predicting teachers’ innovative behaviour: motivational processes at work · 2020-01-21 ·...

Predicting teachers’ innovative behaviour:

motivational processes at work

The research reported in this thesis was carried out at the Welten Institute - Research Centre for Learning, Teach-ing and Technology at the Open University of the Netherlands

ISBN 9789492231215 © Andrea Klaeijsen, Heerlen, The Netherlands, 2015 Cover photo: Mariëlle Verhoef Cover design: Jeroen Berkhout Layout and printing: Datawyse | Universitaire Pers Maastricht All rights reserved

Predicting teachers’ innovative behaviour:

motivational processes at work

PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Open Universiteit

op gezag van de rector magnificus prof. mr. A. Oskamp ten overstaan van een

door het College voor promoties ingestelde commissie in het openbaar te verdedigen

op vrijdag 18 december 2015 te Heerlen om 16.00 uur precies

door

Andrea Carolina Klaeijsen geboren op 30 april 1980 te Terneuzen

Promotores Prof. dr. R.L. Martens, Open Universiteit Prof. dr. M. Vermeulen, Open Universiteit

Overige leden beoordelingscommissie Prof. dr. P.J. den Brok, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven Prof. dr. W.M.G. Jochems, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Open Universiteit Prof. dr. J.W.M. Kessels, Universiteit Twente, Open Universiteit Prof. dr. P.C. Meijer, Radboud Universiteit Prof. dr. K. van Dam, Open Universiteit

5

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 General introduction 7 1.1 Introduction 9 1.2 Conceptual framework 10 1.3 Research questions 13 1.4 Overview of this thesis 13 References 17

CHAPTER 2 Teachers’ innovative behaviour: the importance of basic psychological need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and occupational self-efficacy 19

Abstract 20 2.1 Introduction 21 2.2 Method 26 2.3 Results 30 2.4 Conclusion and discussion 31 References 36

CHAPTER 3 The importance of transformational leadership and participative decision making for teachers’ innovative behaviour: a study on motivational processes 41

Abstract 42 3.1 Introduction 43 3.2 Conceptual framework and hypotheses 44 3.3 Method 52 3.4 Results 56 3.5 Conclusion and discussion 59 References 65

CHAPTER 4 Motivation for professional development and innovative behaviour: the complex role of psychological needs, occupational self-efficacy, and social pressure 71


6

CHAPTER 5 A psychological perspective on teachers’ innovative behaviour at work: the impact of motivation and self-efficacy 89


CHAPTER 6 General conclusions and discussion 125 6.1 Introduction 126 6.2 Overview of the main results 127 6.3 Main conclusions and discussion 131 6.4 Limitations and directions for future research 138 6.5 Theoretical and practical implications 140 References 143

SAMENVATTING 147

DANKWOORD 153

7

CHAPTER 1

General introduction

G E N E R A L I N T R O D U C T I O N

9

1.1 Introduction

Society is changing as a result of different trends such as globalization and modernization. These trends also affect our educational system. Schools and particularly teachers have the responsibility to prepare students for living and working in a knowledge society, in which lifelong learning has become crucial to face upcoming and unknown challenges. In this context the importance of 21st century skills is often emphasized. These skills include crea-tivity and innovation for instance, and are important for both personal and organisational development (Schleicher, 2012). Implementing those 21st century skills in educational pro-grams is one of the recent challenges that teachers are facing. Other challenges and de-mands have entered the teaching profession as a result of changes in student populations, in knowledge fields, and in expectations from society (Organisation for Economic Coopera-tion and Development [OECD], 2005). More than ever, teachers are required to be able to change their teaching approaches and methods when necessary, to acquire technological skills, to use digital resources, and to know how to work with information management systems that help to monitor students’ learning performance (Schleicher, 2012). Given the current educational, technological, and societal challenges in the teaching profession, teachers feel the need to acquire more knowledge and skills on new technologies, on dif-ferentiated instruction, and on teaching children with special needs (Van der Boom & Stuivenberg, 2014). Engaging in professional development activities that help to acquire those skills and knowledge is important. These activities may involve formal types of educa-tion leading to a qualification, for example a Masters’ degree, and include less formal activi-ties such as reading, participating in work-related training, experimenting, reflecting and asking for feedback, and collaborating with colleagues in order to improve lessons or school development (Evers, Kreijns & Van der Heijden, accepted). Innovative behaviour is also needed to keep up to date in a changing society, to deal with new technologies or educa-tional insights, and to set a good example for students (Thurlings, Evers, & Vermeulen, 2015). Teachers have often been expected to implement what others, outside their own school settings, have come up with (Jochems, 2007). In contrast, innovative behaviour is a professional behaviour that assumes self-initiated actions of teachers in order to address those issues they feel need to be addressed or improved. In recent years, different gov-ernmental and educational organisations have stressed the importance of innovative be-haviour at work. On an international level for example, the European Member States have jointly agreed to encourage teachers to be reflective practitioners who engage in profes-sional development and research activities, who develop new knowledge, and who are innovative (Scheerens, 2010). Similarly, schools and school boards in the Netherlands also emphasize the need for teachers to engage in innovative actions, such as being curious and searching for unconventional solutions when needed (ROC Leeuwenborgh, n.d.), or taking initiatives and being creative (Limburgs Voortgezet Onderwijs [LVO], n.d.). A large school board for secondary education in the Netherlands for example states that being innovative

C H A P T E R 1

10

is an important professional value for their teachers and other staff members (Ons Middel-baar Onderwijs [OMO], n.d.). School leaders and teachers themselves defined being innova-tive as a disposition or tendency to act or behave in a way that includes trying to continu-ously improve education, enjoying to experiment with new methods, using digital media, bringing new knowledge into practice, and participating in research pilots (Rohaan, Bei-jaard, & Vink, 2012). In addition to being innovative, OMO identifies four other professional values that are considered important to provide high quality education that helps students to be well pre-pared for their future. These values include enthusiasm for the profession, enriching oth-ers, striving for optimization of professional skills and knowledge, and being accountable for actions and opinions (OMO, n.d.). Taken together, these values paint a picture of teach-ers and other educational professionals who enjoy their work, and who continuously strive for professional development and improvement of the quality of their work. An important issue raised by OMO was to investigate factors that are helpful in encouraging teachers to become or remain intrinsically motivated and innovative professionals. This question formed the starting point of a multi-annual demand-driven research cooperation between OMO and the Open University. Moreover, this practice based question was also one of the sources of inspiration for this thesis. In recent years the need for scientific institutions and researchers to be aware of the knowledge needs of society has been strongly emphasized in the Netherlands. The importance of viewing those knowledge needs as a starting point in creating new knowledge has also been stressed (Ministerie van OCW, 2014). Furthermore, relevance to society has been added to the criteria in the new Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP) 2015-2019, which is used to assess research conducted at Dutch universities (Associa-tion of Universities in the Netherlands, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Re-search, & the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2014). In this thesis a prac-tice-relevant question is approached in a theoretical manner, in order to gather and expand the body of knowledge on how to study and encourage innovative behaviour in teachers.

1.2 Conceptual framework

This thesis examines motivational processes and the extent to which those processes pre-dict innovative behaviour in teachers. Thurlings et al. (2015) described this innovative be-haviour as self-initiated actions, such as generating, creating, developing, applying, promot-ing, realizing or modifying new ideas. In their review study empirical evidence was gathered regarding organisational, demographic, and other individual factors that influence innova-tive behaviour, such as motivation (Messman & Mulder, 2011), and self-efficacy (Runhaar, 2008). These two individual factors determine, together with teachers’ professional skills and knowledge, the extent to which teachers bring in new ideas to school (Pyhältö, Pietar-inen, & Soini, 2012).


11

The main aim of this thesis is to examine the impact of different and interrelated aspects of motivation and self-efficacy. Motivation can be described as an internal psychological pro-cess that not only stimulates behaviour, but also gives direction to and helps to persist in that behaviour (Woolfolk, Hughes, & Walkup, 2008). Self-efficacy in general refers to ex-pectancies of how well one is able to “... execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations” (Bandura, 1982, p. 122). For example, it affects one’s perseverance (Bandura, 1982) and behavioural intentions (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Building on previous studies by for example Runhaar (2008) and Konermann (2011), this thesis particularly fo-cuses on teachers’ occupational self-efficacy, i.e. the level of confidence teachers feel to-wards their capacity to deal with future changes in the profession and to act successfully in various job related situations and tasks (Schyns & Von Collani, 2002). The main reason for this focus on occupational self-efficacy lies in the Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrin-sic Motivation (Vallerand, 1997). This model entails different aspects of motivation, such as social factors, motivational mediators and motivational consequences. Different levels of motivational constructs and consequences are identified: the situational level, the contex-tual level, and the global level. The situational level involves distinct activities on specific moments in time, such as one´s motivation to participate in a workshop on cyberbullying. The contextual level is the level of specific life domains, such as education, work, and inter-personal relationships. It involves for example motivation for professional development in general. The global level can be understood as the level of one’s personality. It refers to the general motivational orientation a person has toward his or her environment. The Hierar-chical Model postulates that the consequences and outcomes on the same level are most affected by motivational constructs that are positioned on that same level. In this thesis occupational self-efficacy is considered to be situated on the same level as innovative be-haviour. Both constructs capture a part of the teaching profession, namely initiating or dealing with changes. In the case of occupational self-efficacy, the belief in the ability to deal with changes and challenging situations is involved. Innovative behaviour refers to the self-initiated creation, introduction, and implementation of new ideas. Both are aimed at changes, challenges, or new ideas in general, and not at specific kinds of innovation or activities. Vallerand’s model focuses on self-determined motivation. This kind of motivation in-volves free choice and enjoyment as important regulatory processes. It is one of the key constructs of an influential motivation theory, namely the Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000). SDT distinguishes between different forms of motivation by the quality of their outcomes. Two main categories exist: autonomous and controlled motiva-tion. Autonomous (or self-determined) motivation refers to intrinsic motivation and regula-tion processes that involve personally valuing the behaviour, as well as fully accepting its importance for self-selected goals (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Controlled motivation entails types of motivation that are regulated by external or internal pressures to think or behave in certain ways. As such it includes for example actions based on thoughts of reward, pun-ishment, shame or approval of others. In addition, SDT addresses factors that may support

C H A P T E R 1

12

or hamper motivation and posits that motivation is influenced by the degree to which indi-viduals feel their environment supports their basic psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2008). These innate, psychological needs are the need for autonomy, competence, and related-ness. The need for autonomy refers to the need to experience freedom and volition. The need for competence reflects the need to feel capable and effective. The need for related-ness concerns the need to interact with and feel connected to others. Knowing how these basic psychological needs influence other motivational constructs helps to create favoura-ble circumstances in which high quality motivation and outcomes may flourish. The extent to which basic psychological needs are satisfied depends on perceptions and characteristics of different aspects of for example the work environment. In the case of this thesis differ-ent aspects of teachers’ perceptions of their work and social environment are addressed, namely transformational leadership, participative decision making, and social pressure. Transformational leadership can be described as a form of leadership in which a formal leader focuses on personal commitment and professional development of his or her em-ployees. In addition, transformational leaders aim to let their employees grow professional-ly beyond expectations and self-interest (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Previous studies have shown that the effects of transformational leadership on work related outcomes appear to be mediated by psychological constructs such as empowerment (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Nederveen Pietserse, Van Knippenberg, Schippers, & Stam, 2009). Nevertheless, there still is a lack of clarity about how different psychological and motivational processes explain the effect of kind of leadership on work related out-comes such as innovative behaviour. Participative decision making, i.e. decision making processes shared by management and employees, and its influence on teacher motivation and innovation, lacks strong empir-ical evidence (Somech, 2010). However, in some studies positive effects are found on for example teachers’ sense of self-efficacy (Sarafidou & Chatziioannidis, 2013; Sleegers, Thoo-nen, Oort, & Peetsma, 2014). It is also associated with for example improvement of class-room instruction (Smylie, Lazarus, & Brownlee-Conyers, 1996) and, indirectly, with imple-menting educational innovations (Geijsel, Sleegers, van den Berg, & Kelchtermans, 2001). However, much still remains unclear regarding how participative decision making affects motivational processes and teachers’ innovative behaviour. Social pressure is a social factor that has a motivating effect on behaviour (De Bra-bander & Martens, 2014). It is derived from an expectancy-based theoretical perspective, namely Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB; 1991), and refers to personal beliefs regarding expectations of relevant others to behave in a certain way (Kreijns, Vermeulen, Van Acker, & Van Buuren, 2014). This thesis focuses on teachers’ perceived social pressure to engage in innovative behaviour.


13

1.3 Research questions

The main question underlying this thesis is: How do teachers’ perceptions of the work envi-ronment and individual motivational processes serve as a predictor for teachers’ innovative behaviour at work? In order to answer this main question and the underlying research questions, different conceptual models are developed and tested. These models and re-search questions are characterized by an increasing number of constructs that are mainly based on SDT and elements from other perspectives on motivation, such as occupational self-efficacy and social pressure. The research questions are as follows: 1. How do basic psychological need satisfaction, occupational self-efficacy, and intrinsic

motivation predict teachers’ innovative behaviour? 2. How do transformational leadership and teachers’ involvement in decision making

within their schools influence their innovative behaviour at work, and can this influence be explained by a sequence of motivational processes?

3. To what extent does a combination of motivational constructs regarding teachers’ motivation for professional development, occupational self-efficacy, and social pres-sure provide a model to predict teachers’ innovative behaviour?

4. What concepts are used to study motivation and occupational self-efficacy in the con-text of teachers’ innovative behaviour, and what motivational factors stimulate or hin-der that behaviour?

1.4 Overview of this thesis

Chapters 2 to 5 present four studies that address the research questions underlying this thesis. These chapters are written as separate articles in such a way that they can be read independently. As a result some sections inevitably show some overlap.

Chapter 2: Teachers’ innovative behaviour: the importance of basic psychological need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and occupational self-efficacy

The main question addressed in Chapter 2 is: How do basic psychological need satisfac-tion, occupational self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation predict teachers’ innovative behav-iour? A basic conceptual model (see Figure 1.1) was constructed based on literature and empirical findings. This model hypothesized that the support of the three basic psychologi-cal needs contributes positively to feelings of intrinsic motivation for working as a teacher and to occupational self-efficacy, which in turn both lead to innovative behaviour. In order to test this model, an online questionnaire was administered among teachers in primary, secondary, and vocational education. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was used to test the conceptual model. SEM enables testing hypothesized models statistically in a way that

C H A P T E R 1

14

allows for simultaneously examining all variables to determine the consistency of the model with the data.

Figure 1.1 Conceptual model showing the hypothesized impact of satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs, occupational self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation on innovative behaviour

Chapter 3: The importance of transformational leadership and participative decision making for teachers’ innovative behaviour: a study on motivational processes

Chapter 3 reports on a study among teachers working in different schools within one school board. It addresses the following question: How do transformational leadership and teachers’ involvement in decision making within the school influence their innovative be-haviour at work, and can this influence be explained by a sequence of motivational pro-cesses? To answer this question, a model was constructed and tested, building on the model described in Chapter 2, by adding two aspects of the work environment, namely transfor-mational leadership and participative decision making. See Figure 1.2 for the hypothesized model in this study.

Figure 1.2 Conceptual model Chapter 3: the hypothesized impact of aspects of the work environment, basic psychological needs satisfaction, occupational self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation on innovative behaviour


15

The study described in Chapter 3 was performed among teachers working in different schools for secondary education within one school board. Data were analysed by means of SEM to test the hypothesized model

Chapter 4: Motivation for professional development and innovative behaviour: the complex role of psychological needs, occupational self-efficacy, and social pressure

Chapter 4 aims to clarify motivational processes related to professional development that influence innovative behaviour. Furthermore it examines different aspects of motiva-tion, namely autonomous and controlled motivation for professional development. The question addressed in this study is: To what extent does a combination of motivational constructs regarding teachers’ motivation for professional development, occupational self-efficacy, and social pressure provide a model to predict teachers’ innovative behaviour? SEM was used to analyse data from an online questionnaire among secondary education teachers. Figure 1.3 presents the tested model.

Figure 1.3 Conceptual model chapter 4: the hypothesized impact of basic psychological need satisfaction, auto-nomous and controlled motivation, occupational self-efficacy, and social pressure on innovative behaviour

Chapter 5: A psychological perspective on teachers’ innovative behaviour at work: the impact of motivation and self-efficacy

Chapters 2, 3, and 4 present empirical studies in which conceptual models are tested. Given the fact that empirical studies only succeed in mapping a part of the influencing fac-tors, and that these factors may vary according to the theoretical perspectives used, we decided to perform a systematic literature review as final step in this thesis. The review in Chapter 5 was performed to investigate the concepts used to study motivation and occupa-tional self-efficacy in the context of innovative behaviour, as well as the empirical evidence on motivational factors that stimulate or hinder that behaviour.

C H A P T E R 1

16

Chapter 6: Conclusions and discussion

The final chapter of this dissertation (Chapter 6) discusses and integrates the findings of the three empirical studies and the literature review. After elaborating on each research ques-tion, results of the studies are compared, followed by a general conclusion and discussion. Subsequently, limitations of the studies and recommendations for future research are ad-dressed. The final chapter ends with implications for both theory and practice.


17

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Association of Universities in the Netherlands, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, & the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (2014). Standard Evaluation Protocol 2015- 2021. Protocol for Re-search Assessments in the Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Domeinen/ Onderzoek/SEP2015-2021.pdf

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organi-zational Behavior, 25, 951-968.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. De Brabander, C. J., Martens, R. L. (2014). Towards a unified theory of task-specific motivation. Educational Re-

search Review, 11, 27-44. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York/London:

Plenum Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of

behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development,

and health. Canadian Psychology, 49, 182-185. Evers, A. T., Kreijns, K., & Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (accepted). The design and validation of an instrument to

measure Teachers’ Professional Development at Work. Studies in Continuing Education. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York:

Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis). Gagné, M., & Deci, E .L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavi-

or, 26, 331-362. Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P. J. C., van den Berg, R. M., & Kelchtermans, G. (2001). Conditions fostering the implemen-

tation of large-scale innovations in schools: Teachers' perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 130-166.

Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62, 461-473.

Jochems, W. (2007). Onderwijsinnovatie als leidraad voor onderwijsresearch en professionele ontwikkeling. [Educa-tional innovation as a guide for educational research and professional development]. Eindhoven: TU Eindho-ven.

Konermann, J. (2011). Teachers’ work engagement: a deeper understanding of the role of job and personal re-sources in relationship to work engagement, its antecedents, and its outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). En-schede, the Netherlands: Twente University.

Kreijns, K., Vermeulen, M., Van Acker, F., & Van Buuren. H. (2014). Predicting teachers’ use of digital learning materials: combining self-determination theory and the integrative model of behaviour prediction. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 1-14.

Limburgs Voortgezet Onderwijs (n.d.) Beleidsvisie LVO 2013-2017 [Policy Vision LVO 2013-2017]. Retrieved from https://www.stichtinglvo.nl/media/1216/1307-03-beleidsvisie-definitieve-tekstversie.pdf.

Messman, G., & Mulder, R. (2011). Innovative work behaviour in vocational colleges: Understanding how and why innovations are developed. Vocations and Learning, 4, 63-84.

Ministerie van OCW (2014). Wetenschapsvisie 2025: keuzes voor de toekomst [Vision on science 2025: Choices for the future]. The Hague: Ministerie van OCW.

C H A P T E R 1

18

Nederveen Pieterse, A., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organi-zational Behavior, 31, 609-623.

Ons Middelbaar Onderwijs. (n.d.) Koers 2016. [Course 2016] Retrieved from http://www.omo.nl/FbContent.ashx/ Downloads/koers_2016.pdf

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing, and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD.

ROC Leeuwenborgh (n.d.) ROC Leeuwenborgh maakt het verschil:Strategisch meerjarenplan 2015-2019 [ROC Leeuwenborgh makes the difference: Strategic multiple year plan 2015-2019]. Unpublished document.

Rohaan, E. J.,Beijaard, D. & Vink, R. (2012). Persoonlijke professionaliteit: overtuigingen, disposities en competen-ties van docenten in het voortgezet onderwijs [Personal professionalism: beliefs, dispositions and competen-cies of teachers in secondary education] Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.

Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2012). Do comprehensive school teachers perceive themselves as active professional agents in school reforms? Journal of Educational Change, 13, 95-116.

Runhaar, P. (2008). Promoting teachers’ professional development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universi-teit Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.

Sarafidou, J-O., & Chatziioannidis, G. (2013). Teacher participation in decision making and its impact on school and teachers. International Journal of Educational Management, 27, 170-183.

Scheerens, J. (ed.) (2010). Teachers' professional development: Europe in international comparison. an analysis of teachers' professional development based on OECD's teaching and learning international survey. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Union.

Schleicher, A. (Ed.) (2012). Preparing teachers and developing school leaders for the 21st century: Lessons from around the world. OECD Publishing.

Schyns, B., & Collani, G. von. (2002). A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to personality con-structs and organizational variables. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 219-241.

Sleegers, P. J. C., Thoonen, E. J., Oort, F. J., & Peetsma, Th. T. D. (2014) Changing classroom practices: the role of school-wide capacity for sustainable improvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 52, 617-652.

Smylie, M. A., Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instructional outcomes of school-based participative decision making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 181-198.

Somech, A. (2010). Participative decision making in schools: A mediating-moderating analytical framework for understanding school and teacher outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 174-209.

Thurlings, M. C. G., Evers, A. T. & Vermeulen, M. (2015). Toward a model of explaining teachers’ innovative behav-ior : a literature review. Review of Educational Research, 85, 430-471.

Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 271-360). San Diego: Academic Press.

Vallerand, R. J., & Ratelle, C. F. (2002). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A hierarchical model. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Van der Boom, E., & Stuivenberg, M. (2014). Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). Nationaal rapport Nederland. Den Haag: Ministerie van OCW.

Woolfolk, A., Hughes, M., & Walkup, V. (2008). Psychology in Education. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Ltd.

19

CHAPTER 2

Teachers’ innovative behaviour: the importance of basic psychological need

satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and occupational self-efficacy

This chapter is based upon Klaeijsen, A., Vermeulen, M., & Martens, R. (submitted). Teachers’ innovative behaviour: the importance of basic psychological need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and occupa-tional self-efficacy.

C H A P T E R 2

20

Abstract

Teacher innovative behaviour and professional development are considered important aspects of high quality education. It is often thought that motivation influences teachers’ innovative behaviour and professional development. The main purpose of this study is to gain more insight in motivational processes contributing to teachers’ innovative behaviour. Using Self-determination theory both intrinsic motivation and basic psychological need satisfaction are addressed. From an organisational psychology perspective also occupation-al self-efficacy is included in the hypothesized model. Online survey data from teachers in primary, secondary or vocational education in the Netherlands (n = 2,385) are analysed using structural equation modelling. Results show that basic psychological need satisfaction affects both intrinsic motivation and occupational self-efficacy, and that the latter strongly supports innovative behaviour.

T E A C H E R S ’ I N N O V A T I V E B E H A V I O U R : T H E I M P O R T A N C E O F …

21

2.1 Introduction

Our current society is often characterized as a knowledge society, in which generating, processing, and circulating knowledge have become essential (Hargreaves & Lo, 2000). Teachers are expected to prepare their students for learning and working in such a society. In this knowledge society teacher professional development has become a lifelong respon-sibility (Scheerens, 2010), essential to be able to deal with the high demands placed upon teachers nowadays. For example, more than ever teachers are required to be able to use different methods, to change their teaching approaches when needed, to acquire the skills necessary to make use of digital resources in class, and to know how to use information-management systems in order to monitor learning performances of students (Schleicher, 2012). In order to deal with the societal, technological, and educational challenges, it is im-portant that new ideas are brought into schools. The extent to which teachers themselves bring in those new ideas is not only determined by the professional skills and knowledge teachers have, but also by their motivation and feelings of efficacy (Pyhältö, Pietarinen, & Soini, 2012). With the intention tounderstand more about the relevance of these two psy-chological aspects and about the interrelatedness between them, this study takes a closer look at different motivational forces that influence the extent in which teachers come up with, promote, and implement new ideas. In other words, this study focuses on the impact of different and interrelated aspects of motivation and self-efficacy on teachers’ innovative behaviour at work.

Innovative behaviour

Recently, a study among respondents working in both public and private organizations in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden revealed that innovative behaviour is high among teaching staff (Bysted & Hansen, 2015). This individual innovative behaviour at work is important for high-performance organizations (Carmeli, Meitar, & Weisberg, 2006). It can be described as a type of extra-role behaviour at work that is necessary for organizations to survive (Tuom-inen & Toivonen, 2011). In this study the following definition of innovative behaviour at work is used: “the intentional creation, introduction, and application of new ideas within a work role, group or organization, in order to benefit role performance, the group or the organization” (Janssen, 2000, p. 288). Innovative behaviour thus goes beyond creativity, because it not only includes generating novel ideas, but also consists of the adoption and implementation of those ideas or solutions as well (Scott & Bruce, 1994). Several studies in different sectors have been performed to gain more understanding of factors that influence or support innovative behaviour at work (e.g., De Jong & Den Har-tog, 2007; De Jong & Kemp, 2003; Hartmann, 2006; Janssen, 2005; Knol & Van Lingen, 2009; Nederveen Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, Schippers, & Stam, 2010). However, relatively few studies focus specifically on teachers’ innovative work behaviour and its determinants

C H A P T E R 2

22

(Thurlings, Evers, & Vermeulen, 2015). Studies among teachers point at the effects of dif-ferent factors such as function or task, and self-efficacy (Runhaar, 2008), work engagement (Konermann, 2011), job control and creative requirements (Binnewies & Groner, 2012), and openness, motivation, job satisfaction, and interaction within the job (Messman & Mulder, 2014). Although these studies show that different motivational factors may con-tribute to innovative behaviour, they also leave room questions with regard to the com-bined effect of different motivational factors. The aim of this study is therefore to increase our understanding of the impact of motivational constructs on teachers’ innovative behav-iour while taking into account the interrelatedness of those motivational constructs. This knowledge is helpful in creating more stimulating environments in which teachers’ motiva-tion and innovative behaviour at work can flourish.

Self-determination theory: a focus on intrinsic motivation

People who enjoy their work are more likely to come up with ideas for improvements and to contribute to the implementation of new ideas (De Jong & Kemp, 2003). Furthermore, intrinsically motivated employees are more likely to try and find ways to improve methods or activities in their work, resulting in higher job performance (Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003). Even though creativity and innovative behaviour are not interchangeable, studies on the relationship between intrinsic motivation and creativity provide interesting insights on the importance of intrinsic motivation. Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, and Herron (1996) for example showed that intrinsic motivation functions as a mechanism between contextual factors and creativity. Intrinsic motivation might therefore be an important aspect in the support of innovative behaviour. This study builds on Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan 1985; 2000), a leading theory on human motivation with a focus on intrinsic motivation. Within SDT a distinction is made between different types of motivation, divided in two main categories: controlled and autonomous motivation. Controlled motivation covers those types of motivation that are based on thoughts of reward or punishment, for example, striving for approval or trying to avoid shame. In other words, people with controlled motivation experience external or internal pressures to think or act in certain ways. Autonomous motivation entails a process of identifying oneself with the value of the activity at hand and/ or integration into the sense of one’s self. It also includes intrinsic motivation. Being intrinsically motivated means doing something for its inherent satisfaction and is frequently measured by self-reports of interest and enjoyment in performing the activity at hand (Ryan & Deci, 2000). As pointed out by Deci and Vansteenkiste (2004), intrinsic motivation is the basis for all individuals’ learning and development. Central in the support of intrinsic motivation is the degree to which people feel their environment supports their basic psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2008). SDT posits that all individuals have three innate, psychological needs: the need for competence, the need for autonomy, and the need for relatedness. The need for competence reflects the desire


23

to feel competent and effective. The need for autonomy reflects the desire to experience freedom and volition. The need for relatedness concerns the desire to interact with, care for, and be connected to others. Environments, in which the basic needs are insufficiently met, are considered to have a negative impact on intrinsic motivation. External control, for example, hampers feelings of autonomy, which consequently may have a diminishing effect on intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). All three basic psychological needs are relevant for intrinsic motivation, especially au-tonomy and competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Koestner & Losier, 2002). Relatedness might be of less importance as far as intrinsic motivation is concerned, due to the fact that people often also engage in intrinsically motivated solitaire activities (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Basic psychological need satisfaction and the effect it has on motivation and wellbeing is said to be generalizable across different contexts and different cultures (Deci, Ryan, Gagné, Leone, Usunov, & Kornazheva, 2001). Importantly, basic psychological need satis-faction is also associated with other outcomes such as employee performance. Baard, Deci, and Ryan (2004), for example, found that employees who reported higher need satisfaction were considered by their supervisors to perform better.

Teachers’ intrinsic motivation and basic psychological need satisfaction

Intrinsic motivation in general is positively associated with a greater degree of job satisfac-tion and wellbeing (Ilardi, Leone, Kasser, & Ryan, 2003). Teachers’ intrinsic motivation is also considered to be an important factor in educational performance. Some researchers have found positive relations between teachers’ intrinsic motivation and students’ achievement (Knowles, 1999), students’ interest and persistence (Radel, Sarrazin, Legrain, & Wild, 2010), and students’ motivation (Lam, Cheng, & Ma, 2009). Given these positive outcomes of intrinsic motivation, it is of high interest to understand the conditions that support or hinder this kind of motivation. SDT posits that satisfaction basic psychological needs are important predictors of intrinsic motivation. Unfortunately, regarding teachers’ basic psychological need satisfaction, relatively little is known about the degree to which teachers feel their basic needs are being met (LaPointe, 2006). LaPointe’s study is one of the few examples in which teachers’ level of basic psychological need satisfaction is meas-ured. A weak but positive relationship was found between school characteristics and teachers’ overall basic psychological need satisfaction. More recently, a few other studies have been performed on teachers’ intrinsic motiva-tion and their basic psychological need satisfaction. Lam, Cheng, and Choy (2010) studied how school support relates to teachers’ motivation and willingness to implement an educa-tional innovation, namely project-based learning. The results of their study indicated that teachers were more motivated to persist in project-based learning when they perceive their school to be more supportive of their need for feeling competent and autonomous. In addition, Wagner and French (2010) focused on early childhood teachers’ motivation. Their findings also supported the idea that feelings of competence, autonomy, and relatedness

C H A P T E R 2

24

are important for teachers’ intrinsic motivation to develop themselves professionally and to improve their teaching practice.

Self-efficacy beliefs at work

As pointed out, SDT is a leading theory on human motivation with a focus on intrinsic moti-vation. However, many other theories on motivation exist with different focal points (see for a theoretical overview for example Boekaerts, Van Nuland, & Martens, 2010; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Other focal points include for example expectancies or beliefs concerning self-efficacy, of which Bandura’s theory on self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) is a well-known example. Many studies have shown the importance of self-efficacy on human achievement in various contexts, such as education, health, and business (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is defined as an individual’s judgement of how well he or she “can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations” (Bandura, 1982, p. 122). It refers to acquired cognitions and is directed at new tasks or future activities. It differs from the need to feel competent (i.e. one of the basic psychological needs), which is an affective experience, based on previous or current experiences, such as mastering a task (Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, Soenens, & Lens, 2010). Regarding the self-efficacy of teachers numerous studies have been conducted. Often studies on teacher self-efficacy focuse for example on efficacy beliefs regarding instruction-al strategies, for classroom management, and for student engagement (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Other studies that investigate self-effiacy beliefs of teachers exam-ine more specific types of activities related to teaching, such as making use of digital learn-ing materials (Vermeulen, Van Acker, Kreijns, & Van Buuren, 2014), or regarding pre-service teachers’ behaviour management strategies (Reupert & Woodcock, 2011). Regardless of the object of feelings of efficacy, self-efficacy can serve as a predictor for different kinds of teacher behaviour and as a relevant aspect in explaining the influence of teachers’ percep-tion of their work environment on their behaviour or activities. In terms of behavioural intentions self-efficacy beliefs are considered to be proximal variables: variable that are close to the behaviour at hand (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Proxi-mal variables on their turn are influenced by so called distal variables, such as school char-acteristics and individual teacher characteristics (see for example Kreijns, Van Acker, Ver-meulen, & Van Buuren, 2013). An individual’s perception of the extent to which he or she feels the environment satisfies his or her basic psychological needs can be viewed as a distal variable. Basic psychological need satisfaction (a distal variable) is expected to influ-ence self-efficacy (a proximal variable). Relatively few studies in different settings have related psychological need satisfaction to self-efficacy. Findings of a study among executive and middle managers from a high tech company showed that basic psychological need satisfaction predicts self-efficacy (Moen & Skaalvik, 2009). Recently, in an educational set-


25

ting, Diseth, Danielsen, and Samdal (2012) found that secondary school students’ feelings of basic psychological needs predicted their academic self-efficacy. This study focuses on the occupational self-efficacy of teachers. Occupational self-efficacy is described as the beliefs people have in their own ability to face occupational challenges and to act successfully in various situations and tasks in their job (Schyns & Von Collani, 2002), regardless of their current work environment (Abele & Spurk, 2009, as stat-ed in Jungert, 2012). Relatively little is known about teachers’ occupational self-efficacy. Konermann (2011) however studied for example Dutch teachers’ occupational self-efficacy and found that it mediates the positive relationship between teachers’ work engagement and their innovative behaviour at work. Studies on occupational self-efficacy in different professional settings have shown positive relations with task performance and organisa-tional citizenship behaviour (König, Debus, Häusler, Lendenmann, & Kleinman, 2010), and with intrinsic job motivation (Fletcher, Hansson, & Bailey, 1992). In addition, Jungert (2012) examined the relationship between occupational self-efficacy and autonomous motivation, which entails intrinsic motivation. In his study among research and development profes-sionals and care giving workers a weak but positive relationship between both constructs was found. Although some studies exist in which both motivation and occupational self-efficacy are included, empirical studies that examine both basic psychological need satisfac-tion and occupational self-efficacy are lacking. The relation between satisfaction of the basic psychological needs, occupational self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and innovative behaviour is therefore unclear.

