Tools for Doctoral Capstone: Rubrics

Jnard

Teacher_Motivation_and_StudentDissertation.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Tools for Doctoral Capstone: Rubrics

Walden Universit

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

This is to certify that the doctoral study by

Stephanie Hayden

has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made.

Review Committee Dr. Randy Shadburn, Committee Chairperson, Education Faculty Dr. Maryann Wangmann, Committee Member, Education Faculty

Dr. Mohamed Tazari, University Reviewer, Education Faculty

Chief Academic Officer

Eric Reidel, Ph.D.

Walden University 2011

Abstract

Teacher Motivation and Student Achievement in Middle School Students

Stephanie S. Hayden

M.Ed., American Intercontinental University, 2004

B.S., Howard University, 1998

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

Teacher Leadership

Walden University

December 2011

Abstract

Motivation has been used to encourage teachers as well as students themselves to

increase students’ academic performance. Although research on motivation is extensive,

few researchers have examined teachers’ perceptions of teacher motivation and its impact

on student achievement. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to identify how

mathematics teachers perceived the effects of teacher motivation on student achievement

on the state’s Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT), job satisfaction influence on

teacher motivation, and FCAT accountability influence on teacher motivation. The

motivational theories of Herzberg, Vroom, and McClelland served as the conceptual

framework.Ten mathematics teachers were interviewed. All relevant statements were

coded, categorized, and grouped into cluster of themes. All participants reported that

teacher motivation affected student achievement and they believed it played a role in

their student’s achievement. Findings provide district and community stakeholders with

an understanding of the perceptions of mathematics teachers’ on teacher motivation. The

research findings suggested that some teachers were dissatisfied that student

achievements were linked to salaries increases. The implications for positive social

change include improving teacher motivation, which may lead to improved student

academic achievement.

Teacher Motivation and Student Achievement in Middle School Students

Stephanie S. Hayden

M.Ed., American Intercontinental University, 2004

B.S , Howard University, 1998

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

Teacher Leadership

Walden University

December 2011

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI 3487826

UMI Number: 3487826

Table of Contents

Section 1: Introduction to the Study ....................................................................................1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................1

Problem Statement ........................................................................................................2 Purpose of the Study .....................................................................................................3 Research Questions ......................................................................................................3 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................4 Nature of the Study .......................................................................................................6 Operational Definitions ................................................................................................7 Assumption, Limitations, Scope and Delimitations .....................................................8 Assumption ............................................................................................................8 Limitations .............................................................................................................8 Scope and Delimitations .........................................................................................9

Significance of the Study .................................................................................................9

Summary .......................................................................................................................11 Section 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................13

Organization of the Review ............................................................................................14

Teacher Motivation ....................................................................................................14 Mandate for Student Achievement .............................................................................23 Student Achievement ..................................................................................................25

Teacher Motivation Impact on Student Achievement ................................................26 Performance Pay Primer for Teacher Motivation ......................................................34 Teacher Motivation and Work Environment ..............................................................37 Teacher Morale and Student Achievement ................................................................38 Teacher Effects and Impact on Student Achievement ...............................................44 Teacher Motivation and Student Achievement on Standardized Tests ......................47 Teacher Quality and Work Motivation .......................................................................51

Summary ........................................................................................................................55

Section 3: Methodology .....................................................................................................57

Introduction ....................................................................................................................55

Research Questions ........................................................................................................58 Rationale for Qualitative Tradition ................................................................................58

Rationale for Choosing a Phenomenological Study Method .........................................59

Population .......................................................................................................................60

Role of Researcher .........................................................................................................61

Criteria for Selecting Participants ..................................................................................62

Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................................62

In-Depth Semistructured Interviews ..............................................................................63

Data Storage ...................................................................................................................64

Data Analysis .................................................................................................................64

Methods to Address Validity and Minimize Bias and Error ..........................................65

iii

Bracketing ...................................................................................................................65 Member-Checking ......................................................................................................66 Peer-Debriefing ..........................................................................................................66 Design of Study ..........................................................................................................66 Instrumentation ...........................................................................................................67

Summary ........................................................................................................................68

Section 4: Results ...............................................................................................................69

Introduction ....................................................................................................................69

Data Collection ...............................................................................................................69

Data Recordings .............................................................................................................70

Research Questions ........................................................................................................71

The Findings ...................................................................................................................72

Perception of Mathematics Teachers on Teacher Motivation ........................................73 Love for Children and Passion to See Them Succeed ................................................73

Teacher Motivation and Student Achievement on Standardized Tests ..........................74 Teacher Motivation and Job Satisfaction .......................................................................78

Low Job Satisfaction ..................................................................................................78 Low Salary ..................................................................................................................79 Lack of Autonomy Within the Classroom ..................................................................81 Feelings of Frustration ................................................................................................83

Teacher Motivation and Accountability on Standardized Tests ....................................84

Unrealistic Expectations .............................................................................................84 Profession Not Valued in Society ...............................................................................89 Underappreciated ........................................................................................................90

Summary ........................................................................................................................93

Section 5: Discussion, Implications for Practice, Limitations, and Suggestions for Future

Research .............................................................................................................................94

Introduction ....................................................................................................................94 The Research Questions .................................................................................................95 Interpretation of Findings ...............................................................................................95

Theme 1: Love for Students and Passion to See Them Succeed ................................95 Theme 2: Teacher Motivation Influence on Standardized Test .................................96 Theme 3: Job Satisfaction ..........................................................................................96 Theme 4: Low Salary .................................................................................................97 Theme 5: Lack of Autonomy within Classroom ........................................................98 Theme 6: Feelings of Frustration ...............................................................................98 Theme 7: Unrealistic Expectations .............................................................................99 Theme 8: Profession Not Valued in Society ............................................................100 Theme 9: Underappreciated .....................................................................................101

Discussion ....................................................................................................................101

Implication for Practice ................................................................................................103 Limitation of the Study ................................................................................................106 Suggestions for Future Research ..................................................................................106 Implication for Social Change ......................................................................................107

Researcher’s Reflection ................................................................................................108

Summary ......................................................................................................................110

References ....................................................................................................................111

Appendix A: Invitation to Participate ..........................................................................126

Appendix B: Interview Guide ......................................................................................127

Appendix C: IRB Approved Letter of Invitation and Consent Form ...........................129

Appendix D: Sample Interview Transcripts .................................................................131

Curriculum Vitae ..........................................................................................................139

Section 1: Introduction to the Study

Introduction

In south Florida, administrators from many school systems have asked teachers

not to return for the upcoming school year because of the drastic cuts in funding. The

result is a negative effect on the morale of remaining teachers. In addition to a lack of

sense of job security, multiple factors diminish teacher motivation, including (a)

increased accountability for high-stakes testing, (b) low salaries, (c) lack of support from

administration, and (d) sense of growth in the profession (Kieschke & Schaarschmidt,

2008).

Teachers have proven to be the primary variable affecting student performance

(Kane, Rockoff, & Staiger, 2006; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005; Rockoff, 2004), even

with the onset of standardized testing. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB)

made states and local districts accountable for all actions that produced low standardized

scores on state level achievement test. Kohn (2001) stated that educators have never

been open to question the fidelity of these assessments; NCLB requires educators to teach

material provided by the state and teachers are not allowed to deviate from the state

standards and benchmarks given. As a result, teachers have felt a reduced ability to meet

students’ needs and had a declined sense of empowerment (Faber, 1991; Troman &

Woods, 2000). Jesus and Lens (2005) detailed a teacher’s professional engagement

constituted the best index of teacher motivation. The level of teacher engagement has

strong implications not only for professional growth and the quality of instruction but

also for student achievement. When teachers perform and carry out their specific job

roles and duties, students produce and achieve positive results (Tucker et al., 2005).

Low teacher morale and poor motivation has become a major problem at a south

Florida school district, particularly at ABC Middle School. This qualitative study was

designed to examine ABC Middle School mathematics teachers’ motivation and its

impact on student achievement on the mathematics standardized achievement test, the

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). Mathematics teachers’ perceptions of

their own motivation and the implications on student achievement were sought. Section

2 of this qualitative research study provides a detailed discussion of the related studies on

teacher motivation.

Problem Statement

A decrease in reading and mathematics developmental scores on standardized

tests existed in ABC Middle School. Since the creation of the NCLB Act (2002), teachers

within school districts have been accountable for students' learning gains as measured by

achievement levels on the FCAT, a standardized achievement test. To help improve

student achievement on the FCAT, ABC Middle School implemented the Continuous

Improvement model (CIM). Despite the implementation of the CIM model, students’

developmental scores decreased. The problem has affected both students and teachers.

Teachers received pay cuts, were reassigned to other schools, and were exhausted by the

mounting levels of paperwork and lack of support from administrators, and had low

morale (Ross, 2011).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore aspects of teachers’

motivation at ABC Middle School from interviews using open-ended questions and

observations of teachers. I used the qualitative approach instead of all other approaches to

highlight the shared experiences of participants and to create a possible blueprint for

reform. Teachers participated in structured in-depth interviews for a period of 3 weeks

(between August 13, 2010, and September 3, 2010), which detailed their experiences.

The study sought to determine how teachers’ perceived their teacher motivation and if it

affected student achievement.

Research Questions

The overall guiding question for this qualitative study was: How did mathematics

teachers perceive the level of their motivation and its impact on student's achievement

level in mathematics standardized tests (FCAT)? The study assessed teachers’

perceptions of their motivations and provided evidence that determined whether or not

teachers were intrinsically highly motivated and how such motivation may have affected

students' achievement scores as compared to students whose teachers had decreased

motivation. The following qualitative research questions were explored:

Research Question 1: How does teacher motivation influence student

achievement on the FCAT?

Research Question 2: How does job satisfaction influence teacher motivation?

Research Question 3: How does FCAT accountability influence teacher

motivation?

Creswell (2003) discussed that the purpose of a phenomenological study is an

opportunity that the researcher has to identify the essence of human experience with

concerns to the phenomena (teacher motivation), as described by the participants in a

study (p. 15). A more detailed explanation of the methodology is included in Section 3 of

this study.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual frameworks for this study was the following theories: Herzberg’s

two factor hygiene theory, McClelland’s achievement/power theory, and Vroom’s

expectancy theory. Student motivation was a major focus of basic and applied research

in educational psychology, but there was little research on teacher motivation (Butler,

2007). Herzberg’s two-factor hygiene (1966) and motivation theory (1989) suggested that

certain factors contribute to job dissatisfaction. Herzberg’s first factor asserted that

hygiene factors--(a) organization, (b) policies and its administration leadership, (c)

working conditions (d) salary, and (e) job security--do not lead to higher levels of

motivation, but without these factors there is dissatisfaction. The second part of the

theory stated that what educators actually do on the job and what is fabricated into the

tasks that educators complete develops intrinsic motivation within the classrooms. In

other words, to be motivated to do good work, workers (teachers) must be happy with the

job itself and the tasks that are accomplished. The motivators include the following: (a)

achievement, (b) interest in the job, (c) and growth and advancement in the current

position.

McClelland’s (1987) theory of achievement motivation has been based on needs-

motivation. This theory identified three types of motivational needs: (a) achievement, (b)

authority/power motivation, (c) and affiliation motivation. Workers and managers alike

have all of the following above in varied degrees. According to McClelland (1987) the

achievement person seeks achievement and job advancement. He or she needs realistic

and challenging goals and a sense of accomplishment. The authority motivation worker

believes that others validate their ideas and opinions and this makes them feel needed by

others.

The affiliate worker is motivated by the interactions with other people. Moreover,

it is the relationship with these individuals, which flourishes within a team environment

(McClelland, 1987). The expectancy theory of motivation asserted that motivation

combines two concepts, valence and expectancy (Vroom, 1964). Valence refers to the

preference of the individual toward a particular outcome or outcomes or the attractiveness

of the outcome (Lawler, 1973; Vroom, 1964). This concept refers to the relative value of

an individual places on outcomes. In other words, a teacher values a variety of things,

which includes student performance or respect from colleagues. On the other hand,

expectancy refers to a person’s belief about the likelihood that their efforts result in the

desired outcome (Vroom, 1994).

Lawler (1973), in his analysis of the developments in motivation theory, argued

that individuals expect that their efforts placed into a task lead to certain desirable

outcomes. Moreover, organizational theorists such as Lawler (1973) have argued that

individual performance in an organization is a multiplicative function of ability and

function. Vroom (1964) and Lawler (1973) both agree that teacher performance and

ultimately student performance links to the ability of staff, the motivation level of staff,

or some combination of the two. Teachers perceive that if their own output in the form of

instructional techniques influences the student achievement and leads to the student

meeting their overall goal of achievement. The intensity at which teachers instruct leads

to the attainment of the students’ goal. A school climate that resembles a dictatorship

guides teachers to become unmotivated and not enthusiastic about completing the

requirements of the job. According to Dzubay (2001) a teacher’s attitude, performance,

and overall job satisfaction changes dramatically in this type of environment described

above.

Nature of the Study

This qualitative study attempted to clarify the effect of teacher motivation on

student achievement on standardized tests at ABC Middle School. The study conducted

at a middle school in south Florida, which contained a population of 996 students in

Grades 6-8 and with approximately 100 teachers. The research sample size consisted of

10 teachers using stratified sampling (Fink, 2006). This included addressing the

traditional achievement gaps, as well as focused attention on all students who did not

perform at an achievement level of three. A more detailed discussion of teacher

motivation and its impact on student achievement was provided in Section 3. Using the

the phenomenological approach to investigate this problem allowed the researcher to

describe and understand the life experiences of the teachers.

Operational Definitions

Achievement goal orientation: Represented an integrated pattern of beliefs that

lead to different ways of approaching, engaging in, and responding to achievement

associations (Ames, 1992).

Achievement levels: Defined as the success a student achieved on the Florida

Sunshine State Standards tested on the FCAT reading, mathematics, science, and writing

assessment. Achievement levels were based both on scale scores and developmental scale

scores ranged from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest; Florida Dept. of Education, 2008).

Extrinsic motivation: “ Motivation that required outside factors for fulfillment of

individuals to do activities for instrumental or other reason, for example a received

reward for a completed task” (Baker, Dreher, & Guthrie, 2000, p. 141).

Goals: Specific purposes that individuals strived for in a specific (educational)

setting (Wolters et al., 1996).

Intrinsic motivation: Motivation that required no external factor for fulfillment or

the non-driven based motivation whose energy was intrinsic to the nature of the organism

(Deci & Ryan 1985, p. 5)

Student achievement: Defined as a summary of cognitive measure of what a

student learned as a result of many units or months of work (Guida, Ludlow, & Wilson,

1985).

Sunshine State Standards (SSS): Selected benchmarks that were adopted in May

1996 by the State Board of Education in Florida. All public schools expected to teach

students the content found in the SSS.

Teacher motivation: Defined as all those inner striving conditions, including the

wishes, desires, and urges to stimulate the interest in a learning activity (Tracey, 2000).

Teacher performance: Any set of activities or behaviors that increased teacher

efficacy, high quality teaching, improved student’s achievement, and added to school

improvement.

Work motivation: A set of energetic forces that originated both within as well as

beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related behavior and determined its form,

direction, intensity, and duration (Pinder, 1998, p. 11)

Assumption, Limitations, Scope and Delimitations

Assumption

One assumption was made with regard to this study.

1. It was assumed that all teachers were honest in all responses.

Limitations

1. Because this study focused on only one middle school, the data gathered was

only applicable to this school or similar schools in terms of population and

achievement.

2. The study was conducted for 4 weeks (August 13, 2010, and September 3,

2010), which limited the scope of data collection to only a 9-week marking

period, as defined by Palm Beach County Public Schools.

3. Differences in mathematics teachers’ perceptions of teacher motivation

varied with respect to gender of the teachers, and years of teaching experience

in content matter.

4. The researcher was an instructor at the research site.

5. This was a small study that focused on one school in one district.

Scope and Delimitations

The scope of this study was to investigate the relationship between teacher

motivation and student achievement. This study was delimited to assessing students’

achievement of sixth, seventh, and eighth grade classrooms at a middle school in south

Florida; thus, the ability to generalize to the entire middle school population of Florida

and beyond its borders was limited. The sample generalized to similar areas within the

state.

Significance of the Study

Educators throughout the United States are continuously seeking a better learning

environment with academic success for all students in mind. The significance of this

study concerned the perceptions of mathematics teachers’ motivation and its impact on

student achievement on standardized tests might provide the information required to

assist teachers in planning effective instruction. Darling and Hammond (2006) identified

several factors that explained why students succeeded: (a) high levels of parental

involvement, (b) high academic standards, (c) diagnostic assessment as a strategy for

monitoring student performance, and (d) strong leadership on the part of the principal.

An additional possible factor that affected the outcome of student achievement was

motivation of teachers. Moreover, Jesus and Conboy (2001), Mowday, Koberg, and

McArthur (1984), and Porter and Steers (1973) argued that the impact made by decisions

of individual teachers was far greater than the impact of decisions made at the school

level

Motivation of teachers plays a key role in the learning and classroom

environment. This study sought to measure mathematics teachers’ perception of teacher

motivation.. The study is significant because it allows teachers to share their perceptions

of teacher motivation and possible ways to motivate them to continue instructing

students. Moreover, some teachers agree that an incentive does not necessarily increase

their intrinsic teacher motivation and a need for continuous feedback from principals

necessary. Leaders of school districts can create programs used to boost teacher morale

and can decide when during the school year they should be implemented. Teacher

motivation is important for the advancement of educational reforms. First, motivated

teachers are likely to work for educational reform and progressive legislation. Second–

and perhaps more importantly–it is the motivated teacher who guaranteed the

implementation of reforms originating at the policy-making level. Finally, teacher

motivation is important for the satisfaction and fulfillment of teachers themselves.

Beyond issues of personal well-being, such feelings of satisfaction are consistently

associated with lower levels of organizational absenteeism and turnover (Jesus &

Conboy, 2001; Mowday et al., 1984); Porter & Steers, 1973).

This study contributes to the body of knowledge needed to address this problem

by assessing the relationship that exists between teacher motivation and achievement

levels in middle school students. The underlined influence of such research study

broadens the outlook of stakeholders and districts to see that teacher motivation plays a

role in the increase or decrease of achievement levels of students across the nation.

Consequently, teachers perceive that motivation is an important factor when it comes to

the achievement of students within their classroom. Further training in pre-service

programs must be added to incorporate professional developments course on teacher

motivation.

Summary

The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of mathematics

teachers’ motivation. Research supports the concept that motivation is an essential

element in any classroom which must be exhibited by the teacher as well as the students

for achievement. Section 1 included (a) a description of the problem, (b) purpose of the

study, (c) research questions and theoretical framework, and (d) significance of the study.

Section 2 provides a review of the research literature related to the research study and

includes literature related to the use of different methodologies considered for

investigation of the topic. Section 2 also includes a review of literature on the impact of

teacher motivation on student achievement. Section 3 provides a description and

justification of how the research design fit the problem examined. Additionally, section 3

presents the context of the study, ethical precautions taken, rationale for selecting

participants, researcher’s role to the participants and to the data, and an explanation of

data collection procedures and analysis. Section 4 presents the results of the study, and

section 5 summarizes interpretations of the research findings, puts forth the implications

for practice and social change, and offers recommendations for further study.

Section 2: Literature Review

Organization of the Review

This section provides an extensive review of current and relevant literature

concerning the main features as they related to a phenomenological study, a history of

teacher motivation, impact of teacher motivation and student achievement, and teacher

motivation and the role it played in student achievement on standardized tests. This

section includes a review of research literature on teacher effects, teacher morale, and

teacher motivation and its impact on student achievement.

To conduct the search for this review, I reviewed books and journal articles, as

well as conducted web-based searches of scholarly databases such as Academic Search

Premier, other EBSCO databases, and Google Scholar. With the use of an Internet search,

I incorporated key terms to limit each search. For example, the key words motivation,

teacher motivation, teacher motivation and student achievement, and teacher motivation

and standardized tests.

A report published by the Association of California School Administrators (2000)

stated that in the preceding two decades of education reform, teachers were viewed as

central to both the problems of education and the solutions. According to sociologists,

current school environments are a reward-scarce setting for professional work, and often

seem to work against teachers’ best efforts to grow professionally and improve students’

learning (Peterson, 1995). Much of teachers’ work is carried out in self-contained

classrooms that isolate them from the support of their colleagues. Because of this

organizational structure, teachers are difficult to supervise, do not receive regular

feedback from others, and often find it hard to collaborate. Perhaps as a result of these

circumstances, the research showed that many good teachers left the teaching profession

in the first three years (Frase, 1992). Clearly, educational leaders need to find ways to

keep teachers in the profession and keep them motivated. Therefore, a review of history

of teacher motivation and its impact on student achievement provides an insight into

addressing the research question: How did mathematics teachers who participated in this

in this research study perceive their teacher motivation and its impact on student

achievement level on mathematics standardized tests (FCAT)?

Teacher Motivation

The basis of teacher motivation, according to Herzberg’s two-factor theory were

those intrinsic motivating factors that determined the degree of job satisfaction and job

contents and extrinsic motivating factors were those that determined the degree of the job

dissatisfaction as it related to the job context (Herzberg, as cited in Stembridge, 1989).

Teacher motivation accounted for the drive, energy, and commitment an individual had to

promote teaching as sustainable professional activity with a sense of purpose and mission

which was mindful of the social context in which teachers operated (Morgan et al., 2007).

