
indicate the parameter estimates that occur from one variable directly to another (direct
effects), the parameter estimates between two variables when they are mediated by one or
more other variables (indirect effects), and the total strength of the relationship considering
both direct and indirect paths (total effects).
113
Figure 3.3. Structural equation model of perceived autonomy support, need satisfaction, well-being, motivation, job satisfaction, and affective organisational commitment. Only significant paths are shown. All coefficients are significant (p < .05). Standardised coefficients are reported. Significant correlations also examined but not shown in the figure included identified regulation and flourishing (r = .48, p < .001), identified regulation and teacher well-being (r = .39, p < .001), external regulation and flourishing (r = -.196, p < .001), and job satisfaction and affective organisational commitment (r = .54, p < .001).
114
Table 3.5
Standardised Effects for the Predictor Variables on Each Outcome Variable
Direct Total indirect Total
Predictor: Perceived autonomy support
Relatedness with colleagues .508 — .508
Relatedness with students .313 — .313
Competence .284 — .284
Autonomy .629 — .629
Flourishing — .473 .473
Teacher well-being — .581 .581
Identified regulation — .384 .384
External regulation — -.111 -.111
Job satisfaction — .513 .513
Organisational commitment — .464 .464
Predictor: Relatedness with colleagues
Flourishing .224 — .224
Teacher well-being .330 — .330
External regulation -.204 — -.204
Job satisfaction — .209 .209
Organisational commitment — .270 .270
115
Table 3.5 (Continued)
Direct Total indirect Total
Predictor: Relatedness with students
Flourishing .336 — .336
Identified regulation .322 — .322
External regulation -.417 — -.417
Job satisfaction — .239 .239
Organisational commitment — .259 .259
Predictor: Competence
Flourishing .574 — .574
Teacher well-being .221 — .221
Identified regulation .331 — .331
Job satisfaction — .419 .419
Organisational commitment — .297 .297
Predictor: Autonomy
Flourishing .145 — .145
Teacher well-being .557 — .557
Identified regulation .300 — .300
External regulation .195 — .195
Job satisfaction — .339 .339
Organisational commitment — .257 .257
116
3.3.3.1. Basic psychological needs. The first findings refer to the relationships
between perceived principal’s autonomy support and teachers’ sense of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness—their basic psychological needs. It was hypothesised that
perceived autonomy support would positively predict need satisfaction (Hypothesis 1). The
findings revealed that participants’ perceptions of principals’ autonomy support were reliably
related to their sense of need satisfaction of relatedness with colleagues (β = .508, p < .001),
relatedness with students (β = .313, p < .001), competence (β = .284, p < .001), and
autonomy (β = .629, p < .001). All relationships were positive revealing that as perceptions
of principals’ autonomy support increased, so did teachers’ need satisfaction. These findings
provide support for Hypothesis 1. In terms of the effect sizes, the model explained different
amounts of variance in the basic psychological needs. It explained the most variance in
autonomy (39.6%), followed by relatedness with colleagues (25.8%), relatedness with
students (9.8%), and competence (8.1%).
3.3.3.2. Well-being. The second set of findings refers to the relationship between the
basic psychological needs and the two types of well-being. It was hypothesised that need
satisfaction would positively predict flourishing (i.e., the global measure of well-being) and
teacher well-being (i.e., work-related well-being; Hypothesis 2). The findings revealed that
participants’ need satisfaction of relatedness with colleagues (β = .224, p < .001), relatedness
with students (β = .336, p < .001), competence (β = .574, p < .001), and autonomy (β = .145,
p < .001) were reliably related to their reports of flourishing. In addition, need satisfaction of
relatedness with colleagues (β = .330, p < .001), competence (β = .221, p < .001), and
autonomy (β = .557, p < .001) were reliably related to reports of teacher well-being. These
findings indicate that as teachers’ need satisfaction increased, so did their reports of
117
flourishing and teacher well-being (providing support for Hypothesis 2). The model
explained a large amount of the variance in well-being—67.8% of the variance in flourishing
and 65.0% of the variance in teacher well-being—suggesting quite a large effect size for both
types of well-being.
3.3.3.3. Motivation. The relationships between the basic psychological needs and
the different types of motivation are reported next. It was hypothesised that need satisfaction
would positively predict autonomous motivation (Hypothesis 3). As described above,
autonomous motivation was measured with one type of regulation, identified regulation.
Participants’ need satisfaction of relatedness with students (β = .322, p < .001), competence
(β = .331, p < .001), and autonomy (β = .300, p < .001) were reliably related to their reports
of identified regulation. This finding indicates that as teachers’ perceptions of relatedness
with students, competence, and autonomy increased, so did their reports of identified
regulation (providing support for Hypothesis 3).
It was also hypothesised that need satisfaction would negatively predict controlled
motivation (Hypothesis 4). For controlled motivation, two types of regulation were
examined: external and introjected regulation. The findings showed that relatedness with
colleagues (β = -.204, p < .001), relatedness with students (β = -.417, p < .001), and
autonomy (β = .195, p < .001) were reliably related to teachers’ reports of external
regulation, yet they had different polarities. Teachers who perceived need satisfaction with
respect to relatedness with colleagues and students, reported reduced external motivation (as
per Hypothesis 4). Contrary to expectations, however, teachers who perceived need
satisfaction for autonomy, reported higher levels of external regulation. In addition, none of
the basic psychological needs were reliably related to introjected regulation. Turning to the
118
effect sizes, the model explained 39.6% of the variance in identified regulation and 22.3% of
the variance in external regulation. It did not explain any of the variance in introjected
regulation because that only acted as an exogenous variable in the model (i.e., it did not act
as an outcome variable).
3.3.3.4. Job satisfaction. The next findings concern the relationships that well-being
and motivation had with job satisfaction. It was hypothesised that flourishing and teacher
well-being would positively predict job satisfaction (Hypothesis 7), as would autonomous
motivation (Hypothesis 9). The findings revealed that participants’ reports of flourishing (β =
.433, p < .001), teacher well-being (β = .339, p < .001), and identified regulation (i.e., the
measure of autonomous motivation; β = .291, p < .001) were reliably and positively related
to their reports of job satisfaction. As reports of flourishing, teacher well-being, and
identified regulation increased, so did reports of job satisfaction, providing support for
Hypothesis 7 and 9.
It was also hypothesised that controlled motivation would negatively predict job
satisfaction (Hypothesis 10). However, controlled motivation, measured as external and
introjected regulation, did not predict lower job satisfaction. In fact, external and introjected
regulation were not significantly related to job satisfaction at all. In terms of the effect size,
the model explained 73.0% of the variance in job satisfaction.
3.3.3.5. Affective organisational commitment. The relationships that well-being
and motivation had with affective organisational commitment are reported next. It was
hypothesised that flourishing and teacher well-being (Hypothesis 8), along with autonomous
motivation (i.e., identified regulation; Hypothesis 11), would positively predict affective
organisational commitment. The findings revealed that participants’ sense of flourishing (β =
119
.285, p < .001), teacher well-being (β = .435, p < .001), and identified regulation (β = .112, p
< .001) predicted their reports of affective organisational commitment. As teachers’ reports
of flourishing, teacher well-being, and identified regulation increased, so did their reports of
affective organisational commitment providing support for Hypotheses 8 and 11.
It was also hypothesised that controlled motivation (i.e., introjected and external
regulation) would negatively predict affective organisational commitment (Hypothesis 12).
The findings showed that introjected regulation (β = .147, p < .001) and external regulation
(β = -.306, p < .001) predicted teachers’ reports of affective organisational commitment,
albeit in different ways. External regulation was negatively associated with affective
organisational commitment as hypothesised; however, contrary to expectations introjected
regulation was positively associated. This means that participants who reported teaching with
participants who reported teaching with introjected regulation experienced greater affective
organisational commitment. Together, the findings provided only partial support for
Hypothesis 12. In terms of the effect size, the model explained a large amount of variance in
affective organisational commitment (63.4%).
3.3.3.6. Correlational hypotheses. In addition to the directional paths shown in
Figure 3.3, there were three additional hypotheses concerning correlational relationships
(Hypotheses 5, 6, and 13). These were not shown in Figure 3.3 given its existing complexity
with the directional paths. As described earlier, Hypothesis 5 proposed that autonomous
motivation would be positively associated with flourishing and teacher well-being.
Consistent with these expectations, latent variable correlations estimated from the SEM
120
revealed that autonomous motivation (measured as identified regulation) was positively
associated with flourishing (r = .48, p < .001) and teacher well-being (r = .39, p < .001).
The next correlational hypothesis, however, was not supported. Hypothesis 6
indicated that controlled motivation (i.e., introjected and external regulation) would have a
weak, positive relationship with well-being. External regulation, however, was negatively
related with flourishing (r = -.196, p < .001) and not significantly related with teacher well-
being (r = -.049, ns). Furthermore, introjected regulation, was not significantly related to
flourishing (r = -.041, ns) or teacher well-being (r = -.050, ns). The final hypothesis was that
job satisfaction and affective organisational commitment would be positively related
(Hypothesis 13). The findings were consistent with this hypothesis: Job satisfaction was
positively associated with affective organisational commitment (r = .54, p < .001).
3.4. Discussion
Improving teachers’ experiences at work is a crucial component of efforts to promote
a whole host of positive outcomes in schools. Teachers’ who are faring well, feeling
motivated to teach, experiencing satisfaction with their work, and feeling committed to their
school of employment tend to be more effective teachers (e.g., Duckworth et al., 2009) and
better at promoting students’ motivation (e.g., Pakarinen et al., 2010) and achievement (e.g.,
Caprara et al., 2006). However, we still have a great deal to learn about how teachers’
experiences of well-being, motivation, job satisfaction, and affective organisational
commitment interact with one another simultaneously. Furthermore, we do not have
explanatory models to enable us to study these important variables concurrently. Study 2
aimed to address these gaps. Grounded in self-determination theory (SDT), an explanatory
model of relationships between teachers’ experiences of well-being, motivation, job
121
satisfaction, and affective organisational commitment was elaborated and tested. After
confirming the factor pattern, SEM was conducted and provided support for the explanatory
model. Not all specified paths were consistent, however, with expectations. Key findings in
relation to the hypotheses are discussed below.
3.4.1. Basic Psychological Needs, Well-being, and Motivation
The findings revealed that the relationships in the model that were taken from SDT
were generally supported. Namely, teachers’ perceptions of principal’s autonomy support
predicted satisfaction of the needs for relatedness with colleagues and students, competence,
and autonomy (Hypothesis 1). Furthermore, need satisfaction positively predicted well-being
and identified regulation (i.e., autonomous motivation), but negatively predicted external
regulation (i.e., controlled motivation; Hypotheses 2, 3, and 5). The relationship found
between perceived autonomy support and need satisfaction corroborates Klassen, Perry, et
al.’s (2012) research. For the relationships involving need satisfaction, well-being, and
motivation, however, the findings extend the literature given that these relationships have not
been examined previously among teachers.
In combination, these findings extend our understanding of teachers’ experiences at
work and how they interrelate. This is particularly important given that well-being and
motivation have not only been linked with important teacher outcomes, such as teacher
effectiveness (e.g., Duckworth et al., 2009), but also student achievement (e.g., Caprara et
al., 2006). The findings also confirm the relevance of SDT for guiding research among
teachers. Previous research has provided support for the use of SDT in examining well-being
and motivation among students (e.g., Filak & Sheldon, 2008) and employees in other work-
related settings (e.g., Deci et al., 2001). The current study corroborates and extends the
122
emerging literature on teachers by showing that SDT is relevant for examining well-being,
autonomous motivation, and controlled motivation among teachers.
The implications of these findings are relevant for school administrators and policy-
makers for several reasons. In particular, they highlight the importance of principals’
autonomy support—or more accurately, teachers’ perceptions of this. By ensuring that
principals promote an autonomy-supportive working environment, teachers are more likely
to perceive this to be the case. In turn, teachers will likely experience greater need
satisfaction, well-being, and motivation. In order to extend our understanding, future
research should examine whether and how teachers’ perceptions of autonomy support
compare with actual efforts by principals to be autonomy-supportive. In addition, although
research has shown the types of managerial behaviours that employees in factory settings
find autonomy-supportive (e.g., Deci et al., 1994), no research has examined this among
teachers. This type of research would be helpful for guiding efforts to improve teachers’
perceived autonomy support and the many important outcomes related with it (e.g., teacher
motivation).
3.4.1.1. Autonomy and external regulation. Although support was found for the
main premises of SDT, one finding that was contrary to expectations was the positive
relationship between the need for autonomy and external regulation. I hypothesised that there
would be a negative relationship between these two variables (Hypothesis 4). The negative
latent variable correlation from the CFA supported my original hypothesis. The relationship
between these two variables became positive, however, in the structural modelling,
suggesting that there may be suppression effects occurring due to unobserved variables.
123
One possible reason for the changing sign is that high autonomy may have been
reported by two different groups of teachers. According to Pearson and Moomaw (2005),
autonomy can be viewed differently by teachers. Where one teacher may view autonomy as
the freedom to adjust his or her teaching, another teacher may “view autonomy as a means to
gain substantial freedom from interference or supervision” (Pearson & Moomaw, 2005, p.
42). In this sense, perhaps one group of teachers reported high autonomy with the
understanding that it allows them greater freedom to adjust their teaching methods and the
content to best meet their students’ needs. In contrast, perhaps a second group reported high
autonomy because it means there is less monitoring of their teaching by supervisors and, as a
result, less pressure to put additional effort into their teaching (e.g., in the case of teachers
who are experiencing disengagement due to burnout; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, &
Schaufeli, 2001).
Although the data do not allow us to determine if this was the case, this interpretation
is reflected in the model by the fact that autonomy was positively associated with both
identified regulation and external regulation. If these two groups do exist, teachers from the
first group may have reported high identified regulation, whereas teachers from the second
group may have reported high external regulation. This interpretation is also supported by
Gagné et al. (2010), who found that need satisfaction of autonomy was positively associated
with identified and external regulation (along with other types too). Their results suggest that
while autonomy predicts autonomous motivation, it is also related—psychometrically at
least—to controlled motivation. Given all this, it is conceivable that the swinging beta was
caused by this double-sided view of autonomy. Unfortunately, we are not able to determine if
this is the case from the current data, but future research should examine this relationship in
124
greater depth to understand why satisfaction of the need for autonomy predicts both external
and identified regulation.
3.4.1.2. Introjected regulation. Another finding that was contrary to expectations
was that need satisfaction did not predict introjected regulation (Hypothesis 4). Perhaps for
teachers who perceive they need to avoid shame/failure or who rely on contingent self-
worth—beliefs associated with introjected regulation (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2002)—need
satisfaction is not a primary concern. In other words, for these individuals, relatedness with
colleagues and students, competence, and autonomy may be secondary to their need to meet
the goals of introjected regulation (e.g., avoid failure or be seen positively in the eyes of
others). In a related finding, reports of introjected regulation were not reliably related to
flourishing or teacher well-being, which was contrary to my expectations of a weak, but
positive correlation between these constructs (Hypothesis 6). One possible explanation for
this is that perhaps introjected regulation for teaching has a differential relationship with
well-being that depends on whether the goals of introjected regulation are met. For example,
if a teacher works with the aim of avoiding failure or shame, perhaps he or she experiences a
sense of well-being when this goal is met, but not otherwise.
Taken together, these findings raise concerns about how teachers come to adopt
introjected regulation for teaching, and perhaps more importantly, how we can help teachers
who are acting with introjected regulation for teaching move into more autonomous forms of
motivation. Research that examines the characteristics of teachers who teach with introjected
regulation and investigates whether there are other needs that drive their motivation (e.g.,
perfectionism, fear of failure) will help to advance our knowledge of this type of regulation.
At the same time, introjected regulation represents the ‘first step’ in the process of
125
internalisation of behaviour (Gillison, Osborn, Standage, & Skevington, 2009). That is, it
involves some degree of internalisation—although this relates to internal pressure and is not
self-determined, but rather self-controlled (Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, & Brière, 2001).
