TEACHER MOTIVATION - MSP-MAPmspmap.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Teacher-PDM.pdf · Motives for...

33
MSP-MAP II • PDM — 1 TEACHER MOTIVATION for PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT National Science Foundation • NSF DUE 0928103

Transcript of TEACHER MOTIVATION - MSP-MAPmspmap.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Teacher-PDM.pdf · Motives for...

MSP-MAP II • PDM — 1

TEACHER MOTIVATION for

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

National Science Foundation • NSF DUE 0928103

2 — MSP-MAP II • PDM

MSP-MAP II • PDM — 3

TEACHER MOTIVATION for

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Stuart A. Karabenick&

AnneMarie Conley

Technical Report

Math and Science Partnership

Motivation Assessment Program II(MSP-MAP II)

www.mspmap.org

ma.mspnet.org

National Science Foundation • DUE 0928103

4 — MSP-MAP II • PDM

Stuart A. Karabenick (PI)([email protected])

Combined Program in Education and PsychologyUniversity of Michigan

AnneMarie Conley (Co-PI)([email protected])

Department of EducationUniversity of California • Irvine

Martin L. Maehr (Co-PI)([email protected])

Combined Program in Education and PsychologyUniversity of Michigan

Consultants: Deborah Ball, University of Michigan, USA—Ruth Butler, Hebrew University, Israel—Joe Krajcik, Michigan State Uni-versity, USA—Helen Watt, Monash University, Australia

Research Assistants: Amanda Berhenke, University of Michigan—Colleen Kuusinen, University of Michigan—Fani Lauermann, Uni-versity of Michigan—Kara Makara, University of Michigan—Loren Marulis, University of Michigan—Teomara Rutherford, University of California • Irvine—Nayssan Safavian, University of California • Irvine—Jessica Turney, University of California • Irvine—Nicholas Yoder, University of Michigan

Research Assistants & Technical Support: Pamela MacInnis-Weir, University of Michigan—Glen B. Raulerson, University of Michigan

MSP-MAP II

—Please cite as—

Karabenick, S. A., & Conley, A. (2011).Teacher Motivation for Professional Development. Math and Science Partnership - Motivation Assessment Program, University of Michigan,

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

MSP-MAP II • PDM — 5

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................7

Teachers Who Participated in PD ..................................................................................................7

Teacher Preferred Features of PD ...................................................................................................7

Teacher Characteristics and School Context ..................................................................................8

Conclusions and Links to the PD Literature .................................................................................8

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................9

Motivation Theory ..................................................................................................................................11

Expectancy-Value Theory .............................................................................................................11

Achievement Goal Theory ............................................................................................................11

Teacher Affect and Emotions .......................................................................................................12

A Model of Teacher PDM ......................................................................................................................13

PD Process Cluster .......................................................................................................................13

Predictors of PD Process Components .........................................................................................14

A Study of Teacher PDM ........................................................................................................................15

Sampling and Participants ............................................................................................................15

Data Collection Procedure ...........................................................................................................15

Motivation to Participate in PD .............................................................................................................16

Rate, Ratings, and Descriptions of Teacher Participation in PD ..................................................16

Teachers’ PD Experiences .............................................................................................................16

Influence of Participation on Future Motivation ..........................................................................17

Rated Effectiveness of PD ............................................................................................................17

Summary of PD Experiences and PDM ......................................................................................18

Analysis Description .....................................................................................................................19

Motivational Correlates of PD Participation ........................................................................................20

6 — MSP-MAP II • PDM

PD Characteristics ........................................................................................................................20

Preferred PD Formats ..................................................................................................................21

PD Help with Student Motivation ..............................................................................................21

PDM and PD Content.................................................................................................................21

Other Factors Influencing PD Participation ................................................................................23

Teacher Characteristics and School Context .........................................................................................24

Motives for Teaching ....................................................................................................................24

School Context and Teacher Experiences .....................................................................................24

Teacher Responsibility ..................................................................................................................25

Teacher Emotions .........................................................................................................................26

Approaches to Instruction ............................................................................................................27

Conclusions and Future Directions .......................................................................................................28

References ...............................................................................................................................................29

MSP-MAP II • PDM — 7

Executive SummaryTeacher professional development (PD) is an essential feature of instructional interventions in general, and for the improvement of students’ math and science learning and achievement in particular. The more motivated teachers are to participate and engage in PD, the more likely they will be to profit from the experience. Teacher motivation in PD is directly linked with classroom enactment of PD approaches, content and skills, and it is indirectly related to increasing the likelihood of desirable student outcomes. Informed by theory and empirical evidence from research on student and teacher motivation, and by a model of teacher motivation to participate in PD (PDM), a national study of teachers (n = 552) examined the level of PDM, teachers’ experiences in PD, and their perceived benefits of PD. Also examined were how perceived experiences and benefits were associated with features of PD programs and teacher and contextual factors.

Among the most noteworthy findings — On average, teachers reported being positively motivated to participate in PD. Approximately 40% of the teachers indicated they were highly motivated, whereas only 7% indicated they were not at all motivated. Most teachers reported having participated in PD during the previous school year, and those with higher levels of PDM were more likely to have participated.

Teachers Who Participated in PD

Of the teachers who participated during the previous year, 64% reported that their PD experiences were either positive or extremely positive, whereas only 13% re-ported having had a negative experience. 45% of the teachers indicated that past PD experiences made them more motivated to participate in PD in the future, and 16% reported they were less motivated. 62% judged PD useful for increasing their teaching effectiveness, although 18% considered it useless. More specifically, teachers indicated that PD helped them to improve students’ competence in the following: subject area(s) taught, motivation to understand the material in depth, and interest in and value for the subject area(s) taught. The teachers also indicated improvement in their students’ motivation to work with classmates to study, seek help when needed, perform well on state tests, attend class, and do their homework. Improvement in all areas was directly related to teacher PDM, which was higher

for teachers who indicated that the PD required a significant amount of work to implement teaching strategies, and that it required the teachers to bear some of the cost. PDM was also higher when the PD addressed professional requirements or continuing education needs by earning continuing education cred-its and fulfilling state licensing and renewal requirements. Finally, PDM was higher when there were such benefits for teachers as an included stipend for attendence or enhanced job security. PDM was unrelated to whether PD took up a significant amount of teachers’ personal time, conflicted with other scheduled school events, conflicted with their class time, or involved considerable travel time. In addition, PDM was unrelated to whether or not it was part of their evaluation. PDM was lower when PD fulfilled a district or school requirement.

Teachers’ Preferred Features of PD

Teachers indicated they would want to participate in PD to the extent they expected participation to do the following: improve their subject-matter knowledge, be enjoyable and fun, enhance their career, and not require too much time and effort. Teachers reported a preference for PD when other teachers in their

8 — MSP-MAP II • PDM

Those [teachers] who reported more positive emotions...were more mo-tivated to participate in PDM.

school were participating and when their principal encouraged them to participate. Teacher PDM was directly related to all of these PD characteristics.