The present study

This study aims to contribute to the body of knowledge on teachers’ innovative behaviour in order to gain more understanding of different and possibly interacting psychological processes leading to teachers’ individual innovative behaviour at work. The main question addressed in this study is:

How do basic psychological need satisfaction, occupational self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation predict teachers’ innovative behaviour?

Based on literature and empirical findings we constructed a model (Figure 2.1) that hy-pothesizes that the support of the three basic psychological needs contributes positively to feelings of intrinsic motivation and occupational self-efficacy, which in turn both lead to teachers’ innovative behaviour at work. The testing of this model is accompanied with the following hypotheses regarding the positive effects of the individual constructs: Hypothesis 1: Satisfaction of the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness is posi-

tively related to teachers’ intrinsic motivation. Hypothesis 2: Occupational self-efficacy relates positively to teachers’ intrinsic motivation.

C H A P T E R 2

26

Hypothesis 3: Satisfaction of the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness is posi-tively related to teachers’ occupational self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 4: Teachers’ intrinsic motivation relates positively to teachers’ innovative be-haviour at work.

Hypothesis 5: Occupational self-efficacy relates positively to teachers’ innovative beha-viour.

Figure 2.1 Conceptual model showing the hypothesized impact of satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs, occupational self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation on innovative behaviour

2.2 Method

Data collection

An online questionnaire was administered among teachers in the Netherlands. In order to obtain a reliability level of 95%, a response of 1,152 teachers was sought, equally divided among primary, secondary, and vocational education. Because response rates on anony-mised online inquiries are expected to be around 5 percent, a large group of teachers had to be addressed. Therefore, a database compiled by the Onderwijs Innovatie Groep (Educa-tion Innovation Group) and comprising of 37,888 Dutch school employees was used to invite teachers by e-mail to participate in the online questionnaire. As the response of teachers working in vocational education lagged behind in comparison to teachers working in primary and secondary education, a reminder was sent after two weeks to this group. The questionnaire was closed two weeks after this reminder. The study was conducted in the autumn of 2011.

Participants

In sum 3,573 school employees started the questionnaire, of which 245 did not belong to the target group of teachers. The questionnaire was fully completed by 2,385 of the re-


27

maining 3,328 respondents, resulting in a final response percentage of 6.3 percent. Of the participating teachers, 690 worked in primary education, 1,414 in secondary education, and 255 in schools for vocational education. The remaining 26 teachers worked in other types of education, such as special education. The respondents (1,130 men and 1,255 women) ranged in age from 20 to 67 years (M = 49.18, SD = 10.06). The number of respondents in this study is equivalent to approximately 1% of the total population of teachers in primary, secondary, and vocational education in the Netherlands. Compared to this total population of teachers in the Netherlands, the response group comprised slightly more teachers of 45 years of age or above. In secondary and vocational education male teachers were somewhat over-represented in this study. For this reason, and because the aim of the study does not involve the search for differences across certain groups based on background variables, age, gender, and type of school teachers mainly teach at (primary, secondary or vocational education) were controlled for in the analyses.

Measures

All constructs reported in this study were mapped using existing scales on basic psychologi-cal need satisfaction at work, intrinsic motivation, occupational self-efficacy, and innovative behaviour at work. When needed, items were translated into Dutch and were reworded or adjusted while keeping as close as possible to the original meaning of the items. All items were measured using seven-point Likert type scales, ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true). Basic psychological need satisfaction. Most work-related measures of basic psychological need satisfaction used in previous studies are ad hoc instruments with lacking evidence of their validity (Brien et al., 2012). An exception is the scale constructed by Van den Broeck et al. (2010), but as Brien et al. (2012) point out, this scale also has certain weaknesses con-cerning the operationalization of some of the constructs. In this study the original Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale was used which aims to determine the extent of employees’ psychological need satisfaction in the workplace (Kasser, Davey, & Ryan, 1992). This scale, which for example also has been used among teachers (LaPointe, 2006), has three subscales: Autonomy (seven items), Competence (six items), and Relatedness (eight items). Examples of items are “I feel like I can make a lot of inputs to deciding how my job gets done” (Autonomy), “I do not feel very competent when I am at work” (Competence) and “I really like the people I work with” (Relatedness). Intrinsic motivation. In order to assess the degree of intrinsic motivation teachers claim to have for their job, the Interest/ Enjoyment scale consisting of seven items of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (Deci & Ryan, n.d.) was used and adjusted for this study’s purpose. Examples of items in this scale are “I enjoy my work as a teacher” and “I would describe working as a teacher as very interesting”.

C H A P T E R 2

28

Occupational self-efficacy. Using the short version of the Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (Schyns & Von Collani, 2002), the degree to which teachers feel confident to face the chal-lenges of changes and unforeseen situations was determined. The scale comprises eight items, such as “If I am in trouble at my work, I can usually think of something to do” and “I remain calm when facing difficulties in my job because I can rely on my abilities”. Innovative behaviour. Innovative behaviour at work was assessed using the Innovative Be-haviour scale of De Jong and Den Hartog (2005). This scale determines the degree in which the respondent feels he or she behaves innovatively at work. It consists of eight items such as “People I work with think of me as somebody who likes to do new things” and “I enjoy trying new approaches”.

Data preparation

The scales used to assess intrinsic motivation, occupational self-efficacy, and innovative behaviour have previously proven to be useful in a Dutch-speaking educational context (e.g. Konermann, 2011; Visser-Wijnveen, Stes, & Petegem, 2012). The internal consisten-cies of these scales in this study varied from .89 (Occupational Self-efficacy, eight items) to .91 (Innovative Behaviour, eight items). The reliability of the scale Intrinsic Motivation was improved by removing one item of the original scale (“Working as a teacher does not hold my attention at all”). This led to a scale consisting of six items with a Cronbach’s alpha of .90. Empirical evidence of the dimensionality of the Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale is lacking (Johnston & Finney, 2010). In order to replicate the structure of the Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale, an explorative factor analysis (PCA with varimax rotation) was performed. Due to a misfit of the factor solutions and low reliabilities, replicating the origi-nal factor structure wasn’t possible. Instead, based on reliability analyses, factor analyses, and content analyses, a new scale to measure teachers’ basic psychological seed satisfac-tion at work was constructed, with one factor consisting of ten items, which contains items of all three subscales (competence - three items, autonomy - four items, relatedness - three items). The factor has an eigenvalue of 4.71, accounting for 41.35 percent of the variance and having factor loadings ranging from .55 to .73. Table 2.1 shows the factor loadings of the individual items in the scale, ordered by the three needs as proposed by SDT. Cronbach’s alpha for the constructed measure was .87. Because data preparation led to less constructs concerning the measurement of basic psy-chological need satisfaction, hypotheses 1 and 3 were reformulated as follows: Hypothesis 1: Basic psychological need satisfaction is positively related to teachers’ intrin-

sic motivation.


29

Hypothesis 3: Basic psychological need satisfaction is positively related to teachers’ occu-pational self-efficacy.

Table 2.1 Factor analysis on the adjusted scale to measure teachers’ basic psychological need satisfaction at work (PCA, varimax).

Items Factor loadings

I have been able to learn interesting new skills on my job (c) .61

Most days I feel a sense of accomplishment from working (c) .59

People at work tell me I am good at what I do (c) .55

My feelings are taken into consideration at work (a) .71

I feel like I can pretty much be myself at work (a) .69

I am free to express my ideas and opinions on the job (a) .65

I feel like I can make a lot of inputs to deciding how my job gets done (a) .63

People at work care about me (r) .73

I really like the people I work with (r) .64

People at work are pretty friendly towards me (r) .63

Note. (c) = item originally reflecting competence, (a) = autonomy, (r) = relatedness

In addition, the conceptual model was adjusted by replacing the three separate basic needs with one construct: basic psychological need satisfaction at work (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2 Final conceptual model showing the hypothesized impact of basic psychological need satisfaction, occupational self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation on innovative behaviour

Data analysis

Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was used to test the path model presented in Figure 2.2 and its underlying hypotheses. SEM enables testing hypothesized models statistically in a way which allows for simultaneously examining all variables to determine the consistency of the model with the data (Byrne, 2012). This approach uses both factor analysis to model latent constructs (i.e. the measurement model) and path analysis to test the hypothesized relationships. Modelling was carried out by means of a strictly confirmatory approach (Jör-eskog, 1993), using MPlus version 6.

C H A P T E R 2

30

Due to the multivariate non-normality of the data a robust maximum likelihood estimation was used (Byrne, 2012; Kline, 2011). Model fit is therefore reported by means of a Satorra-Bendler chi square. The associated comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square of error approximation (RMSEA), and the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) are reported as well. Model fit is considered acceptable when CFI is .95 or more, RMSEA is .08 or less, and SRMR is .06 or less (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

2.3 Results

Table 2.2 shows the descriptive statistics of the constructs in the adjusted hypothesized model. The respondents scored the highest average on the scale Intrinsic Motivation (M = 5.86), but these scores ranged a fair amount (SD = 1.11). The lowest average was found on the scale Innovative Behaviour (M = 5.04) with again a fair amount of deviation between the individual scores (SD = 1.13). All bivariate correlations between the theoretical constructs were significant (p = 0.01). The strongest correlational relationship was found between basic psychological need satis-faction at work and intrinsic motivation (r = 0.53). The weakest relationship found was the one between intrinsic motivation and innovative behaviour at work (r = 0.33). Table 2.2 Means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients and correlations among the constructs

Construct M SD 1 2 3 4

1. Basic psychological need satisfaction 5.38 .90 .87

2. Occupational self-efficacy 5.81 .77 .44* .89

3. Intrinsic motivation 5.86 1.11 .53* .42* .90

4. Innovative behaviour 5.04 1.13 .37* .46* .33* .91

Note. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) are presented in italics * Correlations significant at the .01 level (two-tailed)

Before testing the hypothesized structural relationships in the model, the fit of the meas-urement model was tested. For reasons of conciseness, these results are not reported here. By means of χ2, the CFI, the RMSEA, and the SRMR, the model fit of the proposed model was calculated. Teachers’ age, gender, and type of school they teach at were added as background variables to control for. The results of the model testing indicated an ac-ceptable fit: χ2(599) = 3,478.82, p = .00, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .05. The standardised regression coefficients (see Figure 2.3) confirmed that teachers’ in-trinsic motivation is positively related to teachers’ basic psychological need satisfaction (Hypothesis 1; β = .45, p <.01). The more teachers felt satisfied in their basic psychological needs, the more they felt intrinsically motivated. Furthermore, occupational self-efficacy was also positively related to intrinsic motivation (Hypothesis 2; β = .21, p <.01), although this effect was not as strong as the effect of basic psychological need satisfaction on intrin-


31

sic motivation. Occupational self-efficacy was also affected by basic psychological need satisfaction (Hypothesis 3). This in fact was the strongest effect found in this study (β = .51, p < .01), meaning that the more teachers felt satisfied in their basic psychological needs, the more they felt confident in their ability to change whenever their job requires to do so. The least strong but still significant effect was the effect of intrinsic motivation on innova-tive behaviour (Hypothesis 4; β = .12, p <.01). In fact, innovative behaviour turned out to be affected more strongly by occupational self-efficacy. Occupational self-efficacy did relate positively to innovative behaviour (Hypothesis 5; β = .44, p <.01).

Figure 2.3 Final structural model representing the standardised relationships Note. For the ease of exposition, only significant effects between the key constructs are presented in this figure (p < .01).

Based on the results, all hypotheses were accepted. The strongest path in the model was the path from basic psychological need satisfaction via occupational self-efficacy to innova-tive behaviour. Feeling satisfied in their basic psychological needs supports teachers’ feel-ings of confidence in facing the changes or unforeseen situations that might occur in their teaching job, which in turn predicted teachers´ innovative behaviour at work. After controlling for the background variables gender, age, and school type, only few of these control variables appeared to have significant effects on the latent variables in het conceptual model. The largest significant effect found concerned a small impact of age on innovative behaviour (β = -.113, p < .01), indicating that, compared to older teachers, younger teachers might behave more often in an innovative way.

2.4 Conclusion and discussion

Teacher professional development and innovative behaviour are important assets of high-quality education that prepares students for learning, living, and working in a knowledge

C H A P T E R 2

32

society. It is often assumed that motivational problems hinder teachers’ professional de-velopment and readiness for innovation. However, the empirical underpinning of this claim is unclear. Nevertheless, motivation and self-efficacy appear to influence teachers’ innova-tive behaviour (Thurlings et al., 2015) and the extent to which teachers introduce new ideas in their school (Pyhältö et al., 2012). Therefore, the main focus of this study was to gain more insights into the relations between psychological processes leading to teachers’ inno-vative behaviour at work, specifically intrinsic motivation, basic psychological need satisfac-tion and occupational self-efficacy. Our model confirms that a sequence of motivational constructs does affect teachers’ innovative behaviour. More specifically, both intrinsic motivation and occupational self-efficacy have a direct effect on innovative behaviour. However, the relationship between intrinsic motivation and innovative behaviour is significant but small, whereas the relation-ship between occupational self-efficacy and innovative behaviour is much stronger. This means that the model confirms that feeling confident in dealing with future changes in the teaching job leads to behaving more in innovatively at work. The strong relationship be-tween the two constructs can be explained by taking into account that both constructs involve possible changes affecting the teaching job. In the case of innovative behaviour of teachers, those changes are initiated by teachers who create, introduce or implement new ideas themselves. In contrast, occupational self-efficacy involves beliefs regarding how well one may face challenges or changes that may occur within the job. Those challenges or changes may for example be imposed because of new educational policies or mandatory curriculum innovations. Having a higher confidence to face those changes relates positively to perceptions of teachers’ own innovative behaviour at work. Our empirical study also shows that teachers’ basic psychological need satisfaction relates positively to intrinsic motivation for working as a teacher. This confirms one of the central ideas within SDT, namely that satisfaction of the basic psychological needs nourish-es intrinsic motivation. However, replicating this construct as three separate psychological needs wasn’t possible. This problem of confirmation of three separate factors for autono-my, competence, and relatedness is not unique for this study. The same difficulties were found for example in a study among students (Vermeulen, Castelijns, Cools, & Koster, 2012). Additionally, studies in other fields encountered difficulties in replicating a three factor structure of existing work related basic need satisfaction scales as well (Dysvik, Kuvaas, & Gagné, 2013). Our study led to the construction of a short overall basic psycho-logical need satisfaction scale, consisting of items from all three basic needs, thus testing the model with basic psychological need satisfaction as one factor. Although the use of one basic need satisfaction factor makes it impossible to test the extent in which autonomy, competence, and relatedness influences intrinsic motivation, the use of one overall score for the three basic needs is not uncommon (e.g., De Cooman, Stynen, Van den Broeck, Sels, & De Witte, 2013; Milyavskaya & Koestner, 2011; Vansteenkiste, Neyrinck, Niemiec, Soen-ens, De Witte, & Van den Broeck, 2007).


33

The relationship between this basic psychological need satisfaction and occupational self-efficacy turns out to be the strongest relationship in the model. This can partially be ex-plained by the fact that competence as a basic need on the one hand, and feelings of self-efficacy on the other, are expected to correlate highly (Van den Broeck et al., 2010). How-ever, the construct of basic psychological need satisfaction also includes autonomy and relatedness items, which together form a larger part of the factor with higher factor load-ings than the competence items. Apparently, teachers who in their working environment experience a higher degree of support of their basic psychological needs are more confi-dent in their own ability to effectively face changes during their work. As such, this basic psychological need satisfaction and occupational self-efficacy may not only be relevant in the light of innovative behaviour, that is self-initiated coming up with, sharing and trying out new ideas, but may also be important in other change or innovation processes such as implementing large scale centralised curriculum innovations. The weak relationship between intrinsic motivation and innovative behaviour can be explained by the distinction Vallerand (1997) makes in his Hierarchical Model between motivation on a global, a contextual, and a situational level. The global level of motivation is the general motivational orientation an individual has in interacting with his environment and can be considered as the motivational orientation on an individual’s personality level. The contextual level refers to the motivational orientation in a specific life domain, such as work and leisure. The situational level of motivation refers to a specific activity at a given point in time. The Hierarchical Model postulates that the level in which the consequences are situated depends on the level of motivational orientations (general, contextual or situa-tional). Studies have shown for example that contextual motivations are the strongest pre-dictors for consequences on a contextual level (Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002). Although intrin-sic motivation for working as a teacher can be considered as the measurement of a motiva-tional orientation on a contextual level, innovative behaviour is a specific type of profes-sional teacher behaviour. As such there may be a difference in level between innovative behaviour and intrinsic motivation for working as a teacher in general. Another explanation of the weak relationship between intrinsic motivation and innova-tive behaviour might be found in teachers’ perceptions of the teaching job, or otherwise stated, their professional orientation. Hoyle (1975) makes a distinction between restricted and extended professional orientations. Teachers with a restricted professional orientation focus mainly on their own teaching practice in the classroom. They are, for example, only little involved in other professional activities besides teaching and they read professional literature irregularly. Teachers with a more extended professional orientation focus on the school organization as an important part of their teaching practice, show high involvement in more and other professional activities, and regularly keep track of professional literature. As such, professional orientation might affect the relationship between intrinsic motivation for the teaching job and innovative behaviour in the sense that when having an extended professional orientation, the relationship between intrinsic motivation and innovative be-haviour might be stronger.

C H A P T E R 2

34

Although the necessity for teachers to engage in self-initiated innovative behaviour might differ between countries and educational systems, the psychological determinants underly-ing intrinsic motivation, namely the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs are claimed to be universal (Deci et al., 2001). This means that these motivational constructs and the relations found is this study can be considered to be relevant in other countries as well. To summarize, teachers’ intrinsic motivation for their work flourishes in work envi-ronment where they feel supported in their need for autonomy, competence, and related-ness. Having a work environment in which administrators, school leaders, and colleagues succeed in creating circumstances in which teachers experience enough autonomy and opportunities to make their own choices and decision within their job, combined which feeling competent to act successfully as a teacher, and feeling connected to relevant others helps to remain intrinsically motivated. Not only that, it also leads to higher levels of occu-pational self-efficacy. Although co-workers might have a positive influence as well, research has shown that according to teachers their supervisors or principals seem to play a key role in creating an autonomy supportive work culture in schools (see Chapter 5).

Limitations

Some limitations of this study have to be mentioned at this point. First, although our model featured causal relationships, causality cannot be established because the model is fit to correlational data. Second, the results are based on teachers’ self-reports. It is conceivable that other sources of information, like school principals or colleagues might shed a different light on for example teachers’ innovative behaviour. Third, this study focuses on only a few psychological constructs that might influence teachers' innovative behaviour positively. Other aspects are important to examine as well, for example other types of motivation, professional orientation, and organisational factors such as school leadership. Professional orientation and work context have also been mentioned as factors that influence teachers’ professional agency, i.e. taking responsibility as a teacher for both individual problem solv-ing as well as contributing to the professional community by collaborating and coming up with new ideas, and combining, implementing, and monitoring this process (Pyhältö et al., 2012). Finally, although the number of respondents was high, the response rate calls for caution regarding conclusions about the generalizability of the findings. Additional research is needed to strengthen empirical evidence on motivational factors that contribute to teachers´ innovative behaviour. Both motivation and self-efficacy are challenging con-structs to measure quantitatively in terms of reliability and validity. Quantitative research methods are needed when aiming to test theoretical models. However, qualitative research methods or a combination of both might be helpful in further examining these constructs as well. Nevertheless, this study shows that basic psychological need satisfaction is a predictor for teachers’ intrinsic motivation and occupational self-efficacy. Additionally, it demon-strates that the concept of occupational self-efficacy is a stronger predictor of innovative


35

behaviour than intrinsic motivation. Because teachers are the key to good education, en-hancing their feelings of occupational self-efficacy may prove to be important to advance educational innovations.

C H A P T E R 2

36

References

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154-1184.

Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2045-2068.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Binnewies, C., & Gromer, M. (2012). Creativity and innovation at work: the role of work characteristics and per-

sonal initiative. Psicothema, 24, 100-105. Boekaerts, M., Van Nuland, H. J. C., & Martens, R. L. (2010). Perspectives on motivation: What mechanisms ener-

gise students’ behaviour in the classroom. In J. Kleine Staarman, K. Littleton, & C. Wood (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp 535-569). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Brien, M., Forest, J., Mageau, G. A., Boudrias, J.-S., Desrumeaux, P., Brunet, L., & Morin, E. M. (2012). The Basic Psychological Needs at Work Scale: Measurement invariance between Canada and France. Applied Psycholo-gy: Health and Well-Being, 4, 167-187.

Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.

Bysted, R., & Hansen, J. R. (2015). Comparing public and private sector employees’ innovative behaviour: Under-standing the role of job and organizational characteristics, job types, and subsectors. Public Management Re-view, 17, 698-717.

Carmeli, A., Meitar, R., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior at work. International Journal of Manpower, 27, 75-90.

De Cooman, R., Stynen, D., Van den Broeck, A., Sels, L., & De Witte, H. (2013). How job characteristics relate to need satisfaction and autonomous motivation: implications for work effort. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-ogy, 43, 1342-1352.

De Jong, J. P. J., & Hartog, D. N. (2005). Determinanten van innovatief gedrag: een onderzoek onder kenniswerkers in het MKB [Determinants of innovative behaviour: an investigation among knowledge workers in SMEs]. Ge-drag & Organisatie, 18, 235-259.

De Jong, J. P. J., & Kemp, R. (2003). Determinants of co-workers’ innovative behaviour: an investigation into knowledge intensive services. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7, 189-212.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (n.d.) Intrinsic motivation inventory (IMI). Accessed 15 September 2011. http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/IMI_scales.php

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York/London: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49, 14-23.

Deci, E.L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motiva-tion, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern Bloc country. Personality and Social Psy-chology Bulletin, 27, 930-942.

Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2004). Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology. Ricerche di Psichologia, 27, 17-34.

Diseth, Å., Danielsen, A. G., & Samdal, O. (2012). A path analysis of basic needs support, self-efficacy, achievement goals, life satisfaction and academic achievement level among secondary school students. Educational Psy-chology, 32, 335-354.

Dysvik, A., Kuvaas, B., & Gagné, M. (2013). An investigation of the unique, synergistic and balanced relationships between basic psychological needs and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 1050-1064.


37

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

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis).

Fletcher, W. L., Hansson, R. O., & Bailey, L. (1992). Assessing occupational self-efficacy among middle-aged and older adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 11, 489-501.

Hargreaves, A., & Lo, L. (2000). The paradoxical profession: teaching at the turn of the century. Prospects, 30, 1-16.

Hartmann, A. (2006). The role of organizational culture in motivating innovation in construction firms. Construc-tion Innovation, 6, 159-172.

Hoyle, E. (1975). Leadership and decision-making in education. In M. Hughes (Ed.) Administering Education: Inter-national Challenge. London: The Athlone Press

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1-55.

Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Employee and supervisor ratings of motivation: Main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and adjustment in a factory setting. Journal of Ap-plied Social Psychology, 23, 1789-1805.

Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness, and innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287-302.

Johnston, M. M., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Measuring basic needs satisfaction: Evaluating previous research and conducting new psychometric evaluations of the Basic Needs Satisfaction in General Scale. Contemporary Ed-ucational Psychology, 35, 280-296.

Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Lang (Eds) Testing structural equa-tion models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innova-tion: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 525-544.

Jungert, T. (2012). The meaning of support from co-workers and managers in teams when working. (FOG-Report no 72). Linköping: Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning (IBL), Linköping University.

Kasser, T., Davey, J., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Motivation, dependability, and employee-supervisor discrepancies in psychiatric vocational rehabilitation settings. Rehabilitation Psychology, 37, 175-187.

Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 741-756.

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: The Guilford Press. Knowles, K. T. (1999). The effect of teacher engagement on student achievement and motivation (NELS:88, eighth-

grade, tenth-grade). (Doctoral dissertation). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 1010. Knol, J. & Van Linge, R. (2009). Innovative behaviour: the effect of structural and psychological empowerment on

nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65, 359-370. Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (2002). Distinguishing three ways of being highly motivated: A closer look at introjec-

tion, identification, and intrinsic motivation. In E.L. Deci & R.M. Ryan (Eds). Handbook of self-determination re-search (pp. 101-121). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.


König, C. J., Debus, M. E., Häusler, S., Lendenmann, N., & Kleinmann, M. (2010). Examining occupational self-efficacy, work locus of control and communication as moderators of the job insecurity-job performance rela-tionship. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31, 231-247.

Kreijns, K., Van Acker, F., Vermeulen, M., & Van Buuren, H. (2013). What stimulates teachers to integrate ICT in their pedagogical practices? The use of digital learning materials in education. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 217-225.

Lam, S. F., Cheng, R. W., & Ma, W. Y. (2009). Teacher and student motivation in project-based learning. Instruc-tional Science, 37, 565-578.

C H A P T E R 2

38

Lam, S. F., Cheng, R. W., & Choy, H. C. (2010). School support and teacher motivation to implement project-based learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 487-497.

LaPointe, L. (2006). The relationships between teacher need satisfaction and perceptions of school and classroom environments. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Publica-tion number AAT 3239862).

Milyavskaya, M., & Koestner, R. (2011). Psychological needs, motivation, and well-being: A test of self-determination theory across multiple domains. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 387-391.

Messman, G., & Mulder, R. (2011). Innovative work behaviour in vocational colleges: understanding how and why innovations are developed. Vocations and Learning, 4, 63-84.

Moen, F., & Skaalvik, E. (2009). The effect from executive coaching on performance psychology. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 7, 31-49.

Nederveen Pieterse, A., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 31, 609-623.


Radel, R., Sarrazin, P., Legrain, P., & Wild, T. C. (2010). Social contagion of motivation between teacher and stu-dent: Analyzing underlying processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 577-587.

Reupert, A., & Woodcock, S. (2011). Canadian and Australian pre-service teachers’ use, confidence and success in various behaviour management strategies. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 271-281.

Runhaar, P. (2008). Promoting teachers’ professional development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Enschede, the Netherlands: Twente University.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Con-temporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.

Scheerens, J. (Ed.) (2010). Teachers' professional development: Europe in international comparison. an analysis of teachers' professional development based on OECD's teaching and learning international survey. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Union.


Schyns, B., & von Collani, G. (2002). A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to personality constructs and organizational variables. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 219-241.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580-607.


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

Tuominen, T., & Toivonen, M. (2011). Studying innovation and change activities in KIBS through the lens of innova-tive behaviour. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15, 393-422.


Vallerand, R. J., & Ratelle, C. F. (2002). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A hierarchical model. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp 37-63). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Witte, H. de, Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2010). Capturing autonomy, compe-tence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 981-1002.

Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, Ch. P., Soenens, B., De Witte, H., & Van den Broeck, A. (2007). On the relations among work value orientations, psychological need satisfaction and job outcomes: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 251-277.


39

Vermeulen, M., Van Acker, F., Kreijns, K., & Van Buuren, H. (2014). Does transformational leadership encourage teacher’s use of digital learning materials? Educational Management Administration & Leadership. doi:10.1177/1741143214535749

Vermeulen, M., Castelijns, B., Cools, Q., & Koster, B. (2012). Measuring student teachers' basic psychological needs. Journal of Education for Teaching: International research and pedagogy, 38, 453-467.

Visser-Wijnveen, G. J., Stes, A., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). Development and validation of a questionnaire measur-ing teachers’ motivations for teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 64, 421-436.

Wagner, B. D., & French, L. (2010). Motivation, work satisfaction, and teacher change among early childhood teachers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 24, 152-171.

41

CHAPTER 3

The importance of transformational leadership and participative decision making

for teachers’ innovative behaviour: a study on motivational processes

This chapter is based upon: Klaeijsen, A., Vermeulen, M., & Martens, R. (submitted). The importance of transformation-al leadership and participative decision making for teachers’ innovative behaviour: a study on motivational processes.

C H A P T E R 3

42

Abstract

Purpose: Although teachers’ innovative behaviour is considered to be important for schools to deal with changing educational, societal or technical demands, relatively little is known about leadership and organisational factors that influences motivational processes that contribute to teachers’ innovative behaviour. Therefore, this study explores how the rela-tionship between transformational leadership, participative decision making, and teachers’ innovative behaviour is mediated by motivational processes. Research methods: Data were collected by means of an online questionnaire, administered to teachers working in 30 (comprehensive) schools for secondary education within one school board. In sum 1,049 teachers (16%) participated. Structural equation modelling was used to analyse the data. Findings: Motivational processes fully mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative behaviour. This indicates that transformational leadership stimu-lates teachers’ innovative behaviour through the satisfaction of their basic psychological needs which supports their occupational self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation. The relation-ship between participative decision making and innovative behaviour is partially mediated by the tested sequence of motivational constructs, indicating that participative decision making stimulates teachers’ innovative behaviour not only through motivational processes but also directly. Implications: This study sheds light on the psychological ‘black box’ that explains the influence transformational leadership and participative decision making have on work related behaviour. More specifically, both contribute to innovative behaviour of teachers, indicating that leadership behaviours and decision making processes influence motivational outcomes and innovative behaviour. Further research is necessary to explore other relevant leadership, organisational, and psychological factors that may stimulate teachers’ innovative behaviour.

T H E I M P O R T A N C E O F T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L L E A D E R S H I P A N D P A R T I C I P A T I V E …

43

3.1 Introduction

In this 21st century teachers are confronted with high demands. They are for example ex-pected to be able to use different methods, to change their approaches when necessary, to acquire technology skills in order to make use of digital resources in class, and to make use of information-management systems that keep track of students’ learning performances (Schleicher, 2012). Teachers are also faced with growing (moral) uncertainties, and with new partners or social groups who also want to have a say in what happens in the class-room (Hargreaves, 2000). A key element for organizations in order to deal effectively with current and upcoming changes is the innovative behaviour of their employees. Innovative behaviour is often described as a type of extra-role behaviour at work that is necessary for organizations to survive (Tuominen & Toivonen, 2011). It also relates to one of the dimen-sions of organisational citizenship behaviour, namely the concept of individual initiative. This dimension includes voluntarily engaging in creativity and innovation related activities, with the intention to improve the task or performance on an individual or organisational level (Podsakoff, MackKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). It implies a bottom-up view on innovative behaviour. In other words, innovative behaviour is characterized by self-initiated actions of changing and improving work-related aspects and it goes beyond mandatory implementation of externally imposed innovations. Recently many studies in different sectors have been performed to gain more under-standing of what influences employees’ innovative behaviour at work (e.g., De Jong & Kemp, 2003; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Hartmann, 2006; Janssen, 2005; Knol & Van Linge, 2009; Nederveen Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, Schippers, & Stam, 2010). Few studies however focused specifically on teachers’ innovative behaviour. Therefore this study aims at gaining more insight in teachers’ innovative behaviour at work and the way this behav-iour is influenced by leadership within the school. Linking leadership to innovative behaviour is not new. Transformational leadership for example, a leadership style that focuses on the development and personal commitment of employees and that aims to support employees to rise above their self-interest (Bass & Avolio, 1994), has previously been shown to influence individual behaviour. In research on transformational leadership within schools organizations, often three main transformation-al leadership behaviours are included, namely vision building as a means of setting direc-tions and both individual attention and intellectual stimulation as expressions of helping people (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). Although many studies in different settings have already shown that transformational leadership influences employees’ innovative behaviour positively, there is still a lack of clarity on the psychological processes underlying this influence (Aryee, Walumbwa, Zhou, & Hartnell, 2012). Therefore this study focuses on motivational processes that mediate be-tween both transformational leadership and participative decision making and teachers’ innovative behaviour at work. The main research question of this study is:

C H A P T E R 3

44

How do transformational leadership and teachers’ involvement in decision making within their schools influence their innovative behaviour at work, and can this influ-ence be explained by a sequence of motivational processes?