Nonetheless, it is not fully extrinsically motivated and so may act as a first step towards
greater internalisation (and more self-determined motivation) suggesting the need for efforts
to focus on how self-determination can be promoted among these teachers. Clearly, more
research is needed to provide a greater understanding of this type of regulation.
3.4.2. Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction was the first of two variables in the model that move beyond the
theoretical framework of SDT. It was hypothesised that well-being and autonomous
motivation (i.e., identified regulation) would positively predict job satisfaction, whereas
controlled motivation (i.e., introjected and external regulation) would negatively predict job
satisfaction. The findings supported two of the hypotheses: teachers’ reports of flourishing,
teacher well-being, and identified regulation were positive predictors of job satisfaction
(Hypotheses 7 and 9). However, the third hypothesis involving controlled motivation and job
satisfaction (Hypothesis 10) was not supported. Contrary to expectations, experiences of
external regulation and introjected regulation did not predict job satisfaction.
One possible reason for this non-significance is that job satisfaction may be a
secondary concern for teachers who teach with introjected or external regulation. That is, the
goals associated with introjected regulation (e.g., avoiding failure) and external regulation
(e.g., obtaining a reward) may override a focus on job satisfaction. For example, if a teacher
is motivated to teach for the paycheque (i.e., external regulation), it may not be important
whether or not the job is satisfying in relation to the work tasks. This finding and the finding
126
involving identified regulation are important as they provide insight into the differential
relationships that occur between the types of regulation and job satisfaction.
This result is important for practice. It suggests that school administrators, policy-
makers, and even educators themselves may be wise to look at work motivation alongside
job satisfaction. Efforts that focus solely on understanding and improving teacher job
satisfaction may fail to address the underlying issue of work motivation. If teachers’
underlying motivation is not considered simultaneously, these efforts may be ineffective
among teachers with controlled work motivation. Instead, by engaging in efforts to increase
teachers’ autonomous motivation through steps outlined in the model (i.e., through
principals’ autonomy support and teachers’ need satisfaction), schools will be in a better
position to address teacher job satisfaction while also improving teacher well-being,
motivation, and affective organisational commitment.
Building on this, the finding also has implications for research. Namely, it suggests
that rather than focusing on job satisfaction by itself, researchers may gain a more complete
picture by considering it alongside work motivation. Another important area of future
research is the use of profile or cluster analysis techniques to examine different groups of
teachers and how their experiences are explained by the explanatory model. This would
advance our understanding of how teachers come to teach with the different types of
regulation, how regulation influences other experiences like job satisfaction, and ultimately,
how we can help them become more self-determined.
127
3.4.3. Affective Organisational Commitment
Affective organisational commitment was the second variable in the model that goes
beyond the premises of SDT. As hypothesised, experiences of flourishing, teacher well-
being, and identified regulation (autonomous motivation) had positive relationships with
affective organisational commitment (Hypotheses 8 and 11). In addition, job satisfaction and
affective organisational commitment were positively correlated as expected (Hypothesis 13).
The hypothesised relationship involving controlled motivation, however, was not fully
supported (Hypothesis 12). Consistent with expectations, external regulation was negatively
associated with affective organisational commitment. However, introjected regulation was
positively associated with affective organisational commitment.
For the first part of Hypothesis 12, the negative relationship between external
regulation and affective organisational commitment has important implications for school
administrators, policy-makers, students, and researchers. Given the positive outcomes
associated with affective organisational commitment (e.g., teachers’ sense of efficacy;
Bogler & Somech, 2004) and organisational commitment more broadly defined (e.g., work
engagement; Hakanen et al., 2006), it is important that teachers are given the best
opportunity to form affective organisational commitment. The importance of this is made
even more evident when one considers the fact that organisational commitment is negatively
associated with turnover and attrition among teachers (Day, Elliot, & Kington, 2005)—two
issues that have severe financial and educational implications for students, schools, and
societies (Collie et al., 2011; Ronfeldt, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2013). The model described here
provides school administrators and policy-makers with methods through which to support
positive experiences of affective organisational commitment among teachers (e.g., by
128
supporting teachers’ need satisfaction). Future research should examine the relationship
between motivation and affective organisational commitment in greater detail, along with
other forms of organisational commitment such as commitment driven by perceived costs of
quitting a job (i.e., continuance commitment; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001) to see how they
relate to motivation.
For the second part of Hypothesis 12, introjected regulation was positively associated
with affective organisational commitment. Although this was unexpected, a plausible
explanation for why it occurred relates to the emotional dimensions of both introjected
regulation and affective organisational commitment. By looking at the items used to assess
introjected regulation, we can gain a better understanding of this. Specifically, if individuals
are teaching “because [their] work is [their] life and [they don’t] want to fail” or “because
[their] reputation depends on it” (Gagné et al., 2010), they are driven by ‘internal pressure’ to
avoid shame/guilt or gain contingent self-worth (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002). It is
conceivable, therefore, that they could report affective organisational commitment because it
is their job that provides an opportunity to meet these two different types of internal pressure
(e.g., if individuals teach because their reputation depends on it, they may feel emotionally
attached to their school given that it helps to ensure their reputation is kept intact). This
finding has important implications for researchers. Although it links introjected regulation to
a positive outcome (i.e., higher affective organisational commitment), earlier findings
showed that introjected regulation was not associated with job satisfaction or well-being, nor
was it predicted by need satisfaction. Taken together, these findings underscore the need for
research that examines introjected regulation among teachers more closely to understand
what types of teachers work with this regulation, along with its causes and correlates.
129
3.5. Limitations and Future Directions
Study 2 has several limitations that must be discussed. Given that the same methods
of data collection were used as those described in Study 1, the limitations discussed in Study
1 are also relevant for Study 2. In particular, response rates were not able to be calculated
during data collection raising questions about the representativeness of the data; teachers
were involved in industrial action at the time of data collection, which may have affected
their responses; it was assumed that participants’ interpretations of questions matched the
researchers’ raising questions about the accuracy of responses; and the study involved a
single self-report survey meaning the results are threatened by single source bias.
As mentioned in Study 1, efforts were taken to temper these limitations (e.g.,
comparing data to other studies as an indication of representativeness, conducting factor
analysis, etc.)3. Notwithstanding this, a necessary development in future research involves
finding more robust ways to address these limitations, including finding ways to collect
response rates in online data collection (e.g., through personalised email invitations or face-
to-face recruiting), conducting ‘think-alouds’ with teachers as they complete questionnaires
to ascertain their thought processes and understand how they interpret the questions, and
using multiple data collection methods to reduce issues of single source bias (e.g.,
conducting interviews or focus groups with teachers).
In addition, there were two further limitations unique to this study. First, I was not
able to include intrinsic regulation in the model due to high correlation with job satisfaction.
Consequently, the results here do not extend to intrinsic regulation. Combined with the
3 One exception to this is that social desirability was not controlled for in Study 2. This decision was based on the fact that social desirability had only a small influence on the results of Study 1 (explaining variance less than 2%) and because there were concerns with the reliability of the social desirability data.
130
psychometric issues associated with measuring integrated regulation, this raises questions
about how we can come to understand the most self-determined types of regulation among
teachers (i.e., integrated and intrinsic). Moving forward, there is a need to create more
sensitive measures that differentiate or consider the overlap between job satisfaction and the
inherent interest of intrinsic regulation among teachers. Further attention should also be
placed on integrated regulation to ascertain whether there are other methods for assessing
this type of regulation (e.g., observation, interviews). This is important for further testing of
the model, as well as for developing and improving our measurement of these constructs in
general.
The second limitation is that I was not able to test causal relationships. SEM is used
to test a hypothesised explanatory model using sample data (Kline, 2011). It cannot provide
proof of causality, but rather indicates whether the model is consistent with the data. In the
current study, the findings revealed that the model was consistent with the data suggesting
the plausibility of the directional relationships that were decided a priori. However, there is a
need to test these relationships directly using longitudinal and/or experimental designs to
provide support for the causality and to accept or rule out other plausible directions. A likely
first step for completing this type of examination would be to investigate smaller sections of
the explanatory model over time. For example, cross-lagged analysis involving a path that
does not have existing longitudinal support (e.g., the relationship between well-being and
affective organisational commitment) would be a fruitful first step for examining causality in
the model.
131
3.6. Conclusions
In summary, Study 2 has involved elaborating and testing an explanatory model of
teacher motivation, well-being, job satisfaction, and affective organisational commitment
based in SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002). Models such as this are an important step forward
in the literature on teachers as they help to explain why teachers come to experience certain
constructs, how efforts can be designed to promote positive work experiences among
teachers, and ultimately, how we can help teachers to create the most effective learning
environments and experiences for their students. Through the use of factor analysis and
SEM, the findings revealed that the core relationships established through SDT were
generally supported: teachers’ reports of principal’s autonomy support predicted need
satisfaction, which, in turn, predicted well-being and motivation. These findings corroborate
the existing literature in several ways, while also extending it in relation to the examination
of well-being as flourishing and the different types regulation.
Also important were the findings that showed significant relationships involving
motivation, well-being, job satisfaction, and affective organisational commitment. In
particular, experiences of autonomous motivation (measured as identified regulation) and
well-being were positively associated with job satisfaction and affective organisational
commitment. There were some unexpected relationships, however, involving autonomy and
controlled motivation (measured as introjected regulation and external regulation), as well as
between controlled motivation, job satisfaction, and affective organisational commitment.
These findings extend our understanding of how teachers’ perceptions of motivation, well-
being, job satisfaction, and affective organisational commitment are interrelated and
132
highlight the need for more research in this area that examines these outcomes
simultaneously.
Another area of research that requires greater attention is examination of teachers’
experiences of constructs like well-being and motivation over time. This is an important
future step for developing our understanding of the explanatory model tested here and will
provide evidence for understanding whether and how these variables have causal influence
on one another (e.g., whether well-being does cause affective organisational commitment).
Another advantage of research over multiple time points is that it can reveal understanding
about how these variables change over time and whether there are trends in, say, teacher
well-being and motivation over the course of a school term, year, or career in teaching. This
type of examination can provide much-needed understanding of how these constructs
develop among early career teachers and how these constructs continue to develop across the
career span. Furthermore, they are a needed addition in the literature to support a
comprehensive understanding of teacher well-being and motivation. The final study in this
dissertation, Study 3, aims to begin this process by conducting an examination over time.
That is, it involved examining teachers’ experiences of well-being and motivation over
multiple time points to ascertain whether and how they changed over several months and
whether there were discernible trends in these constructs over time.
133
CHAPTER 4. STUDY 3: TEACHER WELL-BEING AND
MOTIVATION OVER TIME
4.1. Literature Review
The importance of teacher well-being and motivation for a whole host of positive
outcomes relating to teachers, students, and schools has been established in previous research
(e.g., Duckworth et al., 2009; Pakarinen et al., 2010; Retelsdorf et al., 2010) and further
supported in Studies 1 and 2 of this dissertation. In the past, research in this area has largely
involved cross-sectional examinations. Although these have advanced our understanding in
many ways, there is a need for examinations that are conducted over time. After all, there is
knowledge that cannot be ascertained by cross-sectional research such as understanding of
the causal ordering between constructs and understanding of the development and stability of
constructs over time.
Given our broadening understanding of teacher well-being and motivation through
cross-sectional research, a necessary next step in the development of the literature is to
examine these constructs over time. Indeed, this is a call that has been made frequently in the
literature on teachers (e.g., Brackett et al., 2010; Chan, 1998; Klassen et al., 2010, 2011;
Klusmann, et al., 2008; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009) and in the more general well-being
literature (e.g., Diener, 2009). Only a handful of studies, however, have explored teacher
outcomes over time (e.g., Brouwers & Tomic, 2000; Burke & Greenglass, 1995). Clearly,
more research is needed to better understand how teacher outcomes change over time. This is
necessary for advancing our understanding of the causes of these constructs, along with a
need to understand whether and how they develop and change over time. This second point is
especially important given that teachers’ experiences vary regularly throughout a school year
134
including changes in relationships with students, colleagues, and parents, changes in
requirements made by administrators and the government, and changes in students’ social,
emotional, and academic needs.
The aim of Study 3, therefore, was to examine whether and how teachers’
experiences of work-related well-being and motivation change over time among a new
sample of teachers. As part of the investigation, I also examined whether differences in well-
being and motivation among participants were predicted by their perceived satisfaction of the
basic psychological needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy. The rationale for
examining this was to provide further support for the relationship between need satisfaction
and well-being as examined in Study 2, and to extend our understanding of self-efficacy for
teaching by analysing its relationship with need satisfaction.
4.1.1. Teachers’ Experiences Over Time
The examination of teacher outcomes over time has been recognised as a great need
in the literature (e.g., Klassen, Tze, Betts, & Gordon, 2011). In Study 3, teachers’
experiences of work-related well-being and motivation were examined over time. As
highlighted in Studies 1 and 2, the definition of well-being used in this dissertation is
flourishing (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2011). For teacher well-being, this refers to flourishing at
work. For the examination of motivation, the construct of self-efficacy for teaching was used
in Study 3. This construct stems from social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1982, 1997) and
involves a forward looking belief about one’s capabilities in specific contexts (Klassen et al.,
2011). For teachers, it refers to perceptions of their “capabilities to bring about desired
outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among those students who may be
difficult or unmotivated” (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001, p. 783). Self-efficacy
135
for teaching is considered a key motivational belief that influences teachers’ actions. Like the
motivational constructs examined in Study 2 (i.e., self-determination), self-efficacy for
teaching has been associated with important outcomes for students, teachers, and schools
(e.g., students’ achievement, Caprara et al., 2006; teacher work engagement, Schaufeli &
Bakker, 2004; commitment to the profession, Canrinus et al., 2012; mastery goals for
teaching; Cho & Shim, 2013), thus justifying its inclusion in Study 3. In order to inform our
understanding of how teacher well-being and self-efficacy function over time, I turn to the
literature in these respective areas.
4.1.1.1. Changes in well-being over time. Although educational psychology
research has focused on well-being related constructs over time (e.g., stress), there is a
paucity of research looking at teacher well-being as its own construct over time.
Accordingly, we have to turn to research on stress and burnout to help inform our
understanding of how teacher well-being might function over time. Looking at changes in
stress and mental health over time, Manthei, Gilmore, Tuck, and Adair (1996) collected data
among New Zealand teachers at five waves over four years (at the beginning and end of the
school year in two consecutive years, and again two years later). Using instruments that
assessed sources of stress, overall stress, and experiences of symptoms related to mental
health (e.g., crying), ANOVA revealed only two significant differences between consecutive
time points. Two of the sources of stress—poor remuneration and community antagonism
(e.g., public criticism of teachers)—rose significantly from Time 1 to Time 2. Although this
method of comparing significant change between consecutive time points reveals whether
there were significant increases or decreases in teacher stress and mental health at the group
level, it does not allow us to determine if there were trends over time at the individual level.
136
Examination of trends would allow us to understand the continuing impact that the school
system has on teachers’ experiences.
In order to examine trends, multilevel modelling is needed. Multilevel modelling is a
data analysis technique that allows researchers to estimate individual trajectories of change in
a certain outcome variable along with the impact of predictor variables on changes to the
starting point and growth of those trajectories (Laursen & Hoff, 2006). Multilevel modelling
provides a more robust framework than repeated measures ANOVA or t-tests for examining
changes over time as it takes into account the hierarchical nature of data. This is necessary to
ensure interpretational and statistical errors do not occur. In addition, addressing the nested
nature of data prevents the loss of power that can occur when hierarchical data are not treated
as such (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Another strength of multilevel modelling is that it does
not require strict adherence to the assumption of independence of errors (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007) and is more flexible in terms of missing data, non-normality, and other data
complexities (Curran, Obeidat, & Losardo, 2010).