Teachers’ most preferred PD formats consisted of a single workshop with teacher participation, a series of workshops with teacher participation, and PD delivered completely or partly online. Of these formats, the more that teachers were motivated to participate in PD the more they preferred a series of workshops with teacher participation. Less preferred were summer institutes, professional learning communities (PLCs), and lectures.

Teachers’ desire to participate was directly related to whether PD would: make their lessons more engag-ing and more effective for student learning, improve their students’ achievement, improve the degree to which their students learned the required material, capture students’ interest in the subject they taught, show students they truly cared about them, and establish positive relationships with students. Teachers’ PDM was directly related to all of these ratings.

Teacher Characteristics and School Context

Teachers who considered themselves more personally re-sponsible for student achievement, student motivation, re-lations with students, and for quality teaching were more motivated to engage in and had more positive experiences with PD. Those who reported more positive emotions (e.g., excitement and satisfaction) and with less negative emotions (e.g., anger and feelings of burnout) in their teaching were more motivated to participate in PD. Teachers with higher PDM also reported more posi-tive principal relations and collegial leadership, felt a sense of personal accomplishment, experienced fewer school problems, emotional exhaustion, and stress. Those with higher PDM were more likely to adopt a mastery approach to instruction that focused on individual student improvement and had high expecta-tions for their students. To a lesser extent, PDM was related to the adoption of a performance approach to instruction that focuses on student ability and interpersonal student comparisons.

Conclusions and Links to the PD Literature

Teachers in general indicated they were positively motivated to participate in PD. Most in this national sample reported having participated in PD in the previous year, and a majority of those felt that PD was useful for improving their teaching practice, student learning, and student motivation. Overall, teachers who participated in PD reported moderate to high levels of motivation, even when participation involved a considerable investment of time or resources. Teachers reported they are open to a variety of PD formats, especially those that included teacher participation.

MSP-MAP II • PDM — 9

IntroductionMath and Science Partnership (MSP) teacher professional de-velopment (PD) interventions are designed to increase teach-er content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, assuming that the resulting changes in instructional practices will boost student learning and performance. However, while there is considerable consensus for the features of PD pro-grams that are necessary and sufficient for their success (e.g., Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Guskey, 2003; Hassel, 1999; Hawley & Valli, 1998; Loucks-Horsley, et al., 2003; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996; Weiss & Pasley, 2009), there remains a need to establish empircal support for these features (Weiss, 2009) as well as the need to determine the impact of PD programs across a broad range of conditions (Borko, 2004). A recent review of research and evaluation designs stressed the need to assess proximal outcomes of PD, most notably the changes in teacher knowledge and teacher practices that mediate the effects of interventions on achieve-ment (Wayne et al., 2008). Indeed, there is evidence that MSP and other NSF programs often do include such mediators, as documented by recent studies of NSF’s Local Systemic Change initiative (Boyd et al., 2003; Heck et al., 2006) and MSP programs (Zhang et al., 2008).

In addition to the focus on teacher knowledge and practices, there are also urgent calls to examine the role of teacher motivation for PD (PDM). That is because PD can influence teachers’ motivation for teach-ing math and science in general (Alexander, 2008; Tittle, 2006), and for attempting new instructional practices (e.g., reform math and problem-based science) that incur costs and risks as well as benefits and challenges (De Corte et al., 1996; Gregoire, 2003; Hargreaves, 1998; Richardson & Placier, 2001; Smith, 2000). Goldsmith and Schifter (1997), for example, suggested that descriptions of teacher development need to add accounts of individual motivational and dispositional factors. Thus Boyd et al. (2003) high-lighted the critical role of PDM as one of their four key recommendations: “A primary challenge for large-scale professional development projects lies in attracting teachers and sustaining their involvement so that they can receive the full dose of professional development” (p. 112).

As stated in the study of Local Systemic Change, “You have to make every effort to get the teachers there and once you get them there, you have to make sure you have something of high quality that will encourage them to come back” (Boyd et al., 2003, p. 47), for higher education faculty in particular (Zhang et al., 2008). Similarly, in his more contemporary review, Tittle (2006) concluded that while “[t]here are references [in

the literature] to motivation and affective (or dispositional) char-acteristics as important to teacher learning…[f ]ew studies address these areas, areas that are likely to be important for assessments of long-term professional learning and development” (p. 976). Even the evaluation of PD programs requires motivational consider-ations to the extent that it results in differential rates of participa-tion and thus the potential for selection bias (Wayne et al., 2008). And yet, recent work on PD in math and science (Weiss & Pasley,

2009) does not explicitly include motivation. Motivational concerns, while often alluded to in passing (e.g., with regard to participation incentives or teacher confidence), thus remain a critical yet understudied com-ponent of teacher PD interventions.

Motivational concerns, while often alluded to in passing...remain a critical yet under-studied component of teacher PD interventions.

10 — MSP-MAP II • PDM

Fortunately, the recognized importance of PDM arises at a time of renewed inter-est in teacher motivation in general (Watt & Richardson, 2008), which can be ap-plied to the more specific domain of teacher PD. What distinguishes this work is its comprehensive application of contemporary motivation theory and research. As discussed subsequently, these approaches include expectancy-value theories (Watt & Richardson, 2008), achievement goals (Butler & Shibaz, 2008) and interest theories (Hidi, & Renninger, 2006), and new ways to think about emotion and affect (Pekrun, 2007). These conceptual frameworks offer a range of constructs and their assessments that are especially relevant for PD in math and science instruc-tion in general, and thus for the formative and summative evaluation of teacher PD interventions in the MSP program in particular.

MSP-MAP II • PDM — 11

Motivation TheoryThere are several dominant theoretical approaches to motivation that have focused primarily on student learning and school performance: Expectancy-Value, Achievement Goals, Interest, and the related area of Emotion. Highlights of these approaches to motivation are presented here, along with their relevance for teacher motivation and professional development.

Expectancy-Value Theory

Recent work on teacher motivation within the framework of expectancy-value theory (Richardson & Watt, 2006; Watt & Richardson, 2007) provides evidence for links between teachers’ motivation and their en-gagement, commitment and persistence in teaching and their inclination to become involved in profes-sional development. Much of the evidence for the effects of motivation focuses on teacher efficacy—their self-perceived capabilities to affect outcomes. There is considerable agreement that teachers’ efficacy and skepticism about affecting students is associated with enthusiasm, job commitment, and instructional behavior (e.g., Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Furthermore, research has identified a link between teacher efficacy and student efficacy and achievement as well (Feldhaufer et al., 1988; Ross & Cousins, 1993).

There is evidence that the influence of teacher efficacy on student achievement is partially mediated by teachers’ instructional behaviors (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Turner et al., in press; Woolfolk Hoy & Davis, 2006). Thus, teachers’ confidence in their capacity to use instructional strat-egies (e.g., those promoted by PD) makes it more likely they will enact those strategies (Hart, 2002; Ross & Bruce, 2007; Wilson & Cooney, 2002).