Morgan et al. (2007) proposed that teacher motivation drawn from various areas

(including psychology, sociology, and classroom research). In a description of teacher

motivation, Morgan et al. explained that teachers considered the familiarity of the content

they taught and if it was challenging to teach. Moreover, the teachers also considered

going beyond their call of duty, enrolled in courses outside of the traditional professional

development requirements for the profession or renewed licensure. These teachers that

went beyond the call of duty were interested in utilizing whatever it took, to meet their

students’ instructional needs.

According to Whatley (1998) teachers have certain motivations in choosing the

profession of being an educator. These motivations include: (a) “love” of, or desire to

work with, children, or adolescents; (b) the perceived worth or value of teaching to

others; (c) a desire to help other people; (d) dissatisfaction with a previous career; (e) the

benefits of teaching (convenience such as work schedules, work hours and vacations, and

salary). The literature also suggested that variations in motivations to teach existed

between different groups such as, minority groups (Dilworth, 1991; Gordon, 1993), those

with differing levels of academic achievement (Hart & Murphy, 1990; Weiner, 1992;

Whately, 1998), those with different nationalities (Yong, 1995), and second-career

teachers (Crow, Levine, & Nager, 1990) ; Serow, 1993).

Ames and Ames (1984) proposed that teachers pursue “ability-evaluative” goals

to demonstrate high ability or masked low ability. In addition, models of reflective

practice assume that teachers function best when they learn and acquire competence

(Henderson, 1992; Pollard, 2002). Pelletier, Seguin-Levesques, and Legault (2002)

reported differences in teachers’ self-determination, a form of motivation similar to

mastery orientation. In the 1980s, state governments and local school districts enacted an

array of incentive plans designed to recruit, reward, and retain the best teachers. Merit

pay and career ladders were intended to provide financial incentives, varied work, and

advancement opportunities for seasoned teachers. Teachers discover the true love of

teaching and even go on to complete higher degrees in the educational field. With time

comes the realization that opportunities in teaching eventually lose their way to

resentment and loss of motivation.

According to Johnson (1986), measures developed to boost teacher motivation

based on three theories of motivation and productivity: (a) expectancy theory, (b) equity,

and (c) job enrichment theory. The expectancy theory Johnson (1986) explained that

[teachers] were likely to strive in their work if there was an anticipated reward that they

valued, such as a bonus or a promotion, than if there were teachers which were no longer

wanted to teach and that was why Frase (1992) discovered that what Johnson saw in the

early 80s had changed. Frase (1992) offered a reason to explain why external rewards are

insufficient to sustain teacher motivation. There is overwhelming research evidence that

alludes to the fact that individuals enter the educational field to help young people learn

and their most gratifying reward is to accomplish this goal. Work-related factors were

important to teachers because it allowed them to practice their craft successfully (see also

Frase 1989; Lortie 1976; Mitchell, Ortiz, and Mitchell 1987). Frase (1989) found that two

set of factors that affected teachers’ ability to perform effectively were work context

factors such as (the teaching environment, and work content factors -teaching).

A supportive work environment that promoted teacher job effectiveness, job

satisfaction and retention were important. Problems arose between teachers and parents

especially with how the principal handled discipline problems with students and this issue

had an adverse effect on the entire school community. Having a sense of empowerment

and autonomy increased job related responsibility and helped teachers feel satisfied with

their jobs.

Davis and Wilson (2000) concluded that teachers given more responsibilities over

schedules, discipline, and students’ placement indeed improved the educational

environment and therefore enhanced the teacher’s motivational level. Overall teachers

wanted to feel that they indeed made a difference within their classrooms. Teacher

mentoring programs was a supportive way that helped reduced teacher attrition and

increased teacher retention (Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004). Ingersol and Kralik (2004)

suggested that conclusive the addition of programs of this magnitude helped new teachers

adapt to a school culture and learning environment.

Marzano (2003) concluded that effective teachers employed effective

instructional strategies, classroom management techniques, and classroom curricular

design in a fluent, seamless fashion. Covino and Iwanicki (1996) studied behaviors of

effective, experienced teachers, who identified the construction of what they meant by the

term effective teaching and in summation they agreed in some ways that there was a

positive correlation between how important explicit directions given to students and

student engagement within the classroom. The teachers also summarized that when this

was done then they believed that more content was covered and the students felt the

classroom was warm and friendly. In a March 2004 issue of Teaching Quality in the

Southeast: Best Practices and Policies, the editor noted:

We learn from our case studies that No Child Left Behind helped human

resources in districts pay more attention to the importance of recruiting and

retaining effective teachers and sent this strong message to communities.

(Southeast Center for Teacher Quality 2004, 1)

As seen in the review of the literature, Barnabe and Burns (1994) suggested that

teachers are motivated differently from those in the business world, because of

differences in the disciplines. In fact, a teacher works primarily with students and was

physically isolated from other teachers. The teachers see each other in the passing of

classes and during faculty meetings.

Scott, Cox, and Dinham (1999) examined 609 English teachers and school

administrators’ occupational motivation, satisfaction, and health. In the study, the

teachers expressed that their overwhelming motivation to be in the teaching profession

was always their need to want to teach (p.296). In addition, some teachers expressed the

need to make a difference by aiding individual children.

Similarly in a qualitative study, Dierynck et al. (1998) interviewed 43 teachers

with at least 15 years in education about their own work motivation. The teachers

concluded that three factors contributed to their motivation:

1. Personal biography.

2. Job characteristics.

3. Work conditions.

For each of the above construct, Scott, Cox, and Dinahm (1999) also suggested that

teachers were highly motivated by intrinsic rewards; however, extrinsic factors were

relevant as well.

In contrast, earlier studies in the 1970s indicated that although financial incentives

promoted specific behaviors and directed teachers’ efforts toward a measurable goal

(such their students’ receiving high test scores, incentives were less promising as tools to

improve general teaching performance (Moore, 1986). Thus, having a monetary incentive

did not make a teacher more capable of having greater student achievement.

In their qualitative study of teacher motivation and absenteeism in India, Jain et

al. (2004) cited that the presence of the following did not guarantee motivation:

1. High pay scales.

2. Regularity of pay.

3. Having attended an in-service training program.

4. Existence of PTA or other community –school forums.

5. Teachers belonged to the same area as the location of the school.

6. Teachers were from the same community.

7. Non-teaching duties and responsibilities.

In other words, if pay was increased or a teacher was paid regularly, it did not

affect or influence their level of motivation in India. In the Jain et al. study, the

participant group was comprised of 18 stakeholders that included administrators,

teachers, researchers, and members of professional bodies, combined with 33 teachers in

the 10 schools studied. Detailed interviews and focus group discussion were used to

explain the data. Within the analysis of teachers’ responses during the focus groups, Jain

et al. (2004), noted five reasons that were found constant for levels of dissatisfaction:

1. High teacher-pupil ratio.

2. Infrastructure problems.

3. Erratic disbursement of salaries.

4. Forced to teacher a certain demographic.

5. Irregular attendance of children and illiterate parents.

A top-down analysis (Ciani, Summers, & Easter, 2008) was designed to

investigate teacher motivation in high school. In the research study, 156 teachers from

four public high schools located in either a suburban or semi-rural region of a

Midwestern state were given a survey designed to evaluate teacher community, school

goal structure, perceived collective efficacy, teachers’ sense of self-efficacy, and

classroom goal structure. Ciani et al. (2008) used MANOVA analysis and the data

indicated significant differences between schools categorized as either high or low

performance-oriented and their achievement goals structure with regards to the teacher

motivational beliefs and classroom structure. Interestingly, teachers in the low

performance-oriented school groups reported significantly higher in perceived collective

efficacy, sense of efficacy for classroom management and instructional strategies, and

teacher community. After the data were compiled and analyzed, using a MANOVA,

Ciani et al. (2008) found that when schools overly stressed the importance of high test

scores, academic competition, and the use of high achieving students as models for all

students, teachers tended to feel less community among themselves, perceived less self-

efficacy for using a variety of instructional strategies, and were more likely to use

performance-oriented instructional practices in the classroom.

Opdenakker and Van Damme (2006) examined the effects of teacher

characteristics (a measure of a teacher’s job satisfaction) and teaching styles as effective

enhancing factors of classroom practice. One hundred and thirty two second grade

mathematics classrooms assigned to 78 mathematics teachers and belonging to 47

schools participated in the study. The study reported results in accordance with a previous

study concerning Longitudinal Research in Secondary Education. Teachers were asked to

complete surveys during two consecutive school years with measures assessing personal

characteristics and aspects of teaching styles. In addition, the measure also included

scales for intelligence level, motivational level, and the level of parental involvement.

During the multivariate analysis, Opdenakker and Van Damme (2006) found the higher

the job satisfaction of the teacher, a weaker relationship existed between the cognitive

levels of the class and the amount of instructional support the class received. The

researchers also noted that conversely the lower the job satisfaction of the teacher, then

there existed a stronger relationship between class composition and the amount of

instructional support. Opdenakker and Van Damme (2006) found the following:

It appeared that teachers with a low job satisfaction invested much effort in their

high cognitive classes and a lot less in their classes with low cognitive level,

whereas teachers with a high job satisfaction were less directed by the cognitive

level of the class in offering instructional support; they gave more instructional

support to their low level classes than teachers with a low job satisfaction. (p. 12)

Teachers, who had a greater sense of job satisfaction, did not allow the influences

of a student’s cognitive ability to impact whether additional instructional support was

needed from the instructor. In other words, teachers with the higher job satisfaction

believed that they made a remarkable difference in the students’ learning outcome and

eventually with the prescribed support it was met.

Karsli et al. (2009) examined the effect of motivation provided by the

administration on the job satisfaction of teachers and their institutional commitment to

three hundred teachers working in public schools in Sakarya province, which included a

mixture 172 females and 228 males. The participants were given a short version of the

Minnesota Job Satisfaction measure (MSQ). The researchers used this survey because it

was easy to use and focused on the needs of the teachers in their working conditions and

if these conditions were met. In order to measure the motivational level of the subjects, a

motivation survey developed and consisted of seven sections with 94 items. The survey

consisted of items such as demographic information, 23 items that dealt specifically with

administration, communication, motivation, efficiency, and commitment. The study

suggested that both males (71.5%) and females (79.1 %) had high higher levels of job

satisfaction. Interestingly no subject stated that his/her commitment to the organization

was “low”. The study also suggested that having higher levels of job satisfaction subjects

also had higher levels of commitment. More importantly, the study found a statistically

significant difference regarding the relationship between administrators’ provision of

motivation for teachers’ as cited by Karsli and Iskender (2009):

Turkey b values of the group indicated that the difference between those with low

levels of motivation and those with medium and high levels of motivation.

Therefore, those with high levels of motivation had higher levels of job

satisfaction in contrast to those with medium and low levels of motivation. On the

other hand, those with medium level of motivation had higher levels of job

satisfaction in contrast to those with low level of motivation. (p. 2256)

To sum up, the findings of the study indicated that the school administrators

provided teachers with high levels of motivation and the subjects’ level of job satisfaction

and commitment to the organization were high. The study also concluded that level of

motivation affected the level of job satisfaction.

Mandate for Student Achievement

As society has moved toward holding teachers accountable for student

achievement, legislation that was proposed became known as the No Child Left Behind

(2001), which added a high stake standardized testing component to be administered in

states. All schools that received federal funding were required to administer some form of

a standardized test. Students in Grades 3-11 slated to take a standardized testing in

reading, mathematics, writing, and science. A grade given to the school based on the

percent of student proficient in each of the tests. Then the test data disaggregated into

student subgroups such as race, ethnicity, gender, English language proficiency, migrant

status, disability status and low-income status (free and reduced lunch). Schools were

required to make adequate yearly progress (AYP); otherwise the school given a status of

the following: (a) school in need of improvement; (b) school in corrective action; and/or

face removal of administration and possible closure.

In fall of 2003, the state of Florida legislative body placed K-12 education as a

priority and made a point to ensure that all learners in the state had the highest quality of

instruction. Florida created an A-Plus grade rating system, based on the premise that all

children can learn. Every reform in the A-Plus plan was geared toward proving this

simple fact and shattered the myths and excuses of low expectations often set and said

about learners in the state. The creation of student-centered strategies included effective

diagnostic tools like the FCAT to track student achievement which included targeted

instruction to specific needs of the learning, while creating individual strategies for

bringing forth this improvement.

In recent years, the state legislature increased the scrutiny of middle schools

across the state. The state created in 1999, a web-based learning program in a module

format called FCAT Explorer. The FCAT Explorer program provided interactive

modules for students in a re-teach and enrichment lessons that provided comprehensive

practice for skills test on the science, mathematics, and reading FCATs. The FOCUS web

program was developed in 2005 and provided support for the Florida Continuous

Improvement Model (CIM). The FOCUS program provided mini-assessments for

reading, science, and math for Grades 3-10. The FOCUS program provided students with

five test items for every math, reading, and science benchmarks. This effort enabled

teachers to coordinate classroom instruction and with assessment.

ABC School District located in Florida and steadily implemented ways in which

students increased achievement on the standardized tests and also within classrooms. The

District created learning tools that teachers accessed directly from the districts website

such as standards lessons from Learning Village, and standard embedded assessments.

Student Achievement

Teachers are held accountable for student achievement on high stakes tests. In

1995, the Florida Commission on Education Reform and Accountability recommended

procedures for assessing student learning in Florida with the intent of raising educational

expectations and ensured that students had the necessary skills to compete for jobs in the

global marketplace (Florida Association of School Psychologist, n.d.).

The state of Florida created an assessment and accountability measurement called

the Florida Comprehensive Test. The FCAT is administered in fourth, fifth, eighth, and

10th grades, but not in all subjects (only math, reading, writing, and science). The FCAT

measured student achievement of the benchmarks contained the Florida’s Sunshine State

Standards, which were developed with the goal of providing all students with an

education based on high expectations (Florida Dept. of Education, 2008). The FCAT

supported and provided an objective measure of the Standards as the foundation for

curriculum and instruction (Florida Dept. of Education, 2008). A series of scale scores

given to students ranged from 100 to 500 for a single grade level; as a developmental

scale score on a scale of 0 to 3,000 for all grade levels and as one of five achievement

levels which ranged of scores based on an established scale (Florida Dept. of Education,

2008).

Student achievement measured by the FCAT meant that any student who received

an achievement level score of 3 was said to be proficient in that subject at that specific

grade level (Florida Dept. of Education, 2008).The state used this developmental scale

score to monitors students’ progression over time. By comparing the students’ score in

the same FCAT subject for two or more years with the associated mean scores for those

years, it was identified whether a student’s performance had improved, declined, or

remained consistent (Florida Dept. of Education, 2008).

Student achievement found by Chaing (2009) affected by the accountability

pressure that NCLB placed on a given school. Chiang (2009) used a regression continuity

designed to identify the extent to which accountability pressure affected the student

performance on the math FCAT. Chiang (2009) found in open-ended phone interviews

with administrators that accountability changed the nature of the school climate and

prompted teachers to raise the scores for the school. In turn this triggered abnormally

teacher turnovers and schools were then given funds to hire specialists (coaches) to

improve teachers’ instruction within the classroom.

Teacher Motivation Impact on Student Achievement

Motivational psychology literature (e.g., Downson & McInerney, 2003;

McInerney, Maehr, & Downson, 2004) has suggested that salient motivations determine

(a) what activities people do or do not engage in (attraction); (b) how long they engage in

these activities (retention); and (c) the depth to which they engage in these activities

(concentration). Research has shown that teachers are the most important factor that

influenced student achievement (Ferguson, 1998; Goldhaber, 2002; Saunders, 2000).

These studies and others have searched for a variable that measured teacher quality.

Studies conducted in Dallas, TX, using the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System

found differential teacher effectiveness was a strong determinant of differences in student

learning, and far outweighed the effects in class size or heterogeneity (Jordan, Medro, &

Weerasinghe, 1997; Saunders & River, 1996; Wright, Horn & Saunders, 1997)). The

authors said that increased class size caused an increased negative affect because the

ratio of student to teacher was high. The teacher could not possibly reach all students

within a class of 30 or more students. However, one classroom had 50 students but an

excellent highly-qualified teacher that was motivated enough to impact student learning

gains spoke volume.

Teacher motivation measured in a study conducted by Butler (2007) utilized the

Achievement Goal Theory to measure teacher motivation. Butler (2007) viewed the

school’s climate as it related to teacher motivation as an achievement arena not only for

the student but also for teachers who presumably strived to succeed at their job but who

differed in the ways they defined success, in goals they strived to attain, and, thus in their

personal achievement goal orientations for teaching (p. 242). Butler (2007) employed a

qualitative approach to measure teacher motivation, analyzed whether it was possible to

identify and measure four kinds of achievement goals for teaching that corresponded to

students’ achievement goals for schoolwork. In study data collected from teachers in 17

Israeli schools. A pilot testing conducted using surveys from 320 teachers ranged from

elementary to secondary teachers. Using a series of interviews to measure teacher

motivation, Butler (2007), administered a survey, and consisted of 28 statements on a 5-

point scale that teachers responded to. Kocabas (2009) similarly researched the sources of

teacher’s motivation levels used surveys. Kocabas (2009) utilized Cronbach’s alpha with

a reliability coefficient, and used a questionnaire consisting of two sections with four

items which surveyed teachers regarding their personal information in one section and the

other section with 35 items established levels of sources of motivation. Using surveys,

Kocabas (2009) determined that teachers showed greater sources of motivation when the

schools were safe, teachers perceived higher levels of self-esteem, received favorable

results (teacher’s observation/evaluations), and participated in the decision making

process at their respective school sites. In contrast, Kocobas (2009) also pointed out that

teachers’ levels of motivation were negative when confronted with alienation from

friends or society, being subject to disciplinary measures, and inadequate facilities at

school accessible to information (materials to foster teaching).

Schacter, Thum, Reifsneider, and Schiff (2004) yielded positive results when their

program, designed to attract, retain, motivate, and develop quality teachers. Teacher

Advancement Program (TAP) introduced in several states. The authors examined the

TAP program’s preliminary impact on student achievement and teachers attitudes in

Arizona and South Carolina. Schacter et al. (2004) designed the experiment to compare

the growth in achievement of students from similar schools that did not implement the

TAP program. In addition, research focused on teachers’ job satisfaction. The authors

selected five elementary schools in the state of Arizona (four included in the study and

one served as a controlled school). A multivariate statistical model was used to measure

the achievement for 949 students in TAP schools versus the achievement of students in

the control school on the Stanford 9 Achievement (measures reading, mathematics, and

language). Three of the 4 TAP schools in Arizona performed statistically significant than

the control schools. In the matter of measuring teacher satisfaction, Schacter et al.

(2004), used an attitudinal survey with an inter-item reliability, Cronbach’s alpha

reliability coefficient, consisted of 57 items, which included 17 background questions, 6

items assessed Market-Driven Compensation, 12-to-14 items assessed Multiple Career

Paths, 5 items assessed Teacher Performance-Based Accountability, 11 items assessed

Ongoing, Applied Professional Growth, and 4 items assessed general satisfaction and

influence in the classroom. Schacter et al. (2004) also concluded that when it came to job

satisfaction, a majority of teachers 46% had a favorable outlook over time.

Even though the findings were favorable, student achievement and teacher

satisfaction with the TAP program were positive, approximately 35% of TAP schools did

not gain more in reading, language, or math than the control schools.

Montalvo, Mansfield, and Miller (2007 found that teachers who were perceived to be

warm, caring and supportive had a positive effect on students. The researchers examined

the phenomenon of whether students like or dislike their teachers and in quantitative

findings discovered that students displayed higher levels of effort and persistence in

classes which they liked the teacher. In others students earned higher grades in classes

where they liked the teacher. The latter re-stated as such, “teachers defined the tasks that

students completed, provided feedback and defined at least some of the consequences for

completing the tasks” (Introduction, ¶1).

According to Peters and Waterman (1995) researchers had identified that the main

factor in motivating people was to give the individual a sense of success. Teachers

wanted to be successful however, levels of stimulation and anxiety, needs, beliefs and

goals also significantly influenced a person’s motivation and if teachers did not possess

the ability to self-motivate themselves, every downfall increased lower levels of

motivation and this in turn affected the teachers’ performance within the classroom.

Teachers are responsible for maintaining their certification status and

administrators were responsible for the providing professional development for those

teachers to improve within the teaching profession. Who is responsible for keeping the

teachers motivated? According to Kocabas and Karakose (2002) motivating teachers fell

upon the responsibility of the administration within that given school. In a study

conducted by Kocabas (2009) who sampled 225 teachers selected randomly from 3,653

teachers in the Elazig province schools. The data in the study obtained from a Quintet

Likert grading scale questionnaires composed by the researcher which consisted of two

sections with four items concerning demographics of participants; 35 items that

established levels of motivation effect of motivation sources on teachers. For the

reliability analysis, Cronbach’s alpha was performed on the scale and resulted in an

alpha =.916, Bartlett test: 3577.498, and validation coefficient KMO: .858. Individual

group’s t-distribution test performed to determine whether there was a significant

difference between groups of teachers according to their gender, area of responsibility

and education level, and for the items where distribution were not homogeneous within

the test; Mann-Whitney U (WMU) test was applied. In addition, Kocabas, used a one-

way ANOVA to determine whether there was a significant difference between groups

according to teaching experience. He discovered that there was a significant difference

between groups based on teaching experience. Subsequently, a study conducted by

Kocabaş (2009) identified that the following also motivate teachers to a great extent:

1. The general goals of the school being achievable.

2. Changes and motivation in the school.

3. A desire to achieve goals.

4. Being a part of the decision-making process in the school.

5. Promotion or progression and regarded as a role model.

In addition, Kocabas (2009) noted that teachers with 11-20 years of experience,

believed that a positive atmosphere in the school motivated them (with an average

ranking=124.22). The teachers also with the senior experience felt a competitive attitude

among teachers was important for their sense of motivation.