A notable example using multilevel modelling is Pas, Bradshaw, and Hershfeldt’s
(2012) study that examined changes in self-reported burnout and self-efficacy for handling
students with behavioural problems across two school years at three time points (six and
twelve months apart; findings involving self-efficacy are discussed in the next section). The
sample included practicing teachers in the US who were at various stages in their teaching
careers. Using emotional exhaustion—one of Maslach and Jackson’s (1981) three
components of burnout—they found a significant increase in teachers’ reports of burnout
over time. They also found that several other variables negatively predicted changes in both
the intercept and growth of burnout (e.g., teacher preparedness for handling classroom
137
management; positive perceptions of school leadership). Taken together, the findings of this
study inform our understanding of burnout by suggesting that it tends to increase across
school years. A question that remains is whether it can change over shorter time frames.
In a recent study that examined this, Roeser et al. (2013) investigated the effects of
mindfulness training on teachers from Canada and the US. The training involved 8-weeks of
teaching activities on mindfulness and self-compassion (e.g., guided mindfulness and yoga).
Measures of self-reported burnout and stress were taken at the beginning of the program
(Time 1), immediately after the program finished (Time 2), and three months later (Time 3).
After controlling for baseline levels, the findings revealed that teachers who completed the
training reported significantly lower levels of stress and burnout than a control group at Time
2 and Time 3. The authors also collected data on physiological measures of stress (e.g.,
cortisol, blood pressure); however, there were no significant differences in these measures
between the two groups. Combined, the findings of Roeser et al.’s study advance our
understanding of the ability of stress and burnout to be impacted by interventions and to
change over relatively short periods of time (eight weeks). A follow-up question that needs
to be examined is whether these constructs can change over similarly short time frames
without teachers’ being engaged in regular exercises to promote their well-being. In other
words, can we expect teacher stress and burnout to remain stable or increase/decrease in the
face of normal teaching activities and no regular mindfulness exercises? This is important for
understanding the stability of teacher well-being and whether we can realistically expect any
immediate changes as a result of efforts by schools to promote well-being among teachers
and students.
138
Broadly, Roeser et al.’s (2013) findings along with those from Manthei et al. (1996)
and Pas et al. (2012) inform our understanding of how well-being related constructs function
over time. More attention needs to be devoted to teacher well-being as its own construct,
however, given that it is more than the absence (or opposite) of stress or burnout (Huppert &
So, 2013). In order to provide some understanding of how teacher well-being may function
over time, it is necessary to turn to the wider psychological literature involving subjective
well-being—the relative newness of the flourishing construct means that longitudinal
examinations are not yet available. This literature (e.g., Lyubomirsky, Dickerhoof, Boehm, &
subjective well-being remains relatively constant over time and returns to baseline levels
rather quickly after changes in life circumstances—unless individuals are regularly engaged
in activities to boost their well-being (e.g., mindfulness, Roeser et al., 2013). It is possible
that a similar phenomenon occurs with flourishing; however, the differences between these
two constructs and the differences between global measures of well-being (like subjective
well-being) and teacher well-being mean that research is needed to determine if teacher well-
being is generally stable over time or whether it can change, as well as whether any changes
can be expected over short or longer time frames.
Taken together, previous research indicates that stress and burnout among teachers
can change over time, whereas subjective well-being among individuals does not tend to vary
much over time. Accordingly, these findings underscore the need for the examination of
teacher well-being directly. In addition to examining that, Study 3 also examined the impact
of need satisfaction on teacher well-being over time. This provides a further opportunity to
examine the core relationship of self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002)
139
that was examined in Study 2. Furthermore, it will provide an understanding of the impact of
contextually-related constructs on teacher well-being over time.
4.1.1.2. Changes in self-efficacy over time. The literature on self-efficacy for
teaching is quite vast, and fortunately, has involved several studies examining the construct
over time. Looking at changes in efficacy over approximately two years, Woolfolk Hoy and
Spero’s (2005) conducted a study among pre-service teachers and continued to collect data
from these teachers as they completed their first year of teaching in the profession. They
examined self-efficacy for teaching using two previously published measures (Bandura,
1997; Gibson & Dembo, 1984) and one they created for their study. The participants were
asked to complete these measures at the beginning (Time 1) and end (Time 2) of their teacher
education program, and a year after they began teaching (Time 3). The researchers conducted
repeated measures ANOVA to examine whether there were significant differences in self-
efficacy between the different time points. For all measures, self-efficacy increased
significantly from Time 1 to Time 2. The findings from Time 2 to Time 3 were mixed with
some measures showing a significant decrease in self-efficacy for teachers and others
showing no change.
The findings of Woolfolk Hoy and Spero’s (2005) research provide a revealing
insight into the development of self-efficacy at the very early career stage. At the same time,
concerns over the conceptual accuracy of one of the measures used—the Gibson and Dembo
(1984) instrument—point to a larger issue in the literature. Woolfolk Hoy and Spero, along
with Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy (1998), and more recently Klassen et al.
(2011) have cautioned that the Gibson and Dembo instrument focuses on locus of control
rather than self-efficacy. Consequently, they question the accuracy of interpretations about
140
self-efficacy from the measure. This highlights the need for research using what Klassen et
al. (2011) argue are conceptually clearer measures. Specifically, Klassen et al. (2011) have
proposed that in order to be congruent with self-efficacy theory, instruments must attend to
judgments related to specific outcomes (e.g., engaging students) and focus on forward-
looking capabilities. Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy’s (2001) Teacher Sense of
Efficacy Scale (TSES) is one such measure that enables us to examine three factors of
teacher self-efficacy—self-efficacy for student engagement, classroom management, and
instructional strategies—using a conceptually and theoretically sound construction.
Notwithstanding the conceptual issues with one of the scales, the Woolfolk Hoy and
Spero (2005) study provides important understanding of the malleability of self-efficacy at
the pre-service level and indicates that it tends to reduce or remain constant in the first year
of teaching. A question that remains is how self-efficacy functions over time among more
experienced teachers. In particular, there is a need for research to determine whether it
becomes relatively stable once teachers gain more experience or whether it continues to be
flexible and/or malleable. One study that examined changes in self-efficacy for teaching
among more experienced teachers is Carleton, Fitch, and Krockover’s (2012) research
examining the impact of a two-week science professional development program on self-
efficacy for science teaching. The authors examined self-efficacy at four waves: before and
after the two-week summer workshop on science concepts, once in autumn when teachers
returned for a one day workshop, and in spring when teachers gave a presentation at a
science teachers’ association meeting. Using paired t-tests, they found that participants
showed a significant increase in self-efficacy for science teaching from before to after the
141
workshop. In addition, the autumn and spring waves were also significantly higher than the
original measurement.
Taken together, the findings from Carleton and colleagues’ (2008) study indicate that
self-efficacy for teaching can change among teachers at varying career stages as a result of
professional development. These changes also occurred over a short time frame (i.e., two
weeks). Once again, however, concerns with the robustness of the instrument they used
necessitate caution in interpreting the results. The items Carleton and colleagues (2008) used
to assess self-efficacy for science teaching were based on an instrument (i.e., Friedman and
Kass, 2002), which Klassen et al. (2011) argue drifts from ‘theory-based understanding’ of
self-efficacy. For example, Carleton and colleagues used the item, “I see myself as an
interesting and motivating science and/or math teacher” (Carleton et al., 2008, p. 52), which
appears to focus on something akin to self-concept as a science teacher rather than self-
efficacy. Although the authors need to be commended on their efforts to inform our
understanding of changes in self-efficacy as a consequence of professional development, the
measurement issues highlight the need for more research in this area. Given that teachers are
regularly involved in various short-term initiatives/professional development programs such
as that examined by Carleton and colleagues, research that endeavours to understand whether
changes in self-efficacy over short periods of time are feasible will advance our
understanding of the realistic impact of these programs on self-efficacy for teaching.
Other longitudinal studies are beset by similar measurement issues (e.g., Ross, 1994).
In fact, Klassen et al. (2011) claim that the research on self-efficacy for teaching has been
plagued by measurement concerns. Another methodological issue that deserves attention is
the data analytic techniques used to assess self-efficacy over time. Like well-being, more
142
examination of self-efficacy over time using robust multilevel modelling techniques is
needed. A notable example that addresses both of these concerns is Pas and colleagues’
(2012) study, which was introduced earlier. In addition to examining changes in burnout over
time, they also examined changes in self-efficacy for handling students with behavioural
problems. As noted, their sample included practicing teachers at various stages in their
teaching careers and the authors found a significant increase in self-efficacy over time among
the teachers. They also found that several other variables positively predicted changes in the
intercept (e.g., positive perceptions of school leadership) and/or growth (i.e., teacher
preparedness for handling classroom management) of self-efficacy. This study informs our
understanding of how self-efficacy for managing disruptive behaviour can change over time
and also suggests that changes do not appear to be limited to teachers who are at the
beginning of their career. Research examining other types of self-efficacy (e.g., for engaging
students) will further develop our understanding of this construct.
Another study supporting the flexibility of self-efficacy for teaching across the career
is Klassen and Chiu’s (2010) study examining the relationship between self-efficacy for
teaching and years of experience. The authors used the conceptually sound TSES
(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) to examine three factors of self-efficacy— self-
efficacy for student engagement, classroom management, and instructional strategies—
among a large sample of Canadian teachers. The study was cross-sectional, but the authors
examined relationships between self-efficacy and years of experience to understand how
self-efficacy was different at various career stages. The findings revealed that the three
factors of self-efficacy increased along with teaching experience up to mid-career, but that
they decreased as teachers moved into late career. This research provides support for the idea
143
that self-efficacy for teaching can continue to change as teachers gain experience. Moving
forward, research needs to examine these three types of self-efficacy using data collected at
multiple time points.
Taken together, previous research highlights the need for greater examination of self-
efficacy for teaching over time using robust measures and data analytic techniques. It also
provides evidence that self-efficacy is flexible over both short and long time periods. Given
the measurement concerns with some previous studies (e.g., Carleton et al., 2008), however,
research using more conceptually sound measures is needed to confirm whether changes in
self-efficacy are realistic over shorter time periods. As noted above, this will help us
understand whether short-term interventions that are commonly applied in schools are likely
to have an immediate effect or whether slower, more gradual changes in self-efficacy can be
expected. To that end, Study 3 examined changes in self-efficacy for three factors of efficacy
during a relatively short time period of two to three months. Like well-being, it also
investigated the influence of need satisfaction on changes in self-efficacy to better
understand how contextually-related experiences affect teachers.
4.1.2. Overview of the Current Study
Cross-sectional research provides us with an understanding of constructs at one point
in time, but it does not tell us how teachers’ experiences change over time. For Study 3, I
examined how teacher well-being and self-efficacy for teaching function over a relatively
short time frame of two to three months. One particular commonality about the participants’
experiences is that they all participated in a professional development program on anti-
oppression. In the interest of transparency, it is noted that the program’s focus on anti-
oppression may have affected teachers’ perceptions of well-being and self-efficacy for
144
teaching. However, given that professional development is a typical experience for teachers
in British Columbia every two to three months (Ministry of Education, 2012), any influence
was treated as a feature of the environment within which the participants worked. In addition,
anti-oppression is a topic with which teachers in British Columbia are familiar given the
province’s performance standards on social responsibility (Ministry of Education, 2001). The
performance standards, created for voluntary use in schools, refer to students’ skills and
awareness in contributing to the classroom and school community, solving problems in
peaceful ways, valuing diversity and defending human rights, and exercising democratic
rights and responsibilities (Ministry of Education, 2001). Taken together, professional
development on topics like anti-oppression is a feature of the schooling system within which
the participants worked and so was treated as such in Study 3.
Taking this setting into account, Study 3 involved examining changes in teacher well-
being and self-efficacy for teaching over time. Moreover, the study investigated how basic
psychological need satisfaction influenced these outcomes over time. Two research questions
guided this study:
• How do teacher well-being and self-efficacy for teaching function over time?
(Research Question 1)
• How does need satisfaction affect teachers’ initial experiences of well-being and
motivation? (Research Question 2)
For Research Question 1, I hypothesised that well-being would show little change over time.
This is based on research showing that subjective well-being is generally stable over time
and returns to baseline levels relatively quickly after changes in life circumstances
(Lyubomirsky et al., 2011; Schimmack & Lucas, 2010; Suh et al., 1996; Hypothesis 1a).
145
• Hypothesis 1a. Well-being will remain stable over the two- to three-month period of
examination.
For self-efficacy, however, I hypothesised that there may be some change given that previous
research has provided evidence of the variability of teacher self-efficacy over relatively short
amounts of time (e.g., three, six, twelve months; Carleton et al., 2009; Klassen & Chiu, 2010;
Woolfolk Hoy & Spero, 2005; however, as noted earlier there are concerns about the
conceptual accuracy of Carleton and colleagues’ findings).
• Hypothesis 1b. Self-efficacy will show variation over the two- to three-month period.
For Research Question 2, the hypothesised relationships between need satisfaction
and well-being are based on relationships postulated in Study 1.
• Hypothesis 2a. Satisfaction of the needs for autonomy and competence will positively
predict workload well-being.
• Hypothesis 2b. Satisfaction of the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness
with colleagues will positively predict organisational well-being.
• Hypothesis 2c. Satisfaction of the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness
with colleagues will positively predict student interaction well-being.
The relationships between need satisfaction and self-efficacy are drawn from
understanding of both social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1982, 1997) and SDT (Deci & Ryan,
1985, 2002). Although motivation is defined differently in these two theories, I suggest that
the relationship between need satisfaction and motivation in SDT is also relevant when
defining motivation according to social cognitive theory (i.e., as self-efficacy). In essence, I
posit that satisfaction of psychological needs is positively associated with confidence in
future abilities (i.e., self-efficacy). Previous research supports this reasoning by highlighting
146
that self-efficacy is related to the need for competence (e.g., Lynch et al., 2005). Further,
self-efficacy relates to agency (i.e., the belief that we shape our own life circumstances;
Bandura, 1989), which is similar to autonomy. Together, these findings warrant further
examination of the relationship between need satisfaction and self-efficacy.
Rationales for the specific hypotheses between need satisfaction and self-efficacy
were based on the meaning of the constructs. First, I hypothesised that competence and
relatedness with students would be significant predictors of self-efficacy for student
engagement because teachers are more likely to feel confident in their ability to engage their
students if they have a connection with their students (i.e., because they better understand
their students’ learning needs) and if they feel competent in their teaching ability (i.e.,
confidence reflects a sense of competence).
• Hypothesis 2d. Satisfaction of the needs for competence and relatedness with students
will positively predict self-efficacy for student engagement.
Second, I hypothesised that autonomy, competence, and relatedness with students
would be significant predictors of self-efficacy for classroom management given that
teachers who feel connected to their students, competent, and in control are more likely to
understand the best ways to successfully manage their students, feel more confident about
their ability to manage the classroom, and choose classroom management strategies that
work for them.
• Hypothesis 2e. Satisfaction of the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness
with students will positively predict self-efficacy for classroom management.
For the final outcome variable, it was hypothesised that competence and autonomy
would predict self-efficacy for instructional strategies because a sense of competence likely
147
relates to greater confidence in one’s abilities and because autonomy likely means that
teachers are free to choose instructional strategies that they feel confident in using.
• Hypothesis 2f. Satisfaction of the needs for autonomy and competence will positively
predict self-efficacy for instructional strategies.
4.2. Methods
4.2.1. Participants
Participants included 71 teachers from a large, suburban school board in British
Columbia, Canada. These teachers represent a different sample from the first two studies.
Moreover, they worked in a different school district that was not involved in Studies 1 and 2
data collection. Approximately 69% of the sample was female and 49% taught at the
elementary level (37% at the secondary level, 10% at both levels, and 1% taught at an
alternative education centre). The average teaching experience was 11.6 (SD = 8.14) years
and the average age of participants was 40.4 (SD = 10.28) years. Participants were asked
about their ethnic origins. Among the sample, 75% reported having one, 18% reported
having two, and 1% reported having three ethnic backgrounds (6% chose not to answer). The
frequency of the reported ethnic backgrounds are shown in Table 4.1. Participants were
asked whether they considered themselves to be a minority based on race, gender, ethnicity,
class, ability and/or sexual orientation. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of participants considered
themselves to be a minority, 12% were unsure, and the remainder did not consider
themselves to be a minority (45%).
