1-s2.0-S095947520800073X-main

8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S095947520800073X-main

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-s20-s095947520800073x-main 1/7

CommentaryWhat motivates teachers? Important work on a complex question

Anita Woolfolk Hoy*

School of Educational Policy and Leadership, 29 West Woodruff Avenue, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA

Abstract

In this commentary I briefly describe the articles, suggest three themes that unite theworks and two questions raised by them, and

then elaborate some challenges that these studies pose for researchers and practitioners. The themes include situating these articles in

the history of the study of teaching and exploring both the complexity of teachers’ motivation and of the statistical designs used to

study it. The concerns focus on addressing context in research on teaching and discerning implications for teacher education.

Together these studies produce a heuristic perspective, which I attempt to illustrate in one possible model for further research.

2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Teacher motivation; Research on teaching; Teacher enthusiasm; Teacher education; Academic optimism; Teacher efficacy

1. Introduction

I am pleased to discuss this set of articles, in part because doing so allowed me to study them in advance of their pub-

lication. I already have put them on my class syllabus as required reading. These articles advance our understanding of

both motivation theories and the teaching/learning process. They focus on an overlooked area, teacher motivation. Even

though there are thousands of publications about motivation, few have addressed the motivation of teachers, with the

exception of writings about teachers’ sense of efficacy or teachers’ job satisfaction. The programs of research reported

in this special issue conceptualize teachers’ motivation using current approaches: Watt and Richardson (2008) the

expectancy-value theory; Kieschke and Schaarschmidt (2008) commitment, coping, and burnout; Malmberg (2008)

and Butler and Shibaz (2008) goal orientations; and Kunter et al. (2008) intrinsic motivation and interest. In the process,

these authors bring together research in educational psychology with research on teaching and teacher education.

In the following pages I will comment briefly on each article, suggest three themes that unite the works and two

questions raised by them, and then elaborate some challenges that these studies pose for researchers and practitioners.

2. The articles

In the first article, Watt and Richardson (2008) introduce an intriguing lens for viewing prospective teachers’

motivation for and persistence in the teaching professionddifferent teacher types. By following teacher education

* Tel.: þ1 614 488 5064.

E-mail address: [email protected]

0959-4752/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.007

Learning and Instruction 18 (2008) 492e498www.elsevier.com/locate/learninstruc

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/learninstruc

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/learninstruc

mailto:[email protected]

8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S095947520800073X-main


students in three universities from program entry until they neared the end of their preparation, Watt and Richardson

(2008) identified three types of beginning teachers: highly engaged persisters who were planning a lifetime of teaching

and continuing professional development; highly engaged switchers who planned to teach for a while or ‘‘fallback’’ on

teaching if necessary, but already were contemplating other careers, perhaps to satisfy their needs for challenge and

change; and lower engaged desisters who seemed to be disappointed with teaching as a career choice and increasingly

negative about the demands of teaching. These three types of beginning teachers differed in their perceptions about the

value and rewards of teaching, their future plans, and their satisfaction with teaching as a career. What is especially

useful in this careful mapping of beginning teachers’ perceptions is the reality check for teacher education. About 46%

of the teachers in the study were highly engaged persisters, the type of teacher we might hope to prepare. But about

56% of the soon-to-be graduates were planning to pass very quickly through teaching or not even visit that career at all.

The two types making up this 56%, in about equal proportions, reported very different perceptions about their prep-

aration. By better understanding these teachers’ experiences and aspirations, we should be able to improve the quality

of their education and build the foundation for more committed professionals.

The article by Kieschke and Schaarschmidt (2008) on teachers’ professional commitment, coping, and health is an

excellent example of how bringing well-developed conceptual and measurement tools from other fields yields new

insights. This inquiry benefits from a large, longitudinal dataset that includes information on professions other

than teaching. The authors make the important point that individuals, who are strongly committed to teaching but

lack the necessary coping and emotional self-regulation skills to manage stress, are candidates for exhaustion andburnout; thus professional commitment is not a uniformly positive or simple attribute. By identifying four patterns

of professional commitment, satisfaction, and coping, Kieschke and Schaarschmidt (2008) uncover pathways of

risk that can lead to psychological and physical problems. At least over the three years that the researchers followed

their sample, only those teachers who began in the G (good health) group were still in this group at the end of the study.