Teacher motivation viewed in the context of academic optimism was studied by

Hoy, Hoy, and Kurz (2008). The authors used an exploratory study to inquire if teacher

beliefs lead to academic optimism and if those beliefs and practices were good predictors

of this optimism. To address the two-fold questions, Hoy et al. created a questionnaire

from an existing measure of teacher efficacy. In addition, the teachers completed an

anonymous 71-item surveys which assessed teacher efficacy, trust, academic emphasis,

beliefs about their instruction and management, individual citizenship, and demographic

questions. The results of academic optimism at the teacher level were computed using a

zero-order correlations with a two multiple regression for data analysis with the findings,

directly related to this report, indicated that there was a significant relationship between

dispositional optimism and academic optimism and furthermore the teachers’ years of

experience or level of degree attained was related to teacher academic optimism.

Interestingly, noted in the findings, was that teachers’ sense of academic optimism was

positively related to the teachers’ estimates of how their students performed on the state

achievement/proficiency tests. So, in other words, teachers believed that their students

scored higher on the state examinations, which suggested that academic related to student

achievement (Hoy et al, 2006; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006).

Performance Pay Primer for Teacher Motivation

Schools created a performance award system as a way to boost teacher morale

through monetary awards, additional instructional resources and increased recognition or

other rewards to an entire school, based on student and staff achieving pre-selected goals

(Oregon School Boards of Association, 2009). The Consortium for Policy Research and

Education (CPRE) conducted a study which examined the motivational effects of School-

Based Performance Awards (SPBA) on teacher and principals in three sites across the

country; Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District in North Carolina, the Kentucky

Accountability Program, and Maryland School Performance Program. (Oregon School

Boards Association, 2009) According to this study, school-based performances were

popular accountability strategies intended to align individual-or school-level monetary

incentives with the school’s ability to meet student achievement standards. The results of

the CPRE research in February 2000, showed teachers worked in school-based

performance award programs knew the goal of the program, understood them, and were

committed to their achievement (Oregon School Boards Association, 2009). CPRE

suggested that providing teachers with these rewards for so many goals neutralized the

effort and responsibility so teachers lost their focus. Teachers were overwhelmed by all

of the different goals and targets that the administrator wanted them to attain. However,

the findings of the research also concluded that these programs did indeed motivate

teachers, and helped them to focus on the goals and helped these teachers to receive all

the organizational resources that they needed in order to move students forward. Another

research study which was displayed in a policy brief of the CPRE found that the most

important motivational factors were the teacher’s belief. Teachers felt they achieved their

specified goals and that their individual actions positively influenced their student’s

achievement (Oregon School Boards Association, 2009). More specifically, the

researchers found that teachers were under increased pressure and stress, particularly in

accountability programs designed by individual schools that had in-house imposed

standards and continuous improvement components. Some teachers said:

These demands resulted in us putting in more hours of work and it made the

monetary bonus an inadequate incentive. We were not certain if we achieved the

goal. We knew that time and effort we placed and we would not receive the bonus

if we did not reach our goals (Teacher Motivation section).

Thus, the CPRE concluded that the power of school-based performance awards

programs to enhance teacher motivation needed to be able to focus the teacher efforts and

channel the organizational resources needed to reach the goals toward student

achievement (Oregon School Boards Association, 2009).Furthermore, the

recommendation of the researchers concluded that the motivational power of these

programs clearly enhanced by better communication of the goals, improved the teacher’s

expectancy, enhanced teacher perceptions that earned rewards funded, and experimented

with large award amounts.

Frase (1992), however, added to the discussion of teacher motivation discussed

two factors that affected teacher’s ability to perform effectively: (a) work context factors

(the teacher environment), and (b) work content factors (teaching). These work context

factors were those that met the baseline needs of the teacher. They included the following

working conditions:

1. The number of students within the class (class size).

2. The level of discipline issues to contend with.

3. The availability of teaching materials at the teachers’ disposal.

4. The quality of the principal’s supervision.

5. Lastly, the teacher’s basic psychological need such as money, status, and job

security.

However, work context factors may not had a longitudinal effect or lead to improved

teacher. In a survey conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics discovered

that teacher compensation, benefits, and supplemental income (endorsements, athletic

coaching etc.), showed little relation to long term satisfaction with teacher as a career

(National Center for Education Statistics, 1997). In addition, Frase (1992) also found that

work content factors also motivated teachers to some degree. Teachers were satisfied

when given opportunities for professional development, recognition, challenging and

varied tasks, increased job responsibility, empowerment, and authority. For instance,

Frase and Sorenson (1992), studied work content factors in a questionnaire administered

to 73 San Diego District teachers and identified three major areas that relate to the

teacher’s job satisfaction:

1. Teachers relayed that they frequently received helpful feedback from

administration regarding their teaching.

2. The teachers also believed that their having autonomy gave them a

sense of strong job satisfaction.

3. The teachers also shared that collegiality was important to them. It

gave them the ability to express thoughts and allow for input in

improvement plans for the curricula at the school.

Teacher Motivation and Work Environment

Teacher motivation did not only come from the inside working of the individual

but what surrounded that individual—the extrinsic factors involved. Motivation, capacity,

and working settings, as Rowan (1997) stated, were “key variables in employee

performance” (p.256). Motivation was a variable of teacher performance. Was the teacher

able to perform the task to the best of his or her ability? Moreover, Rowan (1996), an

organizational and industrial psychologist agreed and demonstrated in an example that

high ability and low motivation, nor high motivation and low ability produced high levels

of employee performance; neither did high ability and high motivation in a dysfunctional

job situation. He further stated, “A dysfunctional situation likely depressed initially high

levels of ability and motivation. In other words, teachers easily were intrinsically

motivated with high expectancy for their students; however, when met with the

conditions of loss of autonomy within the classroom (e.g. this is the curriculum did not

deviate from it and taught it before the standardized test)” (p. 258). Research concluded

that more of the teacher’s motivation derived from intrinsic rather than extrinsic rewards

(Herzberg, 1964). Intrinsic rewards such as having a sense of accomplishment, self-

respect, and personal growth were important to teachers.

In the research study findings of Leithwood and Jantzi (2006), the researchers

discovered that the strongest sources of motivation were participation in setting

curriculum targets. Similarly, Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) discovered as did Frase

(1992) that teachers like to be involved in the design of the school’s curriculum. On the

other hand, what most likely eroded teacher’s motivation, according to Leithwood and

Jantzi (2006), was the lack of planning time needed to implement strategies the school

proposed to increasing student achievement in math and reading.

Other professions that were service-based such as hospitality profession had also

seen this impact. Karatepe and Uludag (2007) investigated hotel workers regarding the

effects of work-family conflict, emotional exhaustion, and intrinsic motivation on job

satisfaction. Karatepe and Uludag suggested that emotional exhaustion lead to job

dissatisfaction and high levels of attrition. Interestingly, intrinsic motivation was

significantly related to the hotel workers’ job satisfaction and provided empirical data

that related to job satisfaction to commitment to the organization (Karatepe & Uludag,

2007).

Teacher Morale and Student Achievement

Teacher enthusiasm played a role in teacher motivation. If a teacher was not

motivated by what he or she did, then how were their students to feel motivated to

complete the assigned tasks? As stated by Kocabas (2009):

Low teacher enthusiasm defined as to speak in a monotone voice; exhibited little

eye contact and expression; utilized few gestures and body movements; showed

little facial expression or feelings; indicated little acceptance of subjects’ ideas

and feeling; and generally appeared lethargic. Medium enthusiasm described as

pleasant variations in the pitch and speed of vocal delivery appeared interested

with some eye contact maintained a steady pace of gesture and moved freely,

slow and steady. (Kocabas, 2009, Introduction section)

A quote taken from an anonymous principal summarized the feelings of teachers

since the creation of the accountability standards followed the NCLB statutes:

All principals felt [accountable]; the teachers started to grasp it. The test scores

were on the Internet, and in print. There was a lot of inherent in raised test

scores—it was tied to raise expectations. The bottom line was; we did our own

thing. But now that people looked—I did not mind it, it meant good things. I was

afraid though and those fears lead to paralysis. (p. 6)

Teacher’s morale had a casualty of increased accountability, according to many

districts and school staff. Teachers were responsible for their students and classroom

management. Kocabas and Karakose (2002) noted that the principal and the school board

were primarily responsible for the administration of the school and the main

responsibility for motivation of teachers fell on the school administration. The teachers

once again were responsible for focusing the students’ attention to, and interest in,

learning. A key task of the teacher was to ensure the motivation of students (Deniz et al.,

2006). Once this was achieved it was linked to the teacher’s own motivation level. A

report conducted on the Impact of Standards-Based Accountability Systems (n.d), stated

that 40% of the respondents surveyed said that the accountability system components

exercised a negative effect on their morale. The survey respondents commented that

accountability system gave them feelings of considerable stress and frustration. One

respondent stated, “The pressure to improve test scores had increased while teacher

support had not, [lead to] increased anxiety level and low morale.” Teachers believed the

weight of the pressure within this environment was compounded. Moreover, another

respondent expressed, “Continuation of such pressures caused many qualified teachers

and administrators to abandon the profession” (p. 7).

A worldwide shortage of teachers developed. Specifically, geographic and

subject-area shortages were already commonplace in many school districts. These

shortages associated with resignation of qualified teachers, the retirement of an aging

teaching labor force, and falling enrollments in teacher education program (O’Connor,

1990; Preston & Murphy, 1997). In the United States, it showed that there were sufficient

numbers of trained teachers, but that many qualified teachers left the profession because

of job dissatisfaction, “burnout,” or other non-retirement-related reasons. Despite this, it

was the case that attracted new candidates to, and retained these-within the profession

had also begun to pose a major issue for school districts. In public education’ s current

environment of high-stakes testing accountability, principals were constantly engaged in

an effort to balance directives to teachers in order to achieve even higher levels of

student learning and developed an appreciation for what they did (Protheroe, 2006). As a

result, it was not surprising that staff morale and motivation was an issue in some

schools. Few principals had the luxury of creating an environment in which teachers felt

productive, supported, and appreciated. A principal who listened to a teacher was better

able to identify both the positives and negatives in the school environment that lowered

teacher motivation. What teachers discussed in one-on-one evaluations with the principal,

what issues they brought up in staff meetings, and even what teachers said to other

teachers in the lounge on lunch breaks was further investigated by administrators.

Open communication was important to the administration of the school. The

results of large-scale teacher surveys revealed what teachers found helpful and supportive

in schools. A study conducted by Perie and Baker (1997) analyzed data and found that

that the “most satisfied” teachers viewed their schools as supportive, safe, and

autonomous environments. These teachers likely believed that staff members were

recognized for their contributions to the school and that the administration was supportive

and caring. The study also reported that teachers believed that the principals were

concerned with the instructional practices and that a cooperative feeling among the staff

members of the school existed. One teacher reflected on her experiences as seen in this

quote, “My darkest hours of teaching was when I had no one else to talk to about student

achievement and effective instruction” (Hirsch, 2005, Discussion section).

The literature had recognized that teacher motivation was critical to effective

teaching. Motivation sustained and directed teachers’ behaviors with regard to student

achievement (Ahl, 2006; Berliner & Biddle, 1997; Gage & Berliner, 1998; Malikow,

2007; Morgan, et al, 2007; Palmer, 2005; Woolfolk, 2005). Subsequently, in a study

conducted by Cardelle-Elawar and Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga (2000), the role of the

teacher as a motivator was recognized as the one that needed improvement. Many

teachers went through the motions such as waiting for that last bell to ring to exit the

classroom for the day. It was shown in the same study that if teacher went throught the

motion was the highest predictor that preserved whether a teacher stayed within the

profession.

Intrinsic motivation defined as completion of a behavior for its own sake; the

source of the motivation, performed the behavior, and motivation came as a result of the

work itself . Teachers lost their dissatisfaction with the teaching profession.

Dissatisfaction was a characteristic of an intrinsic factor. Teachers tend to get

disappointed when they had invested time and effort and were not recognized or

rewarded because of falling short of the achievement indicator for AYP. High stakes

testing found to negatively impact teacher motivation. Justice, Greiner, and Anderson

(2003) found in their study that researcher participants expressed numerous reasoning

leading to termination. The teachers in the study expressed, “they had minimum

opportunities to student teach, discipline problems with students, and low income all

contribute to some degree in a teachers’ decision to leave the profession” (Justice et al.,

2003, p. 387).

Nichols and Berliner (2005) investigated examples of Campbell’s law in the field

of education. Campbell’s law describes a social science principle used to point out the

negative consequences of high stakes testing in the classroom. The study focused on

incidents that occurred from October 2003 through October 2004 and used descriptors

such as achievement testing, high stakes, teacher cheating, teacher morale, and NCLB in

news databases, such as LexisNexis, Ed Week online, and New York Times. Nichols and

Berliner (2005) recognized that in one survey that 90% of teachers agreed that were

under pressure to improve students’ test scores. The educators believed that the stress

created emotions such as anger, tension, frustration, anxiety, and depression from the

imposition of the high-stakes tests.

Teachers leave the teaching profession for many different reasons. In fact,

Kersaint, Lewis, Potter and Meisels (2007) investigated the factors that encouraged or

hinder resigned teachers from returning to teaching and the importance of these factors.

The researchers used an exhaustive study which targeted all teachers that left the two

large school districts during a 2-year period. These teachers were given a set of 36

questions that paired the teachers’ reaction to the questions with the importance it had

factored in their decision process. Then the same set of questions, language was modified

to reflect those who were the stayers and leavers. Moreover, these questions then were

given to a stratified randomized sample of teachers. Phone interviews from stayers and

leavers were then compared using quantitative and qualitative methods, in addition the

Kristaint et al. (2007) used factor analysis and factor scores to analyze the survey

response and used Hyper Research to code for themes within the open-ended responses

of the interviews. Interestingly, the researchers’ indicated that the joy of teaching was of

low importance across all demographic categories for leavers and stayers. The

implications of Kersaint et al. (2007) study focused on the school district’s ability to

enhance teacher retention and required more effective strategies that ideally helped

teachers stay within the profession.

Teachers’ motivation have been impacted by the accountability statues that were

passed down by school district and the state government. Since the passage of the NCLB

which emphasized the stringent accountability factor, Sloan (2006) believed that teachers

were focused and offered equitable instruction to students. However, Sloan (2006)

believed that accountability forced teachers to teach to the test and prevented them from

delivering more child-focused and higher-quality instruction. School districts were given

federal funds in 2008 to improve student achievement which allowed for the hiring of

instructional coaches to improve achievement through research-based instructional

strategies.

Teacher morale continues to decline because of the amount of work load in the

form of increased time placed on the completion of paper work for students. One

researcher noted, “Education had become a numbers game and teachers needed raise test

scores in order to make their numbers” (Sloan, 2007, p. 147). Furthermore, these types of

stress overload lead teachers to become burned out (Pearson & Moomaw, 2006, p. 45).

Sloan (2007) concluded that an underlying assumption of accountability policies was that

fear motivated schools and teachers to change their instructional practice and motivated

students to perform their absolute best.

Teacher Effects and Impact on Student Achievement

Teacher effects impacts student achievement. As seen in the research findings of

Wright, Horn, and Sanders (1997), differences found to be dominant factor that affects

student academic gain. The importance of the effects of certain classroom variables

appears minor such as class size and classroom heterogeneity. Teachers did make a

difference in the learning outcome of students. The type of teacher did matter. Teachers

have far more to do with the academic progress of students than did the method used for

assignment of children to teachers.

Studies showed the impact that the teacher has on student achievement. One such

study was conducted by Sanders and Horn (1994), and reviewed by Marzano (2003)

which revealed that 39 percentage-point difference in student achievement between

student with “most effective” and “least effective” teachers. In classrooms headed by

teachers characterized as “most effective,” students posted achievement gains of 53

percentage points over the course of one academic year, whereas in classrooms led by

“least effective” teachers’ student achievement gains averaged 14 percentage points

(Marzano, 2003). Was it possible that these teachers that were termed “least effective”

were less motivated because of the stress of reaching the goals set forth internally and by

the state statues of NCLB?

Harris and Sass (2007) described how the relative importance of teacher

characteristics impacted student achievement. They conducted a two-step estimation

procedure proposed by Dickens and Ross (1984) in which they analyzed value-added

effects of teachers on student achievement on the FCAT. Harris and Sass (2007)

concluded that there was a positive and significant relationship between the contributions

of teachers to student achievement. However, the findings suggested that teachers with

high ratings in motivation and enthusiasm had much lower math value-added, while

teachers who work well with others had a much higher value-added.

An empirical analysis conducted by Michaelowa (2002) detailed what was seen in

some educational systems in Africa. Using standardized data for student achievement in

several countries such as Cameroon, Madagascar and Senegal, Michaelowa (2002) used

learning achievement of the students as a determinant. The researcher used a stratified

random sample of classrooms at different grade levels of primary education. Michaelowa

(2002) utilized standardized test in math and French that were administered in primary

schools of all of the five countries mention above. To simplify the analysis, researchers

only focused on one grade level. For all tests Cronbach’s alpha, the numerical coefficient

of reliability was between 78% and 84%. Michaelowa (2002) research findings

suggested that there appeared as expected that job satisfaction exerted a positive and

significant influence on student learning. However, there was a conflicting relation

between the teachers’ level of benefit and the control and incentive mechanism to induce

good teaching practices. In other words, if the teacher was not safe within the learning

environment then he or she did not perform as expected.

Teachers are instructed to follow the guidelines that were set-forth by school

districts. An ethnographic case study conducted by Sloan (2006) used detailed diverse

experiences shared by three elementary school teachers at an urban school located in

Texas to answer the research question of whether teachers changed practices after

learning of their accountability status. Sloan during the first years of the 3-year

investigation utilized individual teacher interviews and focus groups discussions.

Teacher commitment plays a role in motivation. In particular, Park (2007) used

data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 to analyze whether a

relationship existed between teacher commitment and student achievement. The study

covered 281 high schools, 1,006 math teachers, and 2,738 students for the analysis and to

measure teachers’ level of commitment Park (2007) utilized a three-dimension measure

that included commitment to teaching profession (TCP), commitment to school

organization (TCO), and lastly teacher commitment to students (TCS). Park (2007)

suggested that with mean scores of TCO (12.08), TCP (15.56), and TCS (16.46), teachers

were highly committed to their students rather than to schools or the profession. Park

(2007) cited, “teacher commitment to the profession affected significantly student math

achievement and also because of this, decisions were made within the workplace due to

the commitment of the teachers and more importantly raised academic performance” (p.

22).

Teacher Motivation and Student Achievement on Standardized Tests

One of the main goals of the NCLB (2001) was to increase the level of

accountability in reference to student achievement on state assessments. According to

Abrams, Pedulla, and Madaus (2003), high-stakes testing made teachers feeling that it

was unfair and improper. In fact, in the study conducted by Reeves (2000), it supported

that 30-40% of the variation in test scores between districts in the state of Kentucky could

be attributed to contextual factor that were not under the direct control of teachers and

administrators.

The role of assessment and accountability, the NCLB (2001) act mandated, plays

a role in holding teachers responsible for the performance of their students. According to

Stone and Lane (2003), “state assessments and accountability programs affected

administrators, educators, students, parents, future employers, and the community to

varying degrees” (p. 3). The highest stakes as Stone and Lane (2003) stated, “was for the

administrators and teacher when assessment programs were intended to monitor the

achievement progress of the students at the particular school site” (p. 3). Numerous times

within the review of literature it was found that teachers were concerned about the loss of

instructional time due to assessment (Pomplun, 1997).

Through the accountability requirement of NCLB, states have time to monitor

student achievement with the use of standardized assessment within the state.

Specifically, schools used what was termed adequate yearly progress (AYP) to set targets

for student achievement. Law (2003) reported, that teacher’s complained about the

absurdity and consequences that resulted from measures of progress hinged on one test,

given on one day, without consideration for other measures of success. Teachers

emphasized that student accountability and parent accountability was not placed in

context with the student’s achievement. Teachers were faced with poor attendance of

both parent and the student (parent conferences and attended classes inconsistently).

There is strong evidence that high-stakes testing has forced teachers to align all

curriculums to the areas tested and not to the actual content of any of the subject tested

(Firestone, Mayrowetz, & Fairman, 1998). Jones (2007) suggested that many teachers

had experienced increased stress from pressure of the tests which led some teachers to

report negative attitudes towards the profession, displayed lower teacher morale, lessen

enjoyment in their jobs, and lastly increased teacher attrition.

In their study of School-Based Performance Award Programs, Teacher

Motivation, and School Performance, Kelley, Heneman, and Milanowski (2000) used a

teacher motivation questionnaire to estimate the effect of teacher motivation on school

performance. The researchers wanted to know whether variations in motivational

responses were related to school success in meeting its student achievement goals at the

end of the performance cycle. Teachers were asked about their commitment to achieve

the goals and how well they understood the goals, and whether these goals conflicted

with important educational goals. Using regression analyses, they cited that teacher

motivation helped to predict school performance. Kelley et al. (2000) noted that the

averages for both Charlotte-Mecklenburg and Kentucky teachers on the commitment

measure on the survey were 3.9 point on a 1 to 5 scale. Kelley et al. (2000) also

concluded that while teacher expectancy had an expected positive effect on school

performance, the expected value of outcome variables had relatively small coefficients,

and some had unexpected signs. Moreover, schools that had teachers with higher

expectations for extrinsic factors such as bonuses, goal attainment, and learning outcomes

performed better. It was said that if the teacher knew that he or she made the goal of

having students with increased achievement, then they worked harder to reach those

goals and their motivation increased as they moved toward the attainment of the goal.