The majority of participants were classroom teachers (58%). Other positions included
working as support teachers (e.g., resource teachers, special education teachers, or
counsellors, 14%), youth and family support workers (13%), multicultural liaison worker
148
(7%), administrators (e.g., principals; 3%), teacher librarians (1%), and other positions (9%;
e.g., settlement workers in schools, district support staff, special education assistant). All
participants worked with students and so were classified as teachers in the results.
Table 4.1
Frequency of Participants’ Ethnic Origins
Northern and western
European
Eastern and southern European
East Asian
South Asian
Aboriginal Other
Frequency 62% 14% 14% 11% 4% 10% Note. Northern and Western European origins refers to British, Scottish, German, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Dutch, etc. Eastern and Southern European origins refers to Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Italian, Greek, Spanish, etc. Aboriginal origins refers to First Nations, Inuit, Metis, etc. East Asian origins refers to Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. South Asian origins refers to East Indian, Punjabi, Pakistani, etc. Other included southeast Asian, self-identified Canadian, Latin American, self-identified Jewish, and unspecified.
4.2.2. Procedures
Participants for Study 3 were recruited through the booking process of a professional
development program that aimed to promote anti-oppression in classrooms and schools
(Appendix C shows the invitation letter provided to teachers). When teachers booked the
program for their classroom or participated in it at district-level professional development
days, they were invited to participate in the research. Most of the data collection occurred via
online questionnaire; however, teachers who participated in the professional development
days completed a paper copy of the questionnaire at Time 1 and online copies at Time 2 and
3. Data were collected over two school years. Table 4.2 shows the sample size for the three
waves of data collection broken down by potential sample size (i.e., participants who
consented to the research) and actual sample size (i.e., participants who actually filled out the
149
questionnaires).4 It also shows the response rates for the three time points. Details about
attrition are discussed below. Teachers completed the questionnaire at three time points.
Time 2 occurred around six weeks after Time 1 (M = 40.14 days, SD = 20.84 days; time
varied depending on teacher availability and school vacations) and Time 3 occurred around
nine weeks after Time 1 (M = 64.31 days, SD = 27.57 days; this means that Time 3 occurred
about four weeks after Time 2). Data were collected over a two- to three-month period.
Table 4.2
Actual and Potential Sample Size at Each Time Point
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
Potential 71 50a 50
Actual 65 28 22
Response rate 92% 56% 44% Note. Pro-d = professional development. a The drop in potential sample size between Time 1 and 2 was because 21 teachers in Year 2 were not included in data collection at Time 2 and 3. See Footnote 4.
4.2.3. Measures
As noted above, three self-report questionnaires were used to collect data at three
times points. The questionnaires included measures of well-being, need satisfaction, self-
efficacy, and questions pertaining to demographics. Table 4.3 shows the items that were used
for each construct. The choice of items was based on factor analyses conducted in previous
4 The drop in potential sample size between Time 1 and Time 2 reflects a change in school district protocol which meant we were unable to collect email addresses of teachers who only participated in the program at the professional development days (i.e., they did not make a subsequent booking to have the program in their classroom).
150
research among different samples from the same British Columbian population of teachers
(e.g., Study 1 and 2; Collie et al., 2012). Table 4.4 shows the descriptive statistics for the
different constructs and Table 4.5 shows the Cronbach’s alphas. As described in Studies 1
and 2, Table 2.5 shows the constructs that were examined in Study 3, along with those
examined in the previous two studies.
4.2.3.1. Well-being. Well-being was measured with the Teacher Well-Being Scale
(TWBS) developed in Study 1 (see Appendix D, Section 2). As established in Study 1 and
shown in Table 4.3, six items were used to measure workload well-being (e.g., “Staying late
after work for meetings and activities”), six items were used to measure organisational well-
being (e.g., “Support offered by school leadership”), and four items were used to measure
student interaction well-being (e.g., “Relations with students in my class”). All items were
scored on a 7-point scale ranging from Negatively (1) to Positively (7). The Cronbach’s
alphas at all three time points provide evidence for validity based on internal structure (see
Table 4.5).
4.2.3.2. Self-efficacy for teaching. The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES,
Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) was used to measure self-efficacy for teaching
(see Appendix D, Section 4). Based on Collie et al.’s (2012) factor analyses, three items were
used to measure self-efficacy for student engagement (e.g., “How much can you do to get
students to believe they can do well in school work?”), another three items were used to
measure self-efficacy for classroom management (e.g., “How much can you do to get
children to follow classroom rules?”), and four items were used to measure self-efficacy for
instructional strategies (e.g., “To what extent can you use a variety of assessment
strategies?”). Items were scored on a scale ranging from Not At All (1) to A Great Deal (9).
151
Evidence of validity, including reliability, of the scores on this measure have been supported
in a variety of samples (e.g., α ≥ .64; Klassen et al., 2009; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk
Hoy, 2001), as well as in Study 3 (see Table 4.5).
4.2.3.3. Need satisfaction. Need satisfaction was measured with the same instrument
used in Study 2, the Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction scale (Van den Broeck et al.,
2010; see Appendix D, Section 3). Four items were used to measure relatedness with
colleagues (e.g., “At work, I can talk with people about things that really matter to me”),
three items were used to measure relatedness with students (e.g., “I am very committed to my
students”), six items were used to measure competence, (e.g., “I feel competent at my job”),
and five items were used to measure autonomy (e.g., “I feel free to do my job the way I think
it should be done”). Participants responded to these statements on a scale ranging from
Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (7). Once again, Cronbach’s alphas at all three time
points were adequate.
4.2.3.4. Demographic information. Teachers were asked to supply demographic
information including age, sex, ethnic/cultural heritage, whether or not they considered
themselves a member of a minority group, school grades currently teaching, current teaching
position, and years of teaching experience (see Appendix D, Section 1).
152
Table 4.3
Items Used to Assess the Well-Being, Self-Efficacy, and Need Satisfaction Constructs
Items Item number
Workload well-being
Marking work 3
Fitting everything in to the allotted time 4
Administrative work related to teaching 7
Work I complete outside of school hours for teaching 13
Working to finish my teaching tasks 14
Staying late after work for meetings and activities 16
Organisational well-being
Relations with administrators at my school 2
Support offered by school leadership 9
Recognition for my teaching 10
School rules and procedures that are in place 11
Communication between members of the school 12
Participation in school-level decision making 15
Student interaction well-being
Relations with students in my class 1
Student behaviour 5
Student motivation 6
Classroom management 8
153
Table 4.3 (Continued)
Items Item number
Self-Efficacy for Student Engagement
How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school work?
2
How much can you do to help your students value learning? 4
How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in school work?
7
Self-Efficacy for Classroom Management
How much can you do to control disruptive behaviour in the classroom?
1
How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy? 3
How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules? 6
Self-Efficacy for Instructional Strategies
To what extent can you craft good questions for your students? 5
To what extent can you use a variety of assessment strategies? 9
To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused? 10
How well can you implement alternative teaching strategies in your classroom? 12
Relatedness with colleagues
I don’t really feel connected with other people at work (R) 1
I don’t really mix with colleagues at work (R) 3
At work, I can talk with people about things that really matter to me 4
I often feel alone when I am with my colleagues (R) 5
154
Table 4.3 (Continued)
Items Item number
Relatedness with students
I am very committed to my students 19
Connecting with my students is an essential part of the job 20
I feel connected to my students 22
Competence
I don’t really feel competent in my job (R) 7
I really master the things I have to do at work 8
I feel competent at my job 9
I have doubts about whether I am able to do my job properly (R) 10
I am good at the things I do in my job 11
I have the feeling that I can accomplish even the most difficult tasks at work 12
Autonomy
At work, I often feel like I have to follow other people’s commands (R) 14
If I could choose, I would do things at work differently (R) 15
The things I have to do at work are in line with what I really want to do
16
I feel free to do my job the way I think it should be done 17
In my job, I feel forced to do things I don’t want to do (R) 18
155
Table 4.4
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for all Variables
where the addition of u1i Timeti2 represents the random effect of curvature.
4.3.1.2. Conditional model. Once the intercept, slope, and curvature were identified
through the unconditional models, conditional models were run where variables of interest
were included to see if they explained the between-person and within-person variance. In
Study 3, the first conditional model, Model 3, involved the addition of the need satisfaction
variables: relatedness with colleagues, relatedness with students, competence, and
autonomy.5 Namely, participants’ scores on the need satisfaction variables at Time 1 were
entered as a time-invariant predictor. The aim of this model was to assess the effect of need
satisfaction on participants’ well-being and self-efficacy. The final model, Model 4, only
included the need satisfaction variables that were significant. The rationale for excluding the
non-significant need satisfaction variables was for parsimony given that they did not
significantly add to the explanation of the model.
4.3.2. Results for Multilevel Findings
In order to conduct the multilevel analyses, I used Mplus Version 7.11 (Muthén &
Muthén, 1998-2012). The method of estimation used was MLR, which involves maximum
likelihood estimation with robust standard errors and a robust chi-square test. This method of
estimation is robust in the face of non-normality and missing data. In order to assess model
fit, a chi-square difference test based on the loglikelihood values was used. This method is
appropriate for MLR estimation and incorporates the scaling correction factor of each model
5 Covariates of age, teaching experience, teaching load, perceptions of workshop (i.e., ‘perceived usefulness’), number of workshops, sex, and identified minority were included in preliminary conditional models; however, none were significant. Thus, these models were not reported in the results and the covariates were excluded so that they did not compromise power given the small sample size.
165
(Muthén & Muthén, 2005). The df value used in this method is the difference in the number
of parameters between the two models. In order to aid interpretability, time was centred so
that Time 1 = 0, and the need satisfaction variables were centred around the mean at Time 1.
4.3.2.1. Workload well-being. The first outcome examined was workload well-
being. Table 4.10 shows the results. As detailed above, the first model tested was the
unconditional means model (Model 1, Table 4.10). The results revealed that workload well-
being varied significantly among participants (as seen in the significant intercept in Table
4.10, p < .001). The variance estimated for the mean intercept (τ00) was 0.803 (p < .001) and
that for the within-person random effect (σ2) was 0.208 (p < .001). This highlights that there
was more variance between participants than within participants.
Model 2a, an unconditional growth model, involved the addition of time as a fixed
effect to see if it explained the two variance components. It was not significant (p = .088)
revealing that there was no significant change in workload well-being over time. Given this,
there was no need to run an unconditional model with time as a random effect (Model 2b
described above). The curvature of the trajectories was also tested (Model 2c described
above) to assess whether there was a significant curvilinear trend that was not captured by
the time variable. To that end, time2 was entered in the model, but it was not significant
confirming that there was no change over time (results not presented).
Despite there being no significant changes in workload well-being over time,
conditional models were run to help explain the between-person variance. In order to provide
contextual timing of the data, time was left in the model despite being non-significant. The
first conditional model involved the addition of the need satisfaction variables (see Model 3,
Table 4.10). The results showed that autonomy was a significant predictor of workload well-
166
being (p = .002). The final conditional model (Model 4) excluded the non-significant need
satisfaction variables and confirmed that autonomy was still a significant predictor (p <
.001). As teachers’ reports of autonomy increased, so did their workload well-being. This
finding highlights that individual differences in workload well-being were explained in part
by autonomy. This was mirrored in the between-person variance (τ00), which was reduced
from 0.789 (p < .001) in Model 2a to 0.568 (p < .001) in Model 3. Put another way, the
addition of autonomy into the model explained 28% of the between-person variance. The fact
that the between-person variance remained significant suggests that there are other variables
that explain differences in workload well-being between participants (e.g., perhaps school
climate or autonomy support). The within-person variance (σ2) was not greatly reduced by
the addition of factors into the model (0.208 [p < .001] in Model 1 to 0.193 in Model 4 [p <
.001]), which is not surprising given that time (the within-person variable) was not
significant. A chi-square difference test showed that the addition of autonomy significantly
improved the fit of model: χ2 (1) = 71.86, p < .001.
In order to graph the predicted values of workload well-being, the following equation
was used:
Yti = π00 + π01Timeti + π05Autonomyi
This equation was solved for three different levels of autonomy: teachers reporting low
autonomy (one standard deviation below the mean), average autonomy, and high autonomy
(one standard deviation above the mean). Figure 4.1 shows the relationship between
workload well-being and autonomy based upon this equation. Time is not considered in the
graph given that it was not a significant factor in the model. As the graph shows, teachers
167
who reported high autonomy experienced significantly greater workload well-being than
teachers reporting average or low autonomy.
Table 4.10
Multilevel Models for Examining Change in Workload Well-Being Over Time
2b Organisational well-being Relatedness with colleagues Competence Autonomy
Relatedness with colleagues Autonomy
2c Student interaction well-being Relatedness with students Competence Autonomy
Autonomy
2d Self-efficacy for student engagement Relatedness with students Competence
Relatedness with students
2e Self-efficacy for classroom management Relatedness with students Competence Autonomy
Relatedness with students Autonomy
2f Self-efficacy for instructional strategies Competence Autonomy
Relatedness with students
187
4.4. Discussion
The need to improve our understanding of how teacher well-being and motivation
function over time is a key priority regularly highlighted in the literature (e.g., Klassen et al.,
2011). Study 3 aimed to address this issue by conducting growth curve modelling. Results
showed that self-reported well-being was stable (Hypothesis 1a), whereas self-efficacy for
classroom management showed a positive linear trend over time (Hypothesis 1b; self-
efficacy for student engagement and instructional strategies were both stable over time). In
addition, results showed that both well-being and self-efficacy were predicted by need
satisfaction (Hypotheses 2a through 2f). Key findings from the study are discussed below.
4.4.1. Self-efficacy for Classroom Management
The findings of the study showed that self-efficacy for classroom management
changed over time among the teachers in the sample and that it showed a positive linear trend
increasing over the three time points. There are several reasons why this may have occurred,
the first of which is a natural growth in teachers’ confidence as the school year progresses
and as they get to know their students better (e.g., they have more understanding of how to
best interact with individual students). Hence, the passing of two to three months between the
first and third time point of data collection may have been enough to precipitate this change
in self-efficacy for classroom management. Collie and colleagues’ (2012) research showing
that positive perceptions of student behaviour and motivation among teachers predicted
greater self-efficacy for teaching supports this interpretation, as does longitudinal research
showing positive changes in self-efficacy for teaching over the school year (e.g., Pas et al.,
2012).
188
Previous research examining the stability of self-efficacy over time has also
suggested that professional development can have a positive effect on self-efficacy (e.g.,
Carleton et al., 2008). Based on the reasons discussed earlier, however, the interpretations of
Carleton and colleagues’ (2008) research is hampered by the conceptually troubled
instrument that was used. Nonetheless, another possible explanation for the change in self-
efficacy found in Study 3 is teachers’ experiences of professional development during the
course of data collection. This may include the anti-oppression workshop in which they
participated as well as other professional development sessions they likely attended. In order
to determine whether professional development influences self-efficacy for teaching, there is
a need for intervention research involving multiple forms of data collection (e.g.,
questionnaires, observations, interviews). This will help us to identify whether and how
professional development influences self-efficacy for teaching.
Notwithstanding the fact that we can only speculate why the change occurred, the
finding broadens understanding of self-efficacy for classroom management in a couple of
key ways. First, it extends previous research that has looked at changes in self-efficacy for
teaching among early career teachers (e.g., Woolfolk Hoy & Spero, 2005) by revealing that
changes among more experienced teachers are possible. In that sense, it supports Klassen and
Chiu’s (2010) cross-sectional research showing a positive relationship between self-efficacy
for teaching and years of experiences up to the mid-point in the career, while extending this
to consider multiple time points. Second, this finding extends previous research that looked
at changes across longer time frames (e.g., Pas et al., 2012) by suggesting that self-efficacy
for classroom management can change over short periods of time. Furthermore, by using a
189
conceptually sound instrument it provides much needed support for similar findings in
Carleton and colleagues’ (2008) study.