Regarding those motivational processes, this study specifically focuses on constructs, de-rived from different motivation theories. Many motivational theories exist. They can be divided into several categories (for an overview Boekaerts, Van Nuland, & Martens, 2010; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), for example theories that focus on intrinsic motivation, such as the Self-determination theory (SDT) of Deci and Ryan (1985; 2000), and theories that focus on expectancies, such as Bandura’s theory on self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). By focusing on both intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy this study builds on the insights of studies that have previously linked intrinsic motivation of employees to their innovative behaviour (Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003), and it focuses on the role of self-efficacy in explaining this spe-cific kind of behaviour. In the next section we elaborate on the underlying assumptions by presenting the theoretical and empirical framework used in this study, starting with the concepts of transformational leadership and participative decision making, followed by motivational constructs that might contribute to teacher innovative behaviour.

3.2 Conceptual framework and hypotheses

Transformational leadership and work related outcomes

School organizations and teachers are faced with several changes, for example regarding student populations, (information) technologies, knowledge fields, and demands from society (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2005). Individu-al innovative behaviour at work is considered to be important to deal with those changes. Transformational leadership is a form of leadership that is associated with positive out-comes related to innovation and learning within organizations, and more specifically on teacher behaviour and teacher internal states (Leithwood & Sun, 2012). Transformational leadership is viewed as the opposite of transactional leadership. Transactional leaders ex-plain their expectations to their followers and reward their followers when those expecta-tions are fulfilled (Bass, 1985). Transformational leaders motivate their followers in a differ-ent way. A transformational leader is a leader who is focused on the development and personal commitment of his followers and who aims to let his followers rise beyond expec-tations and self-interest (Bass & Avolio, 1994). It is a kind of leadership that seems to have not only direct effects on work related outcomes, such as followers organisational com-mitment, creativity or innovative behaviour, but also indirect effects. This means that the effects of transformational leadership on work related outcomes seem to be mediated by underlying psychological aspects, such as psychological empowerment (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, &


45

Bhatia, 2004; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Nederveen Pietserse, Van Knippenberg, Schip-pers, & Stam, 2009). Studies among teachers have shown that transformational leadership behaviour is positively associated with several motivational outcomes, such as teachers’ intrinsic moti-vation (Eyal & Roth, 2011) and teachers’ commitment to change (Yu, Leithwood, & Jantzi, 2002). In the context of school leadership and teachers, transformational leadership is often described as leadership that focuses on vision building, giving individual attention, and providing intellectual stimulation. Vision building refers to processes of initiating and identifying a vision, i.e. setting organisational goals and providing direction of change. This in turn leads to feelings of identification with the organization and contributes to feelings of collective cohesion (Geijsel, Sleegers, Stoel, & Krüger, 2009). Individual attention implies understanding, recognizing, and satisfying employees' needs and concerns. It also focuses on treating each individual uniquely. Common ways of doing so are for example acting as a role model, coaching, and providing feedback (Geijsel et al., 2009). Providing intellectual stimulation encompasses the encouragement of employees to question own assumptions and value, as well as the enhancement of skills to solve problems on an individual, group or organisational level (Geijsel et al., 2009). Several studies have been performed that looked at these three core transformational leadership behaviours separately and found that each core behaviour has different direct or indirect effects on teachers, for example on their commitment, extra effort (Geijsel, Sleegers, Leithwood, & Jantzi, 2003), engagement, participation in professional develop-ment activities (e.g., Geijsel et al., 2009; Thoonen, Sleegers, Oort, Peetsma, & Geijsel, 2011), and intention to use digital learning material (Vermeulen, Van Acker, Kreijns, & Van Buuren, 2014). Findings of these studies show that in different contexts the three core behaviours of transformational leadership vary in the amount of impact they have on work related outcomes. For example, Thoonen et al. (2011) found differences between the im-pact the three core behaviours have on professional learning activities. Vision building appeared to have a negative effect on keeping up to date as a professional learning activity, whereas intellectual simulation had a positive effect and individual attention no significant effect. In contrast, Vermeulen et al. (2014) found a negative effect of individual attention on teachers’ professional development activities regarding digital learning materials, a positive effect of intellectual stimulation, and no effect of vision building on professional development. Studies outside the educational field also found different effects of distinc-tive core transformational leadership behaviours on work related outcomes (e.g., Pod-sakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996; Purvanova & Bono, 2009), indicating that it might be useful to examine effects of each core transformational leadership behaviour more closely.

C H A P T E R 3

46

Participative decision making and work related outcomes

Previous studies have shown that transformational school leadership in an educational setting contributes to different school organisational constructs such as participative deci-sion making (e.g., Geijsel et al., 2009; Thoonen et al., 2011). Participation in decision making refers to decision making processes, shared by superi-ors and employees. It can be viewed as part of participative management as a managerial concept that assumes that flattening management and decentralizing traditional authority structures leads to outcomes that are unachievable under top-down bureaucratic struc-tures within schools (Somech, 2002; 2010). As discussed by Somech (2002), superiors can establish both formal and informal participative management structures. Formal participa-tive management structures are characterized by explicit rules and procedures regarding the who participates about what and in what manner. Informal participative management structures have no such explicit rules. The existence of formal participative structures leads to increases in teachers’ involvement in decision making processes within schools (Blase, 1993). Numerous studies have been performed regarding effects of teachers’ participation in decision making or the involvement of teachers in decision making processes within schools (e.g., Smylie, Lazarus, & Brownlee-Conyers, 1996; Bogler, 2001; Geijsel, Sleegers, Van den Berg, & Kelchtermans, 2001; Geijsel et al., 2009; Thoonen et al., 2011; Sarafidou & Chatzii-oannidis, 2013). Nevertheless, empirical evidence concerning the effects of participative decision making on teacher motivation or innovation is ambiguous (Somech, 2010). Some studies however did in fact find positive effects on motivational constructs, such as teach-ers’ personal goals (Geijsel et al., 2009; Thoonen et al., 2011), and sense of self-efficacy (Sarafidou & Chatziioannidis, 2013; Sleegers, Thoonen, Oort, & Peetsma, 2014). The influ-ence that participative decision making has on motivational constructs can be explained by the assumption that being able to participate in decision making leads to more involvement in those decisions. This in turn might lead to more willingness to translate those decisions into actions (Somech, 2010). Additionally, previous studies showed that teachers’ participa-tion in decision making is associated with higher levels of job satisfaction, perceptions of better leadership, and higher levels of collegiality within schools (Sarafidou & Chatziioan-nidis, 2013). Furthermore it seemed to affect the implementation of educational innova-tions indirectly (Geijsel et al., 2001), and it was related to teachers’ improvement of instruc-tions in the classroom (Smylie et al., 1996). Furthermore school organisational practices, including participative decision making, interacted with teachers’ psychological states in affecting professional learning activities (Geijsel et al., 2009) and participative decision making processes contributed to teacher job satisfaction through teachers’ occupational perceptions (Bogler, 2001).


47

Intrinsic motivation and basic psychological need satisfaction

Not only leadership or other organisational aspects such as participative decision making are important in explaining work related behaviour. As already shortly addressed in previ-ous sections, motivation is one of the essential forces behind all human behaviour. This article studies motivation from the theoretical viewpoint of SDT, which addresses, amongst others, the impact of social environments on motivation and behaviour (Deci & Ryan, 2008). The concept of basic psychological need satisfaction plays an important role in ex-plaining the influence of the work environment on motivation. SDT assumes that every human being is by nature intrinsically motivated to learn and develop. Furthermore, employees who experience intrinsic motivation for their job are more likely to come up with suggestions for job-related improvements and contribute more often to the implementation of new ideas (De Jong & Kemp, 2003). Also, when being intrin-sically motivated people are more likely to try and find ways to improve methods or activi-ties in their work (Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003). The context individuals live or operate in can either support or thwart their intrinsic motivation. Essential in supporting or thwarting intrinsic motivation is the degree in which individuals feel their environment satisfies their basic psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Within SDT three basic, innate, psychological needs are distinguished: the need for competence, the need for autonomy, and the need for relatedness. The need for compe-tence reflects the psychological need to feel competent and effective in what we do. The need for autonomy concerns the desire to feel in control and experience volition. The need for relatedness reflects the desire to interact with others, care for them, and feel connect-ed to them. Intrinsic motivation can be thwarted when individuals experience that their basic psychological needs are insufficiently met. For example, external control hampers feelings of autonomy. Consequently, feelings of intrinsic motivation may diminish. Feelings of competence on the other hand can be for example thwarted by receiving negative feed-back (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Intrinsic motivation is mainly supported by satisfaction of the needs for autonomy and competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Koestner & Losier, 2002). Relatedness might be of less importance as far as intrinsic motivation is concerned. After all, people often feel intrinsi-cally motivated to engage in solitaire activities (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Although basic psycho-logical need satisfaction is often associated with intrinsic motivation, studies have shown that this need satisfaction contributes to other positive outcomes, such as employee per-formance (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004) and learning through reflection at work (Hetzner, Heid, & Grüber, 2012). In spite of the significance of basic psychological need satisfaction, relatively little is known about teachers’ basic psychological need satisfaction (LaPointe, 2006). A few studies have been performed in which teachers’ basic need satisfaction and their intrinsic motiva-tion were taken into account. Lam, Cheng, and Choy (2010) for example found that teach-ers are more strongly motivated in persisting project-based learning when they perceive

C H A P T E R 3

48

their school environment to be more supportive of their needs for competence and auton-omy. Another study, performed among early-childhood teachers also showed evidence of the importance of supporting the basic psychological need satisfaction of teachers to nour-ish their intrinsic motivation to develop themselves professionally and to improve their daily practice in teaching (Wagner & French, 2010). While numerous studies in different settings have been performed regarding motiva-tion and basic psychological need satisfaction, studies on the influence of transformational leadership or participative decision making on basic psychological need satisfaction are scarce, both within and outside an educational setting. The study of Kovjanic, Schuh, Jonas, Quaquebeke, and Van Dick (2012), is one of the few exceptions on this. Their study among employees with at least an academic degree working in various industries shows that trans-formational leadership is relevant in supporting the basic psychological needs of employ-ees. Furthermore it seems that high levels of teacher basic need satisfaction are associated with school leaders who are perceived as being supportive, encouraging, and unifying (LaPointe, 2006). Although not the same as basic psychological need satisfaction, studies on transformational leadership and teacher job satisfaction have shown that job satisfaction benefits from transformational leadership (e.g., Amoroso, 2002; Griffith, 2004; Nguni, 2005). In addition, principals’ transformational leadership leads to higher feelings of satis-faction among teachers regarding their principal (Rugg, 2005). Teachers’ participation in decision making is often associated with teacher empower-ment (e.g., Short & Rinehart, 1992; Short, 1994; Rice & Schneider, 1994). Teacher empow-erment consists of several elements, such as teachers’ involvement in decision making processes, but also for example professional development, supporting self-efficacy, and autonomy (Short, 1994). Those aspects show some resemblance with the basic psychologi-cal needs as distinguished in SDT: the need for autonomy, for competence, and for related-ness, although the concepts of the need for competence and of self-efficacy are not quite similar.

Occupational self-efficacy

Self-efficacy, just like motivation, is closely related to behaviour (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). It is described as an assessment one makes of him or herself, regarding how well he or she “can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations” (Bandura, 1982, p. 122). Self-efficacy is directed to future activities or new tasks and refers to acquired cognitions. It differs from the need to feel competent as one of the basic psychological needs. The need to feel competent is an affective experience. It is based on current or previous experiences, such as mastering a task (Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, Soenens, & Lens, 2010). The need for feeling competent is an innate need which can be supported or thwarted by circumstances or activities. Self-efficacy implies having the con-viction that one can overcome impediments that might hinder how to successfully perform a future task or engage in certain activities.


49

In the case of teachers numerous studies on self-efficacy have been performed. Some fo-cused at specific activities such as using digital learning materials (Vermeulen et al., 2014). In other studies, a more general teaching self-efficacy approach was used, showing for example that teachers’ self-efficacy related to the amount of effort teachers invest in teaching and to the kind of goals they set and aspirations they have (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Self-efficacy is one of the key elements in Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; 1991). TPB focuses on intentions to engage in certain activities or behaviors. According to this theory intentions are, amongst others, influenced by the expected ease or difficulty to engage in a certain activity or behaviour. As such it entails feelings of self-efficacy. Feelings of self-efficacy can therefore be seen as a predictor for behaviour. More-over it may serve as a factor that might explain the influence of perception of the work environment on behaviour or activities. This study focuses on occupational self-efficacy, which can be described as the extent in which individuals feel confident in their ability to deal with future changes in their job and to act successfully in different job related situations and tasks (Schyns & Von Collani, 2002), regardless of the current work environment (Abele & Spurk, 2009, as stated in Jungert, 2012). Studies on occupational self-efficacy in different professions established positive influences between occupational self-efficacy on task performance and organisa-tional citizenship behavior (König, Debus, Häusler, Lendenmann, & Kleinmann, 2010), ca-reer satisfaction (Abele & Spurk, 2009), and intrinsic motivation for the job (Fletcher, Hans-son, & Bailey, 1992). More recently, Jungert (2012) also found a positive but weak relation-ship between occupational self-efficacy and intrinsic forms of motivation. Based on this, it can be assumed that occupational self-efficacy not only affects innovative behaviour but also influences intrinsic motivation. As already mentioned, satisfaction of the basic psychological needs is important for remaining intrinsically motivated. We assume that basic psychological need satisfaction influences both intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy. Studies among both students (Diseth, Danielsen, & Samdal, 2012) and executives (Moen & Skaalvik, 2009) provided evidence for this assumption by showing that basic psychological need satisfaction can be seen as a predictor for self-efficacy. In this study the occupational self-efficacy of teachers is addressed. Due to the fact that the field of education is object of frequent change, feeling confident in handling changes might be helpful for teachers to deal with changes, whether or not initiated by themselves. However, studies on teachers’ occupational self-efficacy are relatively scarce. Recently, some studies on this matter have been performed in different Dutch educational contexts, indicating the relevance of occupational self-efficacy for teachers´ innovative behavior (Konermann, 2011; Runhaar, 2008; see also Chapter 2).

C H A P T E R 3

50


Under the assumption that leadership, organisational structures and motivational process-es influence work-related behaviour, this study centres around innovative behaviour of teachers. Innovative behaviour is defined and conceptualized in different ways. In this study innovative behaviour at work is described as the generation, introduction and implementa-tion of new ideas at work for the purpose of improving the individual, team or organisa-tional performance (Janssen, 2000). In other words, innovative behaviour does not only cover the creation of new ideas, for example on new teaching approaches, materials or methods, but also includes sharing and implementing those ideas. Thus it can be said that innovative behaviour goes beyond the concept of creativity. It implies that also other behav-ioural aspects are essential, such as finding support for a new idea (Scott & Bruce, 1994). Studies on teachers’ innovative work behaviour and on what affects this kind of behav-iour are relatively scarce (Thurlings, Evers, & Vermeulen, 2015). Some studies on innovative behaviour have been performed among VET teachers, pointing at different aspects that affect innovative behaviour, such as self-efficacy, learning goal orientation (Runhaar, 2008), curiosity, openness, motivation, job satisfaction, and interaction with colleagues, school leaders, and students (Messman & Mulder, 2011). Other studies among teachers, in some cases in combination with other professionals within the public sector, found the relevance of demographic aspects, such as gender and income (Carmeli et al., 2006), and other as-pects such as job control, creative requirements (Binnewies & Gromer, 2012), self-leadership (Carmeli et al., 2006), and an organisational climate that can be characterized as playful (Yu, Wu, Chen, & Lin, 2007). Innovative behaviour can be considered as related to what Podsakoff et al. (2000) de-fined as individual initiative, or change-oriented organisational citizenship behaviour (Choi, 2007). Studies outside an educational setting have shown that this kind of behaviour relates to both organisational and individual factors, such as top management openness, general self-efficacy, and felt responsibility for change at work (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Studies within the educational sector on teachers’ individual initiative are scarce. Although the number of studies on teacher innovative behaviour or individual initiative is limited, there is a substantial amount of studies on teacher innovativeness which is also relat-ed to teachers’ innovative behaviour. Teacher innovativeness is mostly studied in the context of computer-based technologies and seems to be a predictor of, for example, computer me-diated communication (Van Braak, 2001), computer use (Tondeur, Valcke, & Van Braak, 2008), and the adoption of teaching blogs (Lai & Chen, 2011). Loogma, Kruusvall, and Ümarik (2012) studied the acceptance of e-learning by VET teachers and found the support of school management to be the most significant predictor of innovativeness. Innovativeness not only refers to a certain willingness to change, or a predisposition toward accepting innovations (Hurt, Joseph, & Cook, 1977), but is often explained as the extent in which somebody is rela-tively early in adopting new ideas as compared to others within the same system (Rogers,


51

2003). Following this interpretation of Rogers, innovativeness focuses on the adoption of new ideas, whereas innovative behaviour also includes the creation of new ideas.

Towards a conceptual model

Although several studies on transformational leadership, participative decision making and different motivational constructs exists, there is still a lack of clarity regarding which factors or possible interplay between factors contribute most to teachers’ innovative behaviour. Based on theory and empirical findings this study aims to develop and test a conceptual model in order to gain more insight into the possible mediating effects of a sequence of motivational processes (i.e. basic psychological need satisfaction, occupational self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation) in the relationship between transformational leadership and inno-vative behaviour on the one hand, and between participative decision making and innova-tive behaviour on the other. The constructs addressed here and the underlying assumptions concerning the rela-tionships between those constructs are summarized in Figure 3.1. The underlying assump-tions can be translated into the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: Motivational processes fully mediate the effects all three core transforma-

tional leadership behaviours and participative decision making have on teacher innovative behaviour.

Hypothesis 2: Both intrinsic motivation (hypothesis 2a) and occupational self-efficacy (hy-pothesis 2b) affect teachers’ innovative behaviour positively.

Hypothesis 3: Feelings of occupational self-efficacy contribute positively to intrinsic motiva-tion.

Hypothesis 4: Basic psychological need satisfaction influences positively both teachers’ intrin-sic motivation (hypothesis 4a) and occupational self-efficacy (hypothesis 4b).

Figure 3.1 Conceptual model with the hypothesized impact of aspects of the work environment, basic psychologi-cal need satisfaction, occupational self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation on innovative behaviour

The next section describes the method used to test the model as presented in Figure 3.1.

C H A P T E R 3

52

3.3 Method

Participants

The current study was performed in November 2011 and requested by one of the largest secondary school boards in the Netherlands. An online questionnaire was administered among all secondary school teachers working in the different (comprehensive) schools falling under the jurisdiction of this school board. All schools were public schools, but they varied regarding their number of locations (varying from one to nine), student population, and site (rural or urban, with schools or locations situated in villages and cities varying in size from around 5,000 to 215,000 inhabitants). School leaders were asked by e-mail and in board meetings to invite all their teachers by e-mail to participate voluntarily in this study. The board recommended the cooperation of the school leaders, but this cooperation wasn’t mandatory. In sum 1,049 teachers participated in the study. These teachers worked in 30 of the 32 school leaders who received the request to invite all their teachers to fill out the online questionnaire. This approach resulted in a response rate among the teachers of 16% of the whole teaching population, given the fact that within this board approximately 6,500 teachers are employed. Response per (comprehensive) school ranged from 11 to 106 teachers. The age of the participating teachers ranged from 21 to 64 years (M = 44.4, SD = 12.2), 52% of them were male. The distribution of age and gender among the participating teachers is comparable to the total population of teachers in secondary education in the Netherlands (CBS, 2009). The respondents differed in their years of teaching experience, both in education in general (M = 17.3, SD = 12.0) as well as in the school they currently work in (M = 11.6, SD = 10.0).

Measures

All constructs in this study were measured using existing scales, which in some cases were adjusted or translated for the purpose of this study. All items were measured using seven point Likert type response scales (1 = not at all true, 7 = very true). Transformational leadership. The Transformational leadership scale of Geijsel et al. (2009) was used to investigate three aspects of this type of leadership, namely vision building, individualized support, and intellectual stimulation. Vision building refers to the degree to which teachers feel the school leader initiates and identifies a school vision. Individualized support refers to the degree to which teachers feel the school leader appreciates and re-spects them. Intellectual stimulation measures how teachers perceive the degree to which school leaders support and facilitate teachers´ personal growth.


53

For this study’s purpose the items were slightly adjusted. Due to the fact that schools differ in size, for example in the number of teachers per school and the number of locations, the immediate supervisor was chosen as subject of the transformational leadership, under the assumption that not every teacher might have the same amount of experience with his or her school leaders’ behaviour. Every teacher however has an immediate supervisor (team or unit) with whom he or she interacts and works on a more regular basis. Examples of the items in the subscales are “My immediate supervisor makes use of all possible opportuni-ties to communicate the school´s vision to the team, the pupils, parents, and others” (Vi-sion building, five items, Cronbach’s α = .91), “My immediate supervisor takes the beliefs of individual teachers seriously” (Individual attention, five items, Cronbach’s α = .93), and “My immediate supervisor encourages teachers to try new things in line with their own inter-ests” (Intellectual stimulation, eight items, Cronbach’s α = .95). Cronbach’s alpha for the overall transformation leadership scale was .97. Participative decision making. To measure the degree to which teachers feel they have the opportunity to participate in decision making processes of the school, the Participative Decision Making scale of Geijsel et al. (2009) was used. This scale consists of five items, such as “Teachers at our school are involved in decisions about using new teaching meth-ods” and “Teachers at our school take decisions about coordinating the curriculum over the different school years together” (Cronbach’s α = .88). Basic psychological need satisfaction. In order to measure the extent to which employees feel their work environment supports the satisfaction of their basic psychological needs for feeling autonomous, competent, and related to others, an adjusted version of the Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (Kasser, Davey, & Ryan, 1992) was used. This adjusted version (see Chapter 2) aims to determine the degree in which teachers feel their work environment fulfils their basic psychological need satisfaction. The scale leads to an overall score on basic psychological need satisfaction. Using an overall score instead of three sepa-rated scores for autonomy, competence, and relatedness is not uncommon. Other studies on basic psychological need satisfaction have also used overall need satisfaction scores (e.g., Vansteenkiste, Neyrinck, Niemiec, Soenens, De Witte, & Van den Broeck, 2007; Mi-lyavskaya & Koestner, 2011). The adjusted scale used in this study consists of ten items, such as “My feelings are taken into consideration at work” and “Most days I feel a sense of accomplishment from working” (Cronbach’s α = .87). Intrinsic motivation. To determine the degree of intrinsic motivation teachers feel for their job the Interest/ Enjoyment scale of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (Deci & Ryan, n.d.) was used and slightly adjusted according to this study’s purpose. This scale originally com-prises of seven items. Exemplary items are “I would describe working as a teacher as very interesting” and “I enjoy my work as a teacher”. The reliability of the scale Intrinsic Motiva-

C H A P T E R 3

54

tion was improved by excluding one item (“Working as a teacher does not hold my atten-tion at all”), leading to a Cronbach’s alpha of .91. Occupational self-efficacy. The degree to which teacher experience self-efficacy regarding facing unforeseen situations, challenges or changes in their work was measured using the short version of the Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (Schyns & Von Collani, 2002). This scale exists of eight items, such as “If I am in trouble at my work, I can usually think of something to do” and “I remain calm when facing difficulties in my job because I can rely on my abili-ties” (Cronbach’s α = .90). Innovative behaviour. Using the Innovative Behaviour scale of De Jong and Den Hartog (2005), the amount of innovative behaviour that teachers show at work was assessed. This scale exists of eight items and determines to what extent respondents exhibit different aspects of innovative behaviour at work, including trying new approaches and coming up with new ideas. Exemplary items are “People I work with think of me as somebody who likes to do new things” and “I often take initiatives to make changes at work ” (Cronbach’s α = .91).

Data-analysis

The measures used in this study were all based on self-reports of teachers and were gath-ered at one single point in time. Therefore the Harman’s one factor test (Podsakoff, Mac-Kenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) was performed to investigate the possible influence of common-method variance. Unrotated principal axis factoring resulted in six factors, com-bined explaining 58.67 percent of the variance and each having an eigenvalue above 1.00. The first factor explained 15.58 percent of the variance. This factor did not account for the majority of the variance and no general factor appeared that accounted for the majority of the covariance in the measures. Therefore it seems plausible that common method vari-ance for the sample was absent. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was performed to test both the measurement model (by means of a confirmative factor analysis (CFA) and the structural model, using the sixth version of MPlus (Muthén & Muthén, 2007). One of the main advantages of SEM is that this statistical approach allows for examining all variables simultaneously to determine the consistency of the hypothesized model with the data (Byrne, 2012). In the CFA two different models were compared: a six-factor solution, following the results of the previously mentioned unrotated principal axis factoring in which all transfor-mational leadership items were considered to be one factor, and an eight-factor solution with the three separate transformational leadership subscales. Table 3.1 shows that the 8-factor model seems to fit the data best. However, this model lead to highly correlating transformational leadership subscales, with correlations varying from r = .79 to r = .94, indicating that in this study the discriminant validity of the three subscales seemed to be


55

problematic. Thus we decided to use the six-factor model in the following steps in the ana-lyses. Based on the model fit indices this six-factor model showed an acceptable fit with the data. Table 3.1 Results of the confirmatory factor analysis

Model χ² df CFI RMSEA SRMR Comparison Δχ2 Δdf

M1: 8-factor model (TLv, TLia, TLis, PDM, BNS, OCSE, IM, IWB)

3,907.692 1402 .931 .043 .048

M2: 6-factor model (TLcombined, PDM, BNS, OCSE, IM, IWB

4,784.541 1415 .908 .050 .050 M1-M2 876.85 13

Next the structural model (i.e. the conceptual model and its underlying hypotheses) was tested. Age, gender, and years of professional experience as a teacher in general and within the current school were controlled for by allowing direct effects on every construct in the model. Model fit is presented by means of the χ2. The lower this χ2 is, the better the model should fit. The χ2 is affected by model complexity and loses accuracy in the case of a large number of respondents, therefore other fit measures are also reported here: the compara-tive fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the stand-ardised root mean square residual (SRMR). When CFI is .95 or more, RMSEA is .08 or less, and SRMR is .06 or less, model fit is considered acceptable (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Given the fact that teachers are nested within schools, possible dependence of re-spondents within the same school may be the result. Therefore multi-level analysis should be considered. Given the sample size on the teacher level (level 1, n = 1.049) multi-level analysis might indeed seem an option (Scherbaum & Ferreter, 2009). However, in consider-ing the possibility of multi-level analysis the number of groups (level 2) is more important to decide on whether or not to apply multi-level analysis. In this study the school level has to be considered as the group level, because the data does not provide information on the team level of teachers. The number of groups (i.e. schools, n = 30) is considered to be insuf-ficient to obtain accurate estimates of for example standard errors (Maas & Hox, 2005) and factor loadings (Hox, Maas, & Brinkhuis, 2010) on the between-level; therefore multilevel analysis is not appropriate. Because this study aims to focus on regression parameters regarding the teachers individual innovative behaviour and its underlying motivational processes and perceptions of the work environment, and not on school-level effects, analy-sis on the individual level is defendable, although an analysis approach that accounts for non-independence of teachers (i.e. correlations among respondents of the same school) is needed. MPlus complex sampling was performed using school as cluster variable to take into account any possible non-independence between teachers from the same school. This

C H A P T E R 3

56

approach corrects standard errors and the chi-square test of model fit for the non-independence between respondents (Satorra, 2000), and leads to a robust maximum likeli-hood estimate.

3.4 Results

As shown in Table 3.2, the construct with the highest mean score, all measured on a scale from one to seven, was found at intrinsic motivation. Most teachers in this study reported high feelings of interest and enjoyment in their job (M = 5.81, SD = .75). Table 3.2 Descriptives of the measured constructs

Construct Number of items M SD

1. Innovative behaviour 8 4.94 1.05

2. Intrinsic motivation 5 5.81 .75

3. Occupational self-efficacy 8 5.66 .98

4. Basic psychological need satisfaction 10 5.46 .81

5. Participative decision making 5 4.45 1.31

6. Transformational leadership 18 4.48 1.28

Note. All scores range from 1 to 7.

Table 3.3 presents the bivariate correlations between the constructs. The strongest bivari-ate correlations were found between the two SDT-related constructs basic psychological need satisfaction and intrinsic motivation (r = .58, p < .01) and between transformational leadership and participative decision making (r = .50, p < .01). Looking at the dependent variable innovative behaviour and the measured motivational constructs the strongest direct relation was found between occupational self-efficacy and innovative behaviour (r = .44, p < .01). Testing of the hypothesized structural model resulted in a unsatisfactory fit of χ2(1619) = 4606.00, p = .00, CFI = .90 , RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .09. Improvement of the measurement model was based on the modification indices and obtained by allowing two items to corre-late that originally both reflect individual attention, followed by adding a correlation be-tween two items that originally reflect vision building. Next the structural model was im-proved by allowing the constructs transformational leadership and participative decision making to correlate. A moderate correlation between these two constructs was also found in the examination of the bivariate correlation between the constructs (see Table 3.3). The three improvements made to the hypothesized model lead to a more acceptable model fit: χ2 (1616) = 4043.25, p = 00, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .05.


57

Table 3.3 Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s Alphas in italics on the diagonal) and intercorrelations of the meas-ured constructs

Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Innovative behaviour .91

2. Intrinsic motivation .30** .91

3. Occupational self-efficacy .44** .38** .90

4. Basic psychological need satisfaction .32** .58** .44** .87

5. Participative decision making .18** .17** .15** .39** .88

6. Transformational leadership .07* .25** .12** .47** .50** .97

** p < .01, * p < .05

To test our hypothesis that the influence of transformational leadership and participative decision making on innovative behaviour is fully mediated by motivational processes, we expanded our improved model by adding direct paths between transformational leadership and innovative behaviour on the one hand and between participative decision making and innovative behaviour on the other (χ2 (1614) = 4031.22, p = 00, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .05). To compare these two models, we performed a chi square difference test, which shows a minor but significant improvement of the model (Δχ2(2) = 27.22, p < .01). Figure 3.2 presents the standardised regression coefficients of the paths between the con-structs in this model. Full mediation exists when the relationships between independent and dependent variables are no longer significant in the presence of mediating variables. As shown in Fig-ure 3.2, the direct path between transformational leadership on innovative behaviour was not significant. The direct path between participative decision making and innovative be-haviour however was (β = .14, p <.01). Therefore hypothesis 1 is only partially confirmed., Although motivational processes indeed seemed to fully mediate between transformational leadership and innovative behaviour, the relationship between participative decision mak-ing and innovative behaviour however was only partially mediated by the motivational constructs in the model.