The value that teachers accord the tasks involved in teaching math and science is also critical (Eccles, 2005; Eccles et al., 1998; Sc-hunk, et al., 2008; Anderman & Wolters, 2006). Four components of value have been proposed (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000): interest value is the enjoyment the individual derived from performing the task; utility value is how the task relates to future goals, attainment value is the importance to the self of doing well on a task, linked with identity (in this case teacher identity), and cost, which refers to the accumulated negative aspects of engaging in the task, including anticipated emotional states (performance anxiety, fear of failure), and the amount of effort required to succeed at the task.

Much of the evidence regarding value is based on students (e.g., Eccles et al., 1998; Wigfield & Eccles, 2002). Watt and Richardson (2006, 2007, 2008) have systematically extended that work to teachers, with scales to assess the intrinsic value, personal utility value and social utility value of teaching. However, their work has yet to focus extensively on PD. Nevertheless, their work provides a framework for the assessment of value that is of particular relevance for PDM. The combination of value in addition to efficacy can pro-vide information for the predicted likelihood that teachers will opt to become involved in PD, profit from it, and be motivated to change their practices as recommended by PD interventions.

Achievement Goal Theory

Achievement goals refer to the reasons for engaging in learning and performance tasks. The perspective is

Recent work on teacher moti-vation...provides evidence for links between teachers’ moti-vation and their engagement, commitment and persistence in teaching and their inclina-tion to become involved in professional development.

12 — MSP-MAP II • PDM

that motivation differs in kind as well as magnitude. Mastery goals represent a focus on the developmentof competence, and performance goals represent a concern for demonstrating competence (Pintrich, 2000; Elliot, 2005). Mastery goals have been consistently related to a number of such favorable student outcomes as persistence, students’ use of deep learning strategies and necessary help seeking (e.g., Karabenick, 2004; Levy, Kaplan, & Patrick, 2004; Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2009; Wolters, 2004), as well as indirect positive effects on performance that are mediated by those outcomes (e.g., Simons, DeWitte, & Lens, 2004; Wolt-ers, 1998). Conclusions regarding the effects of students’ adoption of performance goals depend on wheth-er they involve approach or avoidance. Whereas performance approach goals have been related to higher achievement, adverse consequences are generally associated with the adoption of performance avoidance goals (Hulleman, Schrager, Bodman, & Harackiewicz, 2010; Senko, Hulleman, & Harackiewicz, 2011).

Whatever the factors that contribute to and result from student goal adoption (e.g., mastery vs. perfor-mance, the multiple goals perspective, selective goals), it is clear that students adopt achievement goals and that the goals adopted have important consequences for student self-regulation and achievement. Here we focus on teachers’ approaches to instruction, specifically achievement goal structures (Meece et al., 2006), which can influence the goals students adopt and the resulting consequences. Goal structures refer to the ways that teachers organize their classes, respond to student success and failure, and stress normative per-

formance and ability comparisons among students or individual improvement and academic risk-taking, such as promoting be-liefs that mistakes are part of the learning process.

Teacher Affect and Emotions

With the exception of anxiety (primarily math anxiety; e.g., McLeod & Adams, 1989), student emotions in academic learn-ing settings have been relatively neglected. Recently, there is renewed interest in the role of emotions in academic learning,

both for students and teachers (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Pekrun et al., 2002; Schutz & Pekrun, 2007). This work has been aided by Pekrun’s control-value theory (Pekrun, et al., 2007) that uses a two-dimensional system (positive-negative and active-passive) to classify emotions. Teachers’ emotions have been a consistent concern, although less so than teachers’ beliefs (Schuck & Grootenboer, 2004). Teacher emotions, including anger and frustration (Sutton, 2007) are especially thought to be tied to their identi-ties (Gregoire, 2003; van den Berg, 2002), to their beliefs and goals in the classroom (Schutz, Cross, Hong, & Osbon, 2007), and thus the likely influence on PDM.

MSP-MAP II • PDM — 13

A Model of Teacher PDM The model shown in Figure 1 is designed to capture the motivation-related dynamics of teacher PD, which is meant to depict an episode in a process that is iterative and dynamic given the ongoing nature of inter-ventions. The process is assumed to be embedded in a school/societal context that could influence the pro-cess, although its specific influences are not represented in the model in order to simplify its presentation.

PD Process Cluster

Four model components were designated as the PD Process Cluster. Within this cluster, PD participation is assumed to be determined by whether teachers opt to participate and the degree of participation (e.g., number of workshops or PLC meetings attended). Also included in the model is the motivation to enact PD recommended instructional practices, which summarizes the expected values of using them and the likelihood that teachers will enact them, which in the PD Cluster are assumed to be influenced directly by the extent of engagement (P7). Motivation for enacting practices is also assumed to be mediated by the effects of participation (P6 -> P9), as well as being influenced directly by PD experiences (P9). The enact-ment of recommended PD practices is an outcome of participation, experiences and motivation to enact those practices. The model provides for the direct (P8) and indirect effects of participation through PD experiences (P6 -> P10) and motivation to enact practices (P7 -> P11). Further, the PD process cluster is assumed to have a direct effect on student outcomes (P12).

Figure 1. PDM Process Model

14 — MSP-MAP II • PDM

Predictors of PD Process Components

The model proposes five general determinants of teachers’ ap-proach to PD. The first determinant is teachers’ motivation to teach math/science, which includes their self-efficacy beliefs, value of teaching math/science and their teaching goals. Al-though teacher motivation is assumed to be relatively stable, the model provides a reciprocal path to allow for participation in the PD process to influence motivation (P1). Also represented in the model is the direct influence of teacher motivation on students’ outcomes (P12). The motivational relevance of PD programmatic features is represented by P2. PD programmatic

features captures teachers’ understanding of the design and requirements of the PD program itself, includ-ing extrinsic inducements, beliefs about and perceived benefits of increased content knowledge and peda-gogical content knowledge, and costs, which may include the time and effort of participation and penal-ties for non-compliance in the case of mandatory participation. The third determinant relates to teachers’ previous experiences with PD in math/science (P3). P4 includes the effects of how teachers are influenced by other teachers (e.g., whether others intend to participate). Finally, administrative support for PD is also included (P5).

Taken together, these five determinants are shown to influence the entire process of PD participation and intended changes in practice. Although the details of each particular path are not shown in this presenta-tion, the model allows for analysis of the direct effects of each component both on participation and the remaining components as well.

MSP-MAP II • PDM — 15

[We] identified a series of factors that potentially im-prove the likelihood that teachers would participate, be engaged in, and profit from PD, as well as those that render it less likely.

A Study of Teacher PDMGiven the absence of existing research on teachers’ PDM discussed above, our study of PDM was con-ducted using research-based motivation theory and the proposed model shown in Figure 1 as a guide. The purpose is to provide a snapshot of PDM for teachers in general, and math and science teachers in particular. We first examined the associations between teachers’ PDM and their previous experiences with PD, their preferred content characteristics of PD, and what they expect to gain from participation. We examined teacher characteristics and features of the school context and we identified a set of factors that potentially affect the likelihood of teacher participation in PD, engagement in PD and benefits from their participation in PD.