The teachers went on to express within the interview data that, “public recognition and

professional pride as outcomes that motivated them to achieve program goals” (p. 20).

They also mentioned that “they were pleased with the changes that they had made to the

curriculum being changed and how it improved their teaching practice” (p.20). As a

result, one teacher also noted that, “working to achieve the school’s achievement goals

had improved [her] own teaching skills in ways that made her a better teacher” (p. 20).

In a qualitative study, Yeh (2006), interviewed 49 teachers and administrators in

one Texas school district with the goal of understanding how their decision-making

processes influenced curriculum and instruction when it comes to taking high-stakes

tests. The participants in the study included 37 teachers, five principals, six assistant

principals and one librarian in two high schools, two junior high schools, and four

elementary schools in the McKinney, Texas, school district. More importantly, the

teachers in the study were interviewed individually for 50 minutes using a structured

interview protocol. The teachers were questioned about students’ progression after

having a series of rapid assessments and how did they change their instructional process

after the results of those assessments. Yeh (2006) utilized a three-part modified constant

comparative method to analyze the research data. The themes from the interviews were

identified jointly by two raters and cross-checked by a third researcher after being

transcribed and coded. Yeh (2006) cited that the assessments allowed teachers to

individualize and target instruction, thus provided more means of tutoring, reduced the

need for drill and practice, and overall improved the readiness for a more balanced

curriculum. According to Yeh (2006), in the judgment of the teachers, frequents

assessments, improved the quality of the instruction provided to their students. More

interestingly, Yeh (2006) stated that, “Teachers attributed improved student outcomes

due to their own actions to improve their students’ learning and finally those actions gave

them the ability to make quality decision in the long-run that were useful within the

classroom” (p. 36).

Teacher Quality and Work Motivation

A teacher’s knowledge and skills were important factors in influencing children’s

learning (Lead & Mead, 2005). Student achievement now measured closely with using a

value-added system to monitor teachers. Sander, the developer of the Tennessee Value-

Added System, showed that a value-added methodology can be applied in a simple

manner. Instead of looking at one test score in a single year, districts looked at how the

students’ scores changed from one test to the next. In other words, districts observed a

student performance across multiple years which allowed for the separation of teachers’

characteristics from student owned characteristics. Teacher quality affected a teacher

motivation. If the teacher felt that they were less prepared to instruct, then the

motivational level of that teacher was elevated.

Research conducted on teacher quality and student achievement by Sass and

Harris (2007) viewed a teacher’s productivity as their contribution to student

achievement. Sass and Harris (2007) utilized a set of administrative records from Florida

which comprised of all public school students throughout the state student-achievement

level on FCAT for both math and reading in grades 3-10 for years 1999-2000 thru 2003-

2004. The researchers were able to review and precisely matched students and their

teachers to specific classrooms at all grade levels. They further minimized the sample set

and only analyzed students who received instruction in relevant subject area in only one

classroom. The study suggested that experience enhanced teacher productivity at all

grade levels in reading and in both elementary and middle-school math, though

experience effects declined as students progressed from elementary to middle and high

school. Interestingly, if professional development was conducted at the middle school

level then teacher productivity was high.

A mixed methods study conducted by Finnigan and Gross (2007) involved data

from teachers in 10 low-performing elementary schools in Chicago School Probation

Study. The schools used were placed on a probationary status during the first and second

year of implementation (1996-1997 or 1997-1998). The qualitative data collected from

the study involved teacher interviews and focus groups, which were conducted during a

multi-day site visit to each school during 1999-2000 and-2000-2001 school years. The

study used 133 teachers from 10 schools with a total of 171 one-on-one interview and 11

focus groups. During the visits researchers interviewed teachers, observed classrooms,

and collected relevant documents that aid the study. The interviews with the participants

were taped and manuscripts were coded using QSR International’s N6 software to

identify all references to teacher motivation and factors that affected their motivation.

Finnigan and Gross (2007) used items that had previously used in a study on motivation

and accountability among Kentucky and Charlotte-Mecklenberg (North Carolina)

teachers by researchers at the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (Kelley et al.,

2000). Their qualitative data results yield that teachers remained optimistic about their

future success at their respective schools and their chances of getting off probation.

However, the researchers noted that high expectancy was not universal among teachers

and the interview data revealed frustration among the teacher about doubting their

students’ ability to meet the academic goals. Moreover, their data showed that teachers

felt they had somehow changed their effort or practice in response to the accountability

policy. Finnigan and Gross (2007) noted accountability policies affected teacher’s

motivation by taking advantage of individuals’ underlying motives. As stated, teachers

appeared to be particularly sensitive to their status within a professional community and

the threat of status implied by probation identification (p. 23). The researchers suggested

that teacher tenure also influenced teacher motivation. Interestingly, veteran teachers had

lower expectancy and were less affected by material incentives (i.e. job loss). However,

new teachers who chose to teach in a school in a probationary status were challenged to

meet the goals of the probation and believed that the students needed teachers who

worked hard to see them succeed.

In summary teachers in the Finnigan and Gross (2007) study summed it up in the

following statement, “Teachers only received negative feedback and like students needed

positive feedback occasionally” (p. 28). The same teacher stated:

We didn’t get the positive feedback I said. We got the negative feedback about

what we didn’t do. It was “there was still too much noise,” “there were too many

kids in the hall.” But hadn’t we done anything positive? Did the rooms look

better? Was enough student work displayed? You know, something to let us

know that we’re did better…I meant we were like the kids in a way. You know

you had to praise the kids when they sat there and was still or whatever. And we,

in turn, needed to know if we were on the right track or should we just do a

complete turn-around. And we were not getting that; we needed to know. (p. 28)

In essence, let the teachers know what they are actually doing right and not just advised

them what was erroneous in the classroom. Once again, a supportive environment as seen

in the research did increase teacher morale and motivational levels.

Similarly Toofany (2007) crafted a study to investigate why there were high

turnover rates in the nursing profession. The researcher surveyed 258 National Health

Services organizations which employed approximately 207,000 full time nurses, who had

turnover rates of up to 12%. Nurses left the profession mainly due to low pay and poor

job satisfaction (Toofany, 2007). However, positive communication cited as a cause for

promoting job satisfaction for the nurses. In addition, building teams within the

organization created a supportive work environment and increased the staffs’ attitude

(Toofany, 2007).

The methods and procedures used for this qualitative phenomenological study

were suitable. Mixed methods, quantitative, and qualitative studies were reviewed before

deciding to do a qualitative phenomenological study. A qualitative study was used,

because it was important to determine and explore mathematics teachers’ perceptions

about the phenomena of teacher motivation. The researcher wanted to describe and

uncover the type of experiences mathematics teachers faced, that contributed to the

characterization of teacher motivation. As Creswell (1998) expounded, a

phenomenological project focused on the meaning of people’s experience toward a

phenomenon, while researchers in a grounded study had a different objective and needed

to generate a substantive theory. A collective case study might of also been appropriate,

as it is designed to examine several cases used to describe the different point of views of

the same problem (Creswell, 2007). However, the case study design was rejected in

favor of the phenomenological approach to understand the perceptions of mathematics

teachers’ view on teacher motivation.A qualitative approach deemed the appropriate

choice of this study. The phenomenological approach was appropriate for this study,

because it aimed to explore 10 mathematics teachers’ perceptions on teacher motivation

and if they believed, it affected their students’ achievement.

Summary

In Section 2, the literature review focused on specific themes related to the

purpose of this study, which was to determine if there existed a relationship between

mathematics teachers’ motivation and student achievement. Some themes discussed

included teacher motivation and student achievement on standardized tests, teacher

effects and its impact on student achievement, teacher motivation and work environment,

and performance pay and teacher motivation. Researchers have recognized that teacher

motivation is critical to effective teaching. Teachers affect student achievement, as

Wright, Horn, and Sanders (1997) demonstrated in their study on student achieving

academic gains showing that teachers did make a difference in the learning outcomes of

their students. Also, the literature suggests that teachers’ best efforts to grow

professionally and improve both student achievement and learning is impeded due to

standardization of the educational system (standardized tests and teaching) as seen in

many states currently. Clearly, educational leaders need to find ways to keep current and

new educators in the profession motivated. The literature review described the reasoning

behind these educators selecting the teaching profession, which includes the perception

that their impact on students’ lives is instrumental, flexibility of work schedules, and

finding it valuable to help others. In fact, according to Schacter, Reifsneider, and Schiff

(2004), the desire to help others leads teachers to discover the love of teaching and gives

teachers the momentum to complete higher degrees in education. Another precedent

apparent from the review of the literature is that if teachers do not believe they were

successful, then their motivation lessens. The demands for teacher accountability trump

teaching the whole child and learning continued in an assembly line model rather than

trying to service the needs of the learner. This increased need for states to evaluate the

teacher’s ability through student performance using a standardized curriculum on a

standardized test has led to increased feelings of teacher inadequacy. And this feeling of

never being able to measure up to the standard has led to higher levels of job

dissatisfaction, less optimism, and unwillingness to participate in the teaching process.

Section 3 presents further elaboration of the research methodology used in this

study.

Section 3: Methodology

Introduction

Creswell (1998) described the qualitative design as a powerful tool for learning

more about our lives and the socio-historical context in which we live (Crewsell, 1998). I

used a phenomenological approach as the traditional design to investigate the problem,

because it focused and described the meaning of the lived experiences for several

individuals about a concept or a phenomenon (Creswell, 1998). Moreover, data obtained

ultimately explored the structures of consciousness in human experiences (Polkinghorne,

1989). The phenomenological approach was appropriate for this study, because it aimed

to explore 10 mathematics teachers’ perceptions on teacher motivation and if they

believed, it affected their students’ achievement. Mathematics teachers’ motivation

helped increase student achievement, and provided teachers with an opportunity to reflect

on their instructional goals. Linnenbrink (2005) stated“classroom or school goal

structures are directly related to changes in students’ academic-related outcomes” (p.

199)

The current research explored teachers’ feelings and experiences as they

participated in the study. I gathered primary information through structured in-depth

interviews with 10 mathematics teachers. Various research methodologies reviewed prior

to the selection of the qualitative approach. With each of the various methodologies a

specific outcome is needed. The researcher analyzed various studies that investigated

motivation from both the quantitative and qualitative approaches.

Quantitative researchers took an objective stance regarding participants and their

settings, and used sample research to apply their findings to a larger population. In this

methodology, the researcher collected data in the form of mathematics teachers

perception of teacher motivation. Whereas the qualitative approach provided information

in a form of documentation of a real event, records of what people described observation

of behaviors, or study of written documents (Neuman, 2000). In-depth interviews, the

chosen methodology for this study are qualitative data used to obtain information from

participants. Information gathered through structured in-depth interviews provided an

understanding of the mathematics teachers’ experiences. The research sought to

investigate the following research questions.

Research Questions

1. How did mathematics teachers’ perceive their teacher motivation and its

impact on student achievement level on mathematics standardized tests

(FCAT)?

2. How did job satisfaction influence mathematics teachers’ motivation?

3. How did FCAT accountability influence mathematics’ teachers’

motivation?

Rationale for Qualitative Tradition

A qualitative research design selected for this type of study for several reasons.

First, the aim of a qualitative approach is to capture the social meaning attached to the

problem being studied, highlighting how participants felt about the topic and how outside

factors affected it (Hatch, 2002). Second, qualitative design focuses on the internal

thoughts and views of participants, rather than on a numerical value (Hatch 2002). Third,

qualitative researches gather data in a natural setting where participants live (Rubin &

Rubin, 2005). Fourth, this research tradition relies on the utilization of tact knowledge

(intuitive and felt knowledge), because often the nuances of the multiple realities are

appreciated this way (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Fifth, I was the primary instrument in data

collection rather than an inanimate mechanism (Eisner, 1991). Therefore, the data were

not quantifiable in the traditional sense of the word. A mixed-methods approach was

considered, but was not ultimately selected because of the limitations. Whereas

qualitative research enabled the researcher to develop insights, and understanding that

was unavailable in a quantitative study. I used a qualitative design to gather data of

teachers’ perceptions about their teacher motivation, and how it influenced student

achievement.

Even though there were benefits of obtaining in-depth information about

participants’ consciousness, qualitative research has been criticized for potential threats

to quality. For example, I was unable to sufficiently bracket, or set aside personal feelings

about the topic, in order to honestly analyze the obtained data (Hatch, 2002; Merriam &

Associates; Rubin & Rubin, 2005). To address the problem, the researcher continuously

separated personal feelings, and the main goals of the research study.

Rationale for Choosing a Phenomenological Study Method

The phenomenological study was one of the five qualitative approaches. In this

study, it allowed the researcher to reveal the essence of the human experience, and asked

“What was the nature of this phenomenon?” The phenomenological study focused not

only on the life of an individual, but rather on a concept of phenomena, such as the

psychological meaning of a cared interaction (Riemen, 1986), and this form of study

sought to understand the meaning of experiences of individuals about this phenomenon.

As Creswell (1998) stated, a phenomenological project focused on the meaning of

people’s experience toward a phenomenon, while researchers in a grounded study had a

different objective and needed to generate a substantive theory. An ethnography study

was chosen when the researcher studied the behaviors of a culture-sharing group, and

required considerable time to observe and interview (Creswell, 1998). A case study was

often chosen to study a case that had clear boundaries, and was important to the

researcher to have a wide array of information, about the case as it provided an in-depth

picture. (Creswell, 1998).For this reason, the researcher used a qualitative design to

gather information about the teachers’ perceptions of their own motivation, and how it

affected student achievement—specifically the phenomenological approach.

Population

Participants selected through “criterion sampling” from 12 mathematics teachers.

The 10 participants selected from the 12 mathematics teachers at the research site

experienced the phenomenon. All participants worked for the same school in

southeastern, Florida school district. An additional, criterion for the participants in the

study was their availability and willingness to participate in the study. The teachers

ranged in teaching experience from one to 30 years of service. Average class size of the

teachers who participated in the study was approximately 26 students. Once permission

was granted by both the Walden University Institutional Review Board (IRB), application

number 07-20-10-0331331, and the local school district’s IRB committee, a consent form

was sent out to mathematics teachers. I met with the appropriate school personnel, which

included the superintendent, school principal, and teacher participants and obtained

consent from each, prior to conducting the study. I explained the purpose, research

procedures, and ways in which the study would benefit the school and community at-

large. Measures were taken to ensure ethical protection of participants and were the

following: (a) researcher obtained informed consent forms, refer to Appendix C, (b)

discussed with participants’ purpose and procedures of the study, (c) informed the

participants that they will be interviewed in a secluded room to ensure privacy, (d) and

personal identifying information stored in a locked file cabinet.

Role of the Researcher

Qualitative research, interpretive in nature, required the researcher to establish his

or role in the research (Creswell, 2003). The researcher’s biases, values, and personal

interests about their research topic, and process explained thoroughly I chose the present

research site because of the demographics of the teachers and accessibility to the

researcher. Data collection did not interrupt the mathematics teachers’ instructional

duties, and was not disruptive to the learning environment of students. I have been

employed with the ABC school district for 2 years, as a science teacher, and worked as a

current teacher at the research site. Due to previous experiences working closely with

some of the teachers that were involved in the study, the researcher may bring some

biases to this study. To ensure objectivity, biases were excluded from the view and

understanding of the data collected and the way experiences were interpreted. I sought

permission to conduct the study from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Walden

University and ABC School District.

Criteria for Selection Participants

The intention of the study was to investigate the impact of teacher motivation on

student achievement. The sample size consisted of 10 middle school mathematics teacher

participants. The sample size was small due to the time involved in transcribing, and

analyzing large amounts of data for each subject. These subjects were selected because of

the content area taught. Aimed to understand what a particular group of people

experienced rather than find out what might be true for many people (Merriam et al.,

2002). In addition, a small sample size enabled me to develop rapport with the

participants in the study (Lasso & Soto, 2005). Mathematics teachers were selected based

on the subjectivity of the content area.

Data Collection Procedures

The subjects were approached and asked if they would like to participate in a

research project about teacher motivation and student achievement. Written informed

consents given to teachers prior to interviews. During a 3-week period (between August

13, 2010, and September 3, 2010), I conducted 45 minutes of one-on-one interviews with

10 mathematics teachers. Participants were chosen using criterion sampling. The

individual interviews consisted of a set of 17 open-ended questions created by me. All

interviews were audio-taped and took place inside the school’s conference room. The

interviews took place before and after school for the convenience of the participants.

Grades 6, 7, and 8 were represented in the study. I began each interview describing the

purpose of the study and defining the important terms for the study. All participants were

informed that they were being audio-taped, that I would transcribe their interviews and

keep them in a secure location in a locked file cabinet.

In-Depth Semistructure Interviews

In-depth, semistructured interviews were employed to examine the teachers’

perception of teacher motivation and its effect on student achievement. Interviews are

beneficial and important because they are primary data collection strategy in a qualitative

project (Hatch, 2002). Each participant was interviewed for approximately 45 minutes.

The participants were contacted prior to the interview about dates and times of interview

session, after I gained approval to conduct the data collection from the IRB committee at

Walden University. The recording equipment and seating arrangements were prepared

ahead of time so that there was adequate time to gather information from participants.

Demographic questions were asked during the interview process. Questions focused on

the teachers’ perceptions of teacher motivation and its effect on student achievement. The

list of the interview questions are located in Appendix B. Teachers were invited and were

instructed to be open, honest, and say whatever they wished about the topic. The recorded

interviews were transcribed. Notes were taken during the interviews to capture teacher’s

pauses and body language. After the initial interview, follow-up interviews were

conducted with interviewees in order to clarify the participants’ answers and any further

information not provided.

Data Storage

Creswell (2007) attested that storing information can become an ethical problem;

improper data storage may result in someone other than me accessing the information and

identifying study participants. To prevent this problem from occurring, data are being

stored in a file cabinet only accessed by me. The real names were not used, due to

possibility that others may find the data and identify the participants (Hatch, 2002).

Data Analysis

The primary data collection method used was structured in-depth interviews with

10 mathematics teachers. The data were then analyzed within the following time frame:

(a) typed manuscripts for all 10-mathematics teacher interviews (one week); (b) initial

coding of significant statements and words, focused coding, analysis and determination

of those significant statements (2 weeks); and (c) final analysis and summary of data

collected (one week). I used phenomenological analysis methodology developed by

Colaizzi (1978). In the initial analysis, I examined themes in the data as a whole, as well

as how the participants answered the questions. After careful examination of the themes

across participants’ responses, I then examined individual participant responses to find

the most prominent themes. Researcher proceeded to analyze themes, identified any

patterns of comparisons or contrast across all participants responses. Researchers reduced

these patterns to significant themes through comparison and contrast of the data and

combined smaller categories (Hatch, 2002). Categories coded with codes that related to

the research topic of teacher motivation and its impact on student achievement.

Methods to Address Validity and Minimize Bias and Error

Checking for quality in a research study can be done through several methods,

including bracketing, member checking, and peer-debriefing. In this research study,

methods used to ensure quality and enhance validity were the following: (a) researcher

understood that the study conducted in my place of employment, and (b) created a

“backyard research”, or research with the school setting (Creswell, 2003). Because of

problems with validity could arise within this context, I took special precautions to ensure

that “multiple strategies of validity” were used. Methods of checks and balances to

promote validity including setting aside personal feeling during the study and member-

checking of data accuracy to determine if the specific descriptions or themes I collected

are accurate portrayal of what was said by participants (Creswell, 2003).

Bracketing

According to Rubin and Rubin (2005),the researcher plays an active role in the

interview process, and is aware of what he or she heard or understood (p. 26). The

researcher may have a bias and not want to hear what is really being said by the

respondents and somehow will change the direction of the questions being asked or fail to

even hear positive things about the research question. In an attempt to mininize bias I

attempted to sat aside personal feelings and beliefs that would compromise participants’

words and actions.

Member-Checking

I listened to the audio tapes attentively, and transcribed participants’ responses to

interview questions. I re-visited the participants, and confirmed with them about the

accuracy of the information that was given during the in-depth interviews. In addition, I

gave the participants the opportunity to elaborate or omit any information that was given

in the in-depth interviews.

Peer-Debriefing

Peer-debriefing was used to validate the accuracy of the findings. I asked an

outside reviewer that asked questions about the qualitative study so that the account

resonated with people other than me (Creswell, 2003).

Design of Study

Teachers participated in structured interviews. The interviews were taped

following the procedures as outlined by Hatch (2002). The interviews featured open-

ended questions that invited participants to explain their experiences as they go through

the study. The participants were not harmed by the information published. I sought

approval from ABC school district and Walden University. In addition to ensure the

ethical protection of participants, the following safeguards were employed to protect the

participant’s rights as described by Creswell (2003): (a) the research objectives was

articulated verbally and in writing so that they were clearly understood by participants

(including a description of how data will be used) and (b) written permission was

obtained from each participant. All names were masked for the anonymity of the

participants.

Instrumentation

Researcher developed an interview guide with contained 17 questions; see

Appendix B, to gain information that attempted to ascertain answers to the research

questions of the study regarding mathematics teachers’ perception of their motivation.

Each of the 17 questions was used to convey the perceptions of the 10 mathematics

teachers. To measure student achievement gains, mathematics teachers used an

assessment test that was administered to the students throughout a nine week period.

Student achievement addressed in research question one was conveyed to me through

responses of interviewees to the interview guide questions. No individual student scores

were ever revealed to me and I did not administer any pretest or post-test to any students.

The mathematics teachers administered all tests to their students. I captured the

perceptions and experiences of the mathematics teachers through responses to the

questions on the interview guide.