No teachers moved from the three riskier patterns to the type G cluster. These trends are troubling because only about

16% of the teachers began in the G group. Based on Kieschke and Schaarschmidt (2008) data comparing the percent of

workers in the G group across six occupations including teaching, it is temping to ponder whether teaching is bad for

our health. The notion of a balanced life and the self-regulating professional is seldom discussed in teacher inservice

or preservice education. Perhaps it should be.

The study by Malmberg (2008) is an example of how applying well conceived theories of motivation to research on

teachers can improve our understanding of the theories as well as of the teachers. Again, the analysis benefits fromhaving a rich dataset gathered over four years and analyzed with sophisticated individual growth statistical proce-

dures. Using these methods, Malmberg (2008) detected an oscillating pattern in student teachers’ achievement goals;

both mastery and performance goals decreased slightly from entry through the first two years of teacher preparation,

rising to peak in the third year and then decreasing again in the fourth year. For these prospective teachers, both in-

trinsic motivation and reflective thinking increased when mastery goals and beliefs about competence increased.

Malmberg’s (2008) findings support developing understandings of goal theory that describe the complexity of goals.

People do not necessarily choose mastery or performance orientations, but rather can pursue multiple interrelated

goals simultaneously. Malmberg (2008) also suggests an interesting question for future research. Do prospective

teachers develop beliefs about their teaching competency along dual tracks, one for the abstract world of educational

course work and one for the concrete world of practice? If so, how can measures of motivation and beliefs

differentiate?

The two articles by Butler and Shibaz (2008) and Kunter et al. (2008) connect teachers’ motivation to student per-

ceptionsdan important next step in research on teacher motivation. With a large sample of middle-grades teachers

and students, Butler and Shibaz (2008) found that teachers’ mastery goal orientation was associated with higher levels

of student perceived teacher support for student questions, and lower levels of perceived inhibition of questioning.

When teachers held ability-avoidance goals (a good day is when my class doesn’t do worse than other classes), stu-

dents were more likely to cheat. This relationship between teacher ability-avoidance goals and student cheating was

not, however, mediated by student perceptions that asking questions signalled low ability on their partda link the

researchers had hypothesized. One alternative explanation suggested is that when appearances (don’t look bad) matter

more to teachers than learning, students may respond by trying to look good no matter what it takes including cheat-

ing, and teachers may turn a blind eye. A number of elements in this study are noteworthy. Butler and Shibaz (2008)

provide useful instruments for assessing student perceptions of teacher questioning-support and inhibition. Also, be-

cause the researchers assessed teacher goal orientations early in the year and student perceptions later, the study

493 A. Woolfolk Hoy / Learning and Instruction 18 (2008) 492e 498

8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S095947520800073X-main


avoided the overestimation of association strength that can occur when variables are measured at the same time using

the same respondents.

Kunter et al. (2008) deconstructed a longstanding variable in classroom research, that is, teacher enthusiasm. As

these researchers suggest, Brophy and Good (1986) is an excellent discussion of the research on teacher enthusiasm,

but the notion has been around for at least 80 years. Charters and Waples (1929) identified enthusiasm and magnetism

as two of the top six characteristics of effective teachers and Barr and Emans (1930) identified teacher magnetism and

breadth and intensity of teacher interests as two of the most frequently occurring characteristics on the 209 scales they

reviewed that assessed teacher characteristics. Teacher enthusiasm and similar concepts have been included in reports

and reviews of research on teaching by Dunkin and Biddle (1974), Getzels and Jackson (1963), Medley (1979), Rose-

nshine (1970) and Ryans (1960). But even with this history of research, as Kunter et al. (2008) note, there have been

few attempts to conceptualize enthusiasm and even less work that grounds enthusiasm in a strong theoretical frame.