Sampling and Participants

Participants consisted of 552 teachers recruited from a panel provided by Qualtrics (qualtrics.com) who were screened for eligibility for the study. First, the survey was distributed only among individuals who indicated that their occupation is in the field of education when they registered for the panel. Second, because occupations may change over time and some individuals may have non-traditional teaching-related positions (e.g., tutor-ing or home schooling), each participant responded to a series of screening questions to determine eligibility. Only K-12 in-ser-vice teachers were retained in the sample. Overall, 736 partici-pants were identified as eligible, 552 (75%) of whom provided adequate data to be included in the present report. Of those, 33% were identified as elementary, 9% middle and 58% high school teachers; furthermore 24% were classified as teaching math or science, and 71% were female. Geographical representation of teachers in the sample (by state) was similar to that of the U.S. population (2010 Census). Because the results for math or science teachers compared to other teachers were either not statistically significant or sufficiently small to be of no practical significance, the results are presented for the entire teacher sample.

Data Collection Procedure

Invitations for survey participation were sent via email. The first page of the survey included a consent form. Individuals who agreed to participate after reading the consent form respond to a series of questions related to their teaching position (e.g., whether they are currently teaching any regularly scheduled K-12 classes, grade levels, and subject areas that they currently teach). Some of these questions were used for automatic screening: if a person’s responses indicated that he or she was not currently a K-12 teacher, the survey was automatically terminated.

16 — MSP-MAP II • PDM

Motivation to Participate in PDTeachers’ general motivation to participate in PD (PDM) was assessed by their response to the direct ques-tion: “In general, how motivated are you, personally, to participate in PD activities?” The 7-point response scale ranged from 0 “Not at all” to 6 “Extremely”. The entire sample Mean = 4.8 (SD = 1.7). The frequency distribution of responses (in %) shown in Figure 2 provides evidence that most teachers (including math and science teachers) described themselves as highly motivated to participate in PD. Subsequent analyses will describe the characteristics of PD that may influence PD participation and of teachers who are more or less motivated to participate.

Figure 2. Teachers’ Responses to the Question:In general, how motivated are you, personally, to participate in PD activities?

Rate, Ratings, and Descriptions of Teacher PD Participation

Teachers were then asked whether they had participated in PD during the school year (including the previ-ous summer). For the entire sample, 77% reported having participated in PD during the past year. Those participating spent an average of 24.9 (SD = 21.2) hours in PD. As expected, those who participated were more motivated, as shown in Figure 3. The average PDM score was significantly higher (p < .001) for those who participated (Mean = 5.0, SD = 1.7) than for teachers who had not (Mean = 4.3, SD = 1.7).

Teachers’ PD Experiences

Those who participated in PD were asked: “In general, how would you rate your experiences with PD during the current school year?” Teachers responded on a 5-point scale with the end-points labeled from “Extremely Negative” to “Extremely Positive”. As shown in Figure 4, most teachers indicated that their expe-riences were positive rather than negative. Specifically, 64% rated their experiences as positive compared to only 13% negative and 23% neutral. We coded the categories as follows: Extremely Negative = -2, Negative = -1, Neutral = 0, Positive = 1 and Extremely Positive as 2, the Mean = 1.71 (SD = 1.0).

MSP-MAP II • PDM — 17

Figure 3. Teacher PDM and PD Participation

Influence of Participation on Future PDM

In order to assess the relationship between experiences with PD and future PDM (see Figure 1), teach-ers were asked: “In general, how much did your participation in PD this year affect your motivation to participate in PD in the future?” Teachers responded on a 5-point scale from “Much less motivated” to “Much more motivated”. As shown in Figure 5, whereas 39.8% of the teachers responded that there was no change, 44.7% indicated they were more motivated to participate in the future, compared with only 15.6% who indicated they were less motivated. We coded the categories as follows: Much Less Motivated = -2, Somewhat Less Motivated = -1, No Change = 0, Somewhat More Motivated = 1 and Much More Motivated as 2, the Mean = 1.40 (SD = 1.0).

Figure 4. Teachers’ Rated Experiences with PD

PD and Changes in Teaching Effectiveness of PD

Teachers were also asked: In general, how useful were those PD experiences for increasing your teaching effectiveness? The response categories ranged from “Completely Useless” to “Extremely Useful”. The results

18 — MSP-MAP II • PDM

shown in Figure 6 indicate that teachers thought their experiences were such that participation was useful in increasing their teaching effectiveness. Specifically, whereas 62.3% thought that the PD was useful, only 18% considered it useless, with 20% rating it neither. The categories were coded as follows: Completely Use-less = -2, Useless = - 1, Neutral = 0, Useful = 1 and Extremely Useful = 2, the Mean = 1.6 (SD = 1.1).

Figure 5. Effects of Current PD Participation on Subsequent PDM

Summary of PD Experiences and PDM

In general, information from this national sample of teachers (including significant numbers of math and science teachers) indicates both a high rate of PD participation and that participation: (a) was a positive rather than a negative experience, (b) was judged to be useful for increasing their teaching effectiveness, and (c) made teachers more motivated to participate in PD in the future. As shown by the correlation coeffi-cients in Table 2, as expected, teachers’ ratings on these dimensions were directly related to their motivation to participate in PD. Although the association cannot unequivocably establish the direction of causation, we can interpret this as evidence that prior PD experiences affected teachers’ PDM.

Figure 6. Perceived Utility of PD for Increasing Teaching Effectiveness

MSP-MAP II • PDM — 19

Analysis Description

Each of the tables that follow describe the relations between PD and teacher motivation using correlational analyses. For Yes/No questions the first column gives the percent of teach-ers who selected Yes. The remaining columns provide point biserial correlations with four different indicators of teacher motivation. The PDM column, for example, indicates the strength and direction of the relation between checking yes for an item and overall PDM. The other three columns de-scribe relations with whether PD: (a) was a positive rather than a negative experience, (b) made teachers more motivated to participate in PD in the future, and (c) was judged to be useful for increasing their teaching effectiveness. For PD features rated on a 0 to 6 scale, the first column presents the mean responses and the remaining columns presents correlations with the same four indica-tors of teacher motivation.

Table 2. Relations Between Teachers’ Ratings of Their Experiences and PDM

Variable Mean r*

Degree of positive experiences with PD during the current school year 3.7 .67

How much did your participation in PD this year affect motivation to participate in PD in the future? 3.4 .60

How useful were PD experiences for increasing teaching effectiveness? 3.6 .67

*Note: All r-values p < .00001

20 — MSP-MAP II • PDM

Motivational Correlates of PD ParticipationPD Characteristics

Teachers were asked to indicate their PD experiences according to the characteristics listed in Table 3. Whether those characteristics were selected was also related to teachers’ PDM and their PD experiences. These are separated for convenience into groups of characteristics that increased versus those that decreased or had no relation to motivation for PD. As expected, PDM was higher for teachers who received a sti-pend, earned CE credits, fulfilled licensing requirements, or indicated that participation enhanced their job security. However, teachers who judged that implementing the PD-suggested strategies or who were required to bear some of the costs were also those more motivated to participate. It should be emphasized that the causal direction of these relations is unclear. For example, teachers who are more motivated may be more willing to bear some of the cost; but it’s also possible that those who invested money in PD valued it more, as research in cognitive dissonance would suggest. The only indication of a negative effect was the tendency for teachers who engaged in PD because it was required to have a more negative experience and judge it as less effective. The remaining characteristics were unrelated to PD motivation-related variables. For example, even though 41% of the teachers indicated that participation took up a significant amount of their personal time, whether it did was unrelated to their PD experiences or their motivation for PD.