The implications of this finding extend to students, educators, and administrators.
Self-efficacy for teaching has been associated with several important outcomes for teachers
(e.g., work engagement; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) and students (e.g., student achievement;
Caprara et al., 2006). More specifically, self-efficacy for classroom management has been
negatively associated with teachers’ reports of stress, burnout (Brouwers & Tomic, 1999,
2000), and the use of punitive strategies for classroom management (Morin & Battalio,
2004). Consequently, efforts that can help to improve teacher self-efficacy affect not only the
teachers themselves, but their students’ learning and achievement. In addition, Collie and
colleagues (2012) showed that self-efficacy played a mediating role in the relationship
between teacher stress from student behaviour and job satisfaction. They concluded that
stress appears to have a detrimental effect on teachers when it is accompanied by low self-
efficacy. Efforts that can help to bolster teacher confidence should be considered by
administrators to help offset damage caused by teacher stress levels. This is particularly
important given that teaching is recognised as a highly stressful career (e.g., Kyriacou, 2000,
2001) and that this stress results in lower work engagement among teachers (Hakanen et al.,
2006) and lower learning motivation among students (Pakarinen et al., 2010).
4.4.2. Teacher Well-Being
The three types of teacher well-being showed no changes over time. For this finding,
it is possible that no changes occurred because teacher well-being is relatively stable over
short time periods. This is supported by the literature on subjective well-being (e.g.,
Schimmack & Lucas, 2010; Suh et al., 1996), which has shown that unless individuals are
190
regularly engaged in positive activities designed to improve well-being it remains relatively
stable and returns to baseline levels within three months of any major life changes
(Lyubomirsky et al., 2011). An alternative explanation for why no changes in well-being
were observed over time relates to the level of statistical power in Study 3. Given the small
sample size, it is possible that non-significant findings were due to inadequate power. Future
research with larger sample sizes is needed to examine teacher well-being over time to see
whether similar results are found or whether time becomes significant with an increase in
power. The inclusion of questions asking teachers about any recent changes in work or life
circumstances is also a fruitful avenue for future research as it would help to improve our
understanding of whether and how life events affect teacher well-being in ways that are
similar to subjective well-being (i.e., minimally).
In spite of the concerns about statistical power, this finding is important for research
and practice. It extends our understanding of teacher well-being in two key ways. First, it
suggests that it acts differently from stress and burnout, at least in the short-term. Research
has revealed that stress and burnout change over the course of a school year (e.g., Pas et al.,
2012) and across even shorter time frames in the case of an intervention (e.g., Roeser et al.,
2013). This differential functioning between stress/burnout and well-being over time
provides support for the examination of teacher well-being as a distinct construct and not just
as the absence of stress or burnout. Second, this finding suggests that teacher well-being may
function in similar ways to individuals’ global assessments of their subjective well-being. In
other words, it may be a stable construct that is largely unaffected by everyday occurrences.
For practice, this finding suggests that in the short-term teacher well-being may be somewhat
robust in the face of negative events that occur in teaching (e.g., sudden increases in
191
disruptive behaviour among students). The reverse of this, however, is that teachers reporting
low well-being may not experience a long-term or significant increase in well-being when
positive events occur (e.g., an increase in salary). This raises concerns about how to improve
teacher well-being over the long term and, thus, highlights the importance of considering
more stable, contextual factors like need satisfaction so as to promote lasting improvements
in teacher well-being.
Another implication of these findings is that they provide further support for the three
factors of teacher well-being developed in Study 1 with a different sample of teachers.
Briefly, scores on workload well-being were much lower than scores on organisational and
student interaction well-being. This corroborates similar findings from Study 1 and provides
further evidence for the conceptual meaning of the factors. In addition, it reiterates the fact
the workload generally affects teacher well-being less positively than organisational issues
and student interaction.
4.4.3. Need Satisfaction
The inclusion of the need satisfaction variables as time-invariant predictors in the
multilevel models explained significant amounts of between-level variance for all models. In
all cases, need satisfaction predicted higher levels of well-being and self-efficacy. In
particular, satisfaction of the needs for autonomy and relatedness with students had the most
consistent effect on the outcome variables. Autonomy had a significant relationship with
workload well-being, organisational well-being, student interaction well-being, and self-
efficacy for classroom management. These relationships were expected and likely occurred
because autonomy allows teachers to feel a sense of choice and control over their workload,
their role in the school, how they interact with students, and how they manage their
192
classroom. These findings are supported by previous research showing links between
autonomy and other measures of well-being (i.e., a negative association with stress; Collie et
al., 2012) and motivation (i.e., a positive association with work engagement; Klassen, Perry,
et al., 2012).
Relatedness with students had, as expected, a significant relationship with self-
efficacy for student engagement and classroom management. Contrary to expectations, it
also had a significant relationship with self-efficacy for instructional strategies. For these
findings, it is possible that a positive connection with students allows teachers to feel more
confident in their ability to engage, manage, and effectively instruct those students. Indeed,
several scholars (Hamre & Pianta, 2006; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Martin & Dowson,
2009) have highlighted the importance of positive teacher-student relationships for student
engagement, effective classroom management, and effective teaching and learning, which
likely explains the unexpected relationship between relatedness with students and self-
efficacy for instructional strategies.
These findings extend our understanding of how autonomy and relatedness with
students are associated with teacher well-being and self-efficacy. They support Klassen,
Perry, et al.’s (2012) assertion of the relative importance of relatedness with students over
relatedness with colleagues for explaining teacher outcomes (i.e., relatedness with colleagues
only predicted one outcome—organisational well-being). For well-being, the findings
corroborate results from Study 2 that linked autonomy with a composite teacher well-being
variable, while also extending our understanding by revealing relationships from autonomy
to each of the three separate factors of teacher well-being. For self-efficacy, the findings add
193
to our understanding of the needs for autonomy and relatedness with students by showing
that they are relevant for self-efficacy.
These findings are also important for administrators and policy-makers who should
be aware of the significant role that autonomy and relatedness with students play in teacher
well-being and self-efficacy. In particular, the findings support the need for efforts at the
school-level to create autonomy-supportive school climates. Furthermore, they suggest that
administrators and policy-makers should pay greater attention to the importance of positive
teacher-student relationships. The final need satisfaction variable to be discussed briefly is
competence. Contrary to expectations it was not significantly related to any of the outcomes.
This is intriguing given the significant relationship found in Study 2 for well-being. Perhaps
it speaks to the small sample size or some uniqueness about the sample of teachers in Study
3.
For self-efficacy, perhaps competence was not related because it is more aligned with
self-concept and ability based on past/current experiences (e.g., I am competent at my job),
rather than judgements of future ability that are context-specific (e.g., I believe can do a lot
to control disruptive behaviour in my classroom). For example, if a teacher has worked for
many years, he or she may feel competent in the job. However, if the teacher happens to have
a particularly difficult class in one year, his or her confidence about how much can be done
to engage that group of students or manage the classroom may be quite low. Future research
is needed that examines this relationship among larger samples and in more detail, including
investigation of whether a reversed relationship between these variables is more relevant.
194
4.5. Limitations and Future Directions
Study 3 has several limitations that must be discussed. The first concerns the sample
size. Although significant effects were found, a larger sample size would have provided more
power and given stronger assurances that non-significant effects were not due to low power.
In order to provide further support for the findings, samples involving a larger number of
teachers are a necessary step in future research. This will provide more conclusive evidence
of whether teacher well-being is a stable construct (like subjective well-being) or whether
changes can be expected over time.
The second limitation concerns the time frame. Although the short time frame did not
affect the findings per se, it did not allow me to examine the impact of the different stages of
a school year (beginning, end, report writing, etc.). Given that different points in the school
year are associated with unique and changing demands on teachers, there is a need for
research that examines these variables over the course of a full school year (and beyond)
with more waves of data collection. This would provide a greater understanding of whether
and how teacher well-being and motivation fluctuate across (and beyond) a school year,
along with the influence of the changing contextual and personal experiences of teachers. In
spite of this limitation, the current findings do provide important understanding about the
flexibility of these constructs in the short term.
Another limitation is that I was not able to ascertain why teachers dropped out of
Study 3 and whether they were identifiable by a confounding variable (e.g., whether they
were too busy to fill out the questionnaire which could affect workload well-being scores).
The findings may be conservative, therefore, in that only teachers functioning reasonably
well were able to continue participating in the study. The statistical comparisons of teachers
195
who remained in the study with those who dropped out provide evidence that there were no
differences between the groups at Time 1; however, we do not know if any relevant changes
occurred after this point (e.g., because of a negative experience with the workshop or major
changes in teachers well-being or motivation). In the future, efforts that attempt to track why
participants drop out will be helpful to rule out and/or help understand reasons for attrition.
This will also provide greater understanding of the representativeness of the data provided by
participants involved in all waves of data collection.
The final limitation to be discussed is that the participants were recruited through the
booking process of a professional development program. As such, the sample may have been
unique in some way compared with the broader population. The fact that reports of well-
being and self-efficacy were comparable with previous research (e.g., Study 1 and 2 in this
dissertation; Collie et al., 2012) provides support for the generalisability of the findings.
Nonetheless, there is a need for research that uses different samples of teachers in order to
corroborate the findings of Study 3. In addition, it would be interesting to involve groups of
teachers at different careers stages so as to understand how years of teaching experience
influence changes in well-being and self-efficacy for teaching (e.g., whether changes in these
constructs occur more readily among early career teachers than more experienced teachers).
4.6. Conclusions
In summary, Study 3 has involved examining how reports of teacher well-being and
self-efficacy for teaching functioned over two to three months. This type of research provides
an important addition to the understanding we have gained from studies conducted at one
point in time. By using multilevel modelling, results revealed a positive change in self-
efficacy for classroom management over time; however, there were no changes over time for
196
the remaining variables. Also investigated was the influence of basic psychological need
satisfaction on teachers’ initial reports of well-being and self-efficacy. The results showed
that teachers’ sense of autonomy, relatedness with students, and relatedness with colleagues
predicted greater well-being and self-efficacy among the participants. Combined, these
findings extend our understanding of the flexibility of self-efficacy for classroom
management over short time periods. In addition, they indicate that well-being is a stable
construct as measured by the TWBS. Study 3, along with the other two studies, provides
important implications for research and practice. These are discussed in the General
Discussion below.
197
CHAPTER 5. GENERAL DISCUSSION
The aim of the dissertation research was to provide a comprehensive examination of
teacher well-being and motivation. Three related studies were conducted that developed a
measure of well-being, tested an explanatory model of teachers’ experiences of well-being,
motivation, job satisfaction, and organisational commitment, and examined teachers’ reports
of well-being and motivation over time. More specifically, the first study involved
developing and testing a measure of teacher well-being based on teachers’ experiences at
work. Results revealed three factors of teacher well-being. The first was workload well-
being, which refers to teachers’ perceptions of the amount of marking, teaching, and
administrative work they have, the work/meetings they have to do after school hours, and
their ability to fit everything into the allotted time. The second was organisational well-
being, which refers to teachers’ perceptions of support offered by and relations with school
leadership, the culture towards teachers and teaching, and the level of participation they have
in decision making. The third was student interaction well-being, which refers to teachers’
perceptions of student motivation, student behaviour, classroom management, and their
relations with students. Comparisons showed that demographic characteristics did not play a
substantial role in determining scores on the three factors of well-being, indicating that the
measure functions similarly across the different demographic groups that were present in the
sample of teachers. Furthermore, correlational analyses provided support for the three factors
of well-being showing that they were related as expected with three other measures of
teachers’ experiences: stress, job satisfaction, and flourishing (i.e., general life well-being).
The second study involved describing and testing an explanatory model of teacher
well-being, motivation, job satisfaction, and affective organisational commitment. The
198
results provided support for the model. They showed that the relationships established by
SDT were supported: perceptions of autonomy support predicted need satisfaction that, in
turn, predicted well-being and motivation. Furthermore, the relationships involving well-
being, motivation, job satisfaction, and affective organisational commitment were generally
supported. Namely, teachers’ reports of autonomous motivation (measured as identified
regulation) and well-being were positively associated with job satisfaction and affective
organisational commitment. There were some unexpected relationships, however, involving
autonomy and controlled motivation (measured as introjected regulation and external
regulation), as well as between controlled motivation, job satisfaction, and affective
organisational commitment.
The third study involved an examination of teachers’ reports of well-being and self-
efficacy for teaching over time. Results showed that self-efficacy for classroom management
changed over time, whereas the three types of teacher well-being (i.e., workload,
organisational, and student interaction well-being) and the other two types of self-efficacy
(i.e., self-efficacy for student engagement and instructional strategies) did not. Findings also
revealed the significance of basic psychological need satisfaction in predicting teacher well-
being and self-efficacy. In particular, need satisfaction of autonomy, relatedness with
students, and relatedness with colleagues positively predicted greater well-being and self-
efficacy for teaching.
Taken together the findings from these three studies advance knowledge in the field
of teacher well-being and motivation. Before discussing the major contributions of the
dissertation research, however, there are several findings that refer to the dissertation as a
whole and warrant discussion first. The first was support found for the Teacher Well-Being
199
Scale (TWBS) developed in Study 1. The factor analyses and correlations in Study 1, along
with the SEM in Study 2, provided validity evidence based on internal structure and relations
to other variables. Furthermore, the multilevel analyses in Study 3 provided further support
for the three factors by revealing their stability over time and how they relate to need
satisfaction. Taken together, these findings provide important initial evidence of validity,
including reliability, to support the interpretations of scores on the TWBS as a measure of
teacher well-being. Future research is needed to examine the measure among different
samples and in relation to other constructs to provide further evidence of validity.
The second finding relevant across the research as a whole was the relationship that
sense of need satisfaction for autonomy had with reported motivation. The results of Study 2
revealed a double-sided view of autonomy. It was positively associated with autonomous
motivation and controlled motivation suggesting that high autonomy can be reported by
teachers acting with very different motivations (e.g., “I do this job for the paycheque”, which
is associated with external regulation, or “because this job fits my personal values”, which is
associated with identified regulation; Gagné et al., 2010). The findings of Study 3 revealed a
positive relationship between experiences of autonomy and self-efficacy: autonomy
predicted greater self-efficacy for student engagement, classroom management, and
instructional strategies. Taken together, these findings highlight the importance of examining
all three needs simultaneously in both research and practice. That is, if we focus only on
promoting autonomy we may be supporting not only identified regulation and self-efficacy
for teaching, but also external regulation (i.e., because autonomy positively predicted both
positive and negative forms of motivation). Given that external regulation was negatively
associated with the needs for relatedness and competence, a focus on promoting all three
200
needs simultaneously will help to ensure that we are encouraging teachers to move towards
positive forms of motivation and away from external regulation.
This finding also highlights the need for future research using person-centred
approaches to examine teachers’ experiences. Person-centred approaches examine
differences among individuals in how variables relate to one another (Laursen & Hoff,
2006). Latent profile analysis and cluster analysis are two means for providing understanding
of the different groups of teachers in the population and how they experience the different
constructs. For example, these techniques would allow for the identification of groups of
teachers, such as those reporting high autonomy but also high external regulation, in order to
understand predictors and outcomes that we can expect among this group.
The third common finding reflected across the three studies was that contextual
factors need to be considered when attempting to understand teachers’ experiences at work.
For the development of the TWBS in Study 1, contextual factors made up the bulk of all
items in the final subscales (e.g., “Support offered by school leadership”). In Study 2,
contextual factors of perceived autonomy support and need satisfaction were central in
teachers’ reports of their well-being and motivation. Finally, in Study 3 the contextual factors
of need satisfaction provided important depth to our understanding of teacher well-being and
self-efficacy. This extends previous research that has highlighted the importance of school
climate for teacher outcomes (e.g., Collie et al., 2012; Grayson & Alvarez, 2008) and
indicates the importance of considering a wide range of contextual experiences—at both the
classroom and school level—when attempting to understand and promote teacher well-being
and motivation.