C H A P T E R 3

58

Figure 3.2 Final model with standardised regression coefficients. Note. n.s. refers to non-significant paths between the constructs

Table 3.4 presents the direct, indirect and total effects of the measured constructs and the background variables on innovative behaviour. This table shows that the direct effect of participative decision making within the school on innovative behaviour was stronger than the indirect effect between the two constructs. Looking at the effects of motivational con-structs on innovative behaviour, Table 3.4 also indicates that intrinsic motivation, that is experiencing high levels of joy and interest in the job did support teachers’ innovative be-haviour (β = .12, p <.01). Although the effect found was relatively small, this result showed that hypothesis 2a can be confirmed. A stronger direct effect was found between occupa-tional self-efficacy and innovative behaviour (β = .44, p <.01). High levels of occupational self-efficacy contributed to teachers’ innovative behaviour, therefore confirming hypothe-sis 2b. Furthermore, the standardised regression coefficient in Figure 3.2 confirmed what was already indicated by the examination of the bivariate correlations between the con-structs: occupational self-efficacy played a role in teachers’ intrinsic motivation for being a teacher (β = .19, p <.01). This finding lead to the confirmation of hypothesis 3. The strong-est effect found in the final model was the effect of basic psychological need satisfaction on intrinsic motivation (β = .51, p <.01), followed by the effect of this basic psychological need satisfaction on occupational self-efficacy (β = .50, p <.01). Both findings supported hypothe-ses 4a and 4b respectively. The degree to which teachers feel their work environment sup-ports their psychological needs helps to maintain high feelings of intrinsic motivation for being a teacher. An environment that is supportive of teachers’ basic psychological needs also leads to teachers feeling confident in facing unforeseen situations, challenges or changes in the job.


59

Table 3.4 Standardised direct, indirect, and total effects for explanatory variables on innovative behaviour


Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect

- Intrinsic motivation .11 .11

- Occupational self-efficacy .42 .02 .44

- Basic psychological need satisfaction .28 .28

- Participative decision making .14 .06 .20

- Transformational leadership -.09 .10 .02

Background characteristics

- Age -.01 -.01 -.01

- Gender .02 -.02 -.00

- Total years of teaching experience -.12 .05 -.07

- Years of teaching experience within the current school -.05 -.02 -.07

Note. n = 943. χ2 = 4031.22 (1614), cfi = .92, rmsea .04, srmr = .05. Effects are significant at p < .05, except for figures in italics.

Finally, looking at the background variables, gender, age, and years of professional experi-ence as a teacher within the current school did not appear to affect the outcome variable in the model significantly (see Table 3.4). However, the total years of professional experi-ence as a teacher did seem to influence teachers’ innovative behaviour (β = -.12, p <.01). It appeared that the more years of experience teacher had, the less they reported that they engaged in innovative behaviour.


Innovative behaviour of employees is an important asset for organizations to respond to technological, societal, and other occurring changes. This certainly is also the case in educa-tion. In order to adapt to new circumstances, organizations need for their employees to act in a discretionary innovative action way (Janssen, 2003). Teachers’ innovative behaviour is important for another reason as well. It influences teaching practices, teachers’ profession-al habits, and the creation of ideas by their students (Nemeržitski, Loogma, Heinla, & Ei-senschmidt, 2013). The main purpose of this study was to explore if a sequence of motivational processes explains the effect leadership and decision making processes have on teachers’ innovative behaviour. Based on SDT and expectancy related theories this study concentrated on basic psychological need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and occupational self-efficacy. Con-cerning leadership and decision making, this study focused on transformational leadership of the immediate supervisor and participative decision making in the school as experienced by teachers.

C H A P T E R 3

60

One of the main findings of this study is that motivational constructs play an important role in the effects both transformational leadership and participative decision making have on teachers’ innovative behaviour. In fact, no direct effect was found between transforma-tional leadership and innovative behaviour. This supports the call for giving more attention to processes and mechanisms that explain the influence of transformational leadership on work-related outcomes (Avolio et al., 2004; Aryee et al., 2012). Contrary to transformation-al leadership both direct and indirect effects were found regarding the influence of partici-pative decision making on teachers’ innovative behaviour. The final model however showed that the effect of participative decision making on teachers’ basic psychological need satis-faction is stronger than on innovative behaviour. From a motivational point of view, the effects of both transformational leadership and participative decision making on teachers’ basic psychological need satisfaction provide useful information on how to create autono-my-supportive work environments. Autonomy-supportive work environments lead to high-er levels of intrinsic motivation and self-determination among employees. Organisational structures that allow for employees to participate in decision making processes contribute to the extent in which the work environment is perceived as autonomy-supportive. In con-trast, work environments that are perceived as controlling, in which little flexibility or dis-cretion is provided regarding how employees’ perform at work, leads to a decrease in in-trinsic motivation and self-determination (Greguras, Diefendorff, Carpenter, & Tröster, 2014). Transformational leadership also supports teachers’ basic psychological need satis-faction. This is consistent with previous findings of the effect of transformational leadership on the satisfaction of followers’ needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Kovjanic et al., 2013). A controlling work environment might be associated with transactional leadership, that is leadership that is characterized by closely monitoring employees’ behaviours and by demanding compliance with internal standards and regulations (Eyal & Roth, 2011). Trans-formational leadership, in the sense of building and carrying out a vision, helping employ-ees by giving individual , providing intellectual stimulation, however fits into ideas of creat-ing autonomy-supportive work-environments in which employees feel satisfied in their basic psychological needs and hence, in the case of this study, show greater levels of intrin-sic motivation and occupational self-efficacy. One of the assumptions in this study was that both intrinsic motivation and occupa-tional self-efficacy affect teachers’ innovative behaviour positively. This assumption seems to be more true for occupational self-efficacy than for intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motiva-tion for the teaching job seems to be of lesser importance in explaining innovative behav-iour. Having confidence in the ability to face changes and deal with unexpected situations contributes most to the extent in which teachers’ behave innovatively at work. Behaving innovatively might be a challenge for employees, and might raise feelings of uncertainty (Janssen, 2004). Occupational self-efficacy, or feeling confident in being able to handle new situations and changes within the job can help employees in dealing with those uncertain-ties (Konermann, 2011). As such it might contribute to behaving in a more innovative way.


61

Our results regarding the positive effect of occupational self-efficacy on innovative behav-iour of teachers is in line with the findings reported by Runhaar (2008). The weak relationship found in this study between intrinsic motivation and innovative behaviour can be seen as a confirmation of one of the underlying assumptions of the Hier-archical Model of Vallerand (1997). In this model a distinction is made between motivation on a global, a contextual, and a situational level. The global level of motivation refers to the level of personality, the contextual level refers to the motivational orientation in different life domains, such as education, work, and leisure. The situational level is concerned with motivation for a specific activity at a specific time and place. An important assumption underlying this Hierarchical Model is that the level in which the motivational orientations are situated (general, contextual or situational) affect the level in which consequences (in terms of affect, cognitions, or behaviour) are situated. In this study, intrinsic motivation was measured on a more contextual level, since it focused on intrinsic motivation working as a teacher. Innovative behaviour involves a specific part of teacher behaviour. There may be a difference in levels between those constructs that may account for the weak relation found between intrinsic motivation and innovative behaviour in this study. A second explanation for the weak relationship between intrinsic motivation and inno-vative behaviour can be found in the concept of teachers’ professional orientations, or in other words, the perceptions teachers have of the teaching job, the tasks, and attitudes that are perceived as necessary for being a good teacher. Hoyle (1975) for example makes a distinction between restricted and extended professional orientations. A restricted pro-fessional orientation refers to teachers who focus primarily on their own classroom as the environment in which their teaching practice is located. They are generally limited involved in other professional activities besides teaching, whereas teachers with a more extended professional orientation show high involvement in other professional activities, such as regularly keeping track of professional literature. Those teachers with an extended profes-sional orientation think of the entire school organization as an important part of their daily teaching practice. In other words, the difference between both professional orientation lays in the teachers’ view on in role and extra role activities, and on their perception of their main work environment, the classroom vs. the school. Teachers with a more restricted view on teaching might think of innovative behaviour as an extra-role type of behaviour, not as an essential element of their profession, which may account for the weak relation-ship between intrinsic motivation and innovative behaviour. This possibility that innovative behaviour can be looked at as an extra-role type of behaviour might be beneficial for trans-formational leadership. Studies have shown that transformational leadership, which may result in performance beyond expectations, is relevant for both task specific performance (i.e. in-role performance) and contextual performance (i.e., extra-role performance), albeit that the positive effects of transformational leadership on the latter seem to be larger (Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011). Studies on principals’ transformational leadership found that this kind of leadership supports organisational practices such as collaboration and participative decision making

C H A P T E R 3

62

(e.g., Geijsel et al., 2009; Thoonen et al., 2011). In other words, transformational school leadership also provides structures that allow for teachers to participate in decision making processes (Silins & Mulford, 2002; Leithwood & Sun, 2012). As this study shows, the degree of teacher participation in decision making within schools also related to the extent in which teachers perceive their immediate supervisors as transformational leaders. Levels of perceived transformational leadership practices among immediate supervisors correlated positively with the degree of perceived participation in decision making processes. This indicates that not only school leaders but also immediate supervisors play a role in enabling structures that allow for teachers to be heard in decision making processes, for example by creating a culture of trust within the school and by giving teachers the confidence to have a say in decision making processes. Another explanation might be that transformational school leaders who succeed in creating a structure that allows for teachers to participate in decision making are a role model for the immediate supervisors in the school to carry out their supervising role in a transformational manner. As Bass (1999) states, desired leader-ship role models start at the top of an organization and from there stimulate successive levels to exhibit that kind of leadership as well. Further research is needed to elaborate on the causality in and explanation for the found relationship between transformational lead-ership on the level of the immediate supervisor and school organisational constructs such as participative decision making within the school.

Limitations and future directions

Several limitations of this study need to be mentioned here. First, the study is based on cross-sectional correlational data, which means that causal interpretations of the results are difficult to make. Longitudinal research is needed to establish this causality. Second, as mentioned earlier, this study is based on self-reports only, which can lead to common-method variance of bias. In future studies it is recommended to add other sources of data gathering, for example by combining teachers’ views with the perceptions of supervisor or peers. Our sample, consisting of teachers within schools, did not allow for a multi-level ap-proach. Although corrected for dependence, our approach results in a loss of information regarding variance on the school-level, in comparison to a multi-level approach. Future research using larger samples of schools and underlying groups is recommended to exam-ine further issues of transformational leadership and participative decision making, not within schools as a whole but also on a team-level. Overall this study shows that transformational leadership behaviours of the immediate supervisor and participative decision making within the schools contribute to innovative behaviour of teachers. The effect of transformational leadership however is fully mediated by motivational processes. The impact of participative decision making processes on inno-vative behaviour is only partially mediated by those motivational processes, indicating that enabling teachers to participate in decision making processes not only leads to a work envi-


63

ronment in which teachers feel satisfied in their basic psychological needs, but to an envi-ronment that stimulates them to generate, introduce, and implement new ideas at work as well. This study focused on teachers’ perception of leadership behaviour of their immediate supervisor, in other words on their formal leader. Other forms of leadership, both formal and informal, might also play a role in creating circumstances that stimulates teachers’ innovative behaviour. Examples of relevant types of leadership are distributive leadership and teacher leadership. Distributive leadership goes beyond the roles, activities and behav-iour of those who fulfil formal leadership positions, and takes into account how leadership practices are stretched over leaders, followers, and their situation (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004). Teacher leadership entails not only shared decision making but collabora-tion, active participation, professional learning, and activism of teachers as well (Muijs & Harris, 2006). Both distributive leadership and teacher leadership focus on leadership through influence and interaction, instead of being centred around power and authority (Poekert, 2012). Given the definition of innovative behaviour as the generation, introduc-tion, and implementation of new ideas at work it is plausible to assume that influence and interaction contribute to these individual teacher processes. Other psychological or motivational constructs deserve attention in future research. Perceived social pressure to behave in a certain way might be relevant to consider, there-fore expanding of this line of research by adding elements of the TPB (Ajzen, 1991). Fur-thermore, from a SDT-perspective, it is advisable to not only consider intrinsic motivation, because also other forms of motivation play a role in human behaviour. Special attention should be given to forms of motivation that include other autonomous motives, driven by personally endorsed values. Schools and teachers especially have the responsibility to prepare students to be able to work and learn in a society in which lifelong learning has become indispensable. Students need to be equipped with so-called 21st century skills, which entail for example creativity and innovation. Those skills are widely associated with employability, personal and organi-sational development (Schleicher, 2012). In addition, as stated by the Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy (2013, p. 23): “Everyone, no matter what their station in life, must be able to adopt new ideas and handle changing circumstances.” In the case of the Netherlands, this calls for investments regarding knowledge generation, knowledge adop-tion, and knowledge circulation (Scientific Council for Government Policy, 2013). This cur-rent focus on knowledge implies the relevance of investing in knowledge workers: educat-ed professionals who have the skills to act innovatively and to deal with professional au-tonomy, which requires joint efforts from national government, education and employers (Advisory Council for Science, Technology, and Innovation, 2013). The educational sector plays a key role in educating (future) knowledge workers properly, which places great em-phasis on teachers. Moreover, seeing that teachers are employees themselves, their em-ployers (i.e. schools or school boards) have a responsibility regarding teachers as knowledge workers themselves. Investigating teachers’ innovative behaviour therefore asks

C H A P T E R 3

64

for an approach in which their work environment is subject of study as well. This contrib-utes to more theoretical and practical knowledge on the influence of different aspects of the work environment, such as leadership, decision making and motivational processes on teachers’ innovative behaviour, leading to the improvement of individual, team, or organi-sational performance.


65

References

Abele, A. E., & Spurk, D. (2009). The longitudinal impact of self-efficacy and career goals on objective and subjec-tive career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 53-62.

Advisory Council for Science, Technology, and Innovation (2013). Kiezen voor Kenniswerkers [In Favour of Knowledge Workers]. The Hague: AWT.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Amoroso, P. F. (2002). The impact of principals' transformational leadership behaviors on teacher commitment and teacher job satisfaction. Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs). Paper 1593.

Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Zhou, Q., & Hartnell, C. A. (2012). Transformational leadership, innovative behavior, and task performance: Test of mediation and moderation processes. Human Performance, 25, 1-25.


Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2045-2068.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bass. B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of

Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9-32. Binnewies, C., & Gromer, M. (2012). Creativity and innovation at work: the role of work characteristics and per-

sonal initiative. Psicothema, 24, 100-105. Blase, J. (1993). The micropolitics of effective school-based leadership: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Admin-

istration Quarterly, 29, 142-163. Boekaerts, M., Van Nuland, H. J. C., & Martens, R. L. (2010). Perspectives on motivation: What mechanisms ener-

gise students’ behaviour in the classroom. In J. Kleine Staarman, K. Littleton, & C. Wood (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp 535-569). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational Administration Quarter-ly, 37, 662-683.



CBS (2009). Statline. Retrieved from the Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek website at http://statline.cbs.nl/Stat Web/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=71814ned&D1=a&D2=803-826&D3=1,3,5-6&HD=110523-1422&HDR=G2,T&STB=G1.

Choi, J. N. (2007). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of work environment characteris-tics and intervening psychological processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 467-484.

De Jong, J. P. J., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2005). Determinanten van innovatief gedrag: een onderzoek onder kennis-werkers in het MKB. [Determinants of innovative behaviour: Research on knowledge workers in SME]. Gedrag en Organisatie [Behavior and Organization] 18, 235-259.

De Jong, J. P. J., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). Leadership and employees' innovative behavior. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10, 41-64.

De Jong, J. P. J., & Kemp, R. (2003). Determinants of co-workers innovative behavior: An investigation into knowledge intensive services. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7, 189-212.

C H A P T E R 3

66

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (n.d.) Intrinsic motivation inventory (IMI). http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/ measures/IMI_scales.php. Accessed 15 September 2011.



Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49, 182-185.

Diseth, Å., Danielsen, A. G., & Samdal, O. (2012). A path analysis of basic needs support, self-efficacy, achievement goals, life satisfaction and academic achievement level among secondary school students. Educational Psy-chology, 32, 335-354.

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

Eyal, O., & Roth, G. (2011). Principals' leadership and teachers' motivation: Self-determination theory analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 256-275.


Fletcher, W. L., Hansson, R. O., & Bailey, L. (1992). Assessing occupational self-efficacy among middle-aged and older adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 11, 489-501.

Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P. J. C., Van den Berg, R. M., & Kelchtermans, G. (2001). Conditions fostering the implemen-tation of large-scale innovations in schools: Teachers' perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 130-166.

Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2003). Transformational leadership effects on teacher commit-ment and effort toward school reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 41, 228-256.

Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P. J. C., Stoel, R. D. & Krüger, M. L. (2009). The effect of teacher psychological and school organizational and leadership factors on teachers’ professional learning in Dutch schools. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 406-427.

Greguras, G. J., Diefendorff, J. M., Carpenter, J, & Troester, C. (2014). Person-environment fit and Self-determination theory. In M. Gagne (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory. Research Collection Lee Kong Chian School Of Business.

Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 333-356.

Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62, 461-473.

Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and Teaching: History and Practice, 6, 151-182.

Hartmann, A. (2006). The role of organizational culture in motivating innovation in construction firms. Construc-tion Innovation, 6, 159-172.

Hetzner, S., Heid, H., & Gruber, H. (2012). Change at work and professional learning: how readiness to change, self-determination and personal initiative affect individual learning through reflection. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27, 539-555.

Hox, J. J., Maas, C. J. M., & Brinkhuis, M. J. S. (2010).The effect of estimation method and sample size in multilevel structural equation modeling. Statistica Neerlandica, 64, 157-170.

Hoyle, E. (1975). Leadership and decision-making in education. In M. Hughes (Ed.) Administering Education: Inter-national Challenge pp 30-44. London: The Athlone Press.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1-55.

Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4, 58-65.



67

Janssen, O. (2003). Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfactory relations with co-workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 347-364.

Janssen, O. (2004). How fairness perceptions make innovative behavior more or less stressful. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 25, 201-215.

Janssen, O. (2005). The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor supportiveness on employee innovative behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 573-579.


Jungert, T. (2012). The meaning of support from co-workers and managers in teams when working. (FOG-Report no 72). Linköping: Department of al Sciences and Learning (IBL), Linköping University.


Knol, J. & Van Linge, R. (2009). Innovative behaviour: the effect of structural and psychological empowerment on nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65, 359-370.

Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (2002). Distinguishing three ways of being highly motivated: A closer look at introjec-tion, identification, and intrinsic motivation. In E.L. Deci & R.M. Ryan (Eds). Handbook of self-determination re-search (pp. 101-121). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.



Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., Jonas, K., Van Quaquebeke, N., & Van Dick, R. (2012). How do transformational leaders foster positive employee outcomes? A self-determination analysis of employees’ needs as mediating links. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1031-1052.

Lai, H. M., & Chen, C. P. (2011). Factors influencing secondary school teachers' adoption of teaching blogs. Com-puters & Education, 56, 948-960.


LaPointe, L. (2006). The relationships between teacher need satisfaction and perceptions of school and classroom environments (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Publica-tion number AAT 3239862)

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research 1996-2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 177-199.

Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 387-423.

Loogma, K., Kruusvall, J., & Ümarik, M. (2012). E-learning as innovation: Exploring innovativeness of the VET teach-ers’ community in Estonia. Computers & Education, 58, 808-817.

Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1, 86-92. Messman, G., & Mulder, R. (2011). Innovative work behaviour in vocational colleges: understanding how and why

innovations are developed. Vocations and Learning, 4, 63-84. Milyavskaya, M., & Koestner, R. (2011). Psychological needs, motivation, and well-being: A test of self-

determination theory across multiple domains. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 387-391. Moen, F., & Skaalvik, E. (2009). The effect from executive coaching on performance psychology. International

Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 7, 31-49. Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. The

Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403-419. Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2006). Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leaderhip in the UK. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 22, 961-972. Muthén, L. K.., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus User's Guide (Sixth Edition). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

C H A P T E R 3

68

Nederveen Pieterse, A., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 31, 609-623.

Nemeržitski, S., Loogma, K., Heinla, E., & Eisenschmidt, E. (2013). Constructing model of teachers’ innovative behaviour in school environment. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19, 398-418.

Nguni, S. (2005). Transformational Leadership in Tanzania Education: A study of the effects of Transformational Leadership on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction, Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in Tanzania Primary and Secondary Schools (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from: http://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/ 2066/56137.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing, and retaining effective teachers. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship be-haviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259-298.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Ma-nagement, 26, 513-563.

Poekert, P. E. (2012). Teacher leadership and professional development: Examining links between two concepts central to school improvement. Professional Development in Education, 38, 169-188.

Purvanova, R. K., & Bono, J. E. (2009) Transformational leadership in context: Face-to-face and virtual teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 343-357

Rice, E. M., & Schneider, G. T. (1994). A decade of teacher empowerment: An empirical analysis of teacher in-volvement in decision-making, 1980-1991. Journal of Educational Administration, 32, 43-58.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Rugg, L. J. (2005). Teacher satisfaction with principal transformational leader behavior. Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue

University, United States -- Indiana. Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text(Publication No. AAT 3210777).


Sarafidou, J-O., & Chatziioannidis, G. (2013). Teacher participation in decision making and its impact on school and teachers. International Journal of Educational Management, 27, 170-183.

Satorra, A. (2000). Scaled and adjusted restricted tests in multi-sample analysis of moment structures. In R. D. H. Heijmans, D. S. G. Pollock, & A. Satorra (Eds.), Innovations in multivariate statistical analysis: A Festschrift for Heinz Neudecker: 233-247. London: Kluwer.

Scherbaum, C. A., & Ferreter, J. M. (2009). Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for organization-al research using multilevel modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 347-367.

Scientific Council for Government Policy (2013). Towards a Learning Economy, Synopsis of WRR-Report No. 90, The Hague: WRR.


Schyns, B. & von Collani, G. (2002). A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to personality constructs and organizational variables. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 219-241.


Short, P. M. (1994). Defining teacher empowerment. Education, 114, 488-492. Short, P. M., & Rinehart, J. S. (1992). School participant empowerment scale: Assessment of level of empower-

ment within the school environment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 951-960.


69

Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Schools as learning organisations: The case for system, teacher and student learn-ing, The Journal of Educational Administration, 40, 425-446.

Sleegers, P. J. C., Thoonen, E. J., Oort, F. J., & Peetsma, Th. T. D. (2014) Changing classroom practices: the role of school-wide capacity for sustainable improvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 52, 617-652.

Smylie, M. A., Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instructional outcomes of school-based participative decision making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 181-198.

Somech, A. (2002). Explicating the complexity of participative management: An investigation of multiple dimen-sions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 341-371.

Somech, A. (2010). Participative decision making in schools: A mediating-Moderating analytical framework for understanding school and teacher outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 174-209.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: a distributed per-spective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 3-34.

Thoonen, E., Sleegers, P., Oort, F., Peetsma, Th., & Geijsel, F. (2011). How to improve teaching practices: the role of teacher motivation, organizational factors and leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 496-536.



Tondeur, J., Valcke. M., & Van Braak, J. (2008). A multidimensional approach to determinants of computer use in primary education: teacher and school characteristics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 494-506.

Tuominen, T., & Toivonen, M. (2011). Studying innovation and change activities in KIBS through the lens of innova-tive behaviour. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15, 393-422.


Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, Ch. P., Soenens, B., De Witte, H. & Van den Broeck, A. (2007). On the relations among work value orientations, psychological need satisfaction and job outcomes: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 251-277.

Van Braak, J., (2001). Factors influencing the use of computer mediated communication by teachers in secondary schools. Computers & Education, 36, 41-57.

Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2010). Capturing autonomy, compe-tence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 981-1002.

Vermeulen, M., Van Acker, F., Kreijns, K., & Van Buuren, H. (2014). Does transformational leadership encourage teacher’s use of digital learning materials? Educational Management Administration & Leadership. doi:10.1177/1741143214535749


Wang, G., Oh, I., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36, 223-270.

Yu, P., Wu, J. J., Chen, I.-H., & Lin, Y.-T. (2007). Is playfulness a benefit to work? Empirical evidence of professionals in Taiwan. International Journal of Technology Management, 39, 412-429.

71

CHAPTER 4

Motivation for professional development and innovative behaviour:

the complex role of psychological needs, occupational self-efficacy, and social pressure

This chapter is based upon: Klaeijsen, A., Vermeulen, M., & Martens, R. (submitted). Motivation for professional devel-opment and innovative behaviour: the complex role of psychological needs, occupational self-efficacy, and social pressure. The study reported in this chapter was part of a comprehensive study on teacher motiva-tion for professional development (see also Jansen in de Wal, Den Brok, Hooijer, Martens, & Van den Beemt, 2014).

C H A P T E R 4

72

Abstract

Innovative behaviour is essential for both individuals and organizations to deal with techno-logical and societal changes. This study aims to clarify motivational processes in the context of professional development that influence teachers’ innovative behaviour. Structural equation modelling is used to analyse data from an online questionnaire in which 1,953 teachers participated. Results show that autonomy support during professional develop-ment is necessary for autonomous motivation for professional development, which has a strong and positive impact on innovative behaviour. Besides autonomous motivation also occupational self-efficacy contributes positively to innovative behaviour. Forms of external pressure do not affect innovative behaviour. Therefore innovative behaviour seems to flourish in environments that provide freedom, choice, and autonomy, instead of control and pressure.

M O T I V A T I O N F O R P R O F E S S I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T A N D I N N O V A T I V E B E H A V I O U R

73

4.1 Introduction

Our society has turned into a knowledge society in which globalization and modernization challenges are present (Schleicher, 2012). In this knowledge society, 21st century skills such as ICT-skills, creativity, and innovation are increasingly important. Schools and teachers are expected to prepare students for learning and working in a society in which lifelong learn-ing and 21st century skills have become essential. In addition, other challenges and de-mands have entered the field of education as well, for example as a result of changes in knowledge fields and in student populations (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2005). In order to fulfil the expectations and to deal with the high demands placed upon teachers, teacher professional development is of vital importance and can be seen as a lifelong learning necessity (Scheerens, 2010). Engaging in professional development activities helps teachers to change their professional practices. Innovative behaviour can be viewed as a means to change professional practice (Thurlings, Evers, & Vermeulen, 2015). As such it can be considered to be related to profes-sional development. Innovative behaviour is often defined in various ways and includes processes regarding the generation, creation, development, application, promotion, reali-zation, or modification of new ideas (Thurlings et al., 2015). Here we follow Janssen (2000), by stating that innovative behaviour at work includes the generation, introduction, and implementation of new ideas at work, with the intention to improve work performance on an individual, team or organisational level. In this view, innovative behaviour does not only include the creation of new ideas but also entails sharing and implementing those ideas. Previous studies in different settings have shown several aspects to be important in ex-plaining and stimulating innovative behaviour at work. Those aspects involve for example different leadership behaviours (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007), leader-membership exchange (Agarwal, Datta, Blake-Beard, & Bhargava, 2012), and transformational leadership (Nederveen Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, Schippers, & Stam, 2010). Additionally, it is known that psycholog-ical aspects play a role in predicting innovative behaviour at work as well. Those aspects in-clude for example empowerment (Knol & van Linge, 2009; Schermuly, Meyer, & Dämmer, 2013; Singh & Sarkar, 2012) and intrinsic motivation (Yidong & Xinxin, 2012). Studies that focus specifically on teachers’ innovative work behaviour and its anteced-ents are relatively scarce, although the amount of studies on this matter increases (Thurlings et al., 2015). Previous studies on innovative behaviour among vocational educa-tion teachers, point at the effects of several individual or personality factors on innovative behaviour, for example gender, age, self-efficacy (Runhaar, 2008), curiosity, openness, motivation, job satisfaction, and interaction with colleagues, school leaders, and students (Messman & Mulder, 2014). Other studies also found the importance of self-leadership (Carmeli, Meitar, & Weisberg, 2006), work engagement (Konermann, 2011), and job con-trol and creative requirements (Binnewies & Gromer, 2012). Some of the studies men-tioned here, revealed that motivational factors contribute to innovative behaviour, such as self-efficacy and motivation. However, the exact relations and processes involved are by no

C H A P T E R 4

74

means clear. Therefore, the aim of this study is to expand the knowledge on how motiva-tional processes influence teachers’ innovative behaviour. Increasing the understanding of motivational processes that predict teachers’ innovative behaviour helps to develop ideas or guidelines regarding the creation of favourable circumstances that help to stimulate teachers’ innovative behaviour at work and their motivation to participate in professional development activities in general.

Self-determination theory and professional development

In order to theoretically underpin this study, a closer look at motivational perspectives is required. Numerous theories on human motivation exist (see for example Boekaerts, Van Nuland, & Martens, 2010; Latham & Pinder, 2005). A widely used theory with a focus on intrinsic motivation is the Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan 1985; 2000). Within SDT several types of motivation are distinguished. These types can be divided into two main categories: controlled motivation and autonomous motivation. Controlled motivation en-tails types of motivation that come from external or internal pressures to think or behave in certain ways. Controlled motivation includes actions based on thoughts of for example reward, punishment, shame or approval of others. Autonomous motivation entails doing something for its inherent satisfaction and the interest and enjoyment in an activity, as well as a motivational force driven by the instrumentally importance of actions or behaviour for one’s personal goals (Gagné & Deci, 2005). SDT addresses not only types of motivation, but factors that may support or hamper motivation as well. In short, this theory posits that motivation is influenced by the degree to which individuals feel their environment supports their basic psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2008). These innate, psychological needs are the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The need for autonomy concerns the human need to experience freedom and volition. The need for competence concerns the need to feel effective and competent. The need for relatedness reflects the need to interact with, care for, and feel connected to others. Satisfaction of these three needs is considered conditional for autonomous motivation. Although SDT as a theoretical framework is widely used in many domains, such as work, education, sport, and healthcare (Deci & Ryan, 2008), the use of SDT in research on teacher professional development is relatively scarce. A recent exception on this is the study of Jansen in de Wal, Den Brok, Hooijer, Martens, and Van den Beemt (2014), in which a motivational profiling approach was used to explore teachers´ engagement in profession-al development. Results showed that taking an SDT-approach on teacher professional de-velopment provides useful insights, including the importance for school environments to support teachers’ basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness). Gorozidis and Papiouannou (2014) studied a specific aspect of professional development, namely participation in training. Their study indicated that teachers with higher levels of autonomous motivation towards training will have a stronger intention to participate in training the next year.


75

Expanding the SDT-model: social pressure and occupational self-efficacy

This study explores how teacher motivation is supported by the satisfaction of the three basic needs in the context of professional development and, as such, it is primarily based on SDT. Furthermore it examines how teachers’ autonomous and controlled motivation for profes-sional development may or may not contribute to their innovative behaviour at work. In this study it is hypothesized that teachers’ innovative behaviour is not only affected by SDT-related constructs regarding professional development, but also by other psycho-logical constructs. Therefore this study focuses not only on the SDT-framework, but also examines the effects of social pressure and self-efficacy on teacher motivation for profes-sional development and on innovative behaviour. As De Brabander and Martens (2014) state, social pressure, also known as subjective norm, is a social factor that has a motivating effect on behaviour. It refers to an individual’s belief that people who are important to them feel he or she should act in a certain way (Kreijns, Vermeulen, Van Acker, & Van Buuren, 2014). In the case of teachers the concept of social pressure is for example associ-ated with technology use of experienced teacher educators (Admiraal, Lockhorst, Smit, & Weijers, 2013) and, to some extent, to ICT integration in education (Kreijns, Van Acker, Vermeulen, & Van Buuren, 2013). Self-efficacy can be described as an individual’s assessment regarding how he or she “can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations” (Bandura, 1982, p. 122). It is based on acquired cognitions and is aimed at future activities or new tasks. The desire to feel competent as one the three basic psychological needs within SDT is rather an affective experience, instead of a cognitive one, and is based on previous or cur-rent experiences (Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, Soenens, & Lens, 2010). There-fore the need for feeling competent is therefore different from feelings of self-efficacy. This study focuses on teachers’ occupational self-efficacy, i.e. the level of confidence teachers have in their capacity to deal with future changes in the profession and to act successfully in diverse job related tasks and situations (Schyns & Von Collani, 2002). Previ-ous studies have shown that occupational self-efficacy relates positively to for example employees’ job satisfaction and commitment (Rigotti, Schyns, & Mohr, 2008; Schyns & Von Collani, 2002), and negatively to job insecurity (König, Debus, Häusler, Lendenmann, & Kleinmann, 2010; Rigotti, Schyns, & Mohr 2008). More specifically, teachers’ occupational self-efficacy has previously been related to innovative behaviour at work (Konerman, 2011; see also Chapters 2 and 3).

The present study

Given the importance of both teacher professional development and innovative behaviour at work, the aim of the present study is twofold. First, it aims to gain more knowledge on how basic psychological needs satisfaction while engaging in professional development contributes to motivation for professional development activities. Second, it aims to inves-

C H A P T E R 4

76

tigate the adequacy of the proposed conceptual model to predict innovative behaviour at work. The main research question is therefore:

To what extent does a combination of motivational constructs regarding teachers’ motivation for professional development, occupational self-efficacy, and social pres-sure provide a model to predict teachers’ innovative behaviour?