Table 3. Percent Selecting and Correlations between Characteristics of PD Experiences and PDM

Characteristics of Experienced PD % Selecting PDM

Degree Positive Exper.

Affect Future PDM

Increase Teacher Effective

Significant amount of work to implement teaching strategies 39 .14b .16b .15b .17c

Earned continuing education credits 37 .20c .19c .11a .12a

Fulfilled state licensing and renewal requirements 37 .13b .11a .08 .06

Required you to bear some of the cost 23 .16b .12a .06 .10a

Included a stipend for attendance 20 .13b .20d .16b .16b

Enhanced your job security 16 .17c .15b .16b .16b

Fulfilled a district or school requirement 57 -.06 -.13b -.09 -.12a

Took a significant amount of personal time 41 .03 -.04 -.05 -.01

Conflicted with other scheduled school events 12 -.01 .01 -.05 .03

Conflicted with your class time 23 -.01 .01 -.06 .01

Involved considerable travel time 16 .05 .08 .05 .08

Was part of your evaluation 19 .05 .02 .04 .06

Note: Point-biserial correlations. ap < .05 bp < .01 cp < .001 dp < .0001

MSP-MAP II • PDM — 21

Preferred PD Formats

To determine whether teacher PDM depended on the way that PD was offered, teachers were presented with a list of formats and asked to select up to three that they preferred the most. The percentage of teachers who selected each of the formats is shown in Table 4 (in order of preference), along with the correlations between selecting each format and PD-related teacher motivation. A single workshop with teacher partici-pation was clearly the most preferred, followed by a series of workshops, again with teacher participation. These were followed by online programs, summer institutes and PLCs. Lectures were preferred the least. In addition, there is also evidence that teachers who preferred a series of workshops were higher in PDM and had the most positive PD experiences. Also related to PDM, but to a lesser extent, were preferences for PLCs and a series of lectures. There was also a tendency for less motivated teachers to prefer single lecture and online PD formats that require the least time and effort.

Table 4. Preferred PD Formats and PDM

PD Help with Student Motivation

To examine how teachers believed that PD influenced their capacity to work with students, specifically to affect students’ competence and motivation, those who participated in PD were asked: “To what extent were the PD activities in which you participated during the current school year helpful” for motivating students in the ways that are listed in Table 5. Teachers responded on a 7-point scale from 0 = “Not at all helpful” to 6 = “Extremely helpful”. Table 5 also presents the mean ratings and the correlations between those ratings and teachers’ PD-related motivational variables. Means indicate that PD helped the most for increasing students’ competence in the subject that teachers teach and students’ motivation to understand material in depth, whereas PD helped the least with students’ motivation to attend class and do their homework. Results clearly indicate that teachers with higher PDM and those who had more positive PD experiences were more likely to indicate that PD helped them with student motivation in all of the areas included.

PDM and PD Content

In order to determine the PD content that would be more or less attractive to teachers, participants were asked to rate on a 5-point scale, from “Definitely would not” to “Definitely would”, how likely it would

Preferred PD Format % Selecting PDM

Degree Positive Exper.

Affect Future PDM

Increase Teacher Effective

Single workshop (w/ teacher participation) 39 .05 .08 .09a .03

Series of workshops (w/ teacher participation) 33 .29c .30c .29c .32c

Program available completely online 32 -.03 -.06 -.06 -.07

Blended (f-t-f and online) 27 .10a .04 .02 .09

Summer institute 23 .12b .08 .08 .08

Professional Learning Community (PLC) 20 .15c .15b .09a .17c

Single lecture 18 -.08 -.04 -.07 -.08

Series of lectures 14 .12b .10a .16c .13b

Note: Point-biserial correlations presented ap < .05 bp < .01 cp < .001 dp < .0001

22 — MSP-MAP II • PDM

Table 5. Teacher Ratings of How PD Helped Them with Student Motivation and Relations with PD-Related Teacher Motivation

Table 6. PDM and Expected PD Content

I would want to participate in PD if I expected to learn… Mean PDMDegree Positive Exper.

Affect Future PDM

Increase Teacher

Effect

How to make my lessons more effective for student learning 4.2 .42 .33 .36 .39

How to improve my students’ achievement 4.2 .43 .36 .33 .35

How to make my lessons more engaging for students 4.2 .40 .29 .32 .34

How to improve degree to which my students learn required material 4.1 .42 .36 .35 .39

How to get my students interested in the subject I teach 3.9 .39 .31 .35 .34

How to get my students to like the subject I teach 3.8 .39 .33 .37 .35

How to show students that I truly care about them 3.6 .36 .33 .35 .34

How to establish positive relationships with students 3.7 .38 .30 .35 .33

Note: Rating choices were: Definitely would not; Probably would not; Undecided; Probably would; Definitely would.

All correlations are statistically significant at p < .0001

PD activities helped me to increase… Mean PDMDegree Positive Exper.

Affect Future PDM

Increase Teacher

Effect

Students’ competence in subject area(s) I teach 4.2 .52 .63 .60 .69

Students’ motiv. to understand material in depth 4.0 .51 .62 .64 .68

Students’ interest in subject area(s) I teach 3.9 .51 .61 .60 .66

Students’ motiv. to work w/ classmates to study my subject area(s) 3.9 .53 .60 .63 .66

Students’ beliefs in importance of subject area(s) I teach 3.8 .49 .56 .61 .64

Students’ motiv. to seek help when needed 3.8 .47 .58 .61 .64

Students’ beliefs in utility of subject area(s) I teach 3.7 .49 .58 .60 .63

Students’ motiv. to perform well on state tests 3.6 .45 .54 .56 .60

Students’ motiv. to attend class 3.5 .48 .55 .59 .63

Students’ motiv. to do homework 3.4 .47 .54 .59 .60

Note: All correlations are statistically significant at p < .0001

MSP-MAP II • PDM — 23

be that they would want to participate in PD if they expected to learn about the areas listed in Table 6. Means indicate that teachers would be somewhat more motivated to learn about learning (Mean = 4.2) and achievement (Mean = 4.2). Making lessons more engaging (Mean = 4.2) was rated higher but other aspects of motivation (interest and liking) were less so, and least were PD content about relations with students. As would be expected, teachers with higher PDM indicated, with considerable uniformity, they would be more likely to participate across all areas of PD content.