Thus this article is welcome and valuable. The distinction between interest/enthusiasm for the subject and interest/

enthusiasm for teaching proved not only intuitively appealing (it is easy to imagine people who love math or literature,

but do not like teaching, for example), but also empirically valid. Kunter et al. also provided a valuable conceptual-

ization and useful measures of teaching quality, as well as some intriguing questions to explore: Would work moti-

vation theories better serve as foundations for our study of motivation in classrooms, an idea suggested by Brophy

(1983)? Are student characteristics and behaviours the source of (or, at least, one source of) teacher enthusiasm; in

other words, is enthusiasm reciprocally determined?

3. Across the articles

Each of these articles deserves further analysis, but for the sake of brevity, I turn now to consider some themes and

questions that cut across these programs of work.

3.1. The study of teaching

In one sense, all the articles in this issue can be seen as recent examples of the study of teaching, as described yearsago by Dunkin and Biddle (1974). These early scholars mapped the terrain of research on teaching as the analysis of

relationships among presage, context, process, and product variables. Presage variables included the teachers’ charac-

teristics, of which motivation would be one. Context variables included student, classroom, school, and community

properties. Process variables were all those interactions and exchanges in the classroomdinstructional and relationald

that might lead to changes in students, and product variables were the measurable short- and long-term student out-

comes. But processeproduct research was strongly criticized. The work was accused of being atheoretical, with no

basis for selecting variables to study other than the predetermined categories on observational measures. Relations

between variables were described, but not explained. The direction of causality was assumed to go from teachers to

students, ignoring the effects of students on teachers and the influences of cultural, historical, and subject-matter con-

texts. Finally, the emphasis was on behaviours without attention to teacher or student cognition or emotion.

In spite of these limitations, the questions raised in early processeproduct research about what is happening in

classrooms remain important. Three articles in this special issue examine the presage variable of teacher motivation

over time (Kieschke & Schaarschmidt, 2008; Malmberg, 2008; Watt & Richardson, 2008). Malmberg’s (2008) study

also explored the relation of teacher goal orientation to other teacher characteristics such as reflective thinking, intrin-

sic motivation, and beliefs about control. The other two articles examined relationships between teacher motivation

and student outcomes such as cheating and help-seeking (Butler & Shibaz, 2008) and students’ perceptions of teacher

monitoring and social support (Kunter et al., 2008). Clearly all these studies go beyond the limitations of early proc-

esseproduct research and avoid the problems of that paradigm. There is a strong explanatory basis in theories of mo-

tivation. Variables are selected with attention to previous research and conceptions of quality teaching. This allows

explanatory linkages to be forged between teacher motivation and the other variables of interest. Contextual factors

and reciprocal causality are included in the explanations through the use of sophisticated statistical analyses. These

studies move the agenda forward, in part because they all incorporate complex conceptualizations of teachers and

teaching.


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S095947520800073X-main


3.2. Complex conceptualization of teachers and teaching

Each of the articles in this issue views motivation as multifaceted and complex. Achievement goals include mastery

and performance, approach and avoidance, without assuming a dichotomous continuum. Multiple goals can be pur-

sued simultaneously. Goal trajectories can follow linear, curvilinear, or oscillating paths. Teacher commitment is not

a single characteristic but is instead an element in a cluster of work-related coping behavioural patterns. Teacher

enthusiasm is unpacked to find its connections to intrinsic motivation, subject interest, enjoyment of teaching, and

students’ perceptions.

Student perceptions of teachers are assessed and analysed both as perceived teacher openness to questions and stu-

dents’ willingness to seek help or cheat, instead of assuming that perceptions of teacher openness necessarily prevent

cheating through help-seeking. This allows us to examine the role of student differences in help-seeking separately

from the characteristics and actions of the teacher. Finally, the articles in this issue reflect a complex view of teaching

that attends to student behaviours, cognition, and relationships.