In addition, based on theoretical and empirical findings, we assume that the three basic psychological needs affect innovative behaviour only indirectly. In other words, we expect no significant direct impact of the satisfaction of the three psychological needs on teachers’ innovative behaviour (Hypothesis 1). Furthermore we assume that satisfaction of the need for autonomy, for competence, and for relatedness each support teachers’ autonomous motivation (Hypothesis 2). Additionally we hypothesize that satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs separately contributes negatively to controlled motivation (Hypothesis 3). Furthermore we hypothesize that satisfaction of the three separate basic psychological needs affects occupational self-efficacy positively (Hypothesis 4) and social pressure nega-tively (Hypothesis 5). Looking at expected predictive value of motivational factors on innovative behaviour, we assume that autonomous motivation for professional development has a positive influence on innovative behaviour (Hypothesis 6) and that controlled motivation for professional devel-opment has a negative influence (Hypothesis 7). Furthermore we expect that occupational self-efficacy contributes positively to innovative behaviour (Hypothesis 8) and to autonomous motivation (Hypothesis 9). Finally we hypothesize that social pressure affects both teachers’ innovative behaviour (Hypothesis 10) and controlled motivation (Hypothesis 11) positively. These hypotheses and the underlying conceptual model are presented in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1 Conceptual model with: the hypothesized impact of basic psychological need satisfaction, autonomous and controlled motivation, occupational self-efficacy, and social pressure on innovative behaviour


77

4.2 Method

Participants

Data were gathered in the fall of 2012 by the Onderwijs Innovatie Groep (Education Innova-tion Group) using an online questionnaire on teacher motivation for professional develop-ment. The questionnaire was administered amongst Dutch teachers working in secondary education. In sum, 23,426 teachers were invited by e-mail, of which 3,434 participated. Only the answers of teachers who fully completed the questionnaire were taken into ac-count (n = 1,953), leading to a response rate of 8.3%. This sample size is adequate for the purpose of this study (Kline, 2011). The number of male teachers included was 1,114 (57.0%). The average age of the re-spondents was 49.4 years, ranging from 22 to 67 years. Compared to the Dutch database of educational labour market information (http://www.stamos.nl) the mean age in the whole population of secondary education teachers (45.1 years) is lower than in the sample. The number of male teachers in the Dutch secondary education teaching population (53.3%) is also lower than in this study’s sample.

Measurements

The constructs were predominantly measured by means of existing scales, which were translated and adjusted for the purpose of this study. The social pressure scale was newly constructed. Satisfaction of the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. A scale developed by Chen et al. (2012) was used and adjusted to measure the extent to which teachers feel their basic psychological needs are met while engaging in professional development activi-ties. The satisfaction of each basic need is originally measured with four items, such as “In the professional development activities I engage in I feel a sense of choice and freedom in the things I undertake” (autonomy), “In the professional development activities I take on I feel confident that I can do things well” (competence), and “In the professional develop-ment activities I take on I experience a warm feeling with the people I spent time with” (relatedness). After reliability analysis one item of competence satisfaction was excluded (“In the professional development activities I engage in I feel I can successfully complete difficult tasks”). Answers for each item were given on a five-point Likert-type scale, varying from not at all true (1) to very true (5). Autonomous and controlled motivation. The Academic Self-Regulation Scale as described by Vansteenkiste, Sierens, Soenens, Luyckx, and Lens (2009) was used and adjusted in order to measure teachers’ motivation for professional development. This scale comprises different

C H A P T E R 4

78

forms of motivation that, taken together, measure controlled motivation or autonomous motivation. Teachers were asked to rate the importance of the motives addressed in the items to participate in professional development activities. Eight items were included addressing autonomous motivation, for example “I engage in professional development activities be-cause it is personally important to me” and “I engage in professional development activities because it’s fun.” Originally controlled motivation contained eight items. Based on the results of the confirmatory factor analysis one item was excluded (“I engage in professional development activities because I would feel ashamed if I didn’t”), resulting in a scale with seven items. Exemplary items for controlled motivation are “I engage in professional devel-opment activities because I’m supposed to do so” and “I engage in professional develop-ment activities because I would feel guilty if I didn’t”. Answers for each item were given on a five-point Likert-type scale, varying from not at all true (1) to very true (5). Occupational self-efficacy. In order to measure the degree to which teachers feel confident in handling changes in their work, the short version of the Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale was used (Schyns & Von Collani, 2002). The scale comprises eight items, such as “Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations in my job” and “I feel prepared to meet most of the demands in my job”. Answers were given on a seven-point Likert-type scale, varying from not at all true (1) to very true (7). Social pressure. To assess the extent to which teachers’ feel pressured by their environ-ment to exhibit innovative behaviour at work, four items were created. These items ex-plored the perceived amount of pressure to show different aspects of innovative behaviour such as generating, developing, or implementing new ideas. Exemplary items are “To what extent do you experience pressure to develop new ideas, for example by school manage-ment, immediate supervisors, colleagues, pupils, or others?” and “To what extent do you experience pressure to implement new ideas, for example by school management, imme-diate supervisors, colleagues, pupils, or others?” Answers were given on a seven-point scale, from absolutely no pressure at all (1) to very much pressure (7). Innovative behaviour. The Innovative Behaviour scale of De Jong and Den Hartog (2005) was used to determine the degree to which teachers behave innovatively at work (self-assessment). It originally consists of eight items such as “People I work with think of me as somebody who likes to do new things” and “I enjoy trying new approaches”. To obtain a higher reliability one item was deleted (“I regularly keep track of new developments within my job by reading magazines, professional journals et cetera”). Answers were given on a seven-point Likert-type scale, varying from not at all true (1) to very true (7). Table 4.1 shows the final number of items and reliability coefficients of each scale. Addi-tionally, it gives an overview of the mean scores and standard deviations per scale.


79

Table 4.1 Overview of the reliability coefficients and descriptives of the scales

Measurement Cronbach’s alpha number of items range M SD

Autonomy satisfaction .81 4 1-5 3.53 .77

Competence satisfaction .79 3 1-5 3.97 .61

Relatedness satisfaction .90 4 1-5 3.43 .87

Autonomous motivation .94 8 1-5 3.98 .80

Controlled motivation .71 7 1-5 2.20 .67

Occupational self-efficacy .87 8 1-7 5.82 .67

Social pressure .88 4 1-7 3.16 1.36

Innovative behaviour .92 7 1-7 5.11 1.11

Data-analysis

Because the measures were based on self-reports and gathered at one single point in time, the Harman’s one factor test (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) was per-formed to examine whether the influence of common method variance was present. Unro-tated principal axis factoring with the number of factors to be extracted constrained to one led to a factor explaining 22.90 percent of the variance. Because this single factor solution did not account for the majority of the variance, it seems likely that common method vari-ance in this sample was absent. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was performed to test the relative fit of the pro-posed model by means of the sixth version of MPlus (Muthén & Muthén, 2007). SEM is a statistical approach that allows for examining variables simultaneously to determine the consistency of hypothesized models with the data (Byrne, 2012). Before testing the as-sumed structural relationships the fit of the measurement model was explored and im-proved when necessary, based on the modification indices. For reasons of conciseness, these results are not reported here. Age and gender were added in the tested model as background variables to be controlled for. A robust maximum likelihood estimation was used (Kline, 2011) to take into account the multivariate non-normality of the data. Model fit is therefore reported by means of the Satorra-Bendler chi square (SB χ²). Also the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) are presented. If CFI is .95 or more, RMSEA .08 or less, and SRMR .06 or less, the fit of a model is considered acceptable (Hu & Bentler 1999).

C H A P T E R 4

80

4.3 Results

Teachers consider themselves to behave relative innovatively (M = 5.10, measured on a seven-point scale), with a fair amount of deviation between the individual scores, as shown in Table 4.1 (SD = 1.11). Regarding the SDT-related constructs, measured on a scale from one to five, the highest mean scores were found at competence satisfaction and autono-mous motivation. Most teachers report satisfaction of their need for feeling competent while engaging in professional development activities (M = 3.96, SD = .61). Furthermore teachers report on average high feelings of autonomous motivation for professional devel-opment (M = 3.96, SD = .80). The highest mean score was found at occupational self-efficacy, (M = 5.82, SD = .67, measured on a seven-point scale), indicating that, overall, teachers report high levels of confidence in dealing with changes in their job. Table 4.2 presents the bivariate correlations between the constructs. The strongest correlation was found between autonomy satisfaction within and autonomous motivation for professional development (r = .66, p < .01), followed by the correlation between auton-omous motivation and innovative behaviour (r = .56, p < .01). Furthermore, a strong corre-lation was found between competence satisfaction within professional development and occupational self-efficacy (r = .52, p < .01).

Table 4.2 Intercorrelations of the constructs

Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Autonomy satisfaction

2. Competence satisfaction. .46**

3. Relatedness satisfaction. .45** .29**

4. Autonomous motivation .66** .38** .38**

5. Controlled motivation -.05* -.03 .02 .01

6. Occupational self-efficacy .30** .52** .21** .24** -.07**

7. Social pressure -.23** -.18** -.12** -.12** .28** -.17**

8. Innovative behaviour .49** .36** .32** .56** -.00 .39** -.13**

** p = .01, * p = .05

After improving the measurement model, the structural model as proposed in Figure 4.1 was tested. This lead to an acceptable fit: SB-χ2(987) = 3,733.38, p = .00, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .06. Allowing autonomous motivation for professional development to corre-late with controlled motivation lead to a small but significant improvement of the model (Δχ2

SB (1) = 14.18 p < .01). Then, direct paths were added from each of the three basic psychological needs to innovative behaviour, which resulted the following model fit: SB-χ2(983) = 3,692.61, p = .00, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .06. Allowing autonomy, competence, and relatedness to


81

have a direct effect on innovative behaviour lead to a significant improvement of the hy-pothesized model: Δχ2

SB (3) = 26.59, p < .01. This contradicted our expectations that the impact of basic need satisfaction during professional development activities would not be a direct one. However, as the final structural model in Figure 4.2 on the next page shows, not all three basic needs affected innovative behaviour. A significant and positive effect was found between autonomy satisfaction and innovative behaviour (β = .19, p <.01), and, alt-hough small, between relatedness and innovative behaviour (β = .06, p <.05). Competence satisfaction did not affect innovative behaviour directly. Hypothesis 1 is therefore partially rejected. Contrary to what we expected, not all three basic psychological needs affected teach-ers’ autonomous motivation for professional development. Satisfaction of the need for autonomy strongly contributed to autonomous motivation (β = .75, p <.01). Competence satisfaction and relatedness satisfaction however did not seem to influence autonomous motivation for professional development, leading to a partial rejection of Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3 is also partially rejected, because only autonomy satisfaction (β = -.41, p <.01) and competence satisfaction (β = .15, p <.01) affected controlled motivation regarding professional development. Furthermore, the expectation of negative effects between the three basic psychological needs and controlled motivation was not confirmed seeing that satisfaction of the need for feeling competent appeared to have a positive impact on con-trolled motivation. Hypothesis 4 regarding the impact of the three basic psychological needs and their impact on occupational self-efficacy only seemed to hold for autonomy satisfaction (β = -.11, p <.05) and competence satisfaction (β = .72, p <.01), indicating that feeling competent with regard to professional development strongly contributes to teachers’ occupational self-efficacy. Nevertheless, the negative effect found between autonomy satisfaction and occupational self-efficacy and the fact that relatedness seemed to have no impact on occu-pational self-efficacy lead to a partial rejection of Hypothesis 4. Not all three basic psychological needs affected perceived social pressure to exhibit innovative behaviour at work. Significant effects were only found between autonomy satis-faction and social pressure (β = -.14, p <.01), and competence satisfaction and social pres-sure (β = -.17, p <.01). Hypothesis 5 was therefore partially rejected. The motivational construct with the largest impact on innovative behaviour was found at autonomous motivation for professional development (β = .37, p <.01), which supports Hypothesis 6. Our expectation that controlled motivation would impact innovative behav-iour negatively (Hypothesis 7) was rejected because in our model no significant path be-tween controlled motivation and innovative behaviour was found. Teachers’ occupational self-efficacy positively impacts their innovative behaviour (Hypothesis 8; β = .29, p <.01). Our assumption based on previous findings that occupa-tional self-efficacy supports autonomous motivation (Hypothesis 9) was rejected, as no significant path between the two constructs emerged. Furthermore no significant path between social pressure and innovative behaviour was found, leading to a rejection of

C H A P T E R 4

82

Hypothesis 10. Social pressure to behave innovatively at work did however impact teach-ers’ controlled motivation for professional development significantly and positively (β = .33, p <.01), which supported Hypothesis 11.

Figure 4.2 Final structural model representing the standardised relationships Note. For the ease of exposition, only significant effects between the constructs are presented (p < .05).


The aim of this study was to gain more insight into the relationships between motivational processes regarding professional development and teachers’ innovative behaviour at work. This behaviour is considered to be of great significance in our changing society, for example for teachers to keep up to date as a professional and for preparing students to participate in such a society as well. Innovative behaviour may involve the intentional and self-initiated change of professional practice (Thurlings et al., 2015). As such it relates to professional development. In order to investigate motivational processes that contribute positively or negatively to innovative behaviour a conceptual model was developed and tested. This conceptual model included basic psychological needs, and autonomous and controlled motivation regarding teacher professional development. Furthermore two other motivational con-structs were added to the model: social pressure and occupational self-efficacy. In general, the results show that certain motivational processes underlying professional development indeed play a role in explaining innovative behaviour at work. However, not


83

every hypothesized effect was found. The strongest path in the final model shows the im-portance of teachers’ autonomous motivation. This path, where autonomous motivation for professional development contributes to innovative behaviour and is strongly influ-enced by autonomy satisfaction, indicates that when the need for autonomy is supported, teachers are autonomously motivated for professional development, which in turn leads to teachers’ innovative behaviour at work. This important finding supports the notion that satisfaction of the need for autonomy is the main nutriment to human psychological devel-opment (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The second strongest path indicates that competence satisfaction via occupational self-efficacy influences innovative behaviour positively. Experiencing satisfaction of the need for feeling competent while engaging in professional development activities affects teachers’ beliefs that they are able to deal with changes within their job, which contributes to the amount of self-reported innovative behaviour at work. The relevance of occupational self-efficacy for innovative behaviour was also found in previous studies in educational settings (Konermann, 2011). Both autonomy satisfaction and competence satisfaction during professional develop-ment activities seem to play a key role in autonomous motivation and occupational self-efficacy. Contrary to one of the basic premises of SDT that satisfaction of all three basic psychological needs contributes to autonomous motivation, a positive impact of related-ness satisfaction on autonomous motivation for professional development was not found in our study. Although the effect can be considered small, satisfaction of the need for relat-edness while engaging in professional development does seem to affect teachers’ innova-tive behaviour directly and positively. Further research is necessary to understand why relatedness satisfaction in this context does not seem to be a critical element for motiva-tion for professional development. Taking into account different forms of and preferences regarding professional development activities might be worthwhile in future research activ-ities. For example, although teachers often critically reflect individually and trust their own feelings and intuitions when confronted with challenging tasks or situations, they also indi-cate that colleagues are involved in their learning experiences at work (Meirink, Meijer, Verloop, & Bergen, 2009). Different forms of learning activities (e.g., individual or collec-tive) might lead to differences in the extent to which satisfaction of the need for related-ness is essential. Additional research is needed to explain possible side effects of satisfaction of the basic psychological needs, such as the impact of autonomy satisfaction on occupational self-efficacy. A small but significant negative effect was found between autonomy satisfaction and occupational self-efficacy, which seems to be alien to theoretical notions. This also holds for the positive effect between competence satisfaction and controlled motivation. Experiencing pressure from management, immediate supervisors, colleagues, or others to behave innovatively at work (social pressure) does not appear to affect teachers’ innova-tive behaviour directly. It does however contribute to controlled motivation for profession-al development, which in turn also does not affect innovative behaviour. Social pressure

C H A P T E R 4

84

and, for example, practices that include rewards or punishment in order to stimulate pro-fessional development both do not seem to predict innovative behaviour. Although this study provides useful information regarding motivational factors that underlie teachers’ innovative behaviour, several limitations need to be addressed. First, the results are based on self-reports. Future studies should take into account other sources of data gathering, for example by including perceptions of supervisor or co-workers regarding teachers’ behaviour at work. Second, this study builds on cross-sectional data. Causal inter-pretations are therefore difficult to make and require longitudinal studies. Finally, both the response rate and the characteristics of the respondents call for caution regarding conclu-sions about the generalizability of the findings. However, as this study shows, teachers’ innovative behaviour is most strongly affected by autonomous motivation for professional development and occupational self-efficacy. Autonomous motivation on its turn is strongly influenced by satisfaction of the need for autonomy while engaging in professional development activities, whereas occupational self-efficacy is nourished by feelings of satisfaction of the need for competence. Given these results it can be concluded that, although SDT provides useful insights into motiva-tional processes underlying innovative behaviour, other motivational constructs are also important to take into account. This supports other attempts to combine different motiva-tional theories while studying human behaviour, for example by combining SDT with the Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (1991; e.g., Hagger, Chatzisarantis, & Harris, 2006; Kreijns et al., 2014). Future research can build on these attempts and the results of this study by focusing on elements of different perspectives in order to map motivational fac-tors that contribute to work-related behaviours of teachers.


85

References

Admiraal, W., Lockhorst, D., Smit, B., Weijers, S., (2013). The integrative model of behavior prediction to explain technology use in post-graduate teacher education programs in the Netherlands. International Journal of Higher Education, 2, 172-178.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Argawal, U. A., Datta, S., Blake-Beard, S., & Bhargava, S. (2012). Linking LMX, innovative work behaviour and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work engagement. Career Development International, 17, 208-230.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. Binnewies, C., & Gromer, M. (2012). Creativity and innovation at work: the role of work characteristics and per-

sonal initiative. Psicothema, 24, 100-105. Boekaerts, M., Van Nuland, H. J. C., & Martens, R. L. (2010). Perspectives on motivation: What mechanisms ener-

gise students’ behaviour in the classroom. In J. Kleine Staarman, K. Littleton, & C. Wood (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology.(pp. 535-569)Bingley, UK: Emerald.



Chen, B., Aelterman, N., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Brenning, K., Deeder, J., … Verstuyf, J. (2012) Developing and Vali-dating a Cross-cultural Valid Basic Psychological Need Scale. Manuscript in preparation.

De Brabander, C. J., Martens, R. L. (2014). Towards a unified theory of task-specific motivation. Educational Re-search Review, 11, 27-44.

De Jong, J. P. J., & Hartog, D. N. (2005). Determinanten van innovatief gedrag: een onderzoek onder kenniswerkers in het MKB [Determinants of innovative behaviour: an investigation among knowledge workers in SMEs]. Ge-drag & Organisatie, 18, 235-259.

De Jong, J. P. J., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). Leadership and employees' innovative behavior. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10, 41-64.



Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49, 182-185.

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behav-ior, 26, 331-362.

Gorozidis, G., & Papaioannou, A. G. (2014). Teachers’ motivation to participate in training and to implement innovations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, 1-11.

Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L., & Harris, J. (2006). From psychological need satisfaction to intentional behav-ior: Testing a motivational sequence in two behavioral contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 131-148.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.

Jansen in de Wal, J., Den Brok, P. J., Hooijer, J. G., Martens, R. L., & Van den Beemt, A. (2014). Teachers’ engage-ment in professional learning: Exploring motivational profiles. Learning and Individual Differences, 36, 27-36.


Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: The Guilford Press. Knol, J. & Van Linge, R. (2009). Innovative behaviour: the effect of structural and psychological empowerment on

nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65, 359-370.

C H A P T E R 4

86



Kreijns, K., Van Acker, B., Vermeulen, M., & Van Buuren, H. (2013). What stimulates teachers to integrate ICT in their pedagogical practices? The use of digital learning materials in education. Computers in Human Behav-iour, 29, 217-225.

Kreijns, K., Vermeulen, M., Van Acker, F., & Van Buuren, H. (2014). Predicting teachers’ use of digital learning materials: combining self-determination theory and the integrative model of behaviour prediction. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 1-14.

Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first centu-ry. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516.

Meirink, J. A., Meijer, P. C., Verloop, N., & Bergen, Th. C. M. (2009) How do teachers learn in the workplace? An examination of teacher learning activities. European Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 209-224.

Messman, G., & Mulder, R. (2011). Innovative work behaviour in vocational colleges: understanding how and why innovations are developed. Vocations and Learning, 4, 63-84.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus User's Guide (Sixth Edition). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Nederveen Pieterse, A., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional

leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 31, 609-623.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing, and retaining effective teachers. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Pieterse, A. N., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional leader-ship and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 609-623.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

Rigotti, T., Schyns, B., & Mohr, G. (2008). A short version of the occupational self-efficacy scale: Structural and construct validity across five countries. Journal of Career Assessment, 16, 238-255.


Scheerens, J. (Ed.) (2010). Teachers' professional development: Europe in international comparison. an analysis of teachers' professional development based on OECD's teaching and learning international survey. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Union.

Schermuly, C. C., Meyer, B., & Dämmer, L. (2013). Leader-member exchange and innovative behavior: The mediat-ing role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12, 132-142.


Schyns, B., & von Collani, G. (2002). A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to personality constructs and organizational variables. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 219-241.

Singh, M., & Sarkar, A. (2012). The relationship between psychological empowerment and innovative behavior: A dimensional analysis with job involvement as mediator. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11, 127-137.


Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Witte, H. de, Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2010). Capturing autonomy, compe-tence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 981-1002.


87

Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., & Lens, W. (2009). Motivational profiles from a self-determination perspective: The quality of motivation matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 671-688.

Yidong, T., & Xinxin, L. (2013). How ethical leadership influence employees’ innovative work behavior: A perspec-tive of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 441-455.

89

CHAPTER 5

A psychological perspective on teachers’ innovative behaviour at work:

the impact of motivation and self-efficacy

This chapter is based upon: Klaeijsen, A., Vermeulen, M., & Martens, R. (submitted). A psychological perspective on teachers’ innovative behaviour at work: the impact of motivation and self-efficacy.

C H A P T E R 5

90

Abstract

Our society is characterized by changes, for example in professions, technologies, and edu-cation. In dealing with those changes innovative behaviour is needed: the self-initiated creation, introduction, and implementation of new ideas or methods. Motivation is an important concept in predicting behaviour. Therefore this systematic literature review investigates the use of motivational theories and constructs in studies on teacher innova-tive behaviour. Furthermore it aims to clarify motivational processes that influence teach-ers’ innovative behaviour. The review focuses on frameworks derived from intrinsic motiva-tion and expectancy-related theories. Findings showed that studies differed in the way theoretical frameworks and constructs were used. Studies applying Self-determination theory, however, indicated that a positive link between autonomous motivation and inno-vative behaviour exists. Empirical evidence regarding the effect of self-efficacy on innova-tive behaviour is inconsistent. Based on these findings, we emphasize the importance of robust frameworks and measures in future research.

A P S Y C H O L O G I C A L P E R S P E C T I V E O N T E A C H E R S ’ I N N O V A T I V E B E H A V I O U R A T W O R K

91

5.1 Introduction

Society is changing. Teachers have to prepare students for a knowledge society in which lifelong learning and 21st century skills have become essential. These 21st century skills, such as creativity and innovation, are important for personal and organisational develop-ment (Schleicher, 2012). Meeting the demands of the recent knowledge society also re-quires investing in knowledge workers: educated professionals who can act innovatively and deal with professional autonomy (Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innova-tion, 2013). Because teachers can be viewed as knowledge workers themselves, and given the current educational, technological, and societal challenges in the teaching profession, acting innovatively becomes more and more essential for teachers. Acting innovatively refers to the concept of innovative behaviour, which is “the inten-tional creation, introduction, and application of new ideas within a work role, group or organization, in order to benefit role performance, the group or the organization” (Janssen, 2000, p. 288). As such, it includes generating new ideas or solutions, and consists of the adoption and implementation of those ideas as well (Scott & Bruce, 1994). Relatively little is known about factors that stimulate or hinder innovative behaviour among teachers. However, in a previous review study (Thurlings, Evers, & Vermeulen, 2015) organisational, demographic, and individual factors were distilled that influence teachers’ innovative behaviour. Regarding individual factors, different aspects of personali-ty (e.g., openness), competence (e.g., problem solving skills), and trait (e.g., motivation) were distinguished. The current review builds on the conclusions from Thurlings et al. (2015) by taking a closer look at the empirical evidence of the impact of two specific trait aspects on teachers’ innovative behaviour, namely motivation and self-efficacy. Indeed, in the study of Thurlings et al. (2015) both traits are shown to influence innovative behaviour. However, a clear picture did not arise in this review study, because different motivational and self-efficacy related constructs were taken together, and perhaps even more im-portantly, the objects of both motivation and self-efficacy of the studies included in the review differed. For example, some of the included studies focused on motivation for the job, others on motivation to innovate, to use e-learning or to implement creative instruc-tions. Similarly, the use of the concept of self-efficacy varied among studies and included occupational self-efficacy, teacher self-efficacy, and self-confidence. It is exactly this infor-mation that is needed to come to practical tools and guidelines in order to foster or en-hance teachers’ innovative behaviour. To summarize, motivation is important for teachers’ innovative behaviour, but empiri-cal findings regarding motivational factors that influence this behaviour may strongly de-pend on the way such motivational factors are studied and on the theoretical models upon which the studies and operationalisations are based. With this in mind, this current review study intends to investigate the use of different motivational constructs and underlying theoretical frameworks in studies on teacher innovative behaviour.

C H A P T E R 5

92

Theoretical perspectives on motivation

Many theoretical perspectives on motivation and human behaviour exist. To provide clarity on the similarities and differences between existing motivational theories attempts have been made to provide extensive overviews on motivational theories, both within and out-side educational settings (e.g., Boekaerts, Van Nuland, & Martens, 2010, Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Latham & Pinder, 2005). Attempts have also been made to integrate different theo-retical views on motivation (e.g., De Brabander & Martens, 2014; Gagné, 2009; Hagger, Chatzisarantis, & Harris, 2006; Neves de Jesus & Lens, 2005). Integration of theories is use-ful because many theories use different and sometimes overlapping concepts. A substantial part of existing theories on human motivation are based on socio-cognitive perspectives, with each having different focal points, for example socio-cognitive theories with a focus on expectancy and value, on goals and goal orientations or on intrinsic motivation (Boekaerts et al., 2010). A well-known example of a motivation theory focusing on expectancies is Bandura’s theory on self-efficacy (1982; 1997). Self-efficacy refers to assessments of oneself regarding how well one is able to “... execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations” (Bandura, 1982, p. 122). It influences motiva-tion in the sense that it affects for example one’s perseverance (Bandura, 1982) and behav-ioural intentions (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). An example of a motivation theory that focusses on goals and goal orientation is the theory of Nicholls (1984), who distinguished two kinds of goal orientations, namely ego-involved goals and task-involved goals. Ego-involved goals (or performance goals) refer to the desire to outperform others or to make a positive impression on others. Task-involved goals (or mastery goals) refer to the desire to master certain tasks and to increase one’s competence. Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000) is a renowned example of a socio-cognitive motivational theory with a focus on intrinsic motivation. SDT states that every human being is by nature intrinsically motivated to learn and develop. Intrinsic moti-vation is associated with several positive outcomes, such as job satisfaction and well-being (Ilardi, Leone, Kasser, & Ryan, 2003). In educational settings, teacher intrinsic motivation has been positively associated with student achievement (Knowles, 1999), student interest and persistence (Radel, Sarrazin, Legrain, & Wild, 2010), and student motivation (Lam, Cheng, & Ma, 2009). Given these positive effects of intrinsic motivation, SDT focuses on how to create environments and circumstances in which intrinsic motivation can flourish. Satisfaction of three basic psychological needs, namely the need for autonomy, compe-tence, and relatedness, is considered essential in creating such environments and circum-stances.


93

Different types and levels of motivation

SDT not only deals with intrinsic motivation but also distinguishes different types of extrin-sic motivation and a-motivation. In order to provide a framework to organize and under-stand mechanisms that trigger different intrinsic and extrinsic motivational processes, Val-lerand (1997) created his Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. In this model three different levels of generality of motivation are distinguished: the situational level, the contextual level, and the global level. The situational level refers to motivation for a given activity on a specific moment in time. It involves for example students’ motivation to prepare for a language test or a teacher’s motivation to visit a workshop on social media. The contextual level is the level of specific life domains, such as education, work, or inter-personal relationships. It includes for example motivation for professional development in general, or to interact with peers at work. The global level can be understood as motivation on the level of one’s personality. It involves for example an individuals’ motivational orien-tation towards a general way of behaving in life as a whole. Vallerand’s model (1997) postu-lates that the level of motivational orientation induces consequences and outcomes on the same level. In terms of studying teachers’ innovative behaviour, motivational aspects that stimulate this type of behaviour should therefore be measured at the same level in order to examine factors that strongly predict this kind of behaviour.

Studies on teachers’ motivation and self-efficacy

Many studies around the world have been performed to investigate motivation of teachers. These studies focused, for example, on reasons for entering or leaving the profession, or on the relevance of teacher motivation for job satisfaction or for student outcomes (Richard-son & Watt, 2010). Both contextual levels (i.e. motivation for the job as a whole, (e.g., Davis & Wilson, 2000; Pelletier, Séguin-Lévesque, & Legault, 2002) and more specific levels of motivation have been subject of empirical studies. Specific levels of teachers’ motivation involved for example technology related aspects of the job, such as motivation to use digi-tal learning materials (DLMs; Kreijns, Vermeulen, Van Acker, & Van Buuren, 2014). Understanding teacher motivation and its impact on different outcomes, such as teachers’ innovative behaviour, asks for the use of an adequate theoretical framework. Attempts have been made to integrate existing frameworks in order to obtain a more com-prehensive understanding of teacher motivation (Neves de Jesus & Lens, 2005). However, Richardson and Watt (2010) pointed out the use of solid theoretical frameworks and measures appears to be lacking in studies on teacher motivation. This results in difficulties when comparing findings of different studies. Self-efficacy beliefs are frequently studied among teachers as well, for example in the context of teacher learning and educational improvements (Runhaar, 2008; Van Dinther, 2014). Different concepts of teacher-related self-efficacy beliefs exist. For instance, a large body of studies builds on the concept of teacher efficacy, which refers to a teachers’ belief

C H A P T E R 5

94

in his or her ability to achieve certain outcomes of student learning and student engage-ment (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). This concept of teacher efficacy is applied on a general level, but also in domain-specific settings, for example in relation to different groups of subjects (e.g., math, science, or reading) or in relation to using technology in class (Klassen, Tze, Betts, & Gordon, 2011). Another line of studies on teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs uses a more general, not teach-ing specific approach, for example by examining occupational self-efficacy (e.g., Runhaar, 2008; Konermann, 2011). Occupational self-efficacy refers to one’s belief in his or her abil-ity to face occupational changes or challenges with regards to job-related tasks and situa-tions in general (Schyns & Von Collani, 2002). This general concept of self-efficacy is one of the key concepts of this review study, because innovative behaviour, i.e. explicitly creating, introducing, and applying new ideas at work is in itself not aimed towards specific kinds of innovations or activities.

Aims and research questions

The main purpose of this review study is to clarify motivational processes that either stimu-late or hinder teachers’ innovative behaviour. As indicated in the sections above, in order to do so it is important to take notice of different theoretical perspectives on motivation. Therefore, the research question guiding this study is:

What concepts are used to study motivation and occupational self-efficacy in the context of teachers’ innovative behaviour, and what motivational factors stimulate or hinder that behaviour?

In the following we describe the method used to address our research questions.