Other Factors Influencing PD Participation

To probe other factors in the model (see Figure 1), teachers also rated (on the same 1 to 5 scale) the likeli-hood they would participate given the factors listed in Table 7. Expected improvement in subject-matter knowledge and enjoyment were rated highest on average (Means = 4.2) and principal encouragement the least (Mean = 3.7). PDM variables were significantly related to all factors. Whether teachers expected that PD would require less effort, however, was not as highly related (r = .18) as the others.

Table 7. Factors Influencing PDM

I would want to participate in PD if… Mean PDMDegree Positive Exper.

Affect Future PDM

Increase Teacher

Effect

I expected to improve my subject-matter knowledge 4.2 .29c .24c .25c .26c

I expected that the PD would be enjoyable 4.2 .33c .25c .24c .27c

I expected that the PD would be fun 4.1 .30c .23c .23c .25c

I expected that the PD would enhance my career 4.1 .36c .20c .24c .26c

I expected PD would not require too much time & effort 3.8 .18c .16b .16b .11a

Other teachers in my school were participating 3.8 .36c .35c .35c .38c

My principal encouraged me to participate 3.7 .39c .39c .38c .41c

Note: Rating choices were: Definitely would not; Probably would not; Undecided; Probably would; Definitely would. ap < .05 bp < .01 cp < .001 dp < .0001

24 — MSP-MAP II • PDM

Teacher Characteristics and School Context FactorsMotives for Teaching

Recent international research (Watt & Richardson, 2007, 2008) has devel-oped scales to assess teachers according to the reasons why they decided to pursue teaching as a career. One set of motives is social in origin, which in-cludes the opportunity to influence the next generation, to raise the ambi-tions of less fortunate youth, and to make a worthwhile social contribution. A second set is intrinsic, such as being interested in and liking teaching, and that teaching is suited to one’s abilities. The third set is extrinsic; teaching of-fers a secure career path and a reliable source of income. As shown in Table 8, teachers who were more motivated were those who went into teaching for intrinsic and social reasons, but less so for extrinsic reasons.

Table 8. Reasons for Choosing Teaching as a Career and PDM

School Context and Teacher Experiences

Teachers were asked to describe their relationship with the principal at their school, including the degree to which the principal fostered collegiality, by indicating their agreement with a series of characteristics, such as the statement of clear expectations for all teachers, the principal’s treatment of all teachers as his or her equals, the concern for each teacher’s personal welfare, and the conduction of meaningful evaluations. The items were adapted from the Organizational Health Inventory, developed by Hoy and colleagues (e.g., Hoy & Tarter, 1997; Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991): “The principal at this school is friendly and approach-able”, and “The principal at this school looks out for the personal welfare of faculty members”. As shown

in Table 9, the more positively teachers viewed their principal, the higher their PDM (r = .27, p < .001) and the more positive their PD experiences (r = .42, p < .001). Similar relations were found for teachers’ sense of satis-faction and personal accomplishment. There is also evidence that teachers’ negative experiences had a detrimental influence on their PDM. Teachers were asked about the extent to which several problematic conditions existed in their school, such as high student dropout, disorder in the classrooms, low student achievement and student disrespect of teachers. The items were adapted from the Survey of Chicago Public Schools, conducted by the Con-sortium on Chicago School Research.

...Teachers who were motivated were those who went into teach-ing for intrinsic and social reasons, but less so for extrinsic reasons.

Motivation For

TeachingMean PDM

Degree Positive Exper.

Affect Future PDM

Increase Teacher

Effect

Social 6.1 .23c .17c .17c .17c

Intrinsic 6.3 .25c .23c .22c .24c

Extrinsic 4.9 .10a .04 .10a .02

ap < .05 bp < .01 cp < .001 dp < .0001

MSP-MAP II • PDM — 25

Table 9. Context and Experiences of PDM

Teacher Responsibility

A newly developed measure was used to assess teachers’ willingness to assume personal responsibility for four types of educational outcomes: responsibility for student motivation (interest, liking, and value of the subject taught by the teacher), student achievement (academic performance and progress throughout the school year), for having positive relationships with students (students trust the teacher, rely on the teacher when they need help, and know that the teacher truly cares about them), and for providing the best pos-sible instruction (the teacher’s lessons are as effective and engaging as the teacher can possibly make them). Sample items are: “I would feel personally responsible if a student of mine was not interested in the subject I teach” and “I would feel personally responsible if a student of mine failed to learn the required material.” We anticipated that teachers who are willing to accept personal responsibility for the academic outcomes of their students would be more interested in PD as a resource that would help them to fulfill their profes-sional responsibilities.

Table 10. Teacher Beliefs About Their Responsibilities and PDM

Unlike general questions about the school context, teachers were asked to evaluate their responsibility with regard to one particular “target class.” This provided a higher degree of specificity, which was neces-sary since teachers may provide instruction in different subject areas and types of classes. The procedure

Context and Experiences Mean PDMDegree Positive Exper.

Affect Future PDM

Increase Teacher

Effect

Principal relations and collegial leadership 5.1 .27c .42c .36c .37c

Personal accomplishment 5.5 .27c .31c .29c .31c

School problems 3.2 -.09a -.15b -.15b -.13b

Emotional exhaustion 4.0 -.17c -.24c -.24c -.21c

Teacher stress 4.1 -.11b -.17c -.20c -.16b

ap < .05 bp < .01 cp < .001 dp < .0001

Area of Responsibility Mean PDMDegree Positive Exper.

Affect Future PDM

Increase Teacher

Effect

Responsibility for student achievement 4.6 .30c .21c .25c .24c

Responsibility for student motivation 4.6 .24c .15b .20c .16c

Responsibility for relationships with students 5.6 .17c .14b .10a .11a

Responsibility for teaching 5.6 .17c .12a .10a .11a

ap < .05 bp < .01 cp < .001 dp < .0001

26 — MSP-MAP II • PDM

for determining the target class was adapted from the Survey of Chicago Public Schools. Specifically, the teachers were instructed to think about the second period class they teach on Mondays, or—if they do not teach a class second period—to think about the next class they teach in the day.

As shown in Table 10, teachers’ sense of responsibility was positively related to their PDM. Although all four responsibility factors had significant positive as-sociations with motivation for PD, teachers’ responsibility for students’ academic outcomes (motivation and achievement) was somewhat more strongly associated than the remaining two responsibility factors.

Teacher Emotions

Teachers were asked to report their experience of 33 emotions when they thought about teaching. Similar to the responsibility scale, teachers were asked to think of their “target class.” The emotion items were introduced in the following way: “Teachers experience various emotions when they think about teaching. How do you feel currently when you think about teaching your target class?” Teachers

responded on 7-point scales anchored by: 0 = “Does not describe my feelings at all” to 6 = “Describes my feel-ings extremely well”. The list of emotions is based on Pekrun’s control-value theory (Pekrun, et al., 2007) which uses a two-dimensional system (positive-negative and activating-deactivating) that results in four categories. In addition to grouping the emotions by three of the categories (positive-activating, positive-deactivating, negative-activating, negative-deactivating), we were able to distinguish three groups of nega-tive-activating emotions shown in Table 11.