Given these complex views of teachers and teaching, fraught with reciprocal interactions and nested effects, more

sophisticated research methods are required.

3.3. Complex and sophisticated research designs

I applaud the range of teacher experience (entering teacher education students through over 30 years of experi-

ence), grade levels taught (primary through secondary), academic subjects (early childhood/primary vs. secondary,

special education, domestic sciences, humanities, physical and biological sciences, mathematics, social sciences),

and countries (Australia, Germany, Israel, Finland) represented in these articles. Generally the datasets are large

and several span 3e4 years. There are multiple sources of data from teachers and students, gathered at varying times,

appropriately chosen to answer the research questions posed. The measures used have been carefully developed based

on solid theoretical grounds and improved through application in prior studies. The statistical designs of hierarchical

linear modelling and growth modelling, confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling, and hierar-

chical cluster analysis allow a much clearer and cleaner look at relationships among variables and how changes might

unfold.

3.4. Questions and concerns

One lesson that researchers have learned repeatedly is the power of context in research on teaching. Early re-

searchers found teacher behaviours to be unstable, in part because teachers appropriately changed their behaviours

to fit the contextddifferent students, academic subjects, class sizes, times of the day or year, or student moods

and interests, to name but a few contextual variations. Research on teacher motivation will have to be especially sen-

sitive to context. Contextual effects, in the form of a change to self-selected and self-directed studies accompanied by

experiences in real schools, were invoked as a possible explanation for the increase in motivation and performance

goals during the student teachers’ third year in the study described by Malmberg. We know from research on teachers’

sense of efficacy that teachers vary in how efficacious they feel, even across different classes in a day. Sense of efficacy

likely is influenced by and influences the goals teachers set and the ways they teach, so studying teacher goals and

students’ responses should take the class context into account.

In the current set of articles, Butler and Shibaz (2008) controlled in part for context by collecting data only in clas-

ses most liked by the teachers. The Kunter et al. (2008) study considered context by focusing on mathematics class-

rooms. All of the studies in this issue would benefit from a more elaborated description of the contextual features that

might be related to the variables under investigation. As research continues, it will be useful to note whether subject,

student, or school contexts moderate relationships between teacher motivation and student perceptions. For example,

do the patterns of work-related coping behaviours identified by Kieschke and Schaarschmidt (2008) change for

teachers depending on their school contexts or after more than three years of teaching? There is evidence that context

matters in coping, based on Kieschke and Schaarschmidt (2008) findings that even teachers evincing the G or good

coping pattern reported that large classes and problem student behaviour were sources of stress. And of course, an

important challenge for all these research programs is to relate their unfolding understandings of teacher motivation


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S095947520800073X-main


to actual student cognitive and socialeemotional outcomes and to deal with the limitations and challenges of relying

on self-report measures (see Alexander, 2008; Karabenick et al., 2007).

3.5. Implications for teacher education

As I read these articles, I returned repeatedly to thoughts about teacher education and the challenges posed by these

provocative findings. One recurring thought was, to be prepared for the life and work of teaching, our graduates need

more than expertise in academic subjects and pedagogy. They also need to understand how their own goals and mo-

tivations affect their well-being and the lives of their students. Teachers’ mastery goals may provide models to their

students about the value of asking questions in pursuit of understanding (Butler & Shibaz, 2008). Some healthy emo-

tional distance and balance in commitment to teaching may be necessary to sustain a healthy life as a teacher

(Kieschke & Schaarschmidt, 2008). Where do prospective teachers discuss these ideas, much less develop the self-

regulation tools to thrive in their profession? They are more likely to encounter either unrealistic optimism or jaded

cynicism in their courses and field placements. Social support appears to sustain a sense of efficacy for beginning

teachers (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007; Woolfolk Hoy & Burke-Spero, 2005) and healthy coping for

more experienced teachers (Kieschke & Schaarschmidt, 2008). When prospective teachers leave the social

support-rich settings of classes, cohorts, and colleagues they often enter a much more isolated world in the classroom.