5.2 Method

Search and selection of literature

A systematic literature review was performed (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Different search engines were used to obtain literature relevant to the purpose of this review: Google Scholar, Science Direct, PiCarta, and EBSCO Host (Academic search elite, Business source premier, Ejournals, Eric, and PsychInfo). The following search terms were used: teacher(s’) motivation, teacher(s’) intrinsic motivation, teacher(s’) occupational self-efficacy, teacher(s’) innovation, teacher(s’) innovative behaviour, teacher(s’) extra-role behaviour, teacher(s’) innovativeness, and teacher(s’) openness to change. Also combinations of each motivation or self-efficacy related search term and each behaviour related search term were added to the literature search, e.g., teacher(s’) motivation and teacher(s’) innovation, and teacher(s’) motivation and teacher(s’) innovative behaviour. The literature search was limited to litera-


95

ture published between January 1990 and February 2015. If more than 100 results per search term emerged, the first 100 hits were examined. Based on title and abstract, 2.179 articles were scanned to make a first selection of relevant publications that met the criteria for inclusion. When needed the whole article was read to decide on whether or not the publication was relevant for this review. Criteria for inclusion were: a) the publication was in English, b) the publication was either a PhD dissertation or a peer reviewed journal article, c) the publication reported on an empirical study, d) the publication focused on teachers’ innovative behaviour or the intention to engage in innovative behaviour, defined as taking on self-initiated actions that involve generating, creating, developing, applying, promoting, realizing or modifying new ideas (cf. Thurlings et al., 2015), and e) motivation and/or occupational self-efficacy were one of the independent variables in the study. Criteria for exclusion were: a) the article focused only on pre-service teachers, b) the definition or operationalization of extra-role behaviour lacked an innovation related aspect, c) the study involved a general use of technology instead of the use of technology in an educa-tion setting, d) other forms of self-efficacy were measured that focused on task specific but non-teaching related self-efficacy, such as computer self-efficacy. The use of these inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in 22 included publications (indicated with an asterisk in the reference list). Brief descriptions of these included studies are presented in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 Brief descriptions of the included studies

Study Country Sample Type of study Overall quality of the study

Abrami, Poulsen, & Chambers (2004)

Canada 1031 primary, secondary, and other school teachers

Quantitative Intermediate

Assor (2009) Israel 26 primary school teachers Qualitative Low

Baylor & Ritchie (2002)

United States of America

94 elementary, middle, and high school teachers

Mixed methods

Low

Chien, Kao, Yeh, & Lin (2012)

Taiwan 322 primary school teachers Quantitative Intermediate

Emo (2010) United States of America

32 primary, secondary, and other school teachers

Qualitative Intermediate

Gay van Duzor (2011) United States of America

17 K-8 teachers Qualitative Intermediate

Gorozidis & Papaioannou (2014)

Greece 218 high school teachers (Time 1 survey); 71 high school teachers (Time 2 survey); written interviews with 4 teachers.

Mixed methods

Intermediate

Grove (2008) United States of America

15 respondents (teachers, principals and other professionals) from elementary schools, high schools, and other institutions

Qualitative Low

Guzey & Roehrig (2012)


3 secondary teachers Qualitative Intermediate

C H A P T E R 5

96

Study Country Sample Type of study Overall quality of the study

Jackson (2007) United States of America

117 elementary school teachers Mixed methods

Intermediate

Kreijns, Vermeulen, Van Acker, & Van Buuren (2014)

The Netherlands

1273 primary, secondary, and vocational education teachers


Lam, Cheng, & Choy (2010)

Hong Kong 182 secondary school teachers Quantitative Intermediate

Lohman (2006) United States of America

166 elementary and secondary school teachers


Loogma, Krussvall, & Ümarik (2012)

Estonia 273 vocational education teachers Quantitative Intermediate

Messmann & Mulder (2014)

Germany 734 vocational education teachers Mixed methods

High

Nemeržitski, Loogma, Heinla, & Eisenschmidt (2013)

Estonia 3321 secondary school teachers Quantitative Intermediate

Sørebø, Halvari, Flaata Gulli, & Kristiansen (2009)

Norway 124 university college teachers Quantitative High

Thoonen, Sleegers, Oort, Peetsma, & Geijsel (2011)

The Netherlands

502 elementary school teachers Quantitative Intermediate

Uluyol & Şahin (2014) Turkey 101 elementary school teachers Qualitative Intermediate

Vannatta & Fordham (2004)


170 elementary and middle school teachers


Wagner & French (2010)


37 early childhood teachers, 40 teaching assistants

Mixed methods

Intermediate

Waller (2008) United States of America

214 elementary, middle, and high school teachers


Summarizing the studies

After selecting relevant studies, each publication was summarized by means of a table that included information regarding the title, authors, research questions, research hypotheses, and main results and conclusions of the study. Also the theoretical framework, definitions, and methods used (participants, research instruments and analysis of the data) were in-cluded in summarizing tables. Furthermore, the tables contained information regarding effects of motivation or self-efficacy related factors on teacher innovative behaviour. Atten-tion was paid to factors that affected teacher innovative behaviour in a positive or negative way. Also possible mediating or moderating effects were included, as well as non-significant effects.


97

Each summarizing table included a critical appraisal of the quality of the study. In the case of quantitative studies this was done by answering questions regarding the research proce-dure, the representativeness of the sample, the appropriateness of the analyses of the data, and the generalizability of the results. In the case of qualitative studies other ques-tions were addressed to review the quality, namely the rigorousness of the study, the transparency and credibility of the method used, the researchers’ self-reflexivity, ethical considerations, and the scientific and practical impact of the results (see Tracy, 2010). For each aspect concerning the quality of the studies a rate (low, intermediate or high) was given. These ratings lead to an overall rating for the quality of the studies. The overall quali-ty ratings for each study are presented in Table 5.1.

Review of the studies

Although literature was searched between 1990 and the end of February 2015, none of the 22 studies retained were published between 1990 and 2000. Twelve studies were pub-lished between 2001 and 2010, and the remaining 10 studies between 2011 and 2014. This indicates that the attention given to combination of motivational factors and innovative behaviour has grown since the beginning of this century. A similar finding regarding the growing number of studies on teachers’ innovative behaviour was found by Thurlings et al. (2015). The studies were mostly conducted in Anglo-Saxon and European countries. Ten stud-ies were performed in the United States of America and 1 in Canada. Seven studies were from Europe (2 in Estonia, 2 in The Netherlands, 1 in Germany, 1 in Greece, 1 in Turkey). Four studies were performed in Asia, including 2 studies in Israel, 1 in Taiwan and 1 in Hong Kong. Eleven studies applied a quantitative approach, and 6 studies a qualitative approach. The remaining 5 studies used a mixed-method design. Studies varied in the number of participants. The smallest number of participants was 3 (Guzey & Roerhrig, 2012), the larg-est number of respondents 3321 (Nemeržitski et al., 2013). Most studies (20) were only performed among teachers. In 2 studies (Grove, 2008; Wagner & French, 2010) other edu-cational professionals were included as respondents as well, such as assistants, principals, instructors, and supervisors. The respondents in the studies worked in different educational settings. Five studies were situated in primary education (Assor, 2009; Chien et al., 2012; Jackson, 2007; Thoonen et al., 2012; Uluyol & Şahin, 2014). Three studies centered around teachers working in secondary education (Gorozidis & Papaioannou , 2014; Guzey & Roeh-rig, 2012; Lam et al., 2010). Two studies focused on vocational education teachers (Loogma et al., 2012; Messmann & Mulder, 2014), one on university college teachers (Sørebø et al., 2009), and one on early childhood teachers (Wagner & French, 2010). All other studies (10) did not focus on one specific educational level, but included teachers from different levels. Two studies could be categorized as high quality studies (Messmann & Mulder, 2014; Sørebø et al., 2009), while most of the studies however (17) appeared to be of intermedi-

C H A P T E R 5

98

ate quality. Three studies are considered to be of low quality (Assor, 2009; Baylor & Ritchie, 2002; Grove, 2008) because they scored either low on all criteria or did not provide enough information to rate the quality of the study accurately. Both quantitative and qualitative studies were found to be of either high, intermediate or low quality. In the case of quantitative studies most publications succeeded in providing clear descriptions of the procedure. Also the analyses appeared to be trustworthy in most of the studies. Generalizability of the results and representativeness of the quantitative studies appeared to receive less attention. Regarding the quality of the qualitative studies, four studies (Emo, 2010; Gay van Duzor, 2011; Guzey & Roehrig, 2012; Uluyol & Şahin, 2014) succeeded convincingly in meeting the criteria regarding the rigorousness of the study, the credibility of the method, and the practical implications of the study. The quality criterion that appeared to receive least attention is whether or not ethical aspects are tak-en into consideration.

5.3 Results

This literature study aims to capture frameworks and measures used to empirically investi-gate teachers’ motivation and occupational self-efficacy as well as to gain more insight in how those to psychological constructs affect teachers’ innovative behaviour. In the follow-ing we describe the concepts used in the included studies and the effects found in these studies. After a brief description of differences in the operational definitions of the concept of innovative behaviour, the motivation and self-efficacy related frameworks and concepts are discussed. This section ends with an overview of the findings for the main frameworks encountered in this review study. The quality of the included studies is taken into account by giving less weight to the studies that have been categorized as being of low quality. In the context of this review study, teachers’ innovative behaviour is seen as any kind of self-initiated actions of behaviour that involve generating, creating, developing, applying, promoting, realizing or modifying new ideas (cf. Thurlings et al., 2015), including the inten-tion or willingness to continue to do so. The studies included in this review framed different aspects of innovative behaviour, namely innovative behaviour at work in general, innova-tive behaviour involving the use of technology, innovative behaviour related to teacher professional development, and innovative behaviour in the sense of initiating or imple-menting innovations. The first category, innovative behaviour in general was found in two studies. In the case of Messmann and Mulder (2014) this innovative behaviour was examined by looking at opportunity exploration, idea generation, idea promotion, idea realization, and reflec-tion. Nemeržitski et al. (2013) focused on teachers’ innovative behaviour in the sense of teachers’ ability and willingness to apply new ideas, models, and practices. The second kind of innovative behaviour that emerged in this review involved technol-ogy related actions or behaviours. Eight studies examined the use and integration of differ-


99

ent technologies. This varied from a more general use of (information) technology (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002; Guzey, 2012; Uluyol & Şahin, 2014), specific kinds of IT-related innovations, such as humanist IT innovation (Assor, 2009), digital learning materials (DLMs; Kreijns et al., 2014), student response systems (Waller, 2008), and e-learning (Loogma et al., 2012; Sørebø et al., 2009). The third category of innovative behaviour that emerged in seven studies involved teacher professional development. For example, transfer of innovations or subjects learned during professional development programs (Gay van Duzor, 2011; Gorozidis & Papaioan-nou, 2014) or changing classroom practices as a result of professional developments (Grove, 2008; Wagner & French, 2010) were revealed in this review study. Additionally, two other aspects of professional development were considered to be related to innovative behaviour, namely engaging in new ways of professional learning (such as web-based pro-fessional development, Chien et al., 2012), and in informal learning activities such as exper-imenting and keeping up to date by for example searching the internet or scanning profes-sional literature (Lohman, 2006; Thoonen et al., 2011). The final group of studies dealt with the initiation or implementation of innovations. Four studies dealt with teachers initiating or implementing specific educational innovations, such as cooperative learning (Abrami et al., 2004), project based learning (Lam et al., 2010), and curriculum innovations (Emo, 2010). A more overall view on the adoption of innova-tions was found in the study of Jackson (2007), who addressed teacher innovativeness in general.

Frameworks and measures of motivational constructs

Looking at the frameworks used in the studies included in this review, we found that differ-ent theoretical perspectives on motivation or motivation related constructs were used (see Table 5.2). Nine studies focused on intrinsic motivation or related concepts. One study (Messmann & Mulder, 2014) was based on the concept of intrinsic task motivation (Ama-bile, 1988). The other eight studies were based on SDT (Assor, 2009; Gorozidis & Papaioan-nou, 2014; Guzey & Roehrig, 2012; Kreijns et al., 2014; Lam et al., 2010; Sørebø et al., 2009; Wagner & French, 2010). Two of these studies combined SDT with a second theoretical perspective. Kreijns et al. (2014) expanded SDT with the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991). Sørebø et al. (2009) used both SDT and the information systems (IS) continu-ance theory (Bhattacherjee, 2001). Two studies in this review took on a expectancy-perspective that involved different variables including self-efficacy beliefs (Abrami et al., 2004; Thoonen et al., 2011). Two studies were solely based on a self-efficacy perspective (Nemeržitski et al., 2013; Waller, 2008). Chien et al. (2002) used the Technology Acceptance Model. This model is based on TPB and states that beliefs influence individuals’ attitudes towards using a technological system. In turn, the individuals’ attitudes foster intentions to actually use the technology at hand, which impacts the decision of actual usage.

C H A P T E R 5

100

In addition to perspectives based on motivational frameworks other perspectives were also encountered, such as Rogers’ theory of innovation diffusion (Jackson, 2007; Loogma et al., 2012), and Turner and Lawrence’s (1965) work regarding characteristics of motivating jobs (Uluyol & Şahin, 2014). Five studies did not present a clear theoretical perspective on moti-vation or self-efficacy (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002; Emo, 2010; Gay van Duzor, 2011; Lohman, 2006; Vannatta & Fordham, 2004). Not only did we encounter various different frameworks in the studies, but also many different instruments to measure both motivational and behavioural constructs in the con-text of teachers’ innovative behaviour (see the third column in Table 5.2). In many cases instruments were self-constructed. Less often existing instruments were used with or with-out adaption to fit the research context. Table 5.2 Key variables, instruments and theoretical perspectives of the included studies

Study Key variables Measurement instrument(s) Theoretical perspective

Abrami et al. (2004)

Perceived value of the innovation; expectancy of success; perceived cost; implementation of cooperative learning

Self-constructed questionnaire Expectancy theory (for example Vroom, 1964).

Assor (2009) Key variables not clear Semi-structured interviews; questionnaire; follow-up observations; follow-up interviews

Self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000)

Baylor & Ritchie (2002)

Technology planning; leadership; professional development; openness to change; non-school computer use; curriculum alignment; technology use; technology integration; technology competency; impact on content acquisition; impact on higher order thinking skills; teacher morale

Administrator questionnaire; technology use plan; teacher survey questionnaire; teacher interview (all instruments were self-constructed)

Teacher openness to change (for example Marcinkiewic, 1994 ), viewed as a predisposition for trying new instructional innovations

Chien et al. (2012)

Personal interest; social stimulation; external expectation; practical enhancement; social contact; perceived usefulness; perceived ease of use; affection; anxiety; behaviour

Motivation toward web-based professional development survey, adapted from Kao, Wu, and Tsai (2011); Attitudes toward web-based professional development survey, adapted from Kao and Tsai (2009)

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM; Davis, 1989), adapted from the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991).

Emo (2010) Teacher initiated innovations; motivation for and anticipated benefits of curriculum innovation; identity characteristics of innovating teachers (career stage, perceived dominant dimension of identity, use of supports, realized and sustained benefits, and satisfactions and frustrations).

Interviews and group discussions (self-constructed interview guides)

Extensive theoretical framework, includes SDT and other concepts such as flow and agency. How these theories and concepts were used in the study remains unclear.


101


Gay van Duzor (2011)

Learning experiences; classroom considerations; transfer of concepts or activities to the classroom

Field notes, video tapes/ video notes, Chemistry Concept Inventory (Mulford & Robinson, 2002), weekly journals, interviews

This study was based on the premises that successful transfer of innovation to the classroom requires teacher agency. Factors that motivate teachers to consider transfer and teacher learning were elucidated.

Gorozidis & Papaioannou (2014)

Intrinsic, identified, introjected, external, and a-motivation to participate in training and to teach a new subject; intentions to participate in future courses and to teach the new subject; reasons for registering for the Research Project training course; reasons that lead to participation in the training

Survey items from Work Task Motivation Scale for Teachers (WTMST; Fernet et al., 2008); self-constructed survey items, open questions in questionnaire; and written interviews

SDT

Grove (2008) Teachers’ motivation to implement an educational program; professional development’s support for a) teachers’ autonomy, competence, and relatedness and b) for instructional strategies for attending teachers to support their own students’ autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Interviews; observations (instrument modified form an observation instrument used to evaluate the educational program); field notes

SDT

Guzey & Roehrig (2012)

Technology integration; lesson planning; ways to modify the observed lessons; beliefs about science teaching, learning, and technology; lesson plans; teacher strategies

Classroom observations; post observation interviews, semi structured interviews (adapted from the teacher beliefs interview; Luft & Roehrig, 2007), student worksheets, laboratory handouts, teachers class website content

Deci’s (1975) motivation theory

Jackson (2007)

Low-performing schools versus high-performing schools; level of innovativeness; physical environment; principal's influence; principal's motivation; principal's intellectual stimulation; principal's consideration of teachers; principal's reward; principal's feedback; principal's involvement; number of years teaching; school environment; peer influence

The questionnaire was partly self-constructed and partly based on existing instruments such as Hurt, Joseph, and Cook (1977): Innovativeness Scale (short version), and Martin’s (2004) Inventory of Barriers to Creative Thought and Innovative Action.

Theoretical framework based on educational change literature (for example Fullan, 2001) and innovativeness (Rogers, 1995).

C H A P T E R 5

102


Kreijns et al. (2014)

Competence, autonomy, and relatedness regarding the use of digital learning materials (DLMs); intrinsic and identified motivation regarding the use of DLMs; attitude regarding the use of DLMs: experiential and instrumental; subjective norm regarding the use of DLMs self-efficacy regarding the use of DLMs; intention to use DLM’s

Online questionnaire; source of items regarding SDT-variables unknown; other variables either adapted from existing measures or newly constructed following the guidelines of Fishbein and Ajzen (2010).

SDT and Fishbein and Ajzens’ Integrative Model for Behavioural Prediction (IMBP), which is largely based on TPB, combined with Vallerand’s (1997) Hierchichal Model

Lam et al. (2010)

Perceived school support (competence support, autonomy support, collegial support); willingness to continue with project-based learning; teacher external, introjected, identified and intrinsic motivation

Perceived School Support Inventory (self-constructed), a self-constructed scale to measure willingness, and the Teacher Motivation inventory (self-constructed, modelled after the Self-Regulation Questionnaire, Ryan & Connell, 1989)

SDT

Lohman (2006)

Informal learning activities; environmental influence: lack of free time, lack of proximity to colleagues’ work areas, lack of access to computer technology, lack of monetary rewards, lack of recognition; personal characteristics: initiative, self-efficacy, love of learning, interest in profession

Informal learning survey (self-constructed)

The conceptual framework focused on informal learning activities and workplace learning models.

Loogma et al. (2012)

Categories of adopters; individual characteristics; characteristics of the school context / support structures; motivation to use e-learning; general attitudes towards an innovation; ICT competence; e-learning competence; pedagogical competence

Questionnaire, source unknown Theory of innovation diffusion (Rogers, 2003).

Messmann & Mulder (2014)

Innovative work behaviour (opportunity exploration, idea generation, idea promotion, idea realization, and reflection); perceived impact; perceived social support; intrinsic task motivation

Self-report questionnaire developed by Messmann and Mulder (2012), and expanded with items and scales developed by others (De Jong & Kemp, 2003; Janssen, 2005; Spreitzer, 1995; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999)

Intrinsic task motivation (Amabile, 1988).


103


Nemeržitski et al. (2013)

Self-efficacy; innovative supporting teacher practices; student oriented teaching practices; teacher professional cooperation; teachers’ cooperation for development; cooperation towards development of school and quality; need for subject and teaching related self-development while providing feedback; importance of innovative behaviour and professional development; importance of feedback from students, parents, and cooperation with colleagues, and importance of students grades

Based on TALIS databases of teachers and school principals (OECD, 2009).

Theory of innovation diffusion (Rogers, 2003); self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2004)

Sørebø et al. (2009).

Information systems (IS) continuance intention; satisfaction; perceived usefulness; confirmation; intrinsic motivation; perceived competence; perceived relatedness; perceived autonomy

Measures adapted from Bhattacherjee (2001), the Academic Self-regulation Questionnaire (Ryan & Connell, 1989) and the Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (Kasser, Davey, & Ryan, 1992)

SDT & IS-continuance theory (Bhattacherjee, 2001)

Thoonen et al. (2011)

Internalization of school goals; teacher efficacy; tolerance of uncertainty; well-being; Keeping up-to-date; experimenting and reflecting

Measures based on several instruments (e.g., Huber & Rollinger-Doyen, 1989; Leithwood, Dart, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1993; Seegers, van Putten, & de Brabander, 2002; Van Woerkom, 2003)

This study was built on the framework of Leithwood, Jantzi, and Mascall (2002) and research on teacher learning and motivation, school capacity building, and leadership practices. Motivation is viewed as a construct that comprises expectancy, value, and affective components.

Uluyol & Şahin (2014)

ICT used; examples of ICT use; incentives to use ICT; support to use ICT; benefits of ICT use

Interviews (self-constructed) Theoretical framework based on a study of Turner and Lawrence (1965) who suggest that there are three basic characteristics of a motivating job: incentives, support and benefits.

C H A P T E R 5

104


Vannatta & Fordham (2004)

Teacher self-efficacy; teacher philosophy; openness to change; teacher use of technology; student use of technology; overall use of technology; continue grad course without salary incentive; professional development; technology training; hours beyond work week

Self-constructed Teacher Attribute Scale, partly based on several reliable existing instruments (e.g., Woolfolk and Hoy’s (1990) Teacher Efficacy Scale, and Vannatta and O’Bannon’s (2002) Faculty Technology Survey)

A clear theoretical framework is lacking. However, the study is partly based on previous work of Woolfolk and Hoy (1990; teacher efficacy) and the work of Hurt, Joseph, and Cook (1997) and Marcinkiewicz (1994) regarding openness to change.

Wagner & French (2010)

Intrinsic motivation regarding the professional development program (interest/enjoyment, choice, perceived competence, pressure/tension); work climate; teachers’ experiences in the professionals development program

Questionnaire based on IMI (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994) and ECJSS (Bloom, 1989), self-constructed phone interviews.

SDT

Occupational self-efficacy

This review on teachers’ innovative behaviour focused primarily on wide-ranging aspects of motivation as well as a particular motivational factor, namely occupational self-efficacy. However, no studies were found that focused on this type of self-efficacy. Apparently oc-cupational self-efficacy is not often studied among teachers or empirically related to teach-ers’ innovative behaviour. Occupational self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in his or her ability to face occupational changes or job-related challenges. Although this type of self-efficacy was not encountered in the review study, another construct related to dealing with changes and challenges at work was found, namely openness to change. This construct refers to teach-ers’ attitudes towards trying new things and their willingness to take risks (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002; Vannatta & Forham, 2004; Waller, 2008). Furthermore other types of self-efficacy emerged, such as teaching related forms of self-efficacy (Nemeržitski et al., 2013; Thoonen et al., 2011; Vannatta & Forham, 2004; Waller, 2008), and (although outside the scope of this study) IT-related forms of self-efficacy were also taken into account (Kreijns et al., 2014). In the case of one study self-efficacy was used but not defined or operationalised (Lohman, 2008).

Motivational constructs and innovative behaviour

The second research question guiding this review study concerned the impact of motiva-tional constructs on teachers’ innovative behaviour. Tables 5.3 to 5.5 provide an overview of the relevant findings of the included studies. They present the effects or relationships


105

found between motivational factors and innovative behaviour or related outcomes. The tables categorize the influencing motivational factors are as either proximal variables (i.e. internal variables close to the behaviour at hand), or as distal variables (i.e. variables fur-ther removed from innovative behaviour or related outcomes). These distal variables cover both variables at the level of individual teacher characteristics and variables at the level of the work context, i.e. the level of the school organization. Therefore a distinction is made in Tables 5.3 to 5.5 between distal variables on a contextual level (e.g., work environment, or leadership within the school) and on an individual level (e.g., perceived social support, and beliefs). Based on the framework studies used, the tables divide the findings into three sections: a) studies based on theories with a focus on intrinsic motivation, b) studies based on theo-ries with a focus on expectancies and value, or c) studies based on several other theories or studies that lacked a clear theoretical framework.

Findings from intrinsic motivation driven perspectives

As already indicated, several studies used a SDT-based perspective on motivation and used elements of SDT to explain or predict innovative behaviour. Most studies focused on one type of motivation, such as autonomous or self-determined motivation (Assor, 2009; Kreijns et al., 2014) or intrinsic motivation (Grove, 2008; Guzey & Roehrig, 2012; Sørebø et al., 2009; Wagner & French, 2010). One study used a teacher motivation as a latent con-struct consisting of five indices of teachers’ level of self-determination (Lam et al., 2010). The study of Gorozidis and Papaiouannou (2014) was the only study in which different types of motivation (i.e. autonomous motivation and controlled motivation) were included, therefore making it possible to compare the impact of these different types of motivation. All studies showed that autonomous or self-determined motivation including intrinsic motivation influenced different aspects of innovative behaviour. Although not based on SDT, the study of Messmann and Mulder (2014) overall confirmed the relevance of intrinsic motivation in explaining or strengthening teachers’ innovative behaviour. They showed that perceived impact on work-related outcomes and perceived social support, i.e. the amount of supervisor support and supportive climate, both affected intrinsic motivation for innova-tion. In addition to the positive impact of intrinsic and autonomous or self-determined moti-vation, Gorozidis and Papaiouannou (2014) provided evidence that controlled motivation to either participate in professional training or to teach an innovative subject does not appear to be a relevant antecedent of teachers’ innovative behaviour. The SDT-related studies differed in the way basic psychological need satisfaction was included. Some studies examined the impact of basic need satisfaction on motivation (Kreijns et al., 2014; Lam et al., 2010; Sørebø et al., 2009), other linked basic need satisfac-tion directly to innovative behaviour (Grove, 2008; Guzey & Roehrig, 2012; Wagner & French, 2010). All studies showed that support of basic psychological needs leads to posi-

C H A P T E R 5

106

tive outcomes regarding motivation or innovative behaviour, although relatedness ap-peared to be less important. Sørebø et al. (2009) for example found that perceived related-ness while utilizing e-learning had no significant impact on intrinsic e-learning motivation. However, Wagner and French (2010) found that supervisor relations had a significant im-pact on teacher intrinsic motivation whereas co-worker relations did not. Overall the findings from studies using a perspective with a focus on intrinsic motiva-tion showed that intrinsic and autonomous motivation appear to relate positively to teach-ers’ innovative behaviour. From the perspective of SDT supporting the three basic psycho-logical needs seem to be relevant as well. Although SDT is relatively often used as a frame-work, additionally other constructs may provide useful insights as well. Guzey and Roehrig (2012) not only focused on intrinsic motivation but also found influencing variables that were not derived from motivational psychological constructs, i.e. knowledge on student learning and learning materials, and knowledge on technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Furthermore two studies combined SDT and expectancy-value driven perspec-tives (Kreijns et al., 2014; Sørebø et al., 2009). Table 5.3 summarizes the findings of the studies based on intrinsic motivation-related perspectives. The sequence of influencing variables is to be read from left to right. In some cases the relation between two proximal variables was examined. In such cases the proximal variable on the left side affected the variable on the right side. Table 5.3 Motivational factors leading to innovative behaviour related outcomes, based on intrinsic motivation-related perspectives

Distal motivational variables

Proximal variables Behavioural outcomes

Effect (+, -, n.s.)*

Measure ** Study

Contextual level

Individual level

Autonomous motivation, autonomy support

Teachers’ motivation and capacity to apply humanistic ideas

High-quality implementation of humanist IT innovation

+ i, o Assor (2009)

Autonomous motivation to participate in professional training

Intentions to be trained in an innovative subject

+ p Gorozidis & Papaio-annou (2014)

Controlled motivation to participate in professional training

Intentions to be trained in an innovative subject

n.s. p Gorozidis & Papaio-annou (2014)

Autonomous motivation to teach an innovative subject

Intentions to teach an innovative subject

+ p Gorozidis & Papaio-annou (2014)


107




Measure ** Study

Contextual level

Individual level

Controlled motivation to teach an innovative subject

Intentions to teach an innovative subject

n.s. p Gorozidis & Papaio-annou (2014)

Feelings of autonomy, competence, relatedness to attend and implement an educational program

Implementation of practices from a professional development program

+ f, i Grove (2008)

Perceived principals’ support for feelings of autonomy and competence

Implementation of practices from a professional development program

+ f, i Grove (2008)

Affiliation between individuals within a role-hierarchy

Implementation of change

+ f, i Grove (2008)

Self-determined motivation towards using DLMs

Attitude towards using DLMs

+ p Kreijns et al. (2014)


Subjective norm regarding using DLMs

n.s. p Kreijns et al. (2014)


Self-efficacy regarding using DLMs


Psychological needs satisfaction in using of DLMs



C H A P T E R 5

108




Measure ** Study

Contextual level

Individual level

Perceived competence, autonomy, and collegial support

Teachers’ motivation to implement a project-based learning activity

+ p Lam et al. (2010)

Motivation in implementing project-based learning

Attitude for future persistence in project-based learning

+ p Lam et al. (2010)

Perceived competence, autonomy, and collegial support

Attitude for future persistence in project-based learning.

+ p Lam et al. (2010)

Intrinsic motivation/ enjoyment in using educational technology tools

The use of educational technology in teaching

+ i Guzey & Roehrig (2012)

Teacher beliefs about technology



Teacher knowledge on student learning and curriculum materials



Teacher technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge



Intrinsic motivation for innovation

Opportunity exploration

+ / - p Messmann & Mulder (2014)


Idea generation + p Messmann & Mulder (2014)


Idea promotion + p Messmann & Mulder (2014)


109




Measure ** Study

Contextual level

Individual level


Reflection + p Messmann & Mulder (2014)

Perceived impact


+ p Messmann & Mulder (2014)

Perceived social support


+ / - p Messmann & Mulder (2014)

Perceived autonomy when utilizing e-learning

Perceived usefulness of e-learning usage

n.s. p Sørebø et al. (2009)

Perceived autonomy when utilizing e-learning

Intrinsic e-learning motivation + p Sørebø et al. (2009)

Perceived competence when utilizing e-learning


+ p Sørebø et al. (2009)


Confirmed initial e-learning expectations



Intrinsic e-learning motivation + p Sørebø et al. (2009)

Perceived relatedness when utilizing e-learning



Perceived relatedness when utilizing e-learning

Intrinsic e-learning motivation n.s. p Sørebø et al. (2009)

Intrinsic e-learning motivation

Satisfaction with e-learning



Intention to continue to use e-learning


C H A P T E R 5

110




Measure ** Study

Contextual level

Individual level

Supervisor relations

Intrinsic motivation for professional development

+ r Wagner & French (2010)

Nature of the work itself


+ r Wagner & French (2010)

Co-worker relations


n.s. r Wagner & French (2010)

Working conditions



Pay Intrinsic motivation for professional development


Perceived changes in children as a result of professional development

Motivation to continue efforts towards change in practice

+ i Wagner & French (2010)

Teachers’ motivational states Perception of professional development program


Perception of the work environment

Perception of professional development program and desire to change


Intrinsic motivation and work environment with adequate support, choice, and collegiality

Greater openness to new ideas


Note. The study of Messman and Mulder (2014) includes two sets of data, in some case leading to different re-sults. * n.s. = not significant ** c = correlation; f = field notes; i = interviews; o = observations; p = path models; r = regression; v = variance analyses

Findings from expectancy-value driven perspectives

Similar to the studies with a focus on intrinsic motivation, the studies that used expectancy and value related perspectives also varied in the strength and consistent use of their con-


111

ceptual frameworks and in the way key concepts were operationalized. This might be one of the reasons why, based on a comparison of the results of these studies, the evidence regarding the impact of self-efficacy on innovative behaviour is rather inconsistent. A posi-tive relation was found between teacher self-efficacy and the use of innovative teacher practices or methods (Nemeržitski et al., 2014). Furthermore teacher self-efficacy appeared to influence the extent in which teachers keep up to date (Thoonen et al., 2011). However, no significant effects were found between teacher self-efficacy and experimenting and reflecting (Thoonen et al., 2011) or classroom technology use (Vannatta & Fordham, 2004). In addition, a negative effect was found between teacher self-efficacy and teachers’ use of student response system technologies (Waller, 2008). Some studies focused on other key-variables derived from expectancy-value based perspectives, such as confirmation of initial expectancies (Sørebø et al., 2009) and expected success of an innovation (Abrami et al., 2004). Both studies showed that those expectancy-related constructs affected innovative behaviour positively. These two studies also exam-ined perceived value or usefulness of an innovation, and found that the higher the per-ceived value or usefulness, the more teachers used or intended to use the innovation at hand. In addition to expectancies of success and perceived value Abrami et al. (2004) stud-ied the perceived cost of implementation of an innovation and found that the higher the perceived costs, the lower the amount of implementation. Not only do expectancies related to teachers themselves or the innovation at hand play a role in teachers’ innovative behaviour, perceived expectancies of others may also con-tribute. However, the evidence regarding the impact of expectancies placed upon teachers by others is inconsistent. Chien et al. (2012) for example revealed that external expecta-tions of others at work did not impact actual practice and willingness to use web-based professional development. Kreijns et al. (2014) however found that subjective norm ( i.e. experienced social pressure from others to use digital learning materials) increased teach-ers’ intention to do so. Next to key-variables derived from an expectancy-related perspective, several studies examined other constructs as well. Noteworthy is the concept of teacher openness to change, i.e. having a predisposition for trying new things and the willingness to take risks (Vannatta & Fordham, 2004). This concept appeared to have a positive influence on innova-tive behaviour with regards to technology use (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002; Vannatta & Ford-ham, 2004; Waller, 2008). Although the results of these studies point into the same direc-tion, the empirical evidence of the relevance of self-efficacy turned out to be inconsistent. Possibly these inconsistent results can be explained by the distance between the type of self-efficacy and the behaviour included in the study. For example, because teacher self-efficacy involves judgements of teachers regarding their abilities to influence student learn-ing, it is situated on a different level than innovative behaviour. Kreijns et al. (2014) howev-er found that self-efficacy regarding the use of digital learning materials does impact inten-tions to use digital learning materials positively. In this study the type of self-efficacy and

C H A P T E R 5

112

the preferred behaviour were situated on the same level. Table 5.4 provides an overview of the findings of the expectancy-related studies. Table 5.4 Motivational factors leading to innovative behaviour related outcomes, based on expectancy-related perspectives




Measure ** Study

Contextual level

Individual level

Expectations of success of cooperative learning

Teacher use of cooperative learning

+ r Abrami et al. (2004)

Perceived cost of im-plementting cooperative learning


- r Abrami et al. (2004)

Perceived value of im-plementing cooperative learning


+ r Abrami et al. (2004)

Openness to change Technology integration in education

+ r Baylor & Ritchie (2002)

Technology use with others

Technology integration in education

+ r Baylor & Ritchie (2002)

Personal interest

Actual use and willingness to use web-based professional development

n.s. p Chien et al. (2012)

Social stimulation to meet others


+ p Chien et al. (2012)

Expecta-tions of others at work



Practical enhancement




113




Measure ** Study

Contextual level

Individual level

Social context


+ p Chien et al. (2012)

Attitude towards using DLMs

Intention to use DLMs


Subjective norm regarding using DLMs



Self-efficacy regarding using DLMs



Teachers’ self-efficacy

Using practices or methods that are not common for the subject or teaching context

+ c Nemeržit-ski et al. (2013)



















Well-being Experimenting and reflecting

- p Thoonen et al. (2011)

Tolerance of uncertainty

Experimenting and reflecting

+ p Thoonen et al. (2011)

Internalization of school goals

Experimenting and reflecting

n.s. p Thoonen et al. (2011)

Teacher self-efficacy Experimenting and reflecting


C H A P T E R 5

114




Measure ** Study

Contextual level

Individual level

Well-being Keeping up to date


Tolerance of uncertainty

Keeping up to date


Internalization of school goals

Keeping up to date


Teacher self-efficacy Keeping up to date


Teacher self-efficacy Classroom technology use

n.s. r Vannatta & Fordham (2004)

Number of hours worked beyond the contractual work week

Classroom technology use

+ r Vannatta & Fordham (2004)

Number of hours of technology training

Classroom technology use


Openness to change Classroom technology use


Teacher self-efficacy Use of student response system technology

- r Waller (2008)

Self-reflection Use of student response system technology

+ r Waller (2008)

Openness to change Use of student response system technology

+ r Waller (2008)

* n.s. = not significant ** c = correlation; f = field notes; i = interviews; o = observations; p = path models; r = regression; v = variance analyses

Findings based on other or unclear theoretical perspectives

Results of studies built on other theoretical perspectives were difficult to compare because the frameworks used varied from an individual perspective (i.e. teachers’ innovativeness or the extent in which they could be considered as early adopters of innovations; Loogma et al., 2012), to a job-related perspective (i.e. characteristics of motivating jobs; Uluyol & Şa-hin, 2014). In the case of early adoption of innovations, perceived convenience resulting from the use of the innovation seemed to affect teachers’ innovativeness (Loogma et al.,


115

2012). Teachers’ innovativeness was not only examined by Loogma et al. (2012), but also by Jackson (2007), who found that the presence of teacher motivation to innovate related to higher levels of innovativeness. Uluyol and Şahin (2012) found that personal expectations, support from colleagues and other sources, and perceived benefits for students influenced teachers’ ICT use. Similarly, Gay Van Duzor (2011), whose study did not have a strong theoretical framework, found that perceived benefits for students enhanced teachers’ innovative behaviour. Some evidence of the relevance of personal attributes such as initiative, self-efficacy, love of learning, and interest in one’s profession was provided by Lohman (2006), who concluded that these four aspects enhanced teachers’ engagement in informal interactive learning activities. Most studies focused on positive motivational forces or reasons that lead to innovative behaviour. In the study of Emo (2010), teachers not only acted innovatively due to positive internal or external forces, they also acted innovatively because of dissatisfaction, for ex-ample due to the failure of textbooks or personal boredom. Such findings also add to our understanding of why teachers engage in innovative behaviour at work. All in all, apart from constructs derived from mainstream motivational theories other aspects emerged that might prove to have added value to investigate factors that affect teachers’ innovative behaviour. Those factors include for example teachers’ perceptions of benefits for their students or dissatisfaction with current materials such as textbooks. Table 5.5 summarizes the findings from studies using other or unclear theoretical perspectives. Table 5.5 Motivational factors leading to innovative behaviour related outcomes, based on other or unclear per-spectives




Measure ** Study Contextual level Individual level

Failure of textbooks

Self-initiated innovation

+ i Emo (2010)

Desire to increase student learning


+ i Emo (2010)

Personal boredom


+ I Emo (2010)

Teacher learning regarding activity, content, and pedagogy

Transfer of concepts and activities of a professional development course to the classroom

+ f, i, o Gay Van Duzor (2011)

C H A P T E R 5

116





Perceived benefits for student learning

Transfer of concepts and activities of a professional development course to the classroom

+ f, i, o Gay Van Duzor (2011)

Principals’ individualized consideration

Level of innovativeness

+ v Jackson (2007)

Presence of motivation to innovate

Level of innovativeness

+ v Jackson (2007)

Initiative Engagement in informal learning to learn something new at work

+ v Lohman (2006)

Self-efficacy Engagement in informal learning to learn something new at work

+ v Lohman (2006)

Love of learning Engagement in informal learning to learn something new at work

+ v Lohman (2006)

Interest in own subject area or professional field

Engagement in informal learning activities to learn something new at work

+ v Lohman (2006)

Perceived convenience resulting from the use of e-learning

Early adoption of innovations

+ r Loogma et al. (2012)

Personal expectations (students’ attention and involvement, time, making the job easier, etc.)

Teacher ICT use + i Uluyol & Şahin (2014)


117





Colleagues who suggest, encourage or inspire other teachers


Support from web-sites, colleagues, printed materials, seminars, ICT-coordinators and school ad-ministrators


Perceived benefits for students


* n.s. = not significant ** c = correlation; f = field notes; i = interviews; o = observations; p = path models; r = regression; v = variance analyses


The aim of this review study was to investigate the use of motivational constructs and un-derlying theoretical models in studies on teacher innovative behaviour, and to clarify moti-vational processes that have a positive or negative impact on teachers’ innovative behav-iour. A systematic literature review (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006) was performed to investi-gate theoretical perspectives and concepts used in empirical studies on this matter and to examine motivational factors that either stimulate or hinder teachers’ innovative behav-iour. After applying our criteria for inclusion and exclusion 22 studies were used in this review. Our main finding regarding the use of theoretical perspectives and concepts is that studies differ in their underlying theoretical frameworks and, as a result, in the way con-cepts, definitions, and measures are used to study motivational factors. Moreover, in some cases no explicit framework is given to define or operationalize these constructs. Because many different measures and measurement instruments are used, difficulties arise in com-paring findings or making statements based on strong empirical evidence. These findings are in line with previous statements that in studies on teacher motivation the use of robust theoretical frameworks and measures appears to be lacking (Richardson & Watt, 2010). In addition to differences in the way motivational concepts are defined and studied, differ-

C H A P T E R 5

118

ences also exist in the quality of empirical studies, which makes it difficult to simply add up results of studies in this field. Regarding the theoretical frameworks and corresponding constructs encountered to explore teachers’ motivation and self-efficacy in relation to innovative behaviour, this liter-ature study shows that, as could be expected, most frameworks are derived from theories with either a focus on (intrinsic) motivation or a focus on expectancies and values. SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000) appears to be an appealing theory to study motivational influ-ences on teachers’ innovative behaviour. The empirical evidence to support elements of this theory seems to be relatively strong and reveals that autonomous motivation is an important factor in explaining and predicting teachers’ innovative behaviour. An important construct within expectancy-related theories is self-efficacy. Although this study intended to gather state of the art knowledge on teachers’ occupational self-efficacy, studies on this kind of self-efficacy were not found in this review study. Most of the studies that focused on this concept examined teacher self-efficacy, i.e. teachers’ judgement on their ability to influence student engagement and student learning positively (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). The empirical evidence regarding the effect that teacher self-efficacy has on innovative behaviour appears to be inconsistent. One of the reasons might be that teachers’ innovative behaviour often, and contrary to our initial conceptual-ization of this construct, focuses on a specific innovation or activity related to classroom practices. Studies on self-efficacy with the same level of task specificity as the behaviour at hand might lead to less inconsistent results.

Future research

Motivation is a complex and multifaceted concept. On the one hand motivation refers to internal psychological processes that do or do not lead to certain actions. On the other hand it is also viewed as an external source of stimulation experienced by individuals. Both individual psychological processes and more external factors were found in the included studies. This resonates with theoretical frameworks such as the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) or Deci and Ryans’ SDT (1985; 2000), that state that proximal variables mediate between distal and behavioural variables. Combining both proximal and distal variables to fully grasp how teachers’ innovative behaviour can be supported or stimulated is therefore recommended. Both quantitative and qualitative studies were included in this review study. Most of the quantitative studies were cross-sectional of nature, which makes it difficult to fully establish causal relationships between motivational constructs and innovative behaviour. Although the empirical evidence needs strengthening with regards to the different motiva-tion related concepts, it seems reasonable to conclude that there is a link between (auton-omous) motivation and innovative behaviour. However, more longitudinal and advanced quantitative research and analysis methods are needed to establish causality. Existing theories on motivation may provide useful concepts to address the question to what extent different motivational constructs explain engagement in innovative behaviour.


119

Two main groups of motivational theories emerged in this review: theories based on intrin-sic motivation and on expectancies and values. Other frameworks may also lead to valuable insights. For instance theoretical frameworks concerning goals and goal orientation might be interesting to examine as well. Although goal related concepts were not explicitly ad-dressed in this review study, the empirical findings of Thoonen et al. (2011) give reason to believe that for example internalization of school goals contributes to certain aspects of innovative behaviour. Additional review studies are recommended to gain more insight of the usefulness of other motivational perspectives. Not every study in this review was based on a clear theoretical framework. This is not necessarily worrisome. Building on established theories is only one way of examining moti-vational or behavioural issues. Another fruitful way may be to apply a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), that is to stepwise construct a theory based on gathered data. This more explorative approach may lead to the discovery of interesting factors that are new to existing theories. Both theory driven quantitative and qualitative approaches and grounded theory approaches are useful to enrich our understanding of motivational processes.

Practical implications

Because of the differences in the theories and constructs used in the reviewed studies, cautiousness is needed when drawing conclusions regarding the effects of some of the frameworks or constructs used. However, based on the results of this review study some implications for practice can be derived, even though overall empirical support for some of the findings or of the underlying theoretical assumptions needs strengthening. As the SDT-based studies showed, teachers’ autonomous or self-determined motivation does affect teachers’ innovative behaviour. Administrators, supervisors, and relevant others can con-tribute to favourable circumstances that supports this motivation. Such favourable circum-stances are characterized by providing teachers autonomy and choice with regards to inno-vative behaviour at work, and by making them feel competent to act innovatively at work. Although support of co-workers might be helpful as well, supervisors or school principals seem to play a key role in creating an autonomy supportive work culture in schools. How-ever, within such a work culture it is important to keep in mind what is meant by innovative behaviour of teachers. If a general willingness to come up with new ideas, to promote new technologies or to implement new methods is intended, a more general level of support may contribute to that willingness. If innovative behaviour is aimed at a specific approach or novelty, it is recommended to provide support that sufficiently addresses the associated specific motivational level regarding this kind of innovative behaviour. This study focused on innovative behaviour in the sense of self-initiated creation, in-troduction, and implementation of new ideas, methods or technologies in educational practice. This kind of behaviour is considered to be essential in dealing with changing pro-fessions, changing technologies, and other challenges in society. One of the main questions

C H A P T E R 5

120

in education nowadays is how to better prepare students to learn, work, and live in a socie-ty that is characterized by change, i.e. to acquire what are known as 21st century skills. Teachers who themselves are open to change and who act innovatively at work can be powerful examples for students. Gaining more understanding of how to support and en-courage innovative behaviour is an important step to be able to better equip teachers and students for the future.


121

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the review. Aangenendt, M. (2015). Understanding changes in employees’ identification and professional identity (Doctoral

dissertation). Enschede, the Netherlands: Twente University. * Abrami, P. C., Poulsen, C., & Chambers, B. (2004). Teacher motivation to implement an educational innovation:

factors differentiating users and non-users of cooperative learning. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 24, 201-216.

Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (2013). Kiezen voor Kenniswerkers [In Favour of Knowledge Workers]. The Hague, the Netherlands: AWT.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior,

10, 123-167. * Assor, A. (2009). Enhancing teachers’ motivation to apply humanist information technology innovations. Policy

Futures in Education, 7, 662-669. Aukes, L. C., Geertsma, J., Cohen-Schotanus, J., Zwierstra, R. P., & Slaets, J. P. (2007). The development of a scale

to measure personal reflection in medical practice and education. Medical Teacher, 29, 177-182. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2002). Growing primacy of human agency in adaptation and change in the electronic era. European

Psychologist, 7, 2-16. * Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student

learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39, 395-414. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model.

MIS Quarterly, 25, 351-370. Bloom, P. J. (1989). Professional orientation: Individual and organizational perspectives. Child and Youth Care

Quarterly, 18, 227-242. Boekaerts, M., Van Nuland, H. J. C., & Martens, R. L. (2010). Perspectives on motivation: What mechanisms ener-

gise students’ behaviour in the classroom. In J. Kleine Staarman, K. Littleton, & C. Wood (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology. (pp. 535-569) Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Chen, C. P., Lai, H. M., & Ho, C. Y. (2015). Why do teachers continue to use teaching blogs? The roles of perceived voluntariness and habit. Computers & Education, 82, 236-249.

* Chien, H-M., Kao, Ch-P., Yeh, I-J., Lin, K-Y. (2012). Examining the relationship between teachers' attitudes and motivation toward web-based professional development: A structural equation modeling approach. The Turk-ish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11, 120-127.

Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 , 319-340.

Davis, J., & Wilson, S. M. (2000). Principals' efforts to empower teachers: Effects on teacher motivation and job satisfaction and stress. The Clearing House, 73, 349-353.

De Brabander, C. J., & Martens, R. L. (2014). Towards a unified theory of task-specific motivation. Educational Research Review, 11, 27-44.

De Jong, J. P. J., & Kemp, R. (2003). Determinants of co-workers’ innovative behaviour: An investigation into knowledge intensive services. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7, 189-212.

Deci, E. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory

perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119-142. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York/London:

Plenum Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of

behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

C H A P T E R 5

122

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132. * Emo, W. (2010). Teachers who initiate curriculum innovations: motivations and benefits (Doctoral dissertation).

York, University of York. Fernet, C., Senecal, C., Guay, F., Marsh, H., & Dowson, M. (2008). The work tasks motivation scale for teachers

(WTMST). Journal of Career Assessment, 16, 256-279. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York:

Psychology Press. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture o f change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gagné, M. (2009). A model of knowledge-sharing motivation. Human Resource Management, 48(4), 571-589. * Gay Van Duzor, A. (2011). Capitalizing on teacher expertise: Motivations for contemplating transfer from profes-

sional development to the classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 363-374. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New

York, NY: Aldine. Goddard, R. G., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy: Theoretical development, empirical

evidence, and future directions. Educational Researchers, 33, 2-13. * Gorozidis, G., & Papaioannou, A. (2014). Teachers' motivation to participate in training and to implement inno-

vations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, 1-11. * Grove, C.M. (2008). The importance of values-alignment within a role-hierarchy to foster teacher's motivation for

implementing professional development. PhD Thesis. Tallahassee, FL: University of Florida. * Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Integrating educational technology into the secondary science teaching.

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 12, 162-183. Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Harris, J. (2006). From psychological need satisfaction to intentional

behavior: Testing a motivational sequence in two behavioral contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-tin, 32, 131-148.

Huber, G. L., & Rollinger-Doyen, C. (1989). Orientierungsstil und soziale interaktion [Style of orientation and social interaction] (Bericht über das DFG-Projekt HU 348/5-1). Tübingen, Germany: Universität Tübingen.

Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4, 58-65.

Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Employee and supervisor ratings of motivation: Main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and adjustment in a factory setting. Journal of Ap-plied Social Psychology, 23, 1789-1805.

* Jackson, M. K. (2007). Explorations in innovativeness among teachers in low-socioeconomic, high-performing elementary schools and low-socioeconomic, low-performing elementary schools (Doctoral dissertation). Mo-bile, AL, University of South Alabama.


Janssen, O. (2005). The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor supportiveness on employee innovative behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 573-579.

Kao, C.-P., & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). Teacher’s attitudes toward web-based professional development, with relation to internet self-efficacy and beliefs about web-based learning. Computers & Education, 53, 66-73.

Kao, C.-P., Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). Elementary school teachers’ motivation toward web-based professional development, and the relationship with Internet self-efficacy and belief about web-based learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 406-415.

Kasser, T., Davey, J., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Motivation and employee-supervisor discrepancies in a psychiatric vocational-rehabilitation setting. Rehabilitation Psychology, 37, 175-188.

Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher efficacy research 1998-2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 21-43.

Knowles, K. T. (1999). The effect of teacher engagement on student achievement and motivation (NELS:88, eighthgrade, tenth-grade). (Doctoral dissertation, University of Vol. 37, No. 2, 2010 Maryland, College Park, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 1010.


123


* Kreijns, K., Vermeulen, M., Van Acker, F., & Van Buuren, H. (2014). Predicting teachers’ use of digital learning materials: Combining self-determination theory and the integrative model of behaviour prediction. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 465-478.

* Lam, S. F., Cheng, R. W., & Choy, H. C. (2010). School support and teacher motivation to implement project-based learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 487-497.

Lam, S. F., Cheng, R. W., & Ma, W. Y. (2009). Teacher and student motivation in project-based learning. Instruc-tional Science, 37, 565-578.

Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first centu-ry. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516.

Leithwood, K., Dart, B., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1993). Building commitment for change and fostering organiza-tional learning (Final report for phase 4 of the Implementing British Columbia’s Education Policy research pro-ject). Victoria, Canada: British Columbia Ministry of Education.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Mascall, B. (2002). A framework for research on large scale reform. Journal of Educa-tional Change, 3, 7-33.

* Lohman, M. C. (2006). Factors influencing teachers' engagement in informal learning activities. Journal of Work-place Learning, 18, 141-156.

* Loogma, K., Krussvall, J., & Ümarik, M. (2012). E-learning as innovation: Exploring innovativeness of the VET teachers’ community in Estonia. Computers & Education, 58, 808-817.

Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1994). Computers and teachers: factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 220-237.

Martin, L. P. (2004). Inventory o f barriers to creative thought and innovative action. In J.Gordon (Ed.), Pfeiffer’s classic inventories, questionnaires, and surveys for training and development (pp. 87-100). Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons.

Messmann, G., & Mulder, R. H. (2012). Development of a measurement instrument for innovative work behaviour as a dynamic and context-bound construct. Human Resource Development International, 15, 43-59.

* Messmann, G., & Mulder, R. H. (2014). Exploring the role of target specificity in the facilitation of vocational teachers' innovative behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 80-101.

Mulford D. R.,& Robinson W. R. (2002) An inventory for alternate conceptions among first-semester general chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 79, 739-744.

* Nemeržitski, S., Loogma, K., Heinla, E., & Eisenschmidt, E. (2013). Constructing model of teachers’ innovative behaviour in school environment. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19, 398-418.

Neves de Jesus, S. & Lens, W. (2005). An integrated model for the study of teacher motivation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 119-134.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.

OECD. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: first results from TALIS. Teaching and learn-ing international survey. OECD.

Pelletier, L. G., Séguin-Lévesque, C., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as deter-minants of teacher’s motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 186-196.


Richardson, P. W., & Watt, H. M. G. (2010). Current and future directions in teacher motivation research. In T. C. Urdan & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.). The Decade Ahead: Applications and Contexts of Motivation and Achieve-ment; Advances in Motivation and Achievement, Volume 16B (pp. 139-173). Bingley, U.K.: Emerald.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: examining reasons for acting in

two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749-761.

C H A P T E R 5

124

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social dvel-opment, and well-being, American Psychologist, 55, 68-76.




Seegers, G., van Putten, C. M., & de Brabander, C. J. (2002). Goal orientation, perceived task outcome and task demands in mathematic tasks: Effects on students’ attitude in actual task settings. British Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 72, 365-384.

* Sørebø, Ø., Halvari, H., Gulli, V. F., & Kristiansen, R. (2009). The role of self-determination theory in explaining teachers’ motivation to continue to use e-learning technology. Computers & Education, 53, 1177-1187.

Spreitzer, G. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.

* Thoonen, E., Sleegers, P., Oort, F., Peetsma, Th., & Geijsel, F. (2011). How to improve teaching practices: the role of teacher motivation, organizational factors and leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 496-536.


Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The rele-vance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591-620.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight ''Big-Tent'' criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative In-quiry, 16, 837-851.

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


Turner, A. N. & Lawrence, P. R. (1965). Industrial jobs and the worker: an investigation of response to task attrib-utes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Division of Research.

* Uluyol, Ç., & Şahin, S. (2014). Elementary school teachers' ICT use in the classroom and their motivators for using ICT. British Journal of Educational Technology. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12220


Van Dinther, M. (2014). Student-teacher self-efficacy and student perceptions of assessment in competence based education (doctoral thesis). Leuven: KU Leuven.

Van Woerkom, M. (2003). Critical reflection at work. Bridging individual and organisational learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.

Vannatta, R. A., & O’Bannon, B. (2002). Beginning to put the pieces together: A technology infusion model for teacher education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18, 112-123.

* Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 253-271.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. * Wagner, B. D., & French, L. (2010). Motivation, work satisfaction, and teacher change among early childhood

teachers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 24, 152-171. * Waller, L. D. (2008). An investigation of relationships among teacher efficacy, reflective practice, openness to change,

and use of student response system technology (doctoral thesis). Columbia: University of South Carolina. Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91.

125

CHAPTER 6

General conclusions and discussion

C H A P T E R 6

126

6.1 Introduction

This thesis aims to shed light on motivational processes that serve as a predictor for teach-ers’ innovative behaviour. This focus on motivation and innovative behaviour is largely based on questions raised in a multi-annual cooperation between a Dutch school board and the Open University (see also Chapter 1). An important question in this cooperation in-volved teachers’ intrinsic motivation and innovative behaviour, and the factors that support these motivational and behavioural constructs. Innovative behaviour is considered to be important in dealing effectively with the changes that occur in our knowledge society, such as changes in technologies and profes-sions. These changes impose various challenges on educational organisations and profes-sionals. They also provide interesting opportunities, for example regarding the use of tech-nical devices in teacher education when providing immediate performance feedback (Co-ninx, 2014). One of the main responsibilities of our educational system is to prepare children and young adults to adequately deal with the challenges of our time. In order to provide high quality education that prepares students for their future, teachers are expected to engage in professional development activities. In addition, more emphasis is being placed on teachers’ innovative behaviour. This kind of work-related behaviour can be described as generating, introducing and implementing new ideas at work in order to improve individu-al, team or organisational performance (Janssen, 2000). Teachers have often been ex-pected to simply implement what others outside their own school settings have come up with (Jochems, 2007). In contrast, innovative behaviour is a professional behaviour that refers to self-initiated actions of teachers, aiming to address issues that in their opinion need to be addressed or improved in class or within the school organisation. Teachers need to be innovative to keep up to date in a changing society, to deal with new technologies or educational insights and to set a good example for students (Thurlings, Evers, & Vermeulen, 2015). Teachers may have different reasons to engage in innovative behaviour. Teachers dissatisfaction with learning outcomes, or the effects of current teach-ing methods, turned out to be important starting points for individual learning activities (Meirink, Meijer, Verloop, & Bergen, 2009), and may serve as a driver behind innovative behaviour as well. Acknowledging the importance of innovative behaviour is one thing, knowing what predicts or how to encourage this behaviour is another. Predicting human behaviour is difficult. It is a complex endeavour which can be approached from different angles and on many levels (Ajzen, 1991). An important psychological concept that functions as a predictor of behaviour is motivation. Motivation can be described as an internal process that not only stimulates behaviour but also gives direction to and helps to persist in that behaviour (Woolfolk, Hughes, & Walkup, 2008). One of the challenges in studying motivation involves the number of theories on moti-vation. Boekaerts, Van Nuland, and Martens (2010) for example identified 36 different

G E N E R A L C O N C L U S I O N S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

127

theories used in educational settings. Recently attempts have been made to integrate dif-ferent theoretical perspectives (e.g., De Brabander & Martens, 2014; Gagné, 2009; Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2009; Kreijns, Vermeulen, Van Acker, & Van Buuren, 2014) to provide a more complete framework to capture motivational processes. Combining perspectives and theories helps to advance the field of studying human motivation (De Brabander & Mar-tens, 2014). Therefore this thesis focused on elements from two often-used theoretical perspectives on motivation, namely constructs derived from the Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000) and expectancy-related perspectives. Elements of these two perspectives were used as key constructs in each study in this thesis. In the first study, a conceptual model was constructed and tested to examine the impact of satisfaction of the basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness), intrinsic motiva-tion for working as teacher, and occupational self-efficacy on the innovative behaviour of teachers (see Chapter 2). In Chapter 3 this model was expanded by adding two school or-ganisational factors: transformational leadership and participative decision making. Building on the findings of these two studies, the study described in Chapter 4 took a more exten-sive look at motivation. In this study two types of motivation were examined, namely au-tonomous and controlled motivation. In addition, this study focused on teachers’ motiva-tion for professional development, occupational self-efficacy, and social pressure regarding innovative behaviour. In Chapter 5 evidence of other empirical studies on the impact of motivation and self-efficacy on the innovative behaviour of teachers was examined and presented. The final chapter (Chapter 6) starts with presenting and elaborating on the main results of this thesis. Subsequently limitations will be discussed, and suggestions for future research will be provided. Finally, both theoretical and practical implications will be pre-sented.

6.2 Overview of the main results

The main question underlying this thesis was: How do teachers’ perceptions of the work environment and individual motivational processes serve as a predictor for teachers’ inno-vative behaviour at work? Four specific research questions were addressed in order to answer this main question: 1. How do basic psychological need satisfaction, occupational self-efficacy, and intrinsic

motivation predict teachers’ innovative behaviour? 2. How do transformational leadership and teachers’ involvement in decision making

within their schools influence their innovative behaviour at work, and can this influence be explained by a sequence of motivational processes?

3. To what extent does a combination of motivational constructs regarding teachers’ motivation for professional development, occupational self-efficacy, and social pres-sure provide a model to predict teachers’ innovative behaviour?

C H A P T E R 6

128

4. What concepts are used to study motivation and occupational self-efficacy in the con-text of teachers’ innovative behaviour, and what motivational factors stimulate or hin-der that behaviour?

These four research questions correspond to the previous four chapters of the thesis. In the following sections the results are summarized per research question.

Results RQ 1: How do basic psychological need satisfaction, occupational self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation predict teachers’ innovative behaviour?

To answer this question a conceptual model was constructed based on theoretical assump-tions and empirical findings. This model hypothesized that support of the three basic psy-chological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000) con-tributes positively to feelings of intrinsic motivation for working as a teacher and to occupa-tional self-efficacy, which in turn both lead to innovative behaviour at work. In the case of occupational self-efficacy it was also hypothesized that this would not only predict innova-tive behaviour, but also intrinsic motivation. A cross-sectional survey study among a sample of teachers in Dutch primary, secondary, and vocational education was conducted (n = 2,385). Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to test the conceptual model. Due to difficulties in replicating the three factor structure to measure the three basic needs separately, an overall scale measuring basic need satisfaction was constructed and used to test the model. Results showed that both intrinsic motivation and occupational self-efficacy had a direct effect on innovative behaviour. However, occupational self-efficacy appeared to be a stronger predictor for innovative behaviour than intrinsic motiva-tion. In other words, feeling confident in dealing with future changes in the teaching job leads to behaving more innovatively at work. In addition, results showed that basic psycho-logical need satisfaction is not only relevant for teachers’ intrinsic motivation, as is predict-ed by SDT, but even more for teachers’ occupational self-efficacy. In sum, this study re-vealed teachers’ occupational self-efficacy as a strong determinant for innovative behav-iour, which in turn can be strengthened by satisfaction of teachers’ basic psychological needs.

RQ2: How do transformational leadership and teachers’ involvement in decision making within their schools influence their innovative behaviour at work, and can this influence be explained by a sequence of motivational processes?

The second research question was answered by means of a cross-sectional survey among secondary education teachers within one school board (n = 1,049). SEM was used to ana-lyse the data. The findings of this study confirmed the results of the study in Chapter 2 with regard to the impact of basic psychological need satisfaction, occupational self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and teachers’ innovative behaviour. In addition, the findings showed that these motivational constructs contributed to explaining the impact of transformational leadership


129

and participative decision making on the innovative behaviour of teachers. In fact, the stud-ied motivational processes fully mediated the relationship between transformational lead-ership and innovative behaviour. In other words, transformational leadership appeared to affect innovative behaviour through the studied motivational processes. This led to the conclusion that transformational leadership encourages innovative behaviour in teachers through the satisfaction of their basic psychological needs, which in turn supports their occupational self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation. Participative decision making not only influenced teachers’ innovative behaviour indi-rectly through the studied motivational processes, but also directly. The relationship be-tween participative decision making and innovative behaviour was therefore partially me-diated by these motivational processes. The direct effect of participative decision making on teachers’ innovative behaviour was however less strong than the effect on the satisfac-tion of basic psychological needs. In sum, based on this study it can be concluded that when school organisations suc-ceed in creating an environment in which teachers’ basic psychological needs are satisfied to a high degree, those teachers are more intrinsically motivated and experience higher levels of occupational self-efficacy. As a result, teachers may behave more innovatively at work. Transformational leadership and participative decision making appeared be useful organisational conditions for supporting teachers’ basic psychological needs.

RQ 3: To what extent does a combination of motivational constructs regarding teachers’ motivation for professional development, occupational self-efficacy, and social pressure provide a model to predict teachers’ innovative behaviour?

The first two empirical studies focused on teachers’ intrinsic motivation for working as a teacher. In both studies intrinsic motivation for being a teacher did not appear to be a strong predictor of teachers’ innovative behaviour. Therefore a different focus was chosen in the third empirical study a different focus was chosen. Different types of motivation were included, namely autonomous motivation (which also entails intrinsic motivation) and controlled motivation. Autonomous motivation refers to engaging in activities or behaviour from a full sense of volition and choice. As such it also includes intrinsic motivation. Con-trolled motivation refers to engaging in activities or behaviour driven by controlling pro-cesses, such as external pressure and evaluation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In addition, this third empirical study focused on teachers’ motivation for informal professional development activities, such as keeping up to date and experimenting. These kinds of activities can be considered to be related to innovative behaviour. From an expectancy-related perspective and in addition to occupational self-efficacy, this study included perceived social pressure as a possible predictor for innovative behaviour. A conceptual model was constructed, in which it was hypothesized that satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs would affect innovative behaviour through an interaction of occupational self-efficacy, autono-mous motivation, controlled motivation, and social pressure. To test the conceptual model,

C H A P T E R 6

130

SEM was used to analyse cross-sectional survey data gathered from teachers working in secondary education throughout the country (n = 1,953). The strongest path found in the final model of this study showed that autonomy satis-faction strongly predicted autonomous motivation, which in turn predicted innovative be-haviour. This finding supports the notion that when the need for autonomy is supported adequately, people are more likely to authentically or voluntarily engaged in desired behav-iour or activities (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The second strongest path that emerged in the final model pointed out that compe-tence satisfaction influenced innovative behaviour positively via occupational self-efficacy. Experiencing satisfaction of the need for feeling competent while engaging in professional development activities apparently affects teachers’ beliefs in their ability to handle changes or difficulties in their job. This in turn contributes to higher levels of innovative behaviour at work. Contrary to our expectations, social pressure did not function as a predictor for teach-ers’ innovative behaviour. Experienced pressure to behave innovatively did predict con-trolled motivation, but neither social pressure nor controlled motivation had significant impact on innovative behaviour. In sum, the results of this study revealed that both occu-pational self-efficacy and autonomy-supportive motivational processes underlying profes-sional development contributed to innovative behaviour at work. Controlling motivational constructs, such as controlled motivation and social pressure, did not affect innovative behaviour. In addition, it appeared that satisfaction of the needs for autonomy and compe-tence played an important part in predicting motivational constructs that lead to innovative behaviour.

RQ 4: What concepts are used to study motivation and occupational self-efficacy in the context of teachers’ innovative behaviour, and what motivational factors stimulate or hinder that behaviour?

Although the answers to the three previous research questions helped to gain more knowledge on motivational processes that predict teachers’ innovative behaviour, they also raised new questions. Therefore, in addition to our own empirical studies, a systematic literature review was performed to further clarify motivational processes that influence teachers’ innovative behaviour, and to investigate the use of motivational constructs and underlying theoretical models in studies on teachers’ innovative behaviour. In sum, 22 studies were included in the review. Findings showed that studies differed in their underly-ing theoretical frameworks and in the way theories, concepts and measures were used. Overall three groups of studies emerged: studies based on intrinsic motivation related perspectives, studies using expectancy-value related perspectives, and studies with no or unclear theoretical perspectives. Most of the studies based on a theoretical perspective focusing on intrinsic motivation used SDT as a framework. Although these studies incorporated several of the key concepts


131

of SDT, such as the basic psychological needs, and intrinsic or other forms of motivation, the instruments used to measure these constructs varied significantly. Nevertheless, these studies indicated that there is positive link between autonomous motivation and innovative behaviour. Similar to the studies based on perspectives relating to intrinsic motivation, the studies that used expectancy-value related perspectives also varied in the strength and consistent use of their conceptual frameworks, operational definitions and measurement instruments. Although occupational self-efficacy was one of the focal points in this review, none of the included studies focused on this form of self-efficacy. Apparently this kind of self-efficacy is not often studied in the context of teachers’ innovative behaviour. Therefore other forms of self-efficacy were included. Teacher self-efficacy, i.e. teachers’ judgement of their ability to influence student en-gagement and student learning positively (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) was encountered in most of the studies that included self-efficacy. However, the empirical evi-dence regarding the impact of teacher self-efficacy on innovative behaviour appeared to be inconsistent. One of the reasons might be that teachers’ innovative behaviour often, and contrary to our initial conceptualization of this construct, focuses on a specific kind of inno-vation or activity related to classroom practices. Following Vallerand’s model (1997) it can be expected that studies on self-efficacy with the same level of task specificity as the stud-ied behaviour might lead to less inconsistent results. In sum, the findings of this review showed that studies differ in the use of theoretical frameworks, concepts, and measures to study motivational factors. Because different measurement instruments were used, difficulties emerged in comparing findings or draw-ing conclusions based on strong empirical evidence. Nevertheless, SDT did emerge as a frequently used theoretical framework to study teacher motivation in the context of inno-vative behaviour. Studies based on this framework pointed mainly in the same direction, namely that autonomous and intrinsic motivation are relevant predictors for innovative behaviour. The results of this review confirmed the empirical results reported in the previ-ous chapters. In addition, the findings showed the need for creating a robust framework and using robust measurements to study motivation, in order to strengthen the empirical evidence regarding the impact of motivation and self-efficacy on teachers’ innovative be-haviour.

6.3 Main conclusions and discussion

The results of the four studies help to answer the main question underlying this thesis: How do teachers’ perceptions of the work environment and individual motivational processes serve as a predictor for teachers’ innovative behaviour at work? To answer this main ques-tion comparison and discussion of the results of the different studies are needed.

C H A P T E R 6

132

This section starts with a comparison of the results of the first two empirical studies. The first study, which was performed among primary, secondary, and vocational education teachers (see Chapter 2), concentrated on basic psychological need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation for the teaching job, and occupational self-efficacy. The model tested in the second study (see Chapter 3) included two school organisational variables, in order to study their impact on the motivational processes leading to innovative behaviour. This second study was performed among secondary education teachers working within one school board. After comparing the findings of these first two studies, we compare and discuss these findings with the results of our third empirical study. This study (see Chapter 4) fo-cused on autonomous and controlled motivation for engaging in professional development activities, and examined social pressure as a predictor of innovative behaviour. Subsequent-ly the empirical findings of this thesis are compared and enriched with the findings of the systematic literature review (see Chapter 5). This section ends with an overall conclusion in order to answer the main question of this thesis.

Intrinsic motivation for being a teacher, occupational self-efficacy, and innovative behaviour

Intrinsic motivation is considered an important motivational mechanism for creating new ideas and finding ways of making improvements at work (De Jong & Kemp, 2003; Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003). The first two empirical studies indeed showed that teachers’ intrinsic motivation for being a teacher functions as a predictor for innovative behaviour. However, it appears that other motivational mechanisms are more relevant in predicting innovative behaviour. The final models in Chapter 2 and 3 showed that teachers’ occupational self-efficacy affected their innovative behaviour more than their intrinsic motivation for being a teacher. In other words, true interest and enjoyment in working as a teacher may indeed result in higher levels of innovative behaviour. However, when studied in combination with occupational self-efficacy, the relation between intrinsic motivation and innovative behav-iour appeared to be weak. Compared to the predictive value of intrinsic motivation, occu-pational self-efficacy turned out to be a strong predictor of innovative behaviour. This em-phasizes the importance of teachers’ beliefs in their ability to face changes or unforeseen situations in their occupation. It also shows that combining SDT with constructs derived from other theoretical perspectives helps to increase our understanding of motivational processes underlying innovative behaviour in teachers.

Overall basic psychological need satisfaction and school organisational aspects

SDT is based on the premises that by supporting or thwarting people's innate basic psycho-logical needs, social environments can either support or hinder intrinsic and autonomous motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Those three psychological needs - autonomy, competence, and relatedness - are considered essential for psychological growth and well-being (Deci &


133

Ryan, 2000). In all three empirical studies models were tested that included the satisfaction of basic psychological needs. The models in studies 1 and 2 used an overall scale to meas-ure this basic psychological need satisfaction in teachers. The results of these first two studies indicated that innovative behaviour was mostly influenced by occupational self-efficacy, which in turn was positively affected by the satisfaction of basic psychological needs. This satisfaction not only supports teachers’ intrinsic motivation, as posited by SDT, but also their individual beliefs in their ability to handle changes or challenges at work. To our knowledge, this has previously not been investigated. It leads to an important conclusion, namely that when work environments succeed in satisfying teachers’ basic psychological needs, their intrinsic motivation, as well as their occupational self-efficacy, will be supported. Study 2 focused on two aspects of a work environment that might help to support the satisfaction of teachers’ basic psychological needs. The results showed that transforma-tional leadership predicts basic psychological need satisfaction of teachers. Similar findings also emerged in a study outside an educational setting (Kovjanic, Schuh, Jonas, Quaque-beke, & Van Dick, 2012). In addition, participation in decision making not only predicted basic psychological need satisfaction, but, contrary to transformational leadership, also directly predicted innovative behaviour. This result stresses the importance of examining psychological processes that often have been considered as a ‘black box’ between for ex-ample transformational leadership and several work-related outcomes (Aryee, Walumba, Zhou, & Hartnell, 2012; Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004). Based on the findings of Study 2, transformational leadership and participation in decision making appear to be important aspects of a work environment that supports teachers’ basic psychological needs. Such work environments generally help to support high levels of intrinsic motivation and self-determination among employees. In contrast, a controlling work environment, in which little flexibility or discretion is experienced by employees, is associated with decreases in intrinsic motivation and self-determination (Greguras, Diefendorff, Carpenter, & Tröster, 2014).

Autonomous motivation for professional development, occupational self-efficacy, and innovative behaviour

The first two empirical studies focused on teachers’ intrinsic motivation for working as a teacher. Both studies showed that this intrinsic motivation was not a very strong predictor of innovative behaviour. The third empirical study focused on teachers’ motivation for professional development activities, such as keeping up to date by reading literature, par-ticipating in work-related training, experimenting, reflecting and asking for feedback, and collaborating with colleagues in order to improve lessons or school development (Evers, Kreijns & Van der Heijden, accepted). Furthermore, different types of motivation were included, namely autonomous and controlled motivation. The results showed that con-trolled motivation for professional development did not predict innovative behaviour. In contrast, autonomous motivation for professional development appeared to be the most important predictor of innovative behaviour, followed by occupational self-efficacy. This

C H A P T E R 6

134

differs from the results in the first two empirical studies, where occupational self-efficacy turned out to be the strongest predictor of innovative behaviour. However, in all three empirical studies occupational self-efficacy appeared to affect teachers’ innovative behav-iour. The strength of the relationship between occupational self-efficacy and innovative behaviour may however vary, as a result of different operationalisations of other motiva-tional constructs. Based on the first two studies it can be concluded that high levels of occupational self-efficacy support high levels of intrinsic motivation for working as a teacher. However, the third empirical study produced a somewhat different picture. Results of this study showed that occupational self-efficacy does not necessarily have an impact on teachers’ autono-mous motivation for professional development. Occupational self-efficacy may have posi-tive effects on certain aspects of teachers’ motivation, such as intrinsic motivation for the teaching job, but these positive effects appear not to be generalizable across different objects, aspects, and operational definitions of motivational constructs.

Taking a closer look at the three basic psychological needs

All three empirical studies showed that satisfaction of basic psychological needs serves as a predictor for motivational factors that contribute to innovative behaviour. In the third study a different measurement measuring instrument was used that made it possible to examine each basic psychological need separately. This is relevant because the importance of each basic psychological need varies across different types of motivation. In the case of intrinsic motivation for example, both autonomy and competence seem to be more relevant than relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Koestner & Losier, 2002). In the case of autonomous moti-vation, the satisfaction of autonomy and relatedness are considered to be most important (Koestner & Losier, 2002). Strikingly, both competence and relatedness satisfaction did not emerge as significant predictors of autonomous motivation for professional development. Autonomy satisfaction did predict autonomous motivation. Moreover, the higher the level of autonomy satisfaction among teachers, the lower their level of controlled motivation for professional development. In other words, when teachers’ psychological need for experi-encing volition and choice is satisfied, this will lead to types of motivation that are associat-ed with positive outcomes. Although competence satisfaction seemed be not significantly related to autonomous motivation, it did function as a strong predictor for occupational self-efficacy. In addition, and contrary to the basic principles of SDT, the satisfaction of autonomy and, to a lesser extent, relatedness appeared to directly predict innovative behaviour. Some of the studies in the systematic review found direct effects from basic psychological need satisfaction on behavioural aspects (Grove, 2008; Lam, Cheng, & Choy, 2010; Wagner & French, 2010). These findings show that innovative behaviour may be affected directly be perceptions of the social environment, without motivation as a mediating construct.


135

Social pressure and controlled motivation

Both occupational self-efficacy and social pressure are, next to attitude, predictors of be-havioural intentions, which in turn predict actual behaviour (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Social pressure refers to normative beliefs concerning the expected approval or disapproval of important others (individuals or groups) to engage in a certain kind of behav-iour (Ajzen, 1991). This construct was added in our third study. Results of this study indicat-ed that social pressure to engage in innovative behaviour did not predict teachers´ innova-tive behaviour. Social pressure did however lead to higher levels of controlled motivation. Controlled motivation entails those forms of motivation that refer to behaving in a certain way merely to satisfy external demands (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Therefore it is not surprising that social pressure and controlled motivation are related. The conclusion that controlled motivation does not affect innovative behaviour reso-nates with the findings of one of the studies included in our review, in which controlled motivation did not affect teachers’ intentions to be trained in or implement an innovative subject (Gorozidis & Papaioannou, 2014). Furthermore, external rewards such as pay were not associated with autonomous or intrinsic motivation (Wagner & French, 2010). In addi-tion, other researchers found negative links between pressure at work (defined as per-ceived pressure to comply with performance standards, curricula, and colleagues) and teachers’ autonomous motivation (Pelletier, Séguin-Lévesque, & Legault, 2002), and posi-tive links between transactional leadership and controlled motivation (Eyal & Roth, 2011). Transactional leadership refers to a leadership style in which expectations are posed upon followers, and followers are rewarded when those expectations are fulfilled (Bass, 1985). It is a kind of leadership in which leaders demand compliance with internal standards and regulations, and closely monitor their employees’ behaviour (Eyal & Roth, 2011). When innovative behaviour or innovative projects are needed in schools, it is apparently wiser to strengthen teachers’ sense of autonomy, instead of forcing, putting pressure on, or threat-ening teachers with negative consequences (Kessels, 2012).

More on the relevance of motivation and self-efficacy for innovative behaviour

The study by Gorozidis and Papaioannou (2014) was one of the few studies in our system-atic literature review that examined controlling motivational mechanisms as an example of hindering factors. It seems that empirical studies focus more often on factors that stimulate teachers’ innovative behaviour, rather than on factors that might have a negative impact on this kind of behaviour. In the review three kinds of empirical studies emerged: a) studies using a theoretical perspective based on intrinsic motivation such as SDT, b) studies using a theoretical per-spective based on a variety of expectancy-value-based constructs, and c) studies based on no, or on an unclear theoretical perspective. Based on the empirical studies and the sys-tematic literature review in this thesis it can be concluded that SDT is a useful framework to

C H A P T E R 6

136

study motivational processes that impact innovative behaviour, especially when enriched with elements of other theoretical perspectives. In this thesis conceptual models were tested in which constructs derived from SDT were combined with constructs derived from expectancy-related perspectives (i.e. occupa-tional self-efficacy and social pressure). Occupational self-efficacy appeared to be a rele-vant predictor of innovative behaviour in teachers. Although previous studies have illus-trated the relevance of occupational self-efficacy for innovative behaviour (Konermann, 2011; Runhaar, 2008), others found that occupational self-efficacy had no significant im-pact on for example teachers’ entrepreneurial behaviour, i.e. recognizing opportunities, taking initiatives, and taking calculated risks (Van Dam, Schipper, & Runhaar, 2010). Occu-pational self-efficacy may therefore not be the solution to every problem in terms of pre-dicting different kinds of work-related behaviour among teachers. Nevertheless, as regards predicting innovative behaviour, the empirical studies in this thesis show that occupational self-efficacy is a valuable construct to take into account. However, in the systematic litera-ture review no empirical studies were found that included teachers’ occupational self-efficacy. Most of the studies that focused on self-efficacy examined teacher self-efficacy, i.e. the beliefs teachers have regarding their ability to influence student engagement and student learning positively (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The empirical evi-dence regarding the effect of teacher self-efficacy on innovative behaviour seemed to be inconsistent, perhaps due to the operationalisation of self-efficacy in the different studies.

Answering the main research question

This thesis aimed to answer the following main question: How do teachers’ perceptions of the work environment and individual motivational processes serve as a predictor for teach-ers’ innovative behaviour at work? To answer this question we start by taking a look at the individual motivational processes regarding intrinsic motivation for working as a teacher, motivation for professional development, occupational self-efficacy, and social pressure. Based on the studies carried out to answer the underlying research questions, it can be concluded that these individual motivational processes indeed help to predict innovative behaviour. However, there are differences in the relevance of motivational constructs and processes in explaining that behaviour. Two motivational constructs appear to be especially important, namely occupational self-efficacy and autonomous motivation. This shows that not only elements of SDT, but also aspects of expectancy related perspectives contribute to predicting behaviour. Contra-ry to autonomous motivation, which also includes intrinsic motivation, controlled motiva-tion does not function as a predictor for innovative behaviour in teachers. In addition, so-cial pressure also fails to predict innovative behaviour, leading to the conclusion that per-ceived pressure or controlling mechanisms do not have a significant impact on this kind of work-related behaviour.


137

In terms of perceptions of the work environment, this thesis shows that autonomous moti-vation, intrinsic motivation, and occupational self-efficacy are supported by satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs. Nevertheless, not every basic psychological need (au-tonomy, competence, relatedness) appears to be significantly related to these motivational constructs. Satisfaction of the need for autonomy turned out to be a strong and positive predictor for autonomous motivation, and a negative predictor for controlled motivation. Satisfaction of the need for competence turned out to be a strong predictor for occupa-tional self-efficacy. In sum, although differences between the three psychological needs appear to occur in terms of their relevance for various motivational constructs, the satisfac-tion of basic psychological needs does support autonomous and intrinsic motivation, as theorized by SDT. In addition, basic psychological need satisfaction serves as a predictor for occupational self-efficacy, which in turn predicts intrinsic motivation. Basic psychological need satisfaction involves individuals’ perceptions of their environ-ment. Therefore it is important to take aspects of that environment that affect those per-ceptions into account. In this thesis two aspects of teachers’ work environment were in-cluded, namely transformational leadership and participative decision making. Both aspects turned out to have a significant positive impact on the satisfaction of teachers’ basic psy-chological needs. Figure 6.1 on the next page summarizes the main empirical findings of this thesis. It is a graphic summary of the main results found in Chapters 2, 3, and 4.

Figure 6.1 Graphic overview of the empirical findings of this thesis Note: For the ease of exposition in this summarizing figure a threshold value of β > .20 was chosen to include significant paths of each final model of Chapter 2 to 4.

C H A P T E R 6

138

To conclude, perceptions of the work environment serve to predict teachers’ innovative behaviour through different motivational constructs. The most important motivational constructs in terms of predicting innovative behaviour appear to be autonomous motiva-tion for professional development and occupational self-efficacy.

6.4 Limitations and directions for future research

The research reported and discussed in this thesis has certain limitations and raises issues for future research. First, all three empirical studies were based on teachers’ self-ratings. This may have caused common method bias. The extent of this common-method variance depends on type of constructs and the method used to measure these constructs (Don-aldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002; Spector, 2006). The constructs in the empirical studies in this thesis are mainly based on individual perceptions and motivation, which may count as a justification for using mono-method self-reports (Spector, 2006). However, taking into account that the hypothesized models also included a behavioural component, using other measurements or other sources of information such as school principals or colleagues may lead to different outcomes. Second, in all three empirical studies a cross-sectional approach was used and data were gathered at one single point in time. SEM was used to analyse the data. Although this ap-proach helps to understand the associations between predictor and outcome variables or constructs, true causality between the constructs cannot be established (Mueller, 1997). Although many discussions on SEM modelling and establishing causality exist, Bollen and Pearl (2012) emphasized that SEM uses empirical data to test causal assumptions in the model. When the data do not fit the model, this raises doubts about the causal assump-tions. When the data fit the model, the causal assumptions are made plausible. However, several conditions must be met before true cause-effect relations can be established. Ex-amples of these conditions are the temporal precedence of the presumed cause and effect, the non-existence of other plausible explanations, and the correct specification of the di-rection of the causal relation (Kline, 2011). Although the data gathered in the three empirical studies in this thesis fitted the con-ceptual models, and as a result the underlying causal assumptions appear to be plausible, caution is needed in regard to the generalizability of the findings due to the relatively low response rates in the empirical studies. Further research is necessary to strengthen empiri-cal evidence regarding how and which motivational processes support or predict teachers’ innovative behaviour. Future research should also take into account possible reciprocal relationships between motivational and behaviour related constructs: To what extent does innovative behaviour not only function as an outcome variable but also as a predictor for motivational constructs or perceptions of the work environment (Devloo, Anseel, De Beuckelaer, & Salanova, 2015)?


139

Given the nature of the data (correlational and based on self-reports), it is important to realize that the type of motivation teachers experience may affect their perception of the environment. In other words, teachers who are highly motivated may perceive their envi-ronment as more supportive than teachers who are not (Lam et al., 2010). One way to overcome this in future research is to apply a longitudinal or a quasi-experimental design in field studies, instead of a cross-sectional design. Another limitation of this study involves the number of dimensions included in the models. The dimensions were chosen based on theoretical (i.e. derived from relevant theo-retical frameworks), empirical (i.e. based on previous empirical findings), and practical considerations (i.e. inspired by practical questions from a secondary school board). Those considerations contributed to the development of a useful conceptual model, but at the same time limited the perspectives and constructs used in the empirical studies. Other constructs may be relevant in predicting teachers’ innovative behaviour as well, and de-serve attention in future research. On an individual level it may be important to take pro-fessional orientation (Hoyle, 1975), teacher identity (Beijaard, Meijer, & Verloop, 2004) or teacher agency (e.g., Ketelaar, Beijaard, Den Brok, & Boshuizen, 2013; Pyhältö, Pietarinen, & Soini, 2012) into account. Regarding aspects of the school organisation, we recommend that attention is also paid to the impact of non-formal types of leadership, such as teacher leadership (e.g., Muijs & Harris, 2006) and distributed leadership (e.g., Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004; Kessels, 2012). Those kinds of informal leadership practices require leadership skills which may be helpful to engage in innovative behaviour, for instance in order to promote or find support for new ideas. The positive relation between informal leadership practices and skills and innovative behaviour may not only be relevant for teachers on an individual level, but also on the level of a team or work group. The teaching job has evolved into a profession in which teachers need to work together with others, in order to adequately deal with the educational reforms and high demands placed upon them (Hargreaves, 2000). Although this thesis focused on individual perceptions and indi-vidual innovative behaviour, collective or collegial processes may also be relevant in stimu-lating this kind of work-related behaviour within schools. For example, does participating in a professional learning community or in a research group contribute to higher levels of innovative behaviour within that community or group? As a final remark regarding directions for future research, we stress the importance of continuing to develop and optimize robust motivational frameworks, in order to predict and support innovative or other preferred work related behaviour. This helps to strengthen empirical evidence, as well as theory-driven interventions and approaches, and could stimulate teachers to engage in innovative behaviour. It requires the integration of relevant theoretical constructs from different perspectives, such as SDT and expectancy-related perspectives. The construct of occupational self-efficacy seems to be relatively overlooked in educational change and innovation literature, as is the awareness of different levels of generalizability in motivation, as suggested by Vallerand (1997). This is important in devel-oping a more robust framework. In order to test such a framework, robust measurement

C H A P T E R 6

140

instrument are needed. As the literature review in this thesis showed, many different in-struments are used in motivational studies. In several cases those instruments were self-constructed. In addition, sometimes difficulties can be encountered when using existing instruments. For example, in the first study of this thesis, the Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (Kasser, Davey, & Ryan, 1992) failed to adequately measure the three basic psychological needs separately. This led to an adjustment of this original scale into a short-er version to measure overall satisfaction of basic psychological needs at work. This adjust-ed version is useful when an overall score on basic psychological need satisfaction is pre-ferred. However, when aiming to examine the impact of the three basic psychological needs separately, other instruments, such as the scale developed by Chen et al. (2012), which has been validated in four different countries and languages, may be more useful.

6.5 Theoretical and practical implications

Innovative behaviour is receiving increasing attention, both in (international) educational policy and in school organisations. Thurlings et al. (2015) stressed the importance of study-ing innovative behaviour while exploring the interaction between individual characteristics and contextual characteristics, such as school environmental support. Building on SDT and constructs derived from expectancy-related theoretical perspectives, this thesis examines how motivational processes function as a predictor for teachers’ innovative behaviour. SDT posits that all human beings have a natural and constructive tendency to actively strive for personal growth and development. This tendency is however influenced by social-contextual factors, which can either support or thwart the three fundamental psychological needs, namely the need for feeling autonomous, competent, and related to others (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2002). As shown in Chapter 5, this theory appears to provide an appealing framework to study teachers’ innovative behaviour. Nevertheless, in order to find a more extensive explanation of different behavioural aspects, studies have been per-formed in which SDT was combined with other theoretical frameworks and constructs (e.g., Kreijns et al., 2014; Sørebø et al., 2009). This thesis shows that the basic premises of SDT can be confirmed where the relevance of a supportive environment for intrinsic or auton-omous motivation is concerned. However, it also shows that in the search for predictors of teachers’ innovative behaviour, other motivational constructs such as occupational self-efficacy are sometimes even more important. Unfortunately, this occupational self-efficacy of teachers appears to be relatively overlooked in studies on teachers´ innovative behav-iour. In this thesis, motivation and occupational self-efficacy are both viewed as proximal constructs. Proximal constructs are internal variables close to the behaviour at hand. Those proximal constructs affect behaviour and mediate the effect of distal variables on behav-iour (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). They include variables at the level of individual teacher char-acteristics (for example perceived basic psychological need satisfaction) and variables at the


141

level of the work context, i.e. the level of the school organisation (for example leadership and decision making within the school). This thesis shows that, as stated by Fishbein and Ajzen (2010), distal variables affect proximal variables. Two proximal variables stood out in their relevance for predicting teachers’ innovative behaviour, namely autonomous motiva-tion and occupational self-efficacy, each derived from different theoretical perspectives. This emphasizes the need for combining aspects of different theoretical frameworks when aiming to find a more comprehensive understanding of psychologiocal factors that stimu-late or hinder teachers’ innovative behaviour at work. In the search for a robust framework to study interacting motivational constructs that predict or explain innovative behaviour, it is important to take into account proximal and distal variables and the combination of different theoretical perspectives. In addition it is important to be aware of the importance of the level of generality of motivational con-structs in identifying relevant determinants and consequences (Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002). The idea of different levels of generality of motivational constructs stems from Vallerands’ Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation (1997). This model identifies three levels of motivational constructs and consequences: the situational level, the contextual level and the global level. The situational level involves for example motivation to partici-pate in a certain workshop on a certain day. The contextual level refers for example to motivation for working as a teacher in general. The global level is the level of one’s person-ality, and refers to someone’s overall motivational orientation towards his or her environ-ment. Consequences and outcomes are most strongly affected by motivational constructs that are situated on the same level. This thesis yields promising results for further developing a robust theoretical frame-work to predict teachers’ innovative behaviour through motivational processes by means of combining different theoretical perspectives, and examining both distal and proximal varia-bles. Furthermore, next to autonomous motivation, occupational self-efficacy is identified as an important predictor for teachers’ innovative behaviour. The main reason for our focus on occupational self-efficacy is that it is situated on the same level as our conceptualization of innovative behaviour, i.e. the self-initiated generation, introduction and implementation of new ideas at work. As previously pointed out by Thurlings et al. (2015), innovative behaviour is needed for keeping up to date in a rapidly changing society, for dealing with changing technologies and new educational insights, and to set a good example for students. Motivational processes leading to innovative behaviour are important drivers behind providing high quality educa-tion for students which helps to prepare them adequately for their future in this 21st centu-ry. In this thesis, autonomous motivation and occupational self-efficacy have proven to be important predictors for teachers’ innovative behaviour. These predictors can be influ-enced by several aspects of teachers’ work environment. Although it may be tempting for managers, schools, and even governmental organisa-tions to use controlling mechanisms such as social pressure, punishments or rewards, based on this thesis it can be concluded that such motivational mechanisms do not affect

C H A P T E R 6

142

teachers’ innovative behaviour. Overreliance on them may not result in the desired effects, or, even worse, may have counterproductive effects on teachers’ professionalism (Tschan-nen-Moran, 2009). For schools and school leaders it is vital to realize that they are able to create a work environment in which teachers feel they have the opportunity and ability to engage in in-novative behaviour. In such an environment, teachers experience freedom to express their opinions and feel they can make their own professional choices, based on their own exper-tise. In addition, these work environments succeed in giving teachers a sense of accom-plishment, and in providing them with opportunities to learn and to reach their profession-al goals. This requires building a culture of trust within schools, in which teachers’ basic psychological needs are supported and, as a result, autonomous forms of motivation and occupational self-efficacy. This facilitates teachers’ innovative behaviour. Because basic psychological need satisfaction involves teachers’ perceptions of their work environment, creating such a culture does not simply imply giving teachers a certain amount of autonomy in their work. In other words, it is not so much the quantity of auton-omy that counts, but the quality. Individual perceptions of satisfaction of basic psychologi-cal needs can be enhanced by transformational leadership, as shown in Chapter 3. This kind of leadership involves giving attention, intellectual stimulation, and providing a vision, for example regarding the professional culture within the school. In addition, teachers’ basic psychological needs satisfaction and innovative behaviour also benefit from creating oppor-tunities for teachers to participate in decision making processes. In this age of collegial teacher professionalism (Hargreaves, 2000), in which building strong professional and on-going learning cultures is emphasized, teachers themselves should play an active role in shaping such cultures. Such cultures are not only beneficial to teachers, but to their stu-dents as well. Providing high quality education with teachers who are motivated to develop themselves professionally, who feel confident in their ability to deal with unforeseen situa-tions or difficulties, and who engage in self-initiated innovative behaviour, is a shared re-sponsibility of school leaders and teachers.


143

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Zhou, Q., & Hartnell, C. A. (2012). Transformational leadership, innovative behavior, and task performance: Test of mediation and moderation processes. Human Performance, 25, 1-25.


Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teach-ing and Teacher Education, 20, 107-128.

Boekaerts, M., Van Nuland, H. J. C., & Martens, R. L. (2010). Perspectives on motivation: What mechanisms ener-gise students’ behaviour in the classroom. In J. Kleine Staarman, K. Littleton, & C. Wood (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 535-569). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Bollen, K. A., & Pearl, J. (2013). Eight myths about causality and structural equation models. In S.L. Morgan (Ed.), Handbook of causal analysis for social research (pp. 301-328). Springer Netherlands.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Chen, B., Aelterman, N., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Brenning, K., Deeder, J., … Verstuyf, J. (2012) Developing and vali-

dating a cross-cultural valid basic psychological need scale. Manuscript in preparation. Coninx, N. S. (2014). Measuring effectiveness of synchronous coaching using Bug-In-Ear device of pre-service

teachers (doctoral dissertation). Heerlen, the Netherlands: Open University. De Brabander, C. J., & Martens, R. L. (2014). Towards a unified theory of task-specific motivation. Educational

Research Review, 11, 27-44. De Jong, J. P. J., & Kemp, R. (2003). Determinants of co-workers’ innovative behaviour: an investigation into

knowledge intensive services. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7, 189-212. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York/London:

Plenum Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan., R. M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of

behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Self-determination research: Reflections and future directions. In E. L. Deci & R.

M. Ryan (Eds.),Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 431-441). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Devloo, T., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., & Salanova, M. (2014). Keep the fire burning: Reciprocal gains of basic need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and innovative work behaviour. European Journal of Work and Organi-zational Psychology, 24, 491-504.

Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 245-260.

Eyal, O., & Roth, G. (2011). Principals' leadership and teachers' motivation: Self-determination theory analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 256-275.


Gagné, M. (2009). A model of knowledge-sharing motivation. Human Resource Management, 48, 571-589. Gorozidis, G., & Papaioannou, A. (2014). Teachers' motivation to participate in training and to implement innova-

tions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, 1-11. Greguras, G. J., Diefendorff, J. M., Carpenter, J., & Troester, C. (2014). Person-Environment Fit and Self-

Determination Theory. In M. Gagne (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory. Research Collection Lee Kong Chian School Of Business.

Grove, C. M. (2008). The importance of values-alignment within a role-hierarchy to foster teacher's motivation for implementing professional development. PhD Thesis. Tallahassee: University of Florida.

C H A P T E R 6

144

Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2009). Integrating the theory of planned behaviour and self-determination theory in health behaviour: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 275-302.

Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and teaching: theory and practice, 6, 151-182.

Hoyle, E. (1975). Leadership and decision-making in education. In M. Hughes (Ed.) Administering Education: Inter-national Challenge pp 30-44. London: The Athlone Press.


Jochems, W. (2007). Onderwijsinnovatie als leidraad voor onderwijsresearch en professionele ontwikkeling. [Educa-tional innovation as a guide for educational research and professional development]. Eindhoven: TU Eindhoven.



Kessels, J. W. M. (2012). Leiderschapspraktijken in een professionele ruimte [Leadership practice in a professional Space]. Heerlen: Open Universiteit, LOOK.

Ketelaar, E., Beijaard, D., den Brok, P. J., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2013). Teachers’ implementation of the coaching role: do teachers’ ownership, sensemaking, and agency make