Table 11. Teacher Emotions When Thinking About Teaching and PDM

It is very clear that teachers who reported experiencing positive emotions had greater PDM, had more positive PD experiences, became more likely to participate in the future, and experienced increased effec-

Emotions Mean PDMDegree Positive Exper.

Affect Future PDM

Increase Teacher

Effect

Positive activating emotions – Excited (enthusiastic, thrilled, proud, happy, inspired) 4.9 .29c .25c .26c .25c

Positive deactivating emotions – Relaxed(peaceful, pleased, calm, content) 4.7 .22c .23c .25c .20c

Negative activating emotions – Anger (angry, frustrated, irritated) 2.6 -.14b -.18c -.16b -.15b

Negative activating emotions – Dissonance (worried, tense, concerned, bothered, uneasy, uncomfortable) 2.5 -.05 -.08 -.03 -.03

Negative deactivating emotions – Burnout (hopeless, bored, disinterested, worn out, tired) 2.5 -.17c -.21c -.17c -.16b

Negative activating emotions – Anxiety (anxious, afraid, scared) 2.0 -.01 -.01 -.05 -.05

Negative activating emotions – Guilt (regretful, remorseful, guilty, blameworthy, ashamed) 1.7 -.01 -.02 .04 .03

ap < .05 bp < .01 cp < .001 dp < .0001

MSP-MAP II • PDM — 27

tiveness as teachers. The opposite was true for negative emotions; however, not all negative emotions were associated with PDM. Instead, PDM was inversely related to the negative activating emotions generally associated with anger and negative deactivating emotions generally associated with burnout. Statistically significant relations were not found, however, for emotions generally considered dissonance, anxiety, or guilt. Thus, as would be expected, the more teachers are excited, but also those more relaxed when they think about their classes, the more motivated they are to participate in PD. The angrier and the more burned out they are the less their PDM, which is consistent with previous work on teacher emotions (Sut-ton, 2007). However, that was not the case for dissonance, anxiety, and guilt. Thus not all negative emotions are equal in their possible impact on PDM.

Approaches to Instruction

A final issue examined whether teachers’ PDM varied depending on their approaches to instruction that, according to the motivation literature, have implications for student learning and performance. Since teachers’ approaches to instruction may vary across different classes, the teachers were asked to refer to their “target class” to prevent ambiguity. Mastery and performance approaches to instruction are based on the literature in achievement goal theory (e.g., Pintrich, 2000; Elliot, 2005). As described previously, a mastery approach to instruction represents a focus on student improvement and the deep understanding of material. A mastery approach to teaching has been associated with improved student learning and the use of more beneficial study skills (e.g., “I give a wide range of assignments, matched to students’ needs and skill level). Performance approaches to teaching focus more on student ability and normative comparisons be-tween students (e.g., “I encourage students to compete with each other”). We also included what is termed “academic press”, which is similar to mastery approach to instruction but with a somewhat different focus. Academic press refers to whether teachers pushed students to take on challenging work, whether students were allowed to get away with doing easy work, and whether students were expected to put forth their full effort. Teachers responded by indicating their agreement or disagreement on a 7-point Likert scale, with anchors of: 0 = “Strongly disagree” to 6 = “Strongly agree”.

Results indicate that both a mastery approach to instruction and to a lesser extent academic press were di-rectly related to PDM. Thus the more that teachers indicate that they focus on individual student improve-ment and insisting that students are challenged the more motivated they are for PD. To a lesser extent, PDM is also somewhat higher for teachers who endorse statements indicating that they focus on student ability and normative comparisons.

Table 12. Approaches to Instruction and PDM

Approaches to Instruction Mean PDM

Degree Positive Exper.

Affect Future PDM

Increase Teacher

Effect

Mastery approach to instruction 5.4 .31c .22c .26c .22c

Performance approach to instruction 4.0 .16c .07 .14b .13b

Academic press 5.9 .20c .09a .09a .10a

ap < .05 bp < .01 cp < .001 dp < .0001

28 — MSP-MAP II • PDM

Conclusions and Future DirectionsThe present national study confirmed that PD was a common experience for teachers. Teachers in general indicated they were positively motivated to participate in PD. Most of them reported some experience with PD in the last year, and a majority of those felt that PD was useful for improving teaching practice, student learning, and student motivation. Overall, teachers who participated in PD reported moderate to high levels of motivation, even when participation involved a considerable investment of personal time or resources. Teachers were open to a variety of PD formats, most notably those that included teacher par-ticipation. This suggests a picture of teachers eager to improve their teaching practices and to participate in continuing educa-tion. Administrative support, not district imperatives, appeared to be a key factor in influencing teachers’ PDM. Understanding and measuring the malleable factors that increase PDM sug-gests ways to improve teachers’ PD experiences and the likeli-hood they will enact recommended instructional practices that facilitate student learning and performance.

Evidence in the present study is generally consistent with suggestions based on recent reviews of PD prac-tices (e.g., Avalos, 2011; Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, & Fung, 2007), including the importance of taking PDM into consideration. As Timperley et al. (2007, p. 12) noted:

The final important condition identified in the professional growth paradigm...is motiva-tion. While motivation plays a key role for all learners, as adults, teacher learners are less likely than school-aged students to engage in new learning experiences if they do not see the relevance to their professional lives. The immediate demands of everyday teaching in-evitably compete with the demands of professional learning. For busy and often overworked teachers to devote effort to engaging with new learning and changing their practice, they need a good reason. Faced with a new teaching strategy, teachers want to know that it is practical and useful and they are unlikely to sustain their involvement if the learning experi-ence is not sufficiently meaningful.

Day and Leitch (2001) stress that the cogntitive aspects of teaching function in interaction with the emo-tional aspects of teaching: “Teaching at its best requires motivation, commitment and emotional attach-ment, and this ... interaction [has] a central role in programmes of teacher education and continuing pro-fessional development in all phases of teachers’ lives (p. 403).” Results of this national study support these views and suggest that further research is needed that focuses on PDM, not as an afterthought or ancillary precursor or byproduct of PD, but rather an essential condition for its success.

Overall, teachers who partici-pated in PD reported moderate to high levels of motivation, even when participation involved a considerable investment of per-sonal time or resources.

MSP-MAP II • PDM — 29

References

Alexander, P. A. (2008). Charting the course for the teaching profession: The energizing and sustaining role of motivational forces. Learning & Instruction, 18(5), 483-491.

Anderman, E. M., & Wolters, C. A. (2006). Goals, values and affects: Influences on student motivation. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 369-389). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986) Making a difference: Teacher efficacy and student achievement. Mono-gram. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10-20.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Re-searcher, 33(8), 3-15.

Boyd, S. E., Banilower, E. R., Pasley, J. D., & Weiss, I. R. (2003). Progress and pitfalls: A cross-site look at local systemic change through teacher enhancement. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research. Retrieved 1/17/09 from: http://www.horizon-research.com/reports/2003/progress_and_pitfalls.php.