Given the general relationship between motivation and learning in education,

what are the specific relationships, if any that existed between teacher motivation and

student achievement on standardized testing? Once again I examined if teacher

motivation makes difference in student achievement. I used the guidelines set forth by

Creswell (1998) for conducting the qualitative research. I used 17 questions to conduct

the interviews and the list of the questions can be found in Appendix B.

Summary

The purpose of this study was to investigate if teacher motivation impacted

student achievement. I obtained data from semi-structured in-depth interviews with

mathematics teachers. The results of the study added to the body of knowledge about

teacher motivation and its impact on student achievement. The results deemed useful to

other classroom teachers, administrators, and stakeholders within the educational

community interested in ways to boost teacher motivation and productivity.

Section 4: Results

Introduction

Sections 1-3 of this study identified a problem, presented a literature review, and

explained the research methodology used for this study. Section 4 offers the results of a

phenomenological study as it answered this question: How did mathematics teachers’

perceive their teacher motivation and its impact on student achievement level on

mathematics standardized tests (FCAT)? Mathematics teacher participants were

designated as P (1-10). According to Kieshchke and Schaarschmidt (2008), multiple

factors affected teacher motivation, including (a) an increased accountability for high-

stakes testing, (b) low salaries, (c) lack of support from administration, and lastly, (d) a

sense of job security and growth in the profession. The teachers’ perspectives were

examined to determine whether or not the same thoughts, feelings and experiences were

shared on teacher motivation and its influence on student achievement.

Data Collection

The participants in this study were 10 mathematics teachers from a public middle

school in Florida. Participants were chosen using criterion sampling. Participants’ age,

education, and teaching experience were of varying degrees of difference. The

participants were a heterogeneous group composed of five women and five men,

Caucasian and African-American teachers, ranging in ages of late 20s to late 50s with 4

to 35 years of educational experience, and various degrees of Post-Graduate Higher

Education. Grades 6, 7, and 8 were represented in this study. Participants met initially

with me to go over the explanation of study (see Appendix A) and signed consent forms

for the study (see Appendix C).

Participants participated in face-to-face interviews for an interval of 45 minutes to

one hour. The interviews took place at the school campus during a 3-week period

(between August 13, 2010, and September 3, 2010). Data for this study were collected

through individual interviews and field notes. Initially, I obtained written consent from

each participant and answered any questions regarding the study. I scheduled the

interview times with participants. The individual interviews consisted of a set of 17 open-

ended questions created by me. All interviews were audio-taped and took place inside the

school’s conference room. The interviews took place before and after school for the

convenience of the participants. All interview times were mutually agreed upon by me

and the participants.

Each interview began with my describing the purpose of the study and defining

the important terms for the study. All participants were informed that they were being

audio-taped and that their specific names were not to be used in the study. All

participants were aware that their interviews were to be transcribed by me and kept in a

secure location in a locked file cabinet. The interviews followed the protocol outlined in

Appendix B.

Data Recordings

I recorded all interviews with a tape recorder and transcribed and checked them

for accuracy. Interviewees reviewed their specific responses taken from the audio-

cassette recordings. The transcriptions were saved on a computer. All audio-tapes were

labeled with participants name and stored in a secure location at my home in a locked file

cabinet. Each participant was given a hard copy of their interview transcription and asked

to verify the accuracy of their statements, and if they agreed participants signed that these

were their responses. All information including consent forms and transcriptions were

kept in a secure location at my home in a locked file cabinet.

Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to examine the perception of 10 mathematics

teachers about their teacher motivation and its influences on student achievement on

standardized tests.

Interview questions were asked that would encourage teachers to explore their

teacher motivation and discussed its implication for student achievement on standardized

tests. Questions were designed to provide information that answered the following

research questions:

1. How did mathematics teachers’ perceived their teacher motivation and its

impact on student achievement levels on mathematics standardized tests

(FCAT)?

2. How did job satisfaction influence teacher motivation?

3. How did FCAT accountability influence a teacher’s motivation?

These research questions assisted in the exploration of this study. The intent of the

study was to gain a deeper insight of teacher motivation of 10 mathematics teachers as it

related to student achievement on a standardized test. Participants responded to 17

interview questions (see Appendix B).

The Findings

I read each transcription multiple times, and noted the significant statements in

the text and were highlighted with a separate color to note each. The significant

statements were then organized into themes. After the repetition of some groupings of

key statements, these were determined as the reoccurring themes within interviewees’

responses. During the one-on-one structured in-depth interviews nine themes emerged

after analysis of the interviewees’ responses. I have described the themes below to

provide a better understanding of how participants perceived their teacher motivation and

its influence on student achievement on standardized tests. The teachers’ perceptions are

organized based on underlining themes that were detected in the participants’ responses

and are grouped into phrases under the subheadings as emerging themes of the research

study as follow:

1. Perceptions of Mathematics Teachers’ on Teacher Motivation

-Love for Children and a Passion to See Them Succeed

2. Teacher Motivation and Student Achievement on Standardized Tests

3. Teacher Motivation and Job Satisfaction

- Low Job Satisfaction

- Low Salary

- Lack Autonomy within the Classroom

- Feelings of Frustration

4. Teacher Motivation and Accountability on Standardized Tests

- Unrealistic Expectations

- Underappreciated

- Profession Not Valued in Society

Perceptions of the Mathematics Teachers on Teacher Motivation

I found that 10 out of 10 participants felt much the same in responding to this

question. See Appendix D question number 1.The participants regard to the

characterization of teacher motivation as a love for children and a passion to see them

learn.

Love for Children and Passion to See Them Succeed

On the interview guide, Research Question 1 was addressed by Question 1 (see

Appendix B) :How do you characterize teacher motivation?, two common themes

emerged from participants’ responses--a common love for children, and a passion for

seeing them learn, refer to Appendix D. According to Whatley (1998) teachers have

certain motivators in the selection toward teaching profession. These motivators

included: (a) “love” of, or desire to work with, children, or adolescents; (b) the perceived

worth, or value of teaching to others; (c) a desire to help other people; (d) dissatisfaction

with a previous career; (e) the benefits of teaching (convenience such as work schedules,

work hours and vacations, and salary). Similar to what Whatley (1998) described above,

it was echoed in the response of the participant 1, who stated, “It was my personal

motivation. I thought it was something that was inside of you and there were people that

got into education for a reason. I thought I knew that I wanted to help young people learn

and succeed at mathematics. My spouse’s friends said to me, ‘you would make a great

teacher’.” Participant 3 stated, “It is the evolution you see of a student as they go from

not understanding to understanding, that’s what motivated me to teach.”

As seen in the literature review, Whatley (1998) furthermore asserted that

teachers had certain motivations in the selection of the profession of being an educator

and this was apparent during interviews. These motivations included: (a) “love” of, or

desire to work with, children, or adolescents; (b) the perceived worth or value of teaching

to others; (c) a desire to help other people; (d) dissatisfaction with a previous career; (e)

the benefits of teaching (convenience such as work schedules, work hours and vacations,

and salary). Some teachers choose to teach because of their passion to help shape young

minds. It gave teachers the ability to show the students that they had a genuine interest in

his or development and future success.

Teacher Motivation and Student Achievement on Standardized Tests

In addition, research Question 1 also addressed with questions (1, 2, 3, 6, and 17),

see Appendix B. This theme is that teacher motivation does influence student

achievement on standardized test--Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT).

A dominant theme of teacher’s feeling that their levels of motivation influenced

their students’ achievement level on standardized test (mathematics FCAT) was found in

seven out of 10 participants’ response to the interview question, refer to Appendix D

questions 1. Participant 3 stated, “My level of motivation did affect the way my students

learned the content area, and achieved on the FCAT test. If they didn’t see the love I had

for the content, then how could they love it too?" In a description of teacher motivation

Morgan et al. (2007), explained that teachers consider the familiarity of the content they

teach and if it’s challenging to teach. Moreover, the teachers also considered going

beyond their call of duty, possibly enrolling in courses outside of the traditional

professional development requirements for the profession or renewal of licensure. Once

again a teacher’s love for the content area drove their intrinsic factor and allowed them to

be motivated to reach learners.

Participant 8 described how teacher motivation influenced student's

achievement outcomes on the FCAT:

Yes, my teacher motivation influenced my student’s outcome on the FCAT, but

sometimes I thought that the student should do better and then they didn’t do well

on the standardized test (FCAT). Sometimes it’s these things that are quite

unpredictable. I had given them all that they needed to learn.

Teacher motivation is viewed in the context of academic optimism, as seen in the

research study of Hoy, Hoy, and Kurz (2008). In their study Hoy et al. (2008), used an

exploratory study to inquire if teacher beliefs lead to academic optimism, and what

beliefs and practices were good predictors of this optimism. Interestingly, noted in the

findings, was teachers’ sense of academic optimism was positively related to the

teachers’ estimates of how their students performed on the state achievement and

proficiency tests. Similarly in this research study, Participant 9 described, “Of course my

level of teacher motivation influenced my students’ achievement outcomes on the

mathematics FCAT. Once you ran a successful classroom and see students learning and

you get feedback from these students about thanking you for helping them reach the

achievement level they wanted.” Participant 4 described his level of teacher motivation

and how he believed it influenced his students’ to achieve on the mathematics FCAT as

such, “Yes, I was excited to have had my own students and contribute to their

development as a learner, as time passes by, and I met more challenges and due to these

challenges; I wanted to increase my teacher motivation. I saw that as my level of

motivation increased, I became an agent of change and it showed in some of my students’

achievement level on the FCAT and also the way they interacted with me. I am motivated

to teach today, tomorrow, and forever.”

Conversely, some other theme was seen in the response of those that did not

believe that teacher motivation influenced their student’s achievement level on the

mathematics FCAT. Three of the 10 participants did not agree, nor believe that their

level of motivation made a difference in their students’ achievement level on the

mathematics FCAT. Participant 1 stated, that “My teacher motivation influenced my

students’ achievement level on the mathematics FCAT, but you can be as motivated as a

teacher and want your students to get it and then you didn’t see any level of progress

going on, then my level of teacher motivation dropped. Furthermore, Participant 10

stated, “No, my students’ achievement levels were not affected, because of my level of

motivation. There were many factors that played into whether they achieved, and my

teacher motivation had nothing to do with it.”

Rowan, Chiang, and Miller (1997) suggested in their research study that the

effects of teachers on students’ achievement can be explained by three general classes of

variables: teachers’ ability, motivation, and work situation. After careful analysis of their

data, it revealed that teachers’ knowledge of the subject matter and expectancy

motivation had a direct effect on students’ achievement in mathematics. Also, the size of

these effects depends on the average level of the students in a school. Similarly, this was

found to be the case at my study site as seen in the findings above which suggested that a

teacher’s motivational level was more likely to be influenced by extrinsic factors, such as

their relationships with their co-workers including their administrators. If a study

participants observed a colleague was not motivated, then the participant motivational

level decreased. As one teacher stated, “I thought it did affect my level of motivation

because you had some teachers that were motivated to teach students, but you had

someone that was just there for a paycheck. The students see that and it brought down the

working levels of the students. As a teacher, I see that and asked myself why do I have to

work that hard?”

Conversely, co-workers that work together as a team build the levels of

motivation of other teachers. One teacher stated of this occurrence, “If I had high

motivation it helped someone else. Sometimes it helped, if I talked to people who were

positive. Sometimes they had different insights into some issue in the classroom, such as

instruction and this helped me.” Some teacher perceived that the administration fostered,

and nurtured the relationships of the teachers by the creation of outside venues. One

teacher noted, “Yea, when I was happy, I did a better job. I did feel it made a difference. I

thought that when the administrations build this type of cooperative climate, it created a

sense of unity and definitely, I believed the school benefits from this.” Teacher

motivation took into account the drive, energy, and commitment an individual had to

promote teaching as a sustaining professional activity, with a sense of purpose, and

mission was mindful of the social context in which teachers operated (Morgan et.al,

2007). This was a constant statement that must be kept in context as districts seek to

improve on the level of teacher motivation.

Teacher Motivation and Job Satisfaction

Low Job Satisfaction

Participants had a sense of overall low job satisfaction, when describing current

work situation scale ratings which ranged from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) . Seven of the 10

participants felt much the same in responding to this question with regards to job

satisfaction and teacher motivation, refer to Appendix D. Research Question 2 addressed

with questions (8, 9,10,13,15, and 16) located in Appendix B. Participant 3 stated:

I gave myself a rate of 4 for job satisfaction right now. I fell in love

with teaching when I met my students the first day, I began teaching

and I was still in love with the teaching profession; however, I had

some difficulty with the school system and I felt that I was not being

successful because of dealing with kids that were disrespectful and hard

to manage and also I was currently without the support of my family.

This made it stressful for me and did not allow me to share these issues

with someone. It would be a five, if my family was here to support me

at this time.

Low Salary

As seen in the literature review, the basis of teacher motivation, according to

Herzberg’s two factor theory were those intrinsic motivating factors that determined the

degree of job satisfaction, job contents, and extrinsic motivating factors were those that

determined the degree of the job dissatisfaction as it related to the job context (Herzberg,

1971 as found in Stembridge, 1989). Eight of the 10 participants showed this very

common theme in their response during their individual interview. See Appendix D

question numbers (8, 9,10,13,15, and 16). The teachers discovered outside factors such

as, the salary, entering student’s level of ability prior to being exposed to that current

instructor were beyond their control. Participant 2 stated, “No, I was not satisfied I felt

that we were worth more than what we were paid. Participant 4 stated, “No, I was not

satisfied. I have not received a raise in the past six years, and because of the relationship

between my family and I, I decieded not to relocate. I would have left Florida a long time

ago, because there are other states that pay teachers reasonably salary, and give

substantial amount of incentives to their teachers compared to Florida.”

Participant 6 stated:

If I was to base my level of job satisfaction on the kids, and the years of

education and time invested and daily interactions, I would say a four

or five. The pay was the reason why it was not a five. Salary given to

me now was a slap in the face for an educator right now. At least I had

a job and the times were hard; I would not want to be without one. All I

said was that the salary was not concurrent with what was required of

this profession and what we go through on a daily basis.

Participant 3 echoed similar sentiments of the previous participants’ response:

I was not really satisfied. I made strides to make myself a better

educator. I didn’t feel like I was being appreciated. You felt sad that

there were people that didn’t have the same level of education that I

had and they made more than me. I hated worrying about my bills. I

didn’t feel appreciated by adults, the state, the superintendent, or the

government. I felt like they thought that my job was worthless and I

didn’t like it. So how can I be satisfied at this moment with my job?

Frase (1992) believed that the teacher’s basic psychological needs such as

money status, and job security were vital, as seen reflected in the participant’s

response above. Participant 3 stated, “It was the worse feeling not to be able to

pay your bills and when you see your paycheck that it was just 100 dollars more,

wow!” Participant 2 stated, “It was frustrating at times, but I knew what I was

getting myself into. I am not here to become a millionaire. It was for my love of

teaching and the dedication I had for my students.” “It was a one curriculum fit

all learners approach. The more money the districts saved on salary, the better it

was for them and not me.”

Conversely, Participant one felt indifferent and stated:

Yes, I am satisfied now, when you actually believed that the profession

was vital to society and we needed math. There was my job

satisfaction. When I thought of job satisfaction, I thought about my

community and some students that were in poverty and they knew that

they can use this education to get out of it, and this boosted my

motivation and kept my job satisfaction high right now. Don’t get me

wrong, some type of raise or incentive would be nice too.

The participants agreed that the achievement levels of the student

entering their classrooms were lowered. Furthermore, they were expected to

improve these levels within matter of months, in addition to worrying about how

to pay their bills.

Lack of Autonomy Within the Classroom

Another theme that was seen in many of the participants’ responses was lack of

autonomy within the classroom, as it related to the curriculum being taught. Ten of 10

participants felt the same in responding to this question regarding the lack of control

(autonomy) as to what they had to teach, and it did affect and contributed to lower level

of job satisfaction. See Appendix D question numbers(8, 9,10,13,15, and 16). Using

surveys, Kocabas (2009) determined that teachers showed greater sources of motivation

when the schools were safe, teachers perceived higher levels of self-esteem, received

favorable results (teacher’s observation/evaluations), and participated in the decision

making process at their respective school sites. Kocobas (2009) also pointed out that

teachers’ levels of motivation were negative, when confronted with inadequate facilities

at school accessing information (materials to foster teaching). A shared perception among

the participants was about the way in which they were being instructed to teach the

students. If the results were not yielding the rate of improvement the administration

expected, then teachers felt that they were never given the opportunity to change the

course of the instruction. In a qualitative study, Yeh (2006), interviewed 49 teachers and

administrators in one Texas school district with the goal of understanding how their

decision-making processes influenced curriculum and instruction when it comes to taking

high-stakes tests. Yeh (2006) cited that the assessments allowed teachers to individualize

and target instruction, thus providing more means of tutoring, reduce the need for drill

and practice, and overall improved the readiness for a more balanced curriculum.

According to Yeh (2006), in the judgment of the teachers, frequents assessments,

improve the quality of the instruction provided to their students. More interestingly, Yeh

(2006) stated that, “Teachers attributed improved student outcomes due to their own

actions to improve their students’ learning and finally those actions gave them the ability

to make quality decision in the long-run that were useful within the classroom” (p. 36).

One participant compared his teaching of the curriculum to an assembly line at a

factory and commented that he felt as though he was “preparing robots”. Participant 5

stated, “Yes, sometimes you had to work with what you had, even though it was not

enough, as it related to resources and whatever they gave you to use, you had to use.”

Participant 2 stated, “It did not matter to me with regards to the lack of control in the

classroom, when I was in my classroom, I was in my domain, and I did whatever they

asked and if it fitted within the limits of the school district rules and regulation; I did the

best I can for the kids.

Feelings of Frustration

Most of the participants felt, the lack of autonomy leads them to feel frustrated

about the “systematic way” they were made to instruct. This brought continued sense of

frustrations, hopelessness, and depression for some, as seen in Participant 7 underlining

response:

Well, I expected to help my students reach the standard achievement

level. Did all of them reach the expectation? No! When they were not

met then, I was like Ugh.., and then some met that expectation. Yes, not

all my students met that goal of—70%. I had students that could not

even do a simple first grade problem at the beginning of the school

year, and how can they perform at the sixth grade level? After

constantly hearing this in the faculty meetings, that your students were

not making the goals, I felt like I was not a good teacher. How can you

feel better about yourself, and feel motivated to teach the same set of

students again? I felt like crap once again, and I took it personally and I

got depressed.

The curriculum that was given to the teachers had set days during which

they must cover a given standard that was found on the FCAT mathematics.

Participant 4 stated, “I thought they didn’t take in account what teachers did on a

daily basis. Most of the participants felt that created high levels of frustration.

Often participants exclaimed, that they were told that they needed to

“differentiate and accommodate” for the different learning styles of their

students. Participant 10 expressed, “To expect every student to be

accommodated in your classroom according to their learning style was not

possible. I thought that I had to have some type of one on one with a student in

the class period. Partially frustrated and partially I knew that it was beyond my

control.” Hence, the majority of the participants agreed that they were not given

a chance to input suggestions to the administrations as to what worked, and was

most effective in their classroom.

Teacher Motivation and Accountability on Standardized Tests

Research Question 3 was addressed with questions (5, 6, 11, and 16) located in

Appendix B. I discovered key terms, such as underappreciated in most of the responses of

the participants in the research study, and the major themes that emerged from these

series of questions were the following, refer to Appendix D: (a) unrealistic expectations,

(b) underappreciated, and (c) profession value in society.

Unrealistic Expectations

Teacher motivation impacted by the accountability passed down to teacher by

school districts and the state government. All public schools had a certain accountability,

they must achieve when teaching students under the No Child Left Behind(NCLB) Act of

2001. The Federal (NCLB) Act of 2001 required states to evaluate the performance of all

students in all public schools in order to determine whether schools, school districts, and

the state had made adequate yearly progress (AYP). AYP measured a student’s year-to-

year achievement on statewide assessments.

Florida’s approved accountability plan used the same FCAT test and definitions

of “grade level” (students’ scoring a Level three on mathematics, reading, writing,

science and graduation rate). Also, the A+ Plan which included specific criteria for

determining and reporting AYP for all schools. School administration’s often met with

faculty members throughout the academic school year to share AYP, FCAT grade goals

for the year, and strategies on how to meet these goals. Nine out of the 10 participants

felt much the same in responding to this question with regards to the AYP goals set by

the administration were unrealistic at times. See Appendix D question numbers (5, 6, 11,

and 16). The participants felt that the NCLB/AYP goals were unrealistic, and sometimes

unattainable for the type of demographic of students they were given to teach. Often

certain subgroups were harder to make learning gains, therefore the AYP goals for that

year were missed every year. Participant 10 responded as it related to teacher motivation

and NCLB/AYP Accountability:

No, it did not change that. That to me was a personal drive, and that to

me, if some wanted to recognize me for it. I didn’t push my kids to get

that extra prize. If you wanted to give me a monetary recognition, I

won’t turn it down. I was not in this for the money. Once again, for me

personally, there was nothing that increased my motivation, because

my motivation was already at the top. No, for me recognition did not

increase my motivation. What recognition did was just made me happy.

Happiness was not motivation for me. So these standardized tests did

not measure anything to me, and government acts in education did not

motivate me to teach. I was born to teach and I am going to teach no

matter what!

Since the passage of the NCLB which emphasized the stringent accountability

factor, Sloan (2006) believed that teachers are more focused and now offer more

equitable instruction to their students. However, Sloan (2006) believed that

accountability has forced teachers to teach to the test, and has prevented them from

delivering more child-focused and higher-quality instruction. School districts were given

federal funding in 2008 to improve student achievement, by allowing for the hiring of

instructional coaches to improve instruction through research-based teaching strategies.