201
5.1. Conclusions and Implications
The overall purpose of the dissertation research was to address several significant
gaps in the literature through a three-part examination of teacher well-being and motivation.
Various researchers have indicated the need for educational psychology research to focus on
advancing our scientific understanding, while also providing useful and practical applications
that are accessible to schools and relevant stakeholders (e.g., Martin, 2007; Pintrich, 2000).
This dissertation has aimed to address both of these goals and they are discussed below in
turn, along with implications for research and practice.
5.1.1. Contributions for Scientific Understanding
The main contribution of this dissertation research is that it has extended our
understanding of the constructs of teacher well-being and motivation in several key ways. In
particular, the findings have provided support for a multidimensional construct of teacher
well-being that is distinct from related variables such as stress, job satisfaction, and
flourishing (i.e., general life well-being). This is important because it highlights how
different aspects of teachers’ work have varying polarities of influence on their well-being.
In particular, the findings have highlighted the negative influence of workload, and the
positive influence of organisational-level and student-related aspects of teachers’ work on
their well-being. An implication of this contribution is that it has highlighted the value of
allowing participants to respond in ways that consider the full range of influences (both the
positive and negative). By allowing this, the TWBS provided a more complete picture of
participants’ experiences than would have been possible if considering only the negative or
positive influence of the items.
202
In relation to motivation, the findings have provided corroborating evidence to
support the relevance of the different types of regulation from SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985,
2002) for understanding teacher motivation, while at the same time raising questions about
the psychometric differences between intrinsic regulation and job satisfaction. Indeed, the
findings indicate the need for more nuanced methods for assessing the differences between
these constructs (e.g., interviews, more sensitive measures).
The dissertation has also provided evidence of how teacher well-being and self-
efficacy function over time. Given that teacher well-being appeared to be stable over time, it
may not only be robust to negative events, but also to positive events or efforts to improve it
(practical implications of this are discussed below). This indicates the need to examine
teacher well-being in greater detail to understand whether other factors can help to improve it
over the long term. Future research examining need satisfaction as a time-varying covariate
would help to extend our understanding in this area as it would provide an indication of
whether and how changes in need satisfaction influence changes in well-being. Additional
avenues of research that would be revealing include attempts to control for individual base-
line levels of well-being and examinations of whether regular well-being exercises can help
to improve teacher well-being (as per Roeser et al., 2013).
For self-efficacy, the findings have extended our understanding about the flexibility
of self-efficacy for classroom management over a relatively short time frame. This finding is
important given that self-efficacy appears to buffer the negative effects of stress (e.g., Collie
et al., 2012) and given that it is positively associated with student achievement (e.g., Caprara
et al., 2006). Moving forward, research that examines why this occurred (e.g., by conducting
203
interviews with participants) and whether this increase holds over a longer time frame would
further advance our understanding.
Another contribution of the dissertation research is that it has extended our
understanding of how teachers’ experiences of well-being and motivation relate to other
important constructs (e.g., job satisfaction). Where previous research has revealed that these
constructs are related (e.g., Hakanen et al., 2006; Klassen & Chui, 2011), this dissertation
research has shown how these constructs are related via the explanatory model. In addition,
the dissertation has extended previous research on job satisfaction by highlighting that
motivation may be an important determinant in whether or not job satisfaction is relevant for
certain teachers. Furthermore, the findings provide a greater understanding of autonomy, the
relationship this can have with different types of motivation, and the need for more sensitive
measures that differentiate between the positive and negative reasons underlying autonomy.
Taken together, these findings have underscored the complexity of teachers’ work and the
value of considering multiple constructs simultaneously in order to gain a more complete
picture of teachers’ experiences (Collie et al., 2012).
This dissertation research has also provided evidence of the relevance of existing
theory for understanding teachers’ experiences at work. In particular, the findings have
provided corroborating evidence for previous research using SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985,
2002) to examine teachers’ experiences at work (e.g., Klassen, Perry, et al., 2012; Roth et al.,
2007; Taylor et al., 2008). Moreover, it has extended the literature by suggesting that SDT is
an appropriate framework for examining how well-being and motivation relate to job
satisfaction and affective organisational commitment. In addition, the study raises several
204
questions for future research about the causes and correlates of introjected regulation among
teachers.
Another area in which this dissertation provides research contributions is in relation
to contextual factors. In particular, the findings have deepened our understanding of the
contexts within which teachers work and how these contexts can influence teacher well-
being and motivation. The dissertation research has revealed that different contextual factors
have varying degrees of importance for teachers’ reports of well-being and motivation. It has
revealed that contextual factors such as perceptions of principals’ autonomy support and
interactions with students played substantial roles in teachers’ experiences of well-being and
motivation, as well as other outcomes (e.g., need satisfaction, job satisfaction).
The findings have also revealed that the examined demographic characteristics did
not play a major role in determining teachers’ reports of well-being. In fact, the findings
indicate that researchers may want to consider other demographic characteristics (e.g.,
teaching positions) and other factors (e.g., beliefs) when attempting to understand what
drives differences in teacher well-being. There is a need to conduct research among different
samples of teachers to understand whether demographic variables play a more substantial
role among more diverse populations. Notwithstanding this, an important contribution of the
dissertation research is that it suggests that efforts by administrators and policy makers to
improve teacher well-being should have a broad influence among teachers who are
demographically similar to the participants who were involved in this research. Additional
practical contributions of the dissertation are discussed below.
205
5.1.2. Contributions for Practice
The findings of this dissertation research provide several important contributions for
practice. Overall, it is my hope that the findings will help to cultivate awareness of the
importance of teacher well-being and motivation and, in turn, promote supportive and
positive work experiences for teachers. The first contribution relevant to practice concerns
the development of the TWBS. The practical nature of the instrument—involving the
examination of core aspects of teachers’ work—means that it can be used to inform practice.
Potentially, it could be used by school administrators, policy-makers, and even educators
themselves in order to understand what aspects of teaching work positively or negatively
influence teacher well-being. Thus, while extending our understanding of teacher well-being,
possible uses of the TWBS also extend to diagnosis and intervention.
The second contribution relevant to practice concerns the explanatory model of
teacher well-being, motivation, job satisfaction, and affective organisational commitment.
The model provides a framework through which school administrators and policy-makers
can better understand the experiences of well-being and motivation among teachers. It also
describes how these experiences are affected by and, in turn, affect other experiences such as
need satisfaction and job satisfaction. Consequently, the model has the potential to help
guide efforts to promote positive work experiences among teachers. Given the links between
teacher well-being/motivation and student outcomes (e.g., achievement; Caprara et al.,
2006), such efforts also have the potential to positively impact students.
The findings concerning changes in teachers’ reports of well-being and self-efficacy
over time, although more removed from direct practical application, do provide relevant
contributions. In particular, they provide an understanding of what types of changes can be
206
expected in teacher well-being and self-efficacy across relatively short time frames. This is
important for school administrators and policy-makers who want to ensure that professional
development efforts have the potential to affect change among teachers. More specifically,
the positive change over time observed in self-efficacy for classroom management suggests
that interventions designed to improve teachers’ skills in this area can realistically expect to
result in changes in teachers’ confidence over short periods of time. Considering that self-
efficacy for teaching is associated with teaching effectiveness (e.g., Cho & Shim, 2013), this
is a worthwhile construct to target in the attempt to improve teaching quality.
In contrast, the findings for well-being suggest that perhaps changes over a short
period of time cannot be expected. This has positive and negative ramifications for practice
given that teacher well-being may not drop significantly when troubling events occur, but
that it may not rise when efforts are made to improve work circumstances for teachers. The
small sample size may have been partially responsible for no significant changes in well-
being. Additional research with larger sample sizes is needed, therefore, along with research
that investigates whether increases in teacher well-being can be fostered over the short- and
long-term through other methods (e.g., basic psychological need support; regular well-being
exercises as per Roeser et al., 2013).
5.1.3. Final Conclusions
Taken together, this dissertation research has important implications for research and
practice regarding teacher well-being and motivation. However, it is also important to
mention that many, if not all, of these implications ultimately relate to students as well. The
contributions of the dissertation to our understanding of teacher well-being and motivation
extend to students given that these variables are related to teaching effectiveness (Duckworth
207
et al., 2009), resiliency in teaching (Klusmann et al., 2008), students’ motivation (Pakarinen
et al., 2010; Taylor & Ntoumanis, 2007) and students’ achievement (Caprara et al., 2006).
Furthermore, the practical implications and applications that this dissertation research can
help promote and guide also have the potential to affect students in positive ways. Future
research that examines links between the constructs examined in this dissertation (i.e.,
teacher well-being, autonomous motivation, self-efficacy for teaching, job satisfaction, and
organisational commitment) and student outcomes more directly will help to extend our
knowledge of how teachers’ experiences relate to students’ outcomes and, ultimately, how
we can best support students’ academic, social, and emotional development.
208
REFERENCES
Albuquerque, I., Pedroso de Lima, M., Figueiredo, C., & Matos, M. (2011). Subjective well-being structure: Confirmatory factor analysis in a teachers’ Portuguese sample. Social Indicators Research, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s11205-011-9789-6
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252-276. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1996.0043
American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2005) Multivariate statistical modeling with survey data. Proceedings of the Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology Research Conference. Retrieved from http://www.fcsm.gov/05papers/Asparouhov_Muthen_IIA.pdf
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2045-2068.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Barnabé, C., & Burns, M. (1994). Teachers' job characteristics and motivation. Educational Research, 36, 171.
Beretvas, S. N., Meyers, J. L., & Leite, W. L. (2002). A reliability generalization study of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 570-589.
Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L. H. (1992). Predictors of commitment, job satisfaction, and intent to stay in teaching: A comparison of general and special educators. Journal of Special Education, 25, 453-471.
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84, 740-756.
Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organisational commitment, professional commitment and organisational citizenship
209
behaviour in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 277-289. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.003
Borg, M. G., & Riding, R. J. (1991). Occupational stress and satisfaction in teaching. British Educational Research Journal, 17, 263.
Bowling, N., Eschleman, K. J., & Wang, Q. (2010). A meta-analytic examination of the relationship between job satisfaction and subjective well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 83, 915-934. doi: 10.1348/096317909X478557
Boyle, G. J., Borg, M. G., Falzon, J. M., & Baglioni, A. J. (1995). A structural model of the dimensions of teacher stress. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 49-67.
Brackett, M., Palomera, R., Mojsa-Kaja, J., Reyes, M. R., & Salovey, P. (2010). Emotion-regulation ability, burnout, and job satisfaction among British secondary-school teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 406-417. doi: 10.1002/pits.20478
Brenner, C. A., Perry, N. E., & Collie, R. J. (2012, September). Student teachers' developing practices that promote self-regulated learning: Linking efficacy and utility beliefs to effectiveness. In N. Perry & B. Kramarski (Co-chairs), Metacognition and self-regulation in developing professionals. Symposium presented at the biennial meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Milan, Italy.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1978). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1643-1647). Oxford, England: Elsevier Sciences.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (1999). Teacher burnout, perceived self-efficacy in classroom management, and student disruptive behaviour in secondary education. Curriculum and Teaching, 14, 7-26.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 239-253. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Educational Leadership, 60, 40-44.
Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. (1995). A longitudinal study of psychological burnout in teachers. Human Relations, 48, 187-202. doi: 10.1177/001872679504800205
210
Butler, R. (2007). Teachers' achievement goal orientations and associations with teachers' help seeking: Examination of a novel approach to teacher motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 241-252. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.241
Butler, R., & Shibaz, L. (2008). Achievement goals for teaching as predictors of students' perceptions of instructional practices and students' help seeking and cheating. Learning and Instruction, 18, 453-467. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.004
Butt, G., Lance, A., Fielding, A., Gunter, H., Rayner, S., & Thomas, H. (2005). Teacher job satisfaction: Lessons from the TSW pathfinder project. School Leadership and Management, 25, 455-471. doi: 10.1080/13634230500340807
Canrinus, E. T., Helms-Lorenz, M., Beijaard, D., Buitink, J., & Hofman, A. (2012). Self-efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: Exploring the relationships between indicators of teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27, 115-132. doi: 10.1007/s10212-011-0069-2
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers' job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 821-832. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.821
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students' academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 473-490. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001
Carleton, L. E., Fitch, J. C., & Krockover, G. H. (2008). An in-service teacher education program's effect on teacher efficacy and attitudes. Educational Forum, 72, 46-62. doi: 10.1080/00131720701603628
Chan, D. W. (1998). Stress, coping strategies, and psychological distress among secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 145-163.
Chaplain, R. P. (2008). Stress and psychological distress among trainee secondary teachers in England. Educational Psychology, 28, 195-209.
Cho, Y., & Shim, S. S. (2013). Predicting teachers’ achievement goals for teaching: The role of perceived school goal structure and teachers’ sense of efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 32, 12-21.
Clunies-Ross, P., Little, E., & Kienhuis, M. (2008). Self-reported and actual use of proactive and reactive classroom management strategies and their relationship with teacher stress and student behaviour. Educational Psychology, 28, 693-710. doi: 10.1080/01443410802206700
Collie, R. J. (2010). Social and emotional learning and school climate: Predictors of teacher stress, job satisfaction, and sense of efficacy (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
211
Collie, R. J., Perry, N. E., & Brenner, C. A. (2013, August). Does stress have to be bad? Examining stress and coping among early career teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Munich, Germany.
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2011). Predicting teacher commitment: The impact of school climate and social-emotional learning. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 1034-1048.
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social–emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1189-1204. doi: 10.1037/a0029356
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.
Curran, P. J., Obeidat, K., & Losardo, D. (2010). Twelve frequently asked questions about growth curve modeling. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11, 121-136. doi:10.1080/15248371003699969
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Solving the demands of teacher supply, demand and standards: How we can ensure a competent, caring, and qualified teacher for every child. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.
Day, C., Elliot, B., & Kington, A. (2005). Reform, standards and teacher identity: Challenges of sustaining commitment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 563-577. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.001
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalisation: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119-142.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008a). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life's domains. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49, 14-23. doi: 10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008b). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 1-11. doi: 10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008c). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49, 182-185. doi: 10.1037/a0012801
212
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85-110). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organisations of a former eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930-942. doi: 10.1177/0146167201278002
Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults' orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642-650. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.73.5.642
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
Diener, E. (2009). Conclusion―The well-being science needed now. Social Indicators Research Series, 37, 267-271. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-2350-6 1
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276-302. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97, 143-156. doi: 10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1998). A three domain model of teacher and school executive career satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 36, 319-331.
Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2009). Positive predictors of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 540-547.
213
Feather, N. T., & Rauter, K. A. (2004). Organizational citizenship behaviours in relation to job status, job insecurity, organizational commitment and identification, job satisfaction and work values. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 77, 81-94.
Fernet, C., Guay, F., & Senécal, C. (2004). Adjusting to job demands: The role of work self-determination and job control in predicting burnout. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 39-56. doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00098-8
Filak, V. F., & Sheldon, K. M. (2008). Teacher support, student motivation, student need satisfaction, and college teacher course evaluations: Testing a sequential path model. Educational Psychology, 28, 711-724. doi: 10.1080/01443410802337794
Fischer, D. G., & Fick, C. (1993). Measuring social desirability: Short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 417-424. doi: 10.1177/0013164493053002011
Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Guay, F. (1995). Academic motivation and school performance: Toward a structural model. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 257-274.
Friedman, I. A., & Kass, E. (2002). Teacher self-efficacy: A classroom-organization conceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 675-686.