Could teacher education prepare its graduates to self-regulate their own social support networks? Perhaps if we an-swered these questions we might increase the number of ‘‘persisters’’ (Watt & Richardson, 2008) graduating from our

programs.

3.6. Research directions

The designs of these studies give testimony about the value of continued improvement in assessments for teacher

motivation, student perceptions of teaching, and teaching quality. All the authors have worked to refine useful, the-

oretically based measures and their findings are all the more valuable and credible for those efforts. Each study

has raised questions that merit pursuing using the instruments described in this issue and others. I end this discussion

with a few ideas as to how the findings from these studies may collectively fit with and build upon my own current

program of research and the work of others on academic optimism, student belonging, and achievement.With colleagues, I recently have explored the idea of the academic optimism of teachers. This work began at the

school level and is continuing at the individual teacher level. At the school level, the latent construct of academic op-

timism is a property of the school comprised of the faculty’s (a) sense of collective efficacy for teaching, (b) trust in

parents and students, and (c) academic emphasis (a press for high standards). School-level academic optimism is re-

lated to student achievement (Hoy, Tarter, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2006; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006). At the individual teacher

level, teachers’ sense of efficacy, trust in parents and students, and academic emphasis form a single, strong second-

order factor, that is, teachers’ academic optimism (Kurz, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 2007; Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, & Kurz,

2008). Thus far, the findings at the individual level have mirrored those at the school level. We have identified four

teacher variables (dispositional optimism, humanistic classroom management, student-centred teaching, and teacher

citizenship behaviour) that are associated with the development of teachers’ academic optimism.

It would be enlightening to examine possible relationships between academic optimism and the concepts studied

by the researchers in this issue. For example, teachers with a mastery goal orientation (fostering learning rather than

just looking good) could well be more student-centred in their teaching and humanistic in their classroom manage-

ment, two predictors of academic optimism. Thus teacher achievement goal orientation might also be related to teach-

er’s academic optimism. Teacher citizenship (going the extra mile for students) is another correlate of academic

optimism, so academic optimism might be related to patterns of coping and health at work. Certainly we might expect

academic optimism to be related to enthusiasm in teaching. It would be difficult to be enthusiastic about teaching if

you felt incapable of teaching, did not trust students, and set low academic standards for them.

One possible model connects teachers’ mastery goals, academic optimism (efficacy, trust, and academic emphasis),

and enthusiasm for teaching, through positive student perceptions of quality teaching, to student achievement and be-

longing (see Fig. 1). In this model, both teachers’ mastery goals and academic optimism are related to enthusiasm for

teaching, which has been connected to student perceptions of quality teaching, defined as monitoring, cognitive chal-

lenge, and social support (Kunter et al., 2008). These student perceptions are likely related to students’ achievement


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S095947520800073X-main


and sense of belonging in the classroom (Anderman, 1999, 2003; Sakiz, 2007; Sakiz, Pape, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007),

which would serve as feedback to support teachers’ enthusiasm, mastery goal setting and academic optimism.

In closing, I reiterate that the articles in this issue highlight the importance of teacher motivation, and the motiva-

tions of teachers are as complex and evolving as the challenge of teaching itself. The call to serve is deep in many

people who enter the teaching profession (Alexander, 2008; McMahon, 2007; Watt & Richardson, 2008), but the re-

alities of teaching can be disheartening, especially for those whose motivations are altruistic. These tensionsd

between serving and surviving, between caring and control, between deep investment and protective distancedare

seldom addressed in teacher preparation. The articles in this issue give us conceptual, statistical, and methodological

tools for exploring these tensions and the complexities of teacher motivation, as well as examining how those teacher

characteristics are related to student outcomes. They provide models for research on teaching that overcome some of

the difficulties of past work. Together they produce a heuristic perspective, which I have tried to illustrate in onepossible model for further research.

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Wayne K. Hoy for his comments and suggestions as I drafted this commentary.