Teacher morale continued to decline, because the amount of work load in the

form of increased time placed on completing paper work for students. One researcher

noted, “Education had become a numbers game and teachers must raise test scores in

order to make their numbers” (Sloan, 2007). Furthermore, these types of stress overloads

lead teacher to become burned out (Pearson & Moomaw, 2006, p. 45). Sloan (2007)

concluded that an underlying assumption of accountability policies was that fear

motivated schools and teachers to change their instructional practice and motivated

students to perform their absolute best.

Participant 9 stated, “When I did not meet those AYP goals, I was labeled as “not

performing my job effectively.” Participant 3 stated, “It was disheartening at times and

sometimes you felt stressed and you went home and talked about the stress with your

spouse and they stated to you, “Well what can you do.”

Participant 5 stated regarding this cycle:

Yes, I did understand what our AYP goals were at the school and I also

realized it was a part of my job to get my students where they needed to

be; but I felt like we were running a business and not teaching students.

The principal often said that she was being judge on students’

achievement on the FCAT and in the same mindset; she was also

judging our students results on the test. Her boss was telling her, “you

need to reach your AYP target” and then she proceeded to tell us, “You

need to move your students.” It had become an unpleasant part of my

job. It was an unfortunate side effect that influenced my teacher

motivation ,and frankly it became a business to me. This did not

motivate me to get those results for that very reason.

Studies showed that teachers’ motivation impacted student achievement. One

such study was conducted by Sanders and Horn (1994), and reviewed by Marzano (2003)

which revealed that 39 percentage-point difference in student achievement between

student with “most effective” and “least effective” teachers. In classrooms headed by

teachers characterized as “most effective,” students posted achievement gains of 53

percentage points over the course of one academic year, whereas in classrooms led by

“least effective” teachers’ student achievement gains averaged 14 percentage points

(Marzano, 2003). Could it be possible that these teachers that were termed “least

effective” were less motivated, because of the stress of reaching the goals set forth

internally and by the state statues of NCLB?

In reference to the impact of NCLB regulations on teachers’ motivation, several

commented that, “it made them feel like they didn’t have autonomy in their classrooms.”

Teachers felt that NCLB with its lofty goals did create a sense of dissatisfaction with their

job, lowered their level of teacher motivation, and if they were told what to teach without

any input from them. A participant said:

NCLB seems like it was created by individuals who worked in the

classroom for a short time. The reason is, they would see how much the

teacher had to deal with, in addition to standardized testing accountability

of their students. They did not get input from teachers. They just cleared

their little path of what they thought teachers dealt with on an everyday

basis.

Participant 3 said:

Yeah, teachers were getting too much into that. Teachers should just

teach to the best of their ability. We had the different cells in AYP to

meet and we needed to push the kids and they said that we had children

that counted for four categories. They said we had to target these kids

and if Johnny counted for only one cell just don’t give him much time,

only work with those kids that counted for more cells in the AYP

categories. What happened to treating all kids as equal? If I was a

parent and my child was in classroom and the administration told the

teacher we needed you to focus on another child. When I looked at my

results and it was not achieved, it was just too much.

The following quote summarized how the majority of the participants felt regarding the

government and state accountability legislatures:

No, I didn’t like them. I was not a big fan of it and it was basically

setting up schools, to make kids as though they were a bunch of robots,

and we were teaching students to take standardized tests.

Profession Not Valued in Society

Most of the participants, nine out of 10, felt much the same in responding to this

question regarding the teaching profession in the past 10 to 15 years. See Appendix D

question numbers(5, 6, 11, 13, 15, and 16). There were many accusations lodged against

teachers that had nothing to do with the actually learning process. These accusations dealt

with the teacher’s lifestyle outside of the employment hours. The participants perceived

that these “sensationalize distractions” take away from their profession value within the

society. One participant stated:

I don’t think that they respect the profession. I had experienced this

type of disrespect before. Someone recently asked me why did I

become an educator? It made me feel in that moment, when she asked

me the question as though she thought the very profession was low in

stature and a negative one. I said to her it was great for me and I liked

working with kids.

As a group, the participants perceived that their teaching occupation is not valued by

society, because of this lack of support for their profession often their motivational level

can be affected. This can be seen in a quote by one of the participant who stated, “I didn’t

feel like I was appreciated by adults, the state, the superintendent, or the government. I

felt like they thought that my job was worthless and I didn’t like it.”

In public education’ s current environment of high-stakes testing accountability,

principals were constantly engaged in an effort to balance directives to teachers, in order

to achieve even –higher levels of student learning and to develop an appreciation for what

they did (Protheroe, 2006). Few principals created environments in which teachers felt

productive, supported, and appreciated. When principals listened to teachers, they were

better able to identify both the positives and negatives in the school environment that

lowered teacher motivation. What teachers discussed in one-on-one evaluations with a

principal, what issues they brought up in staff meetings, and even what teachers said to

other teachers in the lounge during lunch breaks should be further investigated by

administrators. Open, and effective communications were integral in any successful

school. The results of large-scale teacher surveys revealed what teachers found helpful

were supportive school culture. A study conducted by Perie and Baker (1997) analyzed

data, and found that the “most satisfied” teachers viewed their schools as supportive, safe,

and autonomous environments.

Underappreciated

Student achievement as seen in the research conducted by Chaing (2009) affected

by the accountability pressure that NCLB placed on a given school. As seen in results of

the research of Chiang (2009), who found in open-ended phone interviews with

administrators that accountability changed the nature of the school climate, and prompted

teachers to raise the scores for the school. However, in turn this triggered abnormally

teacher turnovers, and schools were then given funds to hire specialists (coaches) to

improve teachers’ instruction within the classroom. Ten out of 10 of the teachers felt

much the same in the perception that NCLB and the accountability it entails produce a

negative impact on teacher motivation, job satisfaction, and made them feel

underappreciated. See question Appendix D question numbers (3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). It was a

common theme, constantly shared by the participants in their underlining responses to

Research Question 4. Participants perceived that evaluations are based on one day of

standardized testing, rather than over a complete academic year.

Participant 6 stated:

Sometimes and it depended on the day and how things were going

about my teacher motivation. When people didn’t take into account the

students that I teach; my students and I were made to feel that were not

showing the progress they [administration and district] needed to see as

it relates to NCLB and moving towards making AYP. Especially, when

standardized tests results came out, I felt my students had made gains,

even if the learning gains were small. If I told the kids, they did not

make it, then they would feel down. I rather focus on the positives

rather than the negatives, and what happened on one day of testing.

Teachers felt the goals of NCLB were unreachable and unrealistic. One participant

stated:

Yes, I do think that NCLB, and its AYP accountability goals are unattainable for

us. Each year the bar get higher and in that system it seemed that our school was

never going to meet it. It was a noble goal, and I didn’t think that it’s realistic.

You can’t have your all students making A’s.

Through the accountability requirements of NCLB, states had some time to

develop standardized assessment to monitor student achievement within the state.

Specifically, schools used what was termed adequate yearly progress (AYP) to set targets

for student achievement. Law (2003) reported, that teachers are complaining about the

absurdity, consequences that resulted from measures of progress hinging on one test,

given on one day, without considerations of other measures of success. As seen in a quote

from the findings of Finnigan and Gross (2007) study summed it up in the following

statement, “teachers only received negative feedback and like students needed positive

feedback occasionally” (p. 28). The same participant in Finnigan and Gross’s (2007)

study continued and stated:

We didn’t get the positive feedback I said. We get the negative

feedback about what we didn’t do. There was still too much noise.

There were too many kids in the hall. Have we done anything positive?

Are the rooms looking better? Is enough student work displayed? You

know, something to let us know that we’re doing better…I mean we’re

like the kids in a way. You know you had to provide some type of

meaningful praise to the kids for when they sit there and be still or

whatever. And we, in turn, need to know if we’re on the right track or

should we just do a complete turn-around. And we’re not getting that;

we need to know. (Gross, 2007, p.28)

As a summary to the overall responses along with themes that were seen in this research

to the various open-ended questions during the interviews stated by one of the

participant:

It was a good idea to know where students were academically. The

concept that all children can learn and we must teach all children, but a

100 percent of anything was not possible. There was always going to

somebody that was not going to make it. Why should you hold other

people back, or make them accountable for those who don’t make it?

You can’t get everybody. It was a good idea. Don’t hold it against us

when everyone does not make it.

Summary

This study investigated the influence of teacher motivation on student achievement.

It was also, examined to the extent which mathematics teachers thought of their teacher

motivation as it related to student achievement on the FCAT. Analysis was conducted of

teachers’ perceptions of teacher motivation, and their overall job satisfaction. The

chapter included the results of teacher response to open-ended questions, as they related

to the four research questions. The following chapter provided a summary of the findings,

discussion, conclusions, and recommendation for both practice and further research.

Section 5: Discussion, Implications for Practice, Limitations, and Suggestions for Future

Research

Introduction

In section 5, I presented the findings, implications and recommendations for

leadership implementation and actions, and suggested studies for future research based on

the results of this current research study. Most administrations and school districts were

interested in the quality of the teachers in the classrooms. Changing demands, and

responsibilities occurred since accountability laws enacted. The continued need to

increase student achievement was at an all-time high (Darling & Hammond, 2006). The

current study sought to answer the research question of how mathematics teachers’

perceived their teacher motivation, and its impact on student achievement level on

mathematics standardized tests (FCAT). I utilized one-on-one in depth interviews to

collect data. The participants shared their perceptions of teacher motivation, and its

influence on students’ achievement on standardized test. This study concluded that for

some teachers, their perception of the level of teacher motivation for them was already

set, in spite of any incentives, salary increases, and their underlying love for students and

passion to see them succeed. Albeit some participants, perceived that it can be altered

through the following: (a) increasing salaries, (b) lessening the risk of job loss due to

standardized testing accountability for AYP, and (c) generally not being able to take part

in the development and proper implementation of the curriculum.

Research Questions

The following research questions guided this study:

1. How did mathematics teachers’ perceive their teacher motivation, and its

impact on student achievement level on mathematics standardized tests

(FCAT)?

2. How did job satisfaction influence mathematics teachers’ motivation?

3. How did FCAT accountability influence a mathematics teachers’ motivation?

Interpretation of Findings

The findings revealed that teachers’ perceived that the amount of teacher

motivation they had did impact student achievement on standardized tests. Some

participants believed that their level of teacher motivation changed, because of the

following identified factors in the research study: (a) the teacher’s love for their students

and passion to see them learn, (b) teacher motivation increasing due to intrinsic factors

and extrinsic factors, and (c) teacher motivation affected by the level of job satisfaction.

Educational leaders should note that some participants expressed that their level of

motivation does change because some of the benefits that came with the profession. They

included, convenience of work schedules, work hours, vacations, and for A+ bonuses

monies (monetary rewards for teachers whose schools increased student achievement on

the FCAT). These benefits did not necessarily change the set level of teacher motivation.

Theme 1: Love for Students and Passion to See Them Succeed

The data analysis suggested that a teacher needed a deep love for children, and an

interest in seeing them succeed. Teachers must be able to impart the strong love for their

content area and the ability to relay that to their student. When the learner understood

what was taught by the teacher, then this motivated the teacher even more. For example,

one participant stated, “Of course, I was excited when you had a successful classroom

where you see students learning and you get feedback from the students who said,“Every

day, I had learned something new.” This prompted me as a teacher to do something more

for them.”

Theme 2: Teacher Motivation Influence on Standardized Test

Research findings suggested that teachers, in the research study perceived that

their motivation did influence their student’s performance on standardized tests. Teachers

in the study believed that certain outside factors such as, poor attendance, non-

compliance on the student’s part to be proactive in their learning, academic ability were

beyond the teachers control, and did play a role in the overall achievement of the student.

It was said that teachers perceived that the above factors contributed negatively towards

their student’s ability to perform on standardized tests. In turn, the teachers believed that

their level of motivation somehow influenced the students’ performance on the

standardize test. The teachers believed that, “public recognition and professional pride as

outcomes, that motivated them to achieve AYP goals.”

Theme 3: Job Satisfaction

This study revealed that participants had low job satisfaction, and believed it was

a factor in decreasing their teacher motivation. Participants expressed that in the past six

years they had not received a salary raise, and this was one of the factors that lead to low

job satisfaction within the profession. As one participant stated, “I hated worrying about

my bills every month.” The economy increasingly had gotten worse and my salary had

not increased for over six years.” For the most part, participants expressed the need for

school district officials to be aware that salary increases were pivotal in the maintenance

of teacher motivation and teachers being satisfied with their jobs. Secondly, the results of

this study were confirmed by a 2007 study by Toofany. His study found that positive

communication was cited as a cause for promoting job satisfaction for the nurses

[profession of helping others]. Likewise, the goal was similar for teachers, as they helped

students achieve their best. One participant expressed, “My principal did not motivate

me.” Principals must foster a team-building climate within their schools. It created a

supportive work environment, and increased the staff attitude towards a positive one.

Theme 4: Low Salary

The findings of the research study suggested participants adamantly wanted a

salary increase immediately. Johnson’s expectancy theory (1986) explained that teachers

were more likely to strive in their profession if there was an anticipated reward that they

valued, such as a bonus or a promotion. The findings of this study revealed that

participants believed that their salary increases were long overdue. Low salary had

contributed to some of the teachers feeling the need to leave the profession early. One

participated stated, “This salary did not compare to what I was receiving in my other

profession before this one, and all my accommodations (room and board) were paid.”

Another participant stated, “It must be because I worked in a public school and not a

private school.”

Theme 5: Lack of Autonomy within Classroom

This study found that participants had a negative attitude in regards to how they

made to instruct the students in their classroom. One participant expressed, “All we did

was teach what they tell to us to teach, and made sure we did this, we had random people

come into our classrooms to observe if we did what the administration told us to do.”

Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) found that the strongest source of motivation was when

teachers were involved in setting curriculum targets. Likewise, in the present study the

teachers believed that they needed to be a part of the decision making process, especially

when it came to the curriculum they needed to implement and use in the future. One

participant stated, “They need us teachers involved in the process and not just someone

whose been out of the classroom for decades.” Moreover, teachers believed they need an

adequate common planning time prior to the actually start of the academic school year.

Teachers were asked to increase student achievement in the past, and believed this

practice mentioned above contributed to proper implementation and fidelity with the

curriculum.

Theme 6: Feelings of Frustration

The research study found teachers were frustrated with many factors, mainly low

salary, and unrealistic expectations placed on them by the government: (a) performance

of the school on as a whole on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) in

reading, math, and science at specific grade level; (b) improvement in grades of students

the school in reading, math, and science on the FCAT over the previous year; (c)

improvement of the lowest 25% of students in reading, math, and science on the FCAT

over the previous year. Similarly, teachers perceived that principals overly stressed the

importance of high test scores, academic competition, and the use of high achieving

students as models for all students. Current No Child Left Behind (2001) laws held

teachers accountable for student achievement on high-stakes standardized tests. As the

performance bar increased, so did teachers’ feelings of frustration due to not all their

students making those needed learning gains. Educational leaders need to find a common

ground to make sure all teachers reached, and made positive learning connections with

their students. These iniatives promoted academic growth rather than build decisive

culture among co-workers.

Theme 7: Unrealistic Expectations

Teachers tend to get disappointed when they had invested time and effort, and are

not recognized, or rewarded because of falling short of the achievement indicator for

AYP. High stakes tests had a negative impact on teacher motivation. I found that when

unrealistic expectations were placed on the participants as it pertained to all students who

made the coveted level 3 on the standardized test (FCAT), teachers’ level of motivation

plunged. Justice, Greiner, and Anderson (n.d.) found that teachers who left the profession

cited low teacher morale, enhanced by school and district pressure for high student

achievement on standardized test’s rationale. One participant stated:

I knew it was the administration’s job to shoot high, and sometimes they did set

unrealistic goals. As teachers, we now had AYP goals and we had three middle

schools out of 33 in our district, which made the AYP goal. If that many schools

were not making it, I thought it was a little too high. When I sat with the principal

and she saw the results of my classes and she said we need to get those scores up,

I wanted to do what my supervisor asked of me.

Theme 8: Profession Not Valued in Society

Participants in the study perceived that as time progressed, the teaching profession

will not be valued in society. Many of the participants perceived that the teaching

profession in the past 10 to 15 years had taken an unfavorable turn. One participant

explained:

I knew that I must teach and did teach, but now I made to feel like I was forced to

teach. If my student didn’t perform as the administration believed they should,

then I was made to feel less than adequate.

One of the participants stated “There was no need for him to be in the classroom, soon

virtual schools will be the norm.” Some shared a common need to be validated by their

principal. One participant stated, “I thought being told on a daily basis that the work I did

with the kids was great, motivated me more, than just told a blanket statement in the

faculty meeting to everyone.” Teachers had a sense of greater self-worth, because of this

type of private acknowledgment. Teachers wanted to be successful, however, the levels

of stimulation and anxiety, needs, beliefs, and goals significantly influenced a person’s

motivation. Consequently, if teachers did not possess the ability to self-motivate

themselves, then every downfall increased lower levels of motivation. This in turn

affected the teacher’s performance within the classroom.

Theme 9: Underappreciated

According to sociologists, current school environments are a reward-scarce

setting for professional work, and often seem to work against teachers’ best efforts to

grow professionally and improve a student’s learning (Peterson, 1995). Teachers thought

they were inefficient due to students’ low performance on standardized tests. The

research findings suggested that teachers’ felt underappreciated, when not given

acknowledgment for at least making some type of improvement in student achievement

on standardized tests, even if it was an increase of only one level. As one participant

explained, “When I worked with a student all year and knew what that student can do and

that student did not perform well on the standardized test: I felt like I failed at my job and

also the way the administrators made me feel.” Another participant stated similar feelings

of being underappreciated, “As a teacher attended faculty meetings, and in these

meetings, FCAT results were given regarding students’ performance on the standardize

tests. If the results were great, everyone applauded and if they were not, you were made

to feel that you were just not teaching.”

Discussion

This section presented a summary of the research conducted, and important

conclusions interpreted from the findings in Chapter 4. Several implications were

recognized and recommendations made regarding further research. The purpose of this

phenomenological study was to understand teachers’ perspectives on teacher motivation,

and its influence on student achievement on standardized tests.

Teachers conflicted at the role they played currently in the classroom, were they

shift foremen’s or educators’ shaping young minds to think critically? In other words,

were the teachers creating students that regurgitated answers or students informed,

developed novel ways of thought? Herzberg’s two-factor hygiene and motivation theory

(1966) asserted that certain motivating factors contribute to job dissatisfaction, which

possibly contributes to an employee’s motivational level. Herzberg asserted that work

conditions, salary and job security do not lead to higher levels of motivation but without

these factors there is a level of dissatisfaction. In essence, an administration had teachers

potentially who were motivated to work with the students, but dissatisfied with their job.

Teachers thus regarded their love for children, and seeing their learning factors

contributed to their teacher motivation. Some teachers, however, did regard that their

teacher motivation decreased due to being held accountable for student achievement on

standardized tests. Teachers felt pressured to increase those students’ levels that were

“counted” more in the AYP plan. Moreover, teachers were often told what to teach and

how to teach the curriculum. They were left without input in what worked best for their

individual students. Teachers perceived that this led them to decrease in teacher

motivation, which in turn increased their dissatisfaction with their occupation. Some

teachers insisted that if they were given the opportunity to input how and what the

students were taught on a daily basis, then they felt that they were apart of a team. This

approach was geared toward promoting student development over the course of the year,

and not just for a standardized test they took once a year. Schools districts, and state

100

legislatures must find equilibrium between job satisfactions and promote improvements

in level of motivation for teachers.

The Implications for Practice

The rationale behind conducting a qualitative research was to gain a deeper

understanding of an issue, because of teachers’ concerns about how they were not

motivated to continue in the field of education anymore. This is due to the increased

pressures from the government and its accountabilities that attached to standardized tests.

Not surprisingly, Day et al (2006) discovered that during the first 3 years, teachers had a

higher level of commitment and that it was during this time that it was crucial that teacher

were provided professional support. Moreover, teachers who had been in the teaching

profession at least 8 to 15 years, were 76% more likely to had a sustained engagement in

teaching and the remainder at 24% were more likely to become detached, or less

motivated. I observed that in this research study, teachers had become distraught at the

fact that their salaries remained stagnant. In addition, administrators piled more

responsibilities with regards to students’ achievement levels on standardized tests.

Reflecting on the research process, participant’s experiences led the researcher to define

teacher motivation as was having a deep inner motivation to see learners succeed at any

given task, no matter what the given learners’ presented abilities, or challenges.

I sought to probe how teachers’ describe their perception of teacher motivation, as

it related to student achievement on standardized tests. According to the teachers that

participated in this study, teacher motivations had a love for children and a passion to see

them learn. The research study suggested that school districts changed the practice of

101

asking a teacher to teach a one size fit all curriculum, not only affected the learning

process negatively, but created a group of learners that only reacted with planned answers

from rote memory. School districts met throughout the school year, to plan with content

specific teachers on how best to construct a curriculum for that given academic year.

Districts organized focus groups that gathered information at the beginning of each

school year, to assess the current motivational level of the teachers. Administrators had

the professional developments that focused on improving or maintaining a teacher’s

current motivational level. In summary, the research findings of this study suggested that

teachers needed to be included in the discussion on the facilitation, and the development

of curriculum that allowed students to be productive in any given assessment situation.