Gagné, M., Chemolli, E., Forest, J., & Koestner, R. (2008). A temporal analysis of the relation between organisational commitment and work motivation. Psychologica Belgica, 48, 219-241.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362. doi: 10.1002/job.322
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Gilbert, M., Aubé, C., Morin, E., & Malorni, A. (2010). The motivation at work scale: Validation evidence in two languages. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 628-646. doi: 10.1177/0013164409355698
Gagné, M., Ryan, R. M., & Bargmann, K. (2003). Autonomy support and need satisfaction in the motivation and well-being of gymnasts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 372-390. doi: 10.1080/714044203
Geving, A. M. (2007). Identifying the types of student and teacher behaviours associated with teacher stress. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 624-640. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.006
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.569
214
Gillison, F., Osborn, M., Standage, M., & Skevington, S. (2009). Exploring the experience of introjected regulation for exercise across gender in adolescence. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 309-319. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.10.004
Grayson, J. L., & Alvarez, H. K. (2008). School climate factors relating to teacher burnout: A mediator model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1349-1363. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2007.06.005
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495-513. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001
Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., & Ahola, K. (2008). The job demands-resources model: A three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement. Work & Stress, 22, 224-241. doi:10.1080/02678370802379432
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Student-teacher relationships. In G. G. Bear, & K. Minke (Eds.), Children's needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp. 59-71). Bethesda, MD: NASP.
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191-205. doi: 10.1177/1094428104263675
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley.
Hobfall, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513-524.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 55.
Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. (2013). Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Social Indices Research, 110, 837-861.
Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Employee and supervisor ratings of motivation: Main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and adjustment in a factory setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1789-1805. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01066.x
Ingersoll, R. M. (2002). Holes in the teacher supply bucket. School Administrator, 59, 42-43.
Ingersoll, R. M., & May, H. (2012). The magnitude, destinations, and determinants of mathematics and science teacher turnover. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 435-464. doi:10.3102/0162373712454326
215
Jackson, L. T. B., Rothmann, S., & van de Vijver (2006). A model of work-related well-being for educators in South Africa. Stress & Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 22, 263-274. doi: 10.1002/smi.1098
Jamal, M. (1990). Relationship of job stress and type-A behavior to employees' job satisfaction, organizational commitment, psychosomatic health problems, and turnover motivation. Human Relations, 43 727-738. doi: 10.1177/001872679004300802
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 588-600. doi: 10.1037/a0019682
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79, 491-525. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325693
Jepson, E., & Forrest, S. (2006). Individual contributory factors in teacher stress: The role of achievement striving and occupational commitment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 183-197. doi: 10.1348/000709905X37299
Joinson, A. (1999). Social desirability, anonymity, and internet-based questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 31, 433-438.
Karabenick, S. A., Woolley, M. E., Friedel, J. M., Ammon, B. V., Blazevski, J., Rhee Bonney, C., … & Kelly, K. L. (2007). Cognitive processing of self-report items in educational research: Do they think what we mean? Educational Psychologist, 42, 139-151.
Klassen, R. M., Aldhafri, S., Mansfield, C., Purwanto, E., Siu, a. F. Y., Wong, M. W., Woods-McConnery, A. (2012). Teachers’ engagement at work: An internationals validation study. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80, 317-337. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2012.678409
Klassen, R. M., Bong, M., Usher, E. L., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Wong, I. Y. F., & Georgiou, T. (2009). Exploring the validity of a teachers’ self-efficacy scale in five countries. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 67-76. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.08.001
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 741-756. doi: 10.1037/a0019237
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). The occupational commitment and intention to quit of practicing and pre-service teachers: Influence of self-efficacy, job stress, and teaching context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 114-129. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.01.002
216
Klassen, R. M., Perry, N. E., & Frenzel, A. C. (2012). Teachers' relatedness with students: An underemphasized component of teachers' basic psychological needs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 150-165. doi: 10.1037/a0026253
Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M. C., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher efficacy research 1998–2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 21-43.
Klassen, R. M., Usher, E. L., & Bong, M. (2010). Teachers’ collective efficacy, job satisfaction, and job stress in cross-cultural context. Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 464-486. doi: 10.1080/00220970903292975
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2008). Engagement and emotional exhaustion in teachers: Does the school context make a difference? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 127-151. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00358.x
Konu, A., Viitanen, E., & Lintonen, T. (2010). Teachers' wellbeing and perceptions of leadership practices. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 7, 44-57. doi: 10.1108/17538351011031939
Kyriacou, C. (2000). Stressbusting for teachers. London, England: Nelson Thornes.
Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review, 53, 27-35. doi: 10.1080/00131910120033628
Kyriacou, C., & Sutcliffe, J. (1977). The prevalence of stress among teachers in medium-sized mixed comprehensive schools. Research in Education, 18, 75-79.
Laursen, B., & Hoff, E. (2006). Person-centered and variable-centered approaches to longitudinal data. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 377-389.
Lavian, R. H. (2012). The impact of organizational climate on burnout among homeroom teachers and special education teachers (full classes/individual pupils) in mainstream schools. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 18, 233-247.
Leiter, M. P., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Work engagement: Introduction. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 1-9). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Lent, R. W., Nota, L., Soresi, S., Ginevra, M. C., Duffy, R. D., & Brown, S. D. (2011). Predicting the job and life satisfaction of Italian teachers: Test of a social cognitive model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 91-97. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.12.006
217
Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Osborne, G., & Hurling, R. (2009). Measuring happiness: The higher order factor structure of subjective and psychological well-being measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 878-884. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.07.010
Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309-336.
Loo, R., & Thorpe, K. (2000). Confirmatory factor analyses of the full and short versions of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 628-635.
Lynch, M. F. J., Plant, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2005). Psychological needs and threat to safety: Implications for staff and patients in a psychiatric hospital for youth. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36, 415-425. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.36.4.415
Lyubomirsky, S., Dickerhoof, R., Boehm, J. K., & Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Becoming happier takes both a will and a proper way: An experimental longitudinal intervention to boost well-being. Emotion, 11, 391-402. doi: 10.1037/a0022575
MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12, 73-84. doi: 10.1080/13603120701576241
Manthei, R., & Gilmore, A., Tuck, B., & Adair, V. (1996). Teacher stress in intermediate schools. Educational Research, 38, 3-19.
Martin, A. J. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 413-440. doi:10.1348/000709906X118036
Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 79, 327-365. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325583
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 99-113.
McCarthy, C. J., Lambert, R. C., O'Donnell, M., & Melendres, L. T. (2009). The relation of elementary teachers' experience, stress, and coping resources to burnout symptoms. Elementary School Journal, 109, 282-300.
Mertler, C. A. (2002). Job satisfaction and perception of motivation among middle and high school teachers. American Secondary Education, 31, 43-53.
218
Mertler, C. A. (2003). Patterns of response and nonresponse from teachers to traditional and web surveys. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8. Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=22
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 991-1007.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326.
Meyer, J. P., & Maltin, E. R. (2010). Employee commitment and well-being: A critical review, theoretical framework and research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 323-337. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.04.007
Milkie, M. A., & Warner, C. H. (2011). Classroom learning environments and the mental health of first grade children. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52, 4-22.
Miller, L. A., McIntire, S. A., & Lovler, R. L. (2011). Foundations of psychological testing: A practical approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Ministry of Education (2001). BC Performance Standards: Social Responsibility – A Framework. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/perf_stands/social_resp.htm
Ministry of Education (2012). School calendar regulation. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/legislation/schoollaw/d/bcreg_114-02.pdf
Moè, A., Pazzaglia, F., & Ronconi, L. (2010). When being able is not enough. the combined value of positive affect and self-efficacy for job satisfaction in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1145-1153. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.02.010
Morin, J., & Battalio, R. (2004). Construing misbehaviour: The efficacy connection in responding to misbehaviour. Journal of Positive Behaviour Interventions, 6, 251-254.kay
Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (2005) Chi-square difference testing using the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square. Retrieved from http://www.statmodel.com/chidiff.shtml
Naylor, C. (2001). Teacher workload and stress: An international perspective on human costs and systemic failure. Vancouver, BC: British Columbia Teachers' Federation.
Pakarinen, E., Kiuru, N., Lerkkanen, M., Poikkeus, A., Siekkien, M., & Nurmi, J. (2010). Classroom organisation and teacher stress predict learning motivation in kindergarten children. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 25, 281-300.
Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., & Hershfeldt, P. A. (2012). Teacher- and school-level predictors of teacher efficacy and burnout: Identifying potential areas for support. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 129-145. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2011.07.003
Patrick, B. C., Hisley, J., Kempler, T., & College, G. (2000). `What's everybody so excited about?': The effects of teacher enthusiasm on student intrinsic motivation and vitality. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 217.
Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly, 29, 38-54.
Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Brière, N. M. (2001). Associations among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective study. Motivation & Emotion, 25, 279-306.
Perry, N. E., & Winne, P. H. (2006). Learning from learning kits: gStudy traces of students’ self-regulated engagements with computerized content. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 211-228.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Educational psychological at the millennium: A look back and a look forward. Educational Psychologist, 35, 221-226.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Rath, T., & Harter, J. (2010). Well being: The five essential elements. New York, NY: Gallup Press.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147-169.
Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419-435. doi: 10.1177/0146167200266002
Retelsdorf, J., Butler, R., Streblow, L., & Schiefele, U. (2010). Teachers' goal orientations for teaching: Associations with instructional practices, interest in teaching, and burnout. Learning and Instruction, 20, 30-46. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.01.001
Richardson, P. W., & Watt, H. M. G. (2010). Current and future directions in teacher motivation research. In T. C. Urdan, & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.), The decade ahead: Applications and contexts of motivation and achievement (pp. 139-173). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
220
Roeser, R. W., Schonert-Reichl, K., Jha, A., Cullen, M., Wallace, L., Wilensky, R., ... & Harrison, J. (2013). Mindfulness training and reductions in teacher stress and burnout: Results from two randomized, waitlist-control field trials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 787-804. doi: 10.1037/a0032093
Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 4-36. doi:10.3102/0002831212463813
Ross, J. A. (1994). The impact of an inservice to promote cooperative learning on the stability of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 381-394. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(94)90020-5
Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 762-774. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.761
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749-761. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141-166.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2011). A self-determination theory perspective on social, institutional, cultural, and economic supports for autonomy and their importance for well-being. In V. I. Chirkov, R. M. Ryan & K. M. Sheldon (Eds.), Human autonomy in cross-cultural context (pp. 45-64). Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-9667-8_3
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293-315. doi: 10.1002/job.248
Schimmack, U., & Lucas, R. E. (2010). Environmental influences on well-being: A dyadic latent panel analysis of spousal similarity. Social Indices Research, 98, 1-21. doi: 10.1007/s11205-009-9516-8
221
Schleicher, D. J., Hansen, S. D., & Fox, K. E. (2011). Job attitudes and work values. In S. Zedeck, & et al. (Eds.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 3. maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization (pp. 137-189). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2012). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New York, NY: Free Press.
Selye, H. (1974). Stress without distress. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Shann, M. H. (1998). Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban middle schools. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 67-73.
Simms, L. J. (2008). Classical and modern methods of psychological scale construction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 414-433.
Sinclair, C. (2008). Initial and changing student teacher motivation and commitment to teaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 79-104.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Does school context matter? Relations with teacher burnout and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 518-524. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2008.12.006
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2011). Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1038. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2011.04.001
Skinner, E., & Edge, K. (2002). Self-determination, coping, and development. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 297-337). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Solinger, O. N., van Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 70-83. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.70
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences. London: Sage Publications.
Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2009) Common method variance or measurement bias? The problem and possible solutions. In D. A. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organization Research Methods (346-362). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A test of self-determination theory in school physical education. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 411-433.
222
Steinhardt, M. A., Smith Jaggers, S. E., Faulk, K. E., & Gloria, C. T. (2011). Chronic work stress and depressive symptoms: Assessing the mediating role of teacher burnout. Stress and Health, 27, 420-429.
Suh, E., Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1996). Events and subjective well-being: Only recent events matter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,70, 1091-1102. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.1091
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Taylor, I. M., & Ntoumanis, N. (2007). Teacher motivational strategies and student self-determination in physical education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 747-760. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.747
Taylor, I. M., Ntoumanis, N., & Standage, M. (2008). A self-determination theory approach to understanding the antecedents of teachers’ motivational strategies in physical education. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30, 75-94.
Thomas, N., Clark, V., & Lavery, J. (2003). Self-reported work and family stress of female primary teachers. Australian Journal of Education, 47, 73-87.
Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914-945. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.6.914
Thornton, B., Peltier, G., Medina, R. (2007). Reducing the special education teacher shortage. The Clearing House, 80, 233-238.
Tov, W., & Diener, E. (2009). The well-being of nations: Linking together trust, cooperation, and democracy. In E. Diener (Ed.), The science of well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener, Social Indicators Research Series, 37, 155-173. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-2350-6 7
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. E. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.
Uziel, L. (2010). Rethinking social desirability scales: From impression management to interpersonally oriented self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 243-262. doi:10.1177/1745691610369465
Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1161-1176.
223
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2010). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the work-related basic need satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 83, 981-1002. doi: 10.1348/096317909X481382
Van Horn, J. E., Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2001). Lack of reciprocity among Dutch teachers: Validation of reciprocity indices and their relation to stress and well-being. Work & Stress, 15, 191-213. doi: 10.1080/02678370110066571
Van Horn, J. E., Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Schreurs, P. J. G. (2004). The structure of occupational well-being: A study among Dutch teachers. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 77, 365-375.
Vandenberghe, C., & Bentein, K. (2009). A closer look at the relationship between affective commitment to supervisors and organisations and turnover. Journal of Occupational & Organisational Psychology, 82, 331-348.
Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., Michon, R., Chebat, J., Tremblay, M., & Fils, J. (2007). An examination of the role of perceived support and employee commitment in employee-customer encounters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1177-1187. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1177
Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor of component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In Goffin, R. D., & Helmes, E. (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 41-71). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
Vivoll Straume, L. V., & Vittersø, J. (2012). Happiness, inspiration and the fully functioning person: Separating hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in the workplace. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 387-398. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2012.711348
Watt, H. M. G., & 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. doi: 10.3200/JEXE.75.3.167-202
Wei, H., & Chen, J. (2010). School attachment among Taiwanese adolescents: the roles of individual characteristics, peer relationships, and teacher well-being. Social Indicators Research, 95, 241-436. doi: 10.1007/s11205-009-9529-3
Weiqi, C. (2007). The structure of secondary school teacher job satisfaction and its relationship with attrition and work enthusiasm. Chinese Education and Society, 40, 17-31. doi: 10.2753/CED 1061-1932400503
Winne, P. H., Jamieson-Noel, D. L., & Muis, K. (2002). Methodological issues and advances in researching tactics, strategies, and self-regulated learning. In P. R. Pintrich and M. L.
224
Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: New directions in measures and methods (Vol. 12, pp. 121-155). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wolpin, J., Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. R. (1991). Is job satisfaction an antecedent or a consequence of psychological burnout? Human Relations, 44, 193-209. doi: 10.1177/001872679104400205
Woolfolk Hoy, A. E., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343-356. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007
225
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Invitation Letter for Studies 1 and 2
Dear Teachers, Did you know your well-being as a teacher is important for you and your students? Would you like to help us learn more about teacher well-being with the aim of improving working conditions for teachers? Do you want to win an iPad? My name is Rebecca Collie and I am a doctoral student at the University of British Columbia. Under the supervision of Dr. Jennifer Shapka, I am currently conducting an online research study entitled, “Well-Being and its Influence on Teachers,” and I am writing to request your professional assistance in this research. Teacher well-being is not only critically important for teachers' health and teaching effectiveness, but also the motivation and achievement of students. Despite the clear importance of this issue, relatively little is known about what aspects of teaching work impact teachers’ well-being. My research study aims to uncover more about this with the long-term aim of helping to improve the profession for teachers and students alike. With this email, I am inviting you to participate in my research. Your participation will involve only 15-20 minutes of your time by completing an online questionnaire. If you agree to participate, you can access the questionnaire at this link: [URL] How does this research benefit teachers? By participating, you will be helping to provide important information for how best to support your well-being. It is my hope that this research will help to provide tangible strategies for schools, districts, and policy-makers to help improve teachers’ experiences of well-being. I hope that these, in turn, will also help to improve the experiences of students, which are clearly linked with teacher well-being. The results of the study will be made available to your school district (without identifying any schools or individuals) with the aim of promoting working conditions that support teacher well-being.
Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education The University of British Columbia Faculty of Education 2125 Main Mall Vancouver BC Canada V6T 1Z4 Tel 604-822-0242 Fax 604-822-3302 www.ecps.educ.ubc.ca
226
Please be assured that your responses will be anonymous, and that your participation in this study is voluntary. To ensure confidentiality, your completed survey will be stored on a secure and password protected server in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Please be assured that your decision to participate or not participate in this study will have no impact on your relationship with the [NAME OF TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION] or your job standing. In addition, your teachers’ association will not know who did/did not participate in the research. By completing and submitting the survey, you are giving your consent to participate. It is recommended that you keep a copy of this letter for your own records. If you do not wish to participate, simply disregard this message. If you have any questions regarding the study, please contact me at [EMAIL]. Let me thank you in advance for your valuable time and assistance in this study, which aims to advance our understanding of teacher well-being. As a thank you for your interest in our study, click below and enter your name in a draw to win an iPad. Your eligibility to enter the draw is not linked to your participation. [URL] Please note: If you have any questions or concerns about this questionnaire, please contact Dr. Jennifer Shapka, the principal investigator and the supervisor of this study (CONTACT DETAILS). You may also contact the Research Subject Information Line in the UBC Office of Research Services at [PHONE NUMBER]. Best of luck in the remainder of the school year. Sincerely, Rebecca Collie
227
Appendix B: Questionnaire for Studies 1 and 2
Section 1: Demographics
1. What school level are you teaching at?
Elementary
Middle
Secondary
Both Elementary and Middle
Both Elementary and Secondary
Other:
2. What is your current position?
Pre-service teacher
Regular teacher
Resource teacher
Special education teacher
Administrator (e.g., principal, vice- principal, director, school head)
Teacher librarian
Teacher counsellor
Other:
3. How much of your time at work is spent teaching students or planning for teaching in a week?
0%
1-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-100%
4. What are the major subjects that you teach?
5. What is your highest degree?
6. What is your age?
7. What is your gender?
F
M
8. What is the zipcode(s) of the school(s) you teach at?
9. What was your country of birth?
10. What is your ethnicity?
Northern and Western European origins (e.g., British, Scottish, German, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Dutch)
Eastern and Southern European origins (e.g., Polish, Russian, Ukranian, Italian, Greek, Spanish)
Aboriginal origins (e.g., First Nations, Inuit, Metis)
South Asian origins (e.g., East Indian, Punjabi, Pakistani)
East Asian origins (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Korean)
Southeast Asian origins (e.g., Filipino, Thai, Vietnamese)
Other (please list):
11. How many years have you been teaching (including as a TOC)?
228
12. What is the socio-economic status of students in your school (e.g., average family income level compared to most people in your province)?
1 Low
2 3 Average
4 5 High
13. What is the academic ability of students in your school (e.g., average ability compared to other schools in your district/province)?
1 Low
2 3 Average
4 5 High
14. What is your school location?
Urban Suburban Rural Small Town
Section 2: Flourishing, Autonomy Support, and Commitment
Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements currently in your life.
1 Strongly Disagree
2
3
4 Mixed or Neither
Agree nor Disagree
5
6
7 Strongly Agree
1. My principal listens to how I would like to do things
2. I feel that my principal provides me with choices and options
3. I feel understood by my principal 4. My principal conveys confidence in my
ability to do well at my job
5. My principal encourages me to ask questions
6. My principal tries to understand how I see things before suggesting a new way of doing things
7. I lead a purposeful and meaningful life 8. My social relationships are supportive and
rewarding
9. I am engaged and interested in my daily activities
10. I actively contribute to the happiness and well-being of others
11. I am competent and capable in the activities that are important to me
12. I am a good person and live a good life 13. I am optimistic about my future 14. People respect me
229
15. This school has a great deal of personal meaning for me
16. I really feel a sense of 'belonging' to the school(s) at which I work
17. I am proud to belong to this school community
18. I do not feel emotionally attached to my school
19. I really feel as if my school’s problems are my own
20. I do not feel like 'part of the family at my school
Section 3: Need Satisfaction
The following statements aim to tap your personal experiences at work. Would you please indicate the degree to which you currently agree with these statements?
1
Totally disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree / somewhat
agree
4 Agree
5 Totally agree
1. I don’t really feel connected with other people at my job
2. At work, I feel part of a group 3. I don’t really mix with other people at my
job
4. At work, I can talk with people about things that really matter to me
5. I often feel alone when I am with my colleagues
6. Some people I work with are close friends of mine
7. I don’t really feel competent in my job. 8. I really master my tasks at my job 9. I feel competent at my job 10. I doubt whether I am able to execute my job
properly
11. I am good at the things I do in my job 12. I have the feeling that I can even
accomplish the most difficult tasks at work
13. I feel like I can be myself at my job 14. At work, I often feel like I have to follow
other people’s commands
15. If I could choose, I would do things at work differently
16. The tasks I have to do at work are in line with what I really want to do
230
17. I feel free to do my job the way I think it could best be done
18. In my job, I feel forced to do things I do not want to do
19. I am very committed to my students 20. Connecting with my students is an essential
part of the job
21. I value the relationships I build with my students
22. I feel connected to my students Section 4: Motivation at Work
Using the scales below, please indicate for each of the following statements to what degree they presently correspond to one of the reasons for which you are doing this specific job. Currently, why are you doing your current job?
1 Not at
all
2 Very little
3 A
little
4 Moderately
5 Strongly
6 Very
strongly
7 Exactl
y
1. Because I enjoy this work very much
2. Because I have fun doing my job
3. For the moments of pleasure that this job brings me
4. I chose this job because it allows me to reach my life goals
5. Because this job fulfils my career plans
6. Because this job fits my personal values
7. Because I have to be the best in my job, I have to be a “winner”
8. Because my work is my life and I don’t want to fail
9. Because my reputation depends on it
10. Because this job affords me a certain standard of living
11. Because it allows me to make a lot of money
12. I do this job for the paycheque
231
Section 5: Job Satisfaction, Stress, and Social Desirability
Please indicate the degree to which the following statements are part of your experiences with your job.
1 Never
3 Almost never
3 Rarely
4 Sometimes
5 Often
6 Very often
7 Always
1. I am satisfied with my job 2. I am happy with the way my
colleagues and superiors treat me
3. I am satisfied with what I achieve at work
4. I feel good at work 5. In general, how stressful do you find being a teacher?
0 Not at all stressful
1 Mildly stressful
2 Moderately
stressful
3 Very stressful
4 Extremely stressful
Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Read each item and decide whether the statement is true or false as it pertains to you personally.
True False 6. I like to gossip at times 7. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone 8. I’m always willing to admit it when I make a mistake 9. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget 10. At time I have really insisted on having things my own way 11. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my
own
12. I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone’s feelings
232
Section 6: Teacher Well-Being
Currently, how do the following aspects of being a teacher affect your well-being as a teacher? Well-being refers to open, engaged, and healthy functioning as a teacher. For example, in your current working environment how do your relations with fellow teachers influence your well-being? Do your relations have a positive or negative influence on your well-being as a teacher? If the current job action means that you are not currently engaging in some of the different items below, please answer based on your experiences prior to job action, or if you are a beginning teacher, please leave these items blank. 1
Negatively 2
Mostly Negatively
3 More
Negatively than
Positively
4 Neither
Positively nor
Negatively
5 More
Positively than
Negatively
6 Mostly
Positively
7 Positively
1. Relations with fellow teachers
2. Relations with students in my class
3. Relations with students not in my class (e.g., in hallways, etc.)
4. Relations with leadership at my school
5. Relations with administrators at my school
6. Relations with my students’ parents
7. Relations with my own family at home
8. Marking work 9. Lesson planning 10. Knowledge of
subject-matter
11. Interruptions to my teaching in my classroom (e.g., from people from outside of my class)
12. Fitting everything in to the allotted time (e.g., required curriculum, extra-curricular activities)
13. Implementing educational
233
innovations or new programs
14. Using technology for administrative work (e.g., report cards, class lists)
15. Using technology for teaching (e.g., the Internet, electronic whiteboards, etc.)
16. The challenge of teaching work (e.g., being intellectually challenged)
17. The nature of teaching work (e.g., the meaningfulness of the job)
18. Satisfaction with my current job
19. Meeting learning goals
20. Student behaviour 21. Student motivation 22. My salary and
benefits
23. Responsibility for student success
24. Rest periods/breaks during the day
25. Noise(s) around the classroom/school
26. Administrative work related to teaching
27. Classroom management
28. Expectations of parents
29. Expectations of leadership or district
30. Support offered by parents
31. Support offered by leadership
32. The amount of time to spend with individual students
234
33. The availability of equipment, facilities, or materials for teaching
34. Number of students in my class(es)
35. Recognition for my teaching
36. Opportunities for promotion
37. School rules and procedures that are in place
38. Follow-through by staff and leadership of school rules
39. Communication between members of the school
40. Work I complete outside of school hours for teaching
41. The community or neighbourhood in which I live
42. My commute to school
43. My physical health 44. The state of affairs
in the world
45. Working to finish my teaching tasks
46. The ability to control what/how I teach
47. Instances of bullying between students and/or staff
48. Student/staff use of social media/Internet
49. Using the proscribed curriculum and syllabi
50. Participation in school-level decision making
235
51. The health of my family and/or friends
52. Uncontrolled events outside of school (e.g., car breaking down)
53. My or my families extracurricular activities outside of school (e.g., going to the gym, taking children to activities)
54. Looking after family members
55. Inclusion of students with special needs
56. Availability of support for students with special needs
57. Staying late after work for meetings and activities
58. Standardised testing (e.g., FSA)
59. Expectations of the provincial government
60. Communication between all members of my school
236
Appendix C: Invitation Letter for Study 3
Dear Teachers, In the next few weeks, you will be participating in the YouthMADE curriculum―a program that uses short films made by youth to explore issues of racism and discrimination. At the same time, you are being invited to participate in a UBC-based evaluation research project about YouthMADE, which aims to examine the impact of the YouthMADE curriculum on your well-being and development. This research is being conducted by Dr. Jennifer Shapka, who is an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education at the University of British Columbia (her contact information is below). To participate, all you will need to do is fill out an online questionnaire before you take part in the YouthMADE workshops. You can fill it out right now―details for accessing it are in the accompanying email. This questionnaire will ask questions about your well-being, as well as how you feel about your school and your experiences as a teacher. Demographic questions such as age, gender and ethnicity will also be asked. It will take about 15 minutes to complete. If you consent, please complete the first online questionnaire as honestly and openly as you can. After you have the YouthMADE curriculum in your classroom, we will contact you with details about two follow-up online questionnaires. These questionnaires will be spread over two months and will include similar questions to the first questionnaire. There are no known risks for your participation in this study, and you have the right to withdraw from the study at any time. Also, the study is voluntary and it will not impact your job security. Please be assured that your responses will be kept confidential. Contact for information about the study: If you have any questions about this study, please contact Dr. Jennifer Shapka at PHONE NUMBER, or her research associate, Rebecca Collie at PHONE NUMBER. Contact for concerns about the rights of research subjects: If you have any concerns about your child’s treatment or rights as a research subject, you may contact the Research Subject Information Line in the UBC Office of Research Services at PHONE NUMBER. Thank you for your time and support! Sincerely, Jennifer Shapka (on behalf of the YouthMADE research team)
Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education The University of British Columbia Faculty of Education 2125 Main Mall Vancouver BC Canada V6T 1Z4 Tel 604-822-0242 Fax 604-822-3302 www.ecps.educ.ubc.ca
237
Appendix D: Questionnaire for Study 3
Section 1: Demographics
1. What is your age?
2. What is your gender?
F
M
3. What is your ethnicity?
Northern and Western European origins (e.g., British, Scottish, German, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Dutch)
Eastern and Southern European origins (e.g., Polish, Russian, Ukranian, Italian, Greek, Spanish)
Aboriginal origins (e.g., First Nations, Inuit, Metis)
South Asian origins (e.g., East Indian, Punjabi, Pakistani)
East Asian origins (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Korean)
Southeast Asian origins (e.g., Filipino, Thai, Vietnamese)
Other (please list):
4. Do you consider yourself to be a member of a minority group (e.g., based on race, gender, ethnicity, class, ability, and/or sexual orientation)?
Yes
No
I don’t know / No answer 5. What grades do you teach? Check all that apply.
Kinder
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12
6. What is your current position?
Pre-service teacher
Regular teacher
Resource teacher
Special education teacher
Administrator (e.g., principal, vice- principal, director, school head)
Teacher librarian
Teacher counsellor
Other:
7. How many years have you been teaching (including as a TOC)?
238
Section 2: Well-being
Currently, how do the following aspects of being a teacher affect your well-being as a teacher? Well-being refers to open, engaged, and healthy functioning as a teacher. For example, in your current working environment how do your relations with fellow teachers influence your well-being? Do your relations have a positive or negative influence on your well-being as a teacher? If the current job action means that you are not currently engaging in some of the different items below, please answer based on your experiences prior to job action, or if you are a beginning teacher, please leave these items blank.
1 Negatively
2 Mostly
Negatively 3
More Negatively
than Positively
4 Neither
Positively nor
Negatively
5 More
Positively than
Negatively
6 Mostly
Positively 7
Positively
1. Relations with students in my class
2. Relations with administrators at my school
3. Marking work 4. Fitting everything
in to the allotted time (e.g., required curriculum, extra-curricular activities)
5. Student behaviour 6. Student
motivation 7. Administrative
work related to teaching
8. Classroom management
9. Support offered by leadership
10. Recognition for my teaching
11. School rules and procedures that are in place
12. Communication between members of the school
13. Work I complete outside of school hours for teaching
239
14. Working to finish my teaching tasks
15. Participation in school-level decision making
16. Staying late after work for meetings and activities
Section 3: Need Satisfaction
The following statements aim to tap your personal experiences at work. Would you please indicate the degree to which you currently agree with these statements?
1
Totally disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree / somewhat
agree
4 Agree
5 Totally agree
1. I don’t really feel connected with other people at my job
2. At work, I feel part of a group 3. I don’t really mix with other people at my
job 4. At work, I can talk with people about things
that really matter to me 5. I often feel alone when I am with my
colleagues 6. Some people I work with are close friends of
mine 7. I don’t really feel competent in my job. 8. I really master my tasks at my job 9. I feel competent at my job 10. I doubt whether I am able to execute my job
properly 11. I am good at the things I do in my job 12. I have the feeling that I can even accomplish
the most difficult tasks at work 13. I feel like I can be myself at my job 14. At work, I often feel like I have to follow
other people’s commands 15. If I could choose, I would do things at work
differently 16. The tasks I have to do at work are in line
with what I really want to do 17. I feel free to do my job the way I think it
could best be done 18. In my job, I feel forced to do things I do not
want to do 19. I am very committed to my students
240
20. Connecting with my students is an essential part of the job
21. At work, I often feel like I have to follow other peoples’ commands
22. I feel connected to my students Section 4: Self-efficacy for Teaching
Please indicate your opinion about each of the questions below by marking any one of the nine responses in the columns on the right side, ranging from (1) “Nothing” to (9) “A Great Deal”. Please respond to each of the questions by considering the combination of your current ability, resources, and opportunity to do each of the following in your teaching position.
1 Nothing
2
3 Very Little
4 5 Some
Degree
6 7 Quite a Bit
8 9 A
Great Deal
1. How much can you do to control disruptive behaviour in the classroom?
2. How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school work?
3. How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy?
4. How much can you do to help your students value learning?
5. To what extent can you craft good questions for your students?
6. How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules?
7. How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in school work?
8. How well can you establish a classroom management system with each group of students?
9. To what extent can you use a variety of assessment strategies?
10. To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused?
11. How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in school?
12. How well can you implement alternative teaching strategies in your classroom?