Butler, R. (2000). What learners want to know: The role of achievement goals in shaping information seek-ing, learning, and interest. In C. Sansone, & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motiva-tion: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 161-194). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Butler, R., & Shibaz, L. (2008). Achievement goals for teaching as predictors of students’ perceptions of instructional practices and students’ help seeking and cheating. Learning & Instruction, 18(5), 453-467.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. National Staff Development Council.

Day. C., & Leitch, R. (2001). Teachers and teacher education lives: The role of emotion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(4), 403-415.

De Corte, E., Greer, B., & Verschaffel, L. (1996). Mathematics teaching and instruction. In: D. C. Ber-liner & R. C. Calfee. (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 491–549), New York: Macmillan.

Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105-121). New York: Guilford Publications.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, 5th ed.: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 1017-1095). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.). Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52-72). New York: Guilford Publications.

30 — MSP-MAP II • PDM

Flint, A. S., Zisook, K., & Fisher, T. R. (2011). Not a one-shot deal: Generative professional development among experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1163-1169.

Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C. & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student, teacher and observer perceptions of the class-room environment before and after the transition to junior high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 8, 133-156.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

Goldsmith, L., and Schifter, D. (1997). Understanding teachers in transition: Characteristics of a model for the development of mathematics teaching. In E. Fennema & B. S. Nelson (Eds.) Mathematics Teachers in Transition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gregoire, M. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model of teachers’ cognition and appraisal processes during conceptual change. Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 147-179.

Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 748–750. Guskey, T. R., & Huberman, M. (Eds.) (1995). Professional development in education: New paradigms and

practices. New York: Teachers College Press. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Predicting success in college: A

longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 562-575.

Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 14, 835–854.Hart, L. N. (2002). A four-year follow-up study of teachers’ beliefs after participating in a teacher en-

hancement project. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in math-ematics education (pp. 161-176). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Hassel, E. (1999). Professional development: Learning from the best. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1998). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In L. S. Darling Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Heck, D. J., Rosenberg, S. L., & Crawford, R. A. (2006). LSC teacher questionnaire study: Indicators of systemic change — a longitudinal analysis of data collected between 1997 and 2006. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research. Retrieved 1/17/09 from http://www.PDMathsci.net/reports/heck_rosen-berg_crawford_2006b.pdf.

Hidi, S., & Renninger, A. (2006). A four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111-127.

Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A., & Krapp, A. (2004). Interest, a motivational variable that combines affec-tive and cognitive functioning. In D. Dai & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Perspectives on intellectual development and functioning (pp. 89-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools: Measuring organizational

MSP-MAP II • PDM — 31

climate. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: A handbook for change, Secondary Edi-

tion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Hulleman, C., Schrager, S. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement

goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 422-449.

Karabenick, S. A., Woolley, M. E., Friedel, J. M., Ammon, B. V., Blazevski, J., Bonney, C. R., DeGroot, E., Musu, L., Gilbert, M. C., Kempler, T. M., & Kelly, K. L. (2007). Cognitive processing of self-report items in educational research: Do they think what we mean? Educational Psychologist, 42(3), 139-151.

Kellam, S. G., & Langevin, D. J. (2003). A framework for understanding “evidence” in prevention research and programs. Prevention Science, 4(3), 137–153.

Koller, O., Baumert, J., & Schnabel, K. (2001). Does interest matter? The relationship between academic interest and achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(5), 448-470.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S. E., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McLeod, D. B., & Adams, V. M. (1989). Affect and mathematical problem solving: A new perspective. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag Publishing.

Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K., Gheen, M., Kaplan, A., Kumar, R., Middleton, M., Nelson, J., Roeser, R., & Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 424-436.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

Pekrun, R., Frenzel, A., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2007). The control-value theory of achievement emo-tions: An integrative approach to emotions in education. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 13-36). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Pelletier, L. G., Seguin-Levesque, C., & Legault L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers’ motivation and teaching behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 186-196.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544–555.

Richardson, P. W., & Watt, H. (2006). Who chooses teaching and why? Profiling characteristics and mo-tivations across three Australian universities. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 27-56.

Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In: Richardson, V. (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th Ed.) (pp. 905–947), Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Ross, J., & Bruce, C. D. (2007). Teacher self-assessment: A mechanism for facilitating professional

32 — MSP-MAP II • PDM

growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(2), 146-159.Schiefele, U. (2001). The role of interest in motivation and learning. In J. M. Collis & S. Messick (Eds.),

Intelligence and personality: Bridging the gap in theory and measurement (pp. 163-194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schuck, S. & Grootenboer, P. (2004). Affective issues in mathematics education. In B. Perry, G. Anthony, & C. Diezmann (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2000-2003 (pp. 53-74). Flax-ton, Qld: Post Pressed.

Schuck, S., & Grootenboer, P. (2004). Affective issues in mathematics education. In B. Perry, G. Anthony, & C. Diezmann (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia (pp. 5374). Flaxton, Qld: Post Pressed.

Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., Meece, J. L. (2007). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Prentice Hall.

Schutz, P. A., Cross, D. I., Hong, J. Y., & Osbon, J. N. (2007). Teacher understandings, thoughts and beliefs about emotions in the classroom. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun, (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp 215-233). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Inc.

Senko, C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Achievement goal theory at the crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 26-47.

Smith, L. F. (April 2000). The effects of confidence and perception of test-taking skill on performance. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Sutton, R. E. (2007). Teachers’ anger, frustration and self-regulation. In P. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotions and education (pp. 259-274). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Tittle, C. K. (2006). Assessment of teacher learning and development. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2ndEdition) (pp. 953-980). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum Assoc.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive concept. Teaching and Teacher Education 17, 783-805.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.

Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration [BES]. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

Turner, J. C., Christensen, A., & Meyer, D. K. (in press).The new international handbook of teachers and teaching. Springer Verlag.

Van den Berg, R. (2002). Teachers’ meanings regarding educational practice. Review of Educational Re-search, 72(4), 577–625.

Watt, H., & Richardson, P. W. (2007). Motivational factors influencing teaching as a career choice: de-velopment and validation of the FIT-Choice Scale, Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 167–202.

Watt, H., & Richardson, P. W. (2008). Motivation for teaching. Learning & Instruction, 18(5), 405-498. Wayne, A. J., Yoon, K. S., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, S. (2008). Experimenting with teacher professional

MSP-MAP II • PDM — 33

development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37(8), 469–479. Weiss, I. (2009). Presentation on Professional Development at the Learning Network Conference, Wash-

ington, DC.Weiss, I. Personal communication, 1/26/2009.Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2009). Mathematics and science for a change: How to design, implement, and sus-

tain high-quality professional development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Wigfield, A. L., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs and values from childhood

through adolescence. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 92–120). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Wilson, M. S., & Cooney, T. (2002). Mathematics teacher change and development: The role of beliefs. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education (pp. 127-148). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Zhang, X., McInerney, J., Frechtling, J., Nyre, G., Michie, J., & Wells, J. (2008). Effect of STEM faculty engagement in MSP—A longitudinal perspective: A Year 4 RETA Report. Rockville, MD: Westat.