Students did not necessarily need a standardized test in order for them to become a

productive citizen in today’s society. One participant in this study stated:

It did affect my motivational level, but in regards to standardized

testing, and had the expectation that everyone was the same. It was so

unrealistic. It made me expect that all my students must be the same,

and I didn’t really care for it. They needed to be realistic about the kids.

People were different that’s what made us unique. We had our own

strengths and weaknesses. We were basically made to be concerned

with two areas, reading and mathematics. We had students that did

other things and we were focused on the same thing. If we were the

same we would be a boring society. I hoped, and wished that change

came to education. I wished they came and talked to us [teachers] and

102

we were allowed to share our opinions. We had politicians that liked to

get elected and did not see what I had to deal with on a daily basis.

Second, the research findings suggested that some teachers were unnerved that

student achievements linked to whether they received salaries increases. One participant

stated:

It was the worse. When it was just 100 dollars more on your paycheck

and it was wow. I hated worrying about my bills. You felt sad that there

were people that didn’t have the same level of education. I had, and

they made more than me. I didn’t feel appreciated by adults, the state,

superintendent, and the government. I felt like they thought that my job

was worthless and I didn’t like it.

Third, the research results revealed that teachers felt unfairness in tying student

performance to teacher bonuses, or incentives this was not be fair to some of the teachers.

In some cases, teachers who were assigned to a certain student population would never

able to meet the AYP goal for that given school year. One teacher explained:

Previously, my students were not able to reach AYP. My motivation

was low and people turned around in meeting and look at me and said

that, you were not teaching the kids. There were some people that

didn’t want to teach the kids and treated us like a dumping ground and

getting them into our classes. There were some students that needed

103

me. I did believe that they triggered my teacher motivation when the

students needed me.

According to Peters and Waterman (1995), the main factor in motivating people is

to give the individual a sense of success. Teachers want to be successful; however, levels

of stimulation and anxiety, needs, beliefs and goals significantly influenced a person’s

motivation if teachers did not possess the ability to self-motivated themselves. Every

downfall increaseslower levels of motivation and this in turn affected the teachers’

performance within the classroom.

Limitations of the Study

This study had several limitations that affected its transferability. The study was

limited to one school, and the interviewees were 10 mathematics teachers. Their

experiences and attitudes do not represent all teachers. The research site, located in an

urban area in South Florida, did not represent the conditions found at a location outside

the research area. Research conducted in the present may not explain the phenomenon of

tomorrow’s situations, so for that reason this research only explained this specific case, at

this particular time and location. Utilizing the phenomenological approach, I was allowed

to interview mathematics teachers. This gave the the teachers an opportunity to share

their personal perspective on teacher motivation, and its influence on student

achievement on standardized tests.

Suggestions for Future Research

Recommendations for future research are given to stakeholders that are interested

in conducting future research about teacher motivation. School districts and

104

administrators need to find innovative ways to increase teacher motivation. How did

increasing the level of accountability for teachers as it pertained to student achievement

influenced the longevity in the profession? This research topic may need further

examination, and could potentially generate a new round of questions.

Teachers often teach many students over the course of a school day, and for a

relatively short period of time. Given such brief contact with so many, it is easy to

underestimate the influence that one’s teaching practice has on any one individual

student. It is in the best interest of the school districts to create professional development

programming that worked toward increasing, or encouraging teacher motivation.

Furthermore, the influence of the teachers perhaps increased the level of achievement of

students not only on standardized testing. Utilized extrinsic rewards for teachers such as

bonuses may lead to some short lived increases in teacher motivation, but detracts from

the long-term goal of keeping increased level of mathematics teachers’ motivation steady.

Implications for Social Change

While all participants expressed what they characterized as their teacher

motivation, some still believed that if nothing changes in education many teachers will

continue to leave the profession. Some participants voiced that they felt in the future it

would be beneficial to communicate frequently with administrators other times than

during their teacher evaluation. Participants were now eager to speak openly about their

feelings regarding teacher motivation with their immediate supervisors. Some

participants welcomed the opportunity to be heard in a confidential atmosphere, which

they were not judged, or viewed as complaining.

105

A preventive approach that would eliminate the impasse between administrators,

and teachers would be the opportunities of professional development on the district level

and at the school-level during the opening of school week. Trainings that promote

increasing and sustaining current motivational levels would prove to be beneficial.

Additionally, creating quarterly retreats that are comprised of meaningful focus group

geared toward finding concrete solutions for the problem of decrease teacher motivation

in school districts.

Researcher’s Reflection

Results obtained from this study can profoundly impact school districts and

administrations as they thrive to improve teachers’ motivation. This study provided

participants with the knowledge about the importance of evaluating their level of

motivation and its importance in student achievement. As the researcher, I became aware

of the need for opportunities of open communication between teachers and principals. I

believe that when principals allow teachers to have open dialog, and be allowed to

express concerns with regards to direction of the school curriculum, then great reform

will be made possible. I hope teachers acknowledge the effect they have on their students.

I am hopeful that teachers will find the many teachable opportunities to motivate

themselves, as well as the learners they help to shape. Reflecting on the research process

itself, participants’ experiences led me to define teacher motivation as having a deep

inner motivation to see learners succeed at any given task, no matter what the given

learners’ present abilities, or challenges. From my experiences as a teacher, I knew that

teachers believe that getting the support from the administration is important to their

106

work in the classroom. However, the results of data indicated that these teachers

considered the administraton created a hostile environment. There were times when

administration created a setting that did not promote the opportunity of the teachers to

express their dissatisfaction with the school’s climate which affected their level of

motivation. The aspect of the study that had the most impact on my thinking focused on

the responses of the teachers who struggled with the decision of leaving the teaching

profession. More importantly, due to the lack of comparable salary they experience

financial hardships.

I sought to probe how teachers’ describe their perception of teacher motivation as

it relates to student achievement on standardized tests. According to the teachers who

participated in this study, motivated teachers shared a common love for children and a

passion to see them learn. School districts can meet throughout the school year to plan

with content specific teachers on how best to construct a curriculum for that given

academic year. Districts can also organize focus groups and gather information at the

beginning of each school year to assess the current motivational level of the teachers.

Administrators can have the professional developments that focus on improving, or

maintaining a teacher’s current motivational level.

Ultimately, the findings suggest teachers need be included in the discussion on

the facilitation, and the development of curriculum that allowed students to be productive

in any given assessment situation. Findings from this study can lead to changes at school

districts to change the practice of not finding ways to create professional developments to

target the motivation of the teachers. Likewise, teachers use many instructional

107

modalities on a daily basis to reach learners, and in that same vein, school districts must

find opportunities on many levels to sustain and motivate teachers.

Summary

This study explored mathematics teachers’ motivation and its influence on student

achievement on standardized tests. Several research questions regarding characterization

of teacher motivation, and its impact on student achievement on standardized testing

were used as the starting point to teachers completing an in-depth interview. An interview

guide was given to all participants of this research. Answers were documented,

organized, and coded according to themes. The current research study added to the

current literature on teacher motivation, by confirming previous findings and uncovering

areas that can be utilized for future investigations.

In summary, the findings suggest that mathematics teachers’ motivation and its

impact on student achievement are topics that need to be considered more, as states

increasingly rely on standardized testing to predict students’ achievement. The research

also demonstrated that participants were increasingly frustrated and disappointed with the

current state of education. Participants were hopeful that current discussions of

educational reform with regards to standardized testing will progress in the future.

108

References

Ahl, H. (2006). Motivation in adult education: A problem solver or a euphemism for

direction and control? International Journal of Lifelong Education, 25(4), 385-

405.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms goal structures and student motivation. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Aronson, J. Z. (1995). Stop the clock: Ending the tyranny of time in education. San

Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory

Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory.

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,4(3), 359-373.

Baker, L., Dreher, M., & Gutherie, J. (2000). Engaging young readers: Promoting

achievement and motivation. New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Barnabé, C., & Burns, M. (1994). Teachers’ job characteristics and motivation.

Educational Research, 36(2), 171–185.

Berliner, D., & Biddle, B. (1997). The manufactured crisis: Myths, frauds, and the attack

on America’s public schools. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Bohloko, G. M. (1999). Job satisfaction among academic staff at a college of education

in the free state. Bloemfontein: University of Orange Free State.

Butler, R. (1999). Information seeking and achievement motivation in middle childhood

and adolescence: The role of conceptions of ability. Developmental Psychology,

35, 146–163.

109

Butler, R. (2007). Teachers’ achievement goal orientations and associations with

teachers’ helping seeking: Examination of a novel approach to teacher motivation.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 241-252.

Burts, D. C., McKinney, C. W., & Burts, B. L. (1985). The effects of sources of

motivation on teachers’ motivational levels. Theory and Research in Social

Education, 13(1), 19-29.

Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. (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.

Cardelle-Elawar, M., & Sanz de Acedo, M. L. (2000) Motivational understanding on how

to teach ethnic minority students. Educating Able Children: Journal of N.A.C.E.

(The National Association for Able Children in Education), 42(2), 41-51.

Chiang, H. (2009). How accountability pressure on failing schools affects student

achievement? Journal of Public Economics, 93,1045-1057.

Ciani, K. D., Summers, J.J., & Easter, M. A. (2008). A top-down analysis of high school

teacher motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 533-560.

Cobb, B., & Johnson, D.R. (1997). The statewide systems change initiative as a federal

policy mechanism for promoting education reform. Career Development for

Exceptional Individuals, 20(2), 179-190.

Colaizzi, P. F. (1978). Learning and existence. In R. Valle & M. King (Ed.), Existential-

phenemenological alternatives for psychology. New York, Oxford University

Press.

110

Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J.G. (1994). Engagement versus disaffection: motivated

patterns of action in the academic domain. Rochester, NY: University of

Rochester.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods

approach (2nd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crow, G. M., Levine, L., & Nager, N. (1990). No more business as usual: Career

changers who become teacher. American Journal of Education, 98,197-223.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Solving the dilemmas of teacher supply, demand, and

standards: How we can ensure a competent, caring, and qualified teacher for

every child. Retrieved from

http://www.tc.columbia.edu/%26amp;sim;teachcomm/CONFERENCE99/

SOLVING

Deniz, M., Selahattin Avsaroglu, S., & Fidan, O. (2006). An investigation of levels of

English teachers' motivating the students. Inonu University Journal of Faculty of

Education, 7, 61-73.

Dilworth, M. E. (1994, April). Motivation, rewards, and incentives.(Issue Brief No. 3).

Washington DC: Dilworth, M. E.

Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1998). A three domain model of teacher and school executive

satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 36, 362-378.

Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1999). The relationship between context, type of school and

position held in school and occupational satisfaction, and mental stress. Paper

111

presented to the Australian College of Education/Australian Council for

Educational Administration, National Conference, Darwin, Australia.

Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (2002). The international Teacher 2000 Project: An

international study of teacher and school executive satisfaction, motivation and

health in Australia, England, USA, Malta and New Zealand. Paper presented to

the Challenging Futures Conference, University of New England, Armidale,

Australia.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985) Intrinsic and self-determination in human behavior.

New York: Plenum

Dierynck, R., (1998). Teachers’ motivation: An investigation of the factors influencing

teachers’ motivation with an experience of fifteen years or more. Katholieke

Universiteit, Centrum voor Onderwijsbeleid en Vernieuwing,

Dzubay, D. (2001). Understanding motivation and supporting teacher renewal. Northwest

Regional Educational Laboratory, December, 2-49.

Evans, L. (1992). Teacher morale: An individual perspective. Educational Studies, 18(2).

Farber, B. A. (1991). Crisis in education: Stress and burnout in the American teacher.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fink, A. (2006). How to conduct surveys: A step-by step guide. Thousand Oaks: CA.

Sage.

Finnigan, K. S. & Gross, B. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher

motivation? Lessons from Chicago low-performing schools. American

Educational Research Journal, 44 (3), 594.

112

Florida Department of Education. (2005). FCAT handbook: A resource for educators.

Retrieved from http://fcat.fldoe.org/handbk/intro.pdf.

Frase, L. E. (1992). Maximizing people power in schools: Motivating and managing

teachers and staff. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Frase, L. E. & Sorenson L. (1992). Teacher motivation and satisfaction: Impact on

participatory management. NASSP Bulletin (January 1992): 37-43.

Gage, N. & Berliner D. (1998). Educational Psychology (6thed) Boston, MA: Houghton

Muffin Company.

Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, Dominic, J. (1997). Why don’t schools and teachers seem

to matter? Assessing the impact of unobservable on educational productivity.

Journal of Human Resources, 32(3) 505–523.

Gordon, M. (1993). On the nature and scope of university autonomy: Minimal,

precarious and vital. British Journal of Educational Studies,41(1), 46-51.

Guida, F., Ludlow, L., & Wilson, M. (1985). The mediating effect of time-on-task on the

academic anxiety/achievement interaction: A structural model. Journal of

Research and Development in Education,19(1),21-26.

Harris, D. N. & Sass, T. R. (2006, March). Teacher training, teacher quality and student

achievement. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University.

Harris, D. N., & Sass, T.R. (2007). Good teacher and who can tell? Madison, Wisconsin:

University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Educational Policy and

Department of Economics.

113

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press

Henderson, J. G. (1992).The question of culture and dialogue in reflective teacher

education programs. Jourmal of General Education, 41.

Herzberg, F. (1964). The motivation-hygiene concept and problems of manpower.

Personnel Administration, 27, 3-7.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World Publishing

Herzberg, F. (1989). One more time: How do you motivate employees? In G. Dalton & P.

(Eds.), In motivation and control in organizations. Homewood, IL: Irwin Press.

Hoy, A., Hoy, W., & Kurz, N. (2008). Teacher’s academic optimism: The development

and test of a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 821-835.

Jain, S., Shekar, S., & Jitendra, S. (2005). Teacher motivation in India. Retrieved from

http://www.research4development.info/PDF/Outputs/PolicyStrategy/3888Teacher

motivation_India.pdf

Jesus, S. N., & Conboy, J. (2001). A stress management course to prevent teacher

distress. International Journal of Educational Management, 3, 131–137.

Jones, G. R., George, F. M. & Hill, C. W. (2000). Contemporary Management (2nd ed.).

Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Jones, B. D., & Egley, R. J. (2004, August). Voices from the frontlines: Teachers

perceptions of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12 (39).

Jones, B. D. (2007). The unintended outcomes of high-stakes testing. Journal of Applied

School Psychology, 23 (2), 65-86.

114

Justice, M., Greiner, C., & Anderson, S. (2003). Determining the influences of traditional

Texas teachers vs. teachers in the emergency teaching certification program.

Education, 124, 376-389.

Kane, T., Rockoff, S., & Staiger, D. (2006, April). What does certification tell us about

teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. NBER Working Paper

12155. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Econmomic Research. Retrieved

from http://rss.anu.edu.au/themes/TQConf_Rockoff.pdf

Karatepe, O. M., & Uludag, O. (2008). Affectivity, conflicts in the work-family interface,

and hotel employee outcomes. International Journal of Hospitality Management,

27(1), 30-41.

Karsli, M., & Iskender, H. (2009). To examine the effect of motivation provided by the

administration on the job satisfaction of teachers and their institutional

commitment. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 2252-2257.

Kelley, C., Heneman, H., & Milanowski, A. (2002). Teacher motivation and school-

based performance awards. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(3), 372–

401.

Kersaint, G., Lewis, J., Potter, R., & Meisels, G. (2007). Why teachers leave: Factors that

influence retention and resignation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 775-

794.

Kim, T. (2000). Intrinsic motivation. Teachers Net Gazette 1, (6).

115

Kiesche, U., & Schaarschmidt, U. (2008). Professional commitment and health among

teachers in Germany: A typological approach. Learning and Instruction, 18(5),

429-437.

Kocabas, I. (2009). The effects of sources of motivation on teachers’ motivational levels.

Education, 129 (4), 724-733.

Kocabaş, I., & Karaköse, T. (2002). School administrators' motivating skill on

organization staff. (Unpublished master’s thesis).Frat University Social Sciences

Institute Department of Educational Sciences.

Kohn, A. (2001). Fighting the tests a practical guide to rescuing our schools. Phi Delta

Kappan.

Lasso, C., & Soto, N. (2005). The social integration of Latino newcomer students in

Midwestern elementary schools: Teacher and administrator perceptions. Essays in

Education, 14, 1-21.

Lens, W., & Jesus, S. (2005). An integrated model for study of teacher motivation.

Applied Psychology: An international review, 54(1), 119-134.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale

reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School

Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17 (2), 201-217.

Linnenbrink, E. (2005). The dilemma of performance-approach goals: The use of

multiple goal contexts to promote students’ motivation and learning. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 97(2), 197-213.

116

Malikow, M. (2007). Staying motivated and avoiding burnout. Kappa Delta Pi Record

Spring.

Martínez-Abascal, M. (1991). El malestar docente explicado a través del modelo

reformulado de desamparo aprendido [Teacher stress explained by the

reformulated learned helplessness model]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Ilhas Baleares, Palma de Maiorca.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McGuigan, L., & Hoy, W. K., (2006). Principal leadership: Creating a culture of

academic optimism to improve achievement for all students. Leadership and

Policy in Schools, 5, 203-229.

Merriam, S. B. & Associates (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for

discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Michaelowa, K. (2002). Teacher job satisfaction, student achievement, and the cost of

primary education in Francophone Sub-Saharan Africa. Hamburg, Germany:

Hamburg Institute of International Economics.

Montavlo, G., Mansfield, E., & Miller, R. (2007). Liking or disliking the teacher

motivation: Engagement and achievement. Evaluation and Research in

Education, 20(3), 144-158.

Moore, J. (1986). Report on the results of 1986 motivational inserts experiment,

Washington DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Department,

Center for Survey Methods Research, Unpublished report.

117

Morgan, M., Kitching, K., O’Leary, M. (2007). The psychic rewards of teaching:

Examining global, national, and local influences on teacher motivation.

American Educational Research Association Chicago, April 2007.

Mowday, R. T., Koberg, C. S., & McArthur, A. W. (1984). The psychology of the

withdrawal process: A cross-validation test of Mobley's intermediate linkages

model of turnover in two samples, Academy of Management Journal, 27, 79-94

McClelland, D. C. (1987). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. Journal of

Creative Behavior, 21(3), 219-233.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk. The

Imperative for Education Reform. Retrieved from U. S. Printing Office website:

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

New National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Job satisfaction among America’s

teachers: Effects of workplace conditions, background characteristics, and

teacher compensation. Washington, DC: Author

Nichols, S., & Berliner, D. (2005, March). The inevitable corruption of indicators and

educators through high-stakes testing. Proceeding of Great Lakes Center for

Education Research and Practice, USA.

No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. 63011001 (1) 2002).

O’Conner, B. P., & Vallerand, R. J. (1990). Religious motivation in the elderly: A

French-Canadian replication and an extension. Journal of Social Psychology,

130, 53-59.

118

Ofoegbu, F. I. (2004). Teacher motivation: A factor for classroom effectiveness and

school improvement in Nigeria. College Student Journal, Retrieved from

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_1_38/ai_n6073200

Opdenakker, M., & Damme, J. (2006). Teaching characteristics and teaching styles as

effectiveness enhancing factors of classroom practices. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 22, 1-21.

Oregon School School Boards Association. (2009). Salem, OR: Author.

Park, I. (2005). Teacher commitment and its effects on student achievement in American

high schools. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(5), 461-485.

Pearson, L., & Moomaw, W. (2006). Continuing validation of the teaching

autonomy scale. The Journal of Educational Research 100(1), 44-51.

Peterson, K. D. (1995). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions

and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Pinder, C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The

role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of

conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199.

Pollard, A. (2002). Readings for Reflective Teaching. London, England: Continum

International Publishing Group Ltd.

Porter, L. W., & R. M. Steers (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in

employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 151-176.

119

Preston, D. L., & Murphy, S. (1997). Motivation resistant clients in therapy. Forum on

Correction Research, 9 (2), 39-43.

Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools and academic

achievement. Econometrica 73(2): 417-458.

Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement:

Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review Proceedings, 94(2): 247-

252.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1998). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt,

Rinehart & Winston.

Ross, A. (2011, March 31). School district narrows budget shortfall. Palm Beach Post.

Retrieved from http://palmbeachpost.com

Rowan, B., Chiang, F., & Miller, R. (1997). Using research on Employees’ Performance

to study the effects of teachers on students’ achievement. Sociology of Education,

70, 256-284.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data

(2nd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Taylor, I., & Ntoumanis, N. (2007). Teacher motivational strategies and student self-

determination in physical education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 747-

760.

Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on

future student academic achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-

Added Research and Assessment Center.

http://palmbeachpost.com/�

120

Serow, R., Forrest, K. D. (1994, September). Teaching and Teacher Education,10(5),

555-563.

Schacter, J., Meng-Thum, Y., Reifsneider, D., & Schiff, T. (2004). The teacher

advancement program report two: Year three results from Arizona and year one

results from South Carolina TAP schools. Milken Family Foundation.

Schepers, C., De Gieter, S., DuBois, C., Ralf, C., & Jegers, M. (2005). A report on

Management of Employees. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 16(2) 2 191-

208.

Scott, C., Cox S., and Dinham, S. (1999). The occupational motivation,

satisfaction and health of English school teachers. Educational

Psychology, 19 (3), 287–308.

Sloan, K. (2006). Teacher identity and agency in school worlds: Beyond the

All-good all-bad discourse on accountability-explicit curriculum policies.

Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 121-152.

Sloan, K. (2007). Holding schools accountable: A handbook for educators and

parents. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.

Stembridge, F. (1989, June). Teacher motivation: An essential requirement in the

integration of faith and learning in seventh-day Adventist colleges. Faith and

Learning Seminar. Symposium conducted at the meeting of The Institute for

Christian Teaching, Lincoln Nebraska.

121

Stone, C. A. & Lane, S. (2003). Consequences of a state accountability program:

Examining relationships between school performance gains and teacher, student,

and school variables. ConteApplied Measurement in Education, 16 (1), 1-26

Thurlow, M. L., & Johnson, D.R. (2000). High stakes testing for students with

disabilities. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 289-298.

Toofany, S. (2007). Team building and leadership: The key to recruitment and retention.

Nursing Management, 14(1), 24-7.

Troman, G., & Woods, P. (2000). Careers under stress: Teacher adaptations at a time of

intensive reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1, 253-275.

Tucker, C. M., Porter, T., Reinke, W., Herman, K. C., Ivery, P. D., Mack, C. E., &

Jackson, E. S. (2005). Promoting teacher efficacy for working with culturally

diverse students. Preventing School Failure, 50(1), 29-34.

Van den Berg, R. (2002). Teachers' meanings regarding educational practice. Review of

Educational Research, 72, 577-625.

Vandenberghe, R., & Huberman, A. M. (1999). Understanding and preventing teacher

burnout. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. Oxford, England: Wiley.

Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research. Newbury, CA:

Sage.

Whatley, A. (1998). Gifted women and teaching: A compatible choice? Roeper Review,

21(2), 117.

Wolkfok, A. (2005). Educational Psychology, (9th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon

122

Wolters, C., Yu, S. & Pintrich, P. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and

students’ motivation beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual

Differences, 8, 211-238.m

WPBF-TV. (2009, September 22).Teachers, parents ‘angry’ about new school

curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.wpbf.com

Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context

effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of

Personnel Evaluation in Education, 57-67.

Yeh, S. (2006). High-stakes testing: Can rapid assessments reduce the pressure? Teacher

College Record, 108 (4), 624-661.

Yong, C. S. (1995). Teacher trainees’ motives for entering into a teaching career in

Brunei Darussalem. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(3), 275-280.

123

Appendix A: Invitation to Participate

Dear Potential Participant, My name is Stephanie Hayden and I am a doctoral student at Walden University. I am doing research that explores teacher motivation and its influence on student achievement. I am studying the phenomenon of teacher motivation and its influence on student achievement. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to meet with me for an interview about teacher motivation and its influence on student achievement. The meeting will take place at the school site, and should last about 45 minutes. The interview will be audio taped so that I can accurately reflect on what was discussed. The tapes will only be reviewed, transcribed, and analyzed by me. This study may include minimal risks. There is a risk of emotional discomfort in talking about certain personal feelings and behaviors experienced and the disclosure of information. The researcher will make every effort to minimize these risks. If at any point in the interview you become uncomfortable or distressed, you many stop the interview at that time. If you inadvertently reveal any identifying information during the course of your interview, it will be deleted from the research tape and not included in the transcripts. All interview transcripts and recording will be kept in a locked filing cabinet. Your full cooperation is indeed welcomed and appreciated. Please be assured that your responses will be kept confidential and private. You or your school will not be identified in any way and your honesty and frankness is welcomed. Your participation in this interview is completely voluntary and you may refuse to participate at any time. If you have any questions or you would like to participate in this research study please send an email response to [email protected] Thanks again for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Stephanie Hayden, Principal Investigator Educational Leadership, Walden University [email protected]

124

Appendix B: Interview Guide

Biographical Details (Participant) Name*: Age: Years of Teaching Service: Level of Education:

Grade Level Taught:

1. What do you characterize as teacher motivation? 2. Do you feel that you are a motivated teacher as it relates to what you had just

characterized? 3. Do you believe unrealistic expectations are placed on you as a teacher with regards to

student achievement? How do you feel when those expectations are not met? 4. What do you believe the role of the teacher is in government accountability

initiatives? 5. Do you believe that school leadership served as a trigger for teacher motivation? In other words, some principals are so adamant about making AYP and the A-Plus school rating; do you feel the leadership at this school stresses this? 6. In recent years, school districts had implemented a form of incentives for schools or individual teachers who show great gains within the classroom for student achievement, do you agree with this policy or practice? If so, would it increase your level of motivation or commitment to student achievement? 7. If you could tell the teacher you were when you first began some important key factors to remember when considering all you know today what would that advice be? 8. How do you feel about your job satisfaction now? 9. Do you feel satisfied with your salary at this time? 10. How does this compare to three years ago? 11. Would you be less satisfied with less paperwork? 12. Do you believe that your relationship with your co-workers affect your level of motivation?

125

13. Do you believe that the teaching profession is a vital function in society? 14. Do you believe that you are dedicated to this profession and teaching children? 15. Do you believe that the success that you had in your room builds your level of motivation? 16. Do you believe that non-monetary forms for support can be provided to increase teachers’ motivation? 17. Within the classroom, teachers are expected to have higher levels of expectations of their students’; do you believe that because of the expectations of the profession, does it affect your motivation level? *Participants names will be changed and kept confidential.

126

Appendix C: IRB Approved Letter of Invitation and Consent Form

CONSENT FORM

You are invited to take part in a research study of teacher motivation and student achievement on standardized tests. As a certified mathematics teacher, specializing in grades 6 thru 8 and a participant in standardized testing, you were chosen for this study. This form is part of a process called “informed consent” to allow you to understand this study before deciding whether to take part.

This study is being conducted by a researcher named Stephanie Hayden, who is a doctoral student at Walden University. Background Information: The purpose of this study is to discover your views on what motivates you as a teacher and does that factor influence your students’ achievement. Procedures: If you agree to be in this study, you are asked to:

• Consent to two 45 minutes audio taped in-depth interviews over a 3 week period Voluntary Nature of the Study: Your participation in this study is voluntary. This means that everyone will respect your decision of whether or not you want to be in the study. No one at Palm Beach County School District will treat you differently if you decide not to be in the study. If you decide to join the study now, you can still change your mind during the study. If you feel stressed during the study, you may stop at any time. You may skip any questions that you feel are too personal. Risks and Benefits of Being in the Study: There will be minimal risks attached to the research. There is a risk of emotional discomfort in talking about certain personal feelings and behaviors experienced and the disclosure of information. The researcher will make every effort to minimize these risks. If at any point in the interview you become uncomfortable or distressed, you may stop the interview at that time. The research will be potentially helpful for administrators and educators seeking to improve the general motivation and morale of teachers as it relates to student achievement. However to be fully effective, any such research must take into account the views and opinions of all participants. Teachers can influence the type of training that may be used to help boost teacher motivation as it relates to student achievement. Compensation:

There is no compensation for participating in this research study.

Confidentiality: Any information you provide will be kept confidential. T

he researcher will not use your information for any purposes outside of this research project. Also, the researcher will not include your name or anything else that could identify you in any reports of the study.

127

Contacts and Questions: You may ask any questions you have now. Or if you have questions later, you may contact the researcher via [email protected] privately about your rights as a participant, you can call Dr. Leilani Endicott. She is the Walden University representative who can discuss this with you. Her phone number is 1-800-925-3368, extension 1210. Walden University’s approval number for this study is 07-20-10-0331331 and it expires on July 19, 2011. The researcher will give you a copy of this form to keep. Statement of Consent: I had read the above information and I feel I understand the study well enough to make a decision about my involvement. By signing below

, I am agreeing to the terms described above.

Electronic signatures are regulated by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. Legally, an "electronic signature" can be the person’s typed name, his or her email address, or any other identifying marker. An electronic signature is just as valid as a written signature as long as both parties had agreed to conduct the transaction electronically.

Printed Name of Participant

Date of consent

Participant’s Written or Electronic* Signature

Researcher’s Written or Electronic* Signature

128

Appendix D: Sample Interview Transcripts

Question 1

Participant 2 stated, “You see the evolution in your students.” Participant 5 stated, “When my kids want to learn it exciting to me and that makes me want to do a good job. I also, get motivated when I see them understanding some material that they did not get before.” Participant 6 stated, “I think I know that I wanted to help young people and I think it is in your blood.” Participant 8 stated, “I just like to see children learn, and it makes me feel good when this happens. I like when my students come back, and tell me that they have learned a lot from me.” Participant 9 stated, “Well, I am a lover of children, even in my early years of teaching. I like to share what I know with children, my knowledge. I see the need of the students.”

Question 2

Participant 10 stated, “Yes, I believe I would characterize myself as a motivated teacher and my children learn. Yes they learn in my class.” Participant 9 stated, “Sometimes and it depends on the day and how things are going. When people do not take into account, the students that I teach are made to feel that they are not progress, especially when standardized tests come out. I feel they have made gains. If I told the kids, then they would feel down and I rather focus on the positive rather than the negative.” Participant 8 stated, “Yes, I am highly motivated. The only reason why I feel back is that the school setting is different from where I am from. The student where I am from they are behaved and they are hungry for learning. The students want to use education to get out from poverty.” Participant 6 stated, “I believe that I am motivated if I wasn’t I wouldn’t be in this field.” Participant 3 stated, “Yes, I didn’t start off in the education field, and society does not give children with disabilities a chance to learn.”

129

Question 3

Participant 10 stated, “Yes, yes. Uhm. To expect every student to be accommodated in your classroom according to their learning style is not possible.” Participant 9 stated, “Well, I expect from myself to help my student reach the standard achievement level. Do all of them reach the expectation? No.” Participant 8 stated, “Yea, uhm, but, sometimes I think that the student should be doing better but then they don’t do well on the standardized test. Sometimes it is unpredictable. Well, I feel frustrated of course.” Participant 7 stated, “Yes, I do. Okay. I really think it’s unrealistic, because there are too many emphases that are placed on what the teacher can do and cannot do.” However, a 100 percent of nothing is not possible and I teach math so I know, matter of fact, there will always be somebody that is not going to make it. Why should you hold other people back or make them accountable? You cannot get everybody.” Participant 6 stated, “Sometimes I do. With all the other issues that goes on in the students’ lives. I think the expectations are unrealistic sometimes.” Participant 5 stated, “Uhm, sometimes yes. I know it is the administration job to shoot high, and sometimes they do not set realistic goals.

Question 4

Participant 2 stated, “I don’t think so.” Participant 3 stated, “No, I just feel that people who actually had a say in the accountability requirements are not in the classroom and the Department of Education did not get a lot of input from teachers.” Participant 4 stated, “No, laugh. I think they were looking to solve a problem and it sounds good on paper, and I think they didn’t take it in account what teachers would do on a daily basis.” Participant 6 stated, “No, I don’t think so. I am not a big fan of it and it basically setup the school setting for kids to act as a bunch of robots and we are teaching students to take standardized tests.”

Question 5

Participant 2 stated, “Yes, I do agree that the leadership serves as a trigger for me.”

130

Participant 5 stated, “Yes, I am very motivated to please my boss, and I think that the students want to please me.” Participant 6 stated, “They trigger my extrinsic motivation, but not my intrinsic.” Participant 7 stated, “Yes, very much so, the leadership serves as a trigger for me.” Participant 8 stated, “Of course they do. Yea, very much, because of leadership pushing me, it serves as motivation for me and what the administration says, then that is what I do.

Question 6

Participant 10 stated, “No, I don’t agree with the policy. No, it will not change my teacher motivation. That to me is personal drive, and if someone wants to recognize me for it, great! I do not push my kids to get that extra prize. If you want to give me a monetary recognition, I will not turn it down. I am not in it for the money.” Participant 9 stated, “I don’t think incentives should be based on student achievement, especially if it is linked to standardized test.” Participant 8 stated, “Ah yea. I think so because I have to strive hard to do my best to increase the achievement of the students.” Participant 7 stated, “Oh yes. A teacher would prove her performance based on her student scores. However, it should not be based on test.” Participant 5 stated, “Yeah, I do. I realize it’s apart of their job and right now, it’s a business. The principal often say that she is being judge on FCAT results and she is going to judge us—teachers on the same scale—FCAT results. Her boss is telling her AYP and she is telling us you need to move your students. It is become an unpleasantness of the job. It is an unfortunate that is what it has become, a business.”

Question 7

Participant 2 stated, “Well, when I started to teach I had the students at heart , and that was something I wanted to do and it was not something that I was forced to do.” Participant 3, stated, “Well, advocate for our students. Some things I probably would not say. The parents most of the time will not do. Another key factor I would say patience and flexibility. That’s the type of teacher I am, you have to just wait and see the students you get.”

131

Participant 4 stated, “Uhm…I think it is really important to get the parents on your side from day one. I really focused on teaching my kids. I am now careful to get information to my parents right away. Participant 5 stated, “Just to teach the way I know how to and don’t let other outside factors—AYP thing, pay for performance, or money. Do not let them be motivating factors! Talk to some good experienced teachers, pick their brain, and take the positive things. Don’t let other things bother you.” Participant 8 stated, “Yea, during my first year. I was excited. This was my first day to get with students. As time passed by and I met more challenges. I wanted to increase my motivation on how to be a better teacher.”

Question 8

Participant 1 stated, “My job satisfaction is a three.” Participant 2 stated, “My job satisfaction is a one. I am not satisfied.” Participant 4 stated, “No, I was not satisfied. I have not received a raise in the past six years and because of the relationship between my family and I decided not to relocate. Well, it depends on the days. However, if I had to pick a number I would say one.” Participant 5 stated, “If I were to base it on the kids, education, involvement, and interaction I would say a two.” Participant 3 stated, “If one being I am not satisfied, then that would be my number to describe my satisfaction.” Participant 8 stated, “I am not satisfied. I would be a two. Yea, the bureaucratic system, and the school district just do not cut it for me and that is why my satisfaction is that number.”

Question 9

Participant 1 stated, “No, because other school district have gotten a raise. Some factors make me feel this way. Some students are not motivated, and I get down because of this. Participant 3 stated, “No, we are not getting any raises and I mean I look at different school districts outside of the state of Florida.

132

Participant 4 stated, “It is frustrating…No., they have not come to an agreement. That is ridiculous. I knew what I was getting into. I work with at another job and they compensated for basically all my accommodations.” Participant 5 stated, “No. Most of us would like a little more. A lot of us look forward to a raise. We did not get into the profession for money. I would like to see a step increase at least someone is showing us a little appreciation.”

Question 10

Participant 1 stated, “I believed three years ago, I was at a different place in my career. I do not have the time to do what they had us do then. Now it is hard, because I believe that I am a quality teacher. Participant 3 stated, “I started teaching in Orange County, Orlando and I moved to Palm Beach County. I was making more in a different county.” Participant 4 stated, “I was making more working with a private school couple years ago than working for this district.” Participant 5 stated, “On a whole, we are not being appreciated right now, no raises. Wow, we are not being appreciated, but disrespected.”

Question 11

Participant 4 stated, “Paperwork is a given as a teacher. You just cannot get away from that part of the profession.” Participant 6 stated, “Less paperwork would be wonderful, and you would have more time to teach.” Participant 7 stated, “I am fine with the paperwork. It is a part of the job.” Participant 8 stated, “One thing I notice is that you have a lot of paperwork. I hate that paperwork.”

133

Question 12

Participant 1 stated, “Yes. Sometimes it can help, if I talk to people who are positive. Sometimes they may have different insights into something else, such as their view on classroom management. Participant 3 stated, “I think it does affect the level of motivation. You can have some teachers that are motivated to teach students, but you can have some that are here for a paycheck and they can bring down the level of the students.” Participant 6 stated, “Yea, when I am happy I do a better job. Yes, it makes a difference. I think that the teachers and the administration build the climate of the school and this creates a sense of unity. Then, the school as a whole can benefit from this.” Participant 5 stated, “If you have a good relationship with your coworkers you feel better coming to your job. I do not know if that has a connection with level of motivation.”

Question 13

Participant 1 stated, “Yes, when you actually believe that the profession is vital to society. Our math and creativity are down to nothing.” Participant 2 stated, “Yes, because you are forming the new citizens of your country and society. In other words, to be valuable to society you need to have competent people. Participant 3 stated, “To be honesty, no. I believe if the pay was great then everyone would be teaching. The only reason is that they cannot find a job another job that gives them the luxury of not caring. Some teachers are here, because of the time off.” Participant 4 stated, “I believe it’s a vital function. I don’t think that others think it’s a vital function.” Participant 5 stated, “Yes, absolutely, I believe we are vital, but not respected.” Participant 7 stated, “Without teachers, we wouldn’t be able to survive, that’s my opinion.”

Question 14

Participant 9 stated, “I don’t think if I wasn’t dedicated to the students, I wouldn’t come back to teach.”

134

Participant 10 stated: “Yes, definitely, I am dedicated to the students and this profession.” Participant 8 stated, “I am so dedicated, however, I have some difficulty dealing with students with certain behaviors, more or less classroom management.” Participant 7 stated, “Yes, yes. I am dedicated to students and the teaching profession.”

Participant 1 stated, “It can. If they are some good things going on and if you don’t see any level of progress going on, your level of motivation can drop.”

Question 15

Participant 2 stated, “Of course, yes, once you run a successful classroom where you see students learning and you get feedback from the students saying everyday that they have learned something new. This prompts you to do something more.” Participant 3 stated, “Yes, I do believe that. I have all different types of students. I tried to keep the students motivated. It makes my level of motivation go higher.” Participant 4 stated, “As the student does better, then I am more motivated to do a better job for them.” Participant 5 stated, “I think that when you see success, you know that you are doing a good job. I have seen a lot of success.”

Question 16

Participant 5 stated, “Oh, yeah. For sure, that is a big help. I was talking to my friends at my lunchroom today. I noticed that the principal has been giving us praise and I have noticed a change in the principal. Which has been good and I feel appreciated.” Participant 6 stated, “Yes, I think that would help out. Nevertheless, for me it would not matter. I don’t care about that.” Participant 7 stated, “Yes, give us something. It doesn’t always have to be a bonus. There are other ways. Well maybe giving me more supplies and more things I would need in the classroom.” Participant 9 stated, “I believe so. Psychologically we need some rewards not necessarily material. Imagine your principal saying to you that you are doing so well in your classroom. It is not only material possession. We need recognition as teachers.”

135

Participant 4 stated, “We should be getting something more for working at a Title 1 school like incentives.”

Question 17

Participant 1 stated, “Uhm. Well I know they expect us to be this prim and proper people.” Participant 2 stated, “In a sense, yes, and whatever, well the title of teacher put you under a microscope and you represent the school, and someone looks upon you highly as your students.” Participant 3 stated, “Yes, it does. I think it does. There is certain way that we are supposed to act.” Participant 4 stated, “I do have high expectations. Yeah, I am expected to act a certain way. I signed up for this job and I knew that from the very beginning when I took the job.” Participant 5 stated, “I think so. I know we are kept to a higher standard, even though we may not get paid that much.”

136

Curriculum Vitae

Stephanie S. Hayden

______________________EDUCATION____________________ American Intercontinental University 2004: Masters of Science in Education Howard University 1998: Bachelors of Science in Biological Sciences __________________________CERTIFICATIONS_______________________ Biology Grades (6-12) 2007 Reading Endorsement 2008 ___________PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE_________________ Science Instructor, July 2004 – October 2008 Eagle Charter Academy Science Instructor, January 2003-June 2004 Mad Science of South Florida Academic Instructor, August 2002-December 2003 Police Athletic League Academic Instructor, January 2002- December 2003

3487826.pdf

Section 1: Introduction to the Study

Introduction
Problem Statement
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions
Conceptual Framework
Nature of the Study
Operational Definitions
Assumption, Limitations, Scope and Delimitations

Assumption
Limitations
Scope and Delimitations

Significance of the Study
Summary

Section 2: Literature Review

Organization of the Review

Teacher Motivation
Mandate for Student Achievement
Student Achievement
Teacher Motivation Impact on Student Achievement
Performance Pay Primer for Teacher Motivation
Teacher Motivation and Work Environment
Teacher Morale and Student Achievement
Teacher Effects and Impact on Student Achievement
Teacher Motivation and Student Achievement on Standardized Tests
Teacher Quality and Work Motivation

Summary

Section 3: Methodology

Introduction
Research Questions
Rationale for Qualitative Tradition
Rationale for Choosing a Phenomenological Study Method
Population
Role of the Researcher
Criteria for Selection Participants
Data Collection Procedures
In-Depth Semistructure Interviews
Data Storage
Data Analysis
Methods to Address Validity and Minimize Bias and Error

Bracketing
Member-Checking
Peer-Debriefing
Design of Study
Instrumentation

Summary

Section 4: Results

Introduction
Data Collection
Data Recordings
Research Questions
The Findings
Perceptions of the Mathematics Teachers on Teacher Motivation

Love for Children and Passion to See Them Succeed

Teacher Motivation and Student Achievement on Standardized Tests
Teacher Motivation and Job Satisfaction

Low Job Satisfaction
Low Salary
Lack of Autonomy Within the Classroom
Feelings of Frustration

Teacher Motivation and Accountability on Standardized Tests

Unrealistic Expectations
Profession Not Valued in Society
Underappreciated

Summary

Section 5: Discussion, Implications for Practice, Limitations, and Suggestions for Future Research

Introduction
Research Questions
Interpretation of Findings

Theme 1: Love for Students and Passion to See Them Succeed
Theme 2: Teacher Motivation Influence on Standardized Test
Theme 3: Job Satisfaction
Theme 4: Low Salary
Theme 5: Lack of Autonomy within Classroom
Theme 6: Feelings of Frustration
Theme 7: Unrealistic Expectations
Theme 8: Profession Not Valued in Society
Theme 9: Underappreciated

Discussion
The Implications for Practice
Limitations of the Study
Suggestions for Future Research
Implications for Social Change
Researcher’s Reflection
Summary

References