References

Alexander, P. A. (2008). Charting the course for the teaching profession: the energizing and sustaining role of motivational forces. Learning and

Instruction, 18, 483e

491.Anderman, L. H. (1999). Classroom goal orientation, school belonging and social goals as predictors of students’ positive and negative affect

following the transition to middle school. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32, 89e103.

Anderman, L. H. (2003). Academic and social perceptions as predictors of change in middle school students’ sense of school belonging. Journal of

Experimental Education, 72, 5e22.

Barr, A. S., & Emans, L. M. (1930). What qualities are prerequisite to success in teaching? Nation’s Schools, 6 , 60e64.

Brophy, J. E. (1983). Conceptualizing student motivation to learn. Educational Psychologist, 18, 200e215.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp.

340e370). New York: Macmillan.

Butler, R., & Shibaz, L. (2008). Achievement goals for teaching as predictors of students’ perceptions of instructional practices and students’ help

seeking and cheating. Learning and Instruction, 18, 453e467.

Charters, W. W., & Waples, D. (1929). The commonwealth teacher training study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1963). The teacher’s personality and characteristics. In N. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching

(pp. 506e

582). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Teachers’

Mastery Goals

Teachers’

Academic Optimism

Enthusiasm for

Teaching

Student Perceptions

of

Quality Instruction

Monitoring Cognitive Challenge Social Support

AcademicAchievement

Belonging

Self-efficacy Trust Academic

Emphasis

Fig. 1. A proposed model linking teacher motivation and academic optimism to student achievement and belonging.


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S095947520800073X-main


Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: a force for student achievement. American Educational

Research Journal, 43, 425e446.

Karabenick, S. A., Woolley, M. E., Friedel, J. M., Ammon, B. V., Blazevski, J., Bonney, C. R., et al. (2007). Cognitive processing of self-report

items in educational research: do they think what we mean? Educational Psychologist, 42, 139e152.

Kieschke, U., & Schaarschmidt, U. (2008). Professional commitment and health among teachers in Germany: a typological approach. Learning

and Instruction, 18, 429e437.

Kunter, M., Tsai, Y.-M., Klusmann, U., Brunner, M., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J. (2008). Students’ and mathematics teachers’ perceptions of teacher

enthusiasm and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 18, 468e

482.

Kurz, N., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. Predictors of academic optimism: Teachers’ instructional beliefs and professional commitment . Paper to

be presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 2007, Chicago, IL.

McGuigan, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2006). Principal leadership: creating a culture of academic optimism to improve achievement for all students. Lead-

ership and Policy in Schools, 5, 203e229.

McMahon, E. M. (2007). Professionalism in teaching: An individual level measure for a structural theory . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The

Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Malmberg, L.-E. (2008). Student teachers’ achievement goal orientations during teacher studies: antecedents, correlates and outcomes. Learning

and Instruction, 18, 438e452.

Medley, D. M. (1979). The effectiveness of teachers. In P. Peterson, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and im-

plications (pp. 11e27). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Rosenshine, B. (1970). Enthusiastic teaching: a research review. School Review, 78, 499e514.

Ryans, D. G. (1960). Characteristics of teachers: Their description, comparison, and appraisal . Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Sakiz, G. (2007). Does teacher affective support matter? An investigation of the relationship among perceived teacher affective support, sense of belonging, academic emotions, academic self-efficacy beliefs, and academic effort in middle school mathematics classrooms. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Sakiz, G., Pape, S. J., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. Teacher affective support and its impact on early adolescents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the American Psychological Association, August 2007, San Francisco, CA.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944e956.

Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2008). Motivations, perceptions, and aspirations concerning teaching as a career for different types of be-

ginning teachers. Learning and Instruction, 18, 408e428.

Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Burke-Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: a comparison of four measures.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343e356.

Woolfolk Hoy, A., Hoy, W. K., & Kurz, N. M. (2008). Teacher’s academic optimism: the development and test of a new construct. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 24, 821e835.


1-s2.0-S095947520800073X-main

Documents

Transcript of 1-s2.0-S095947520800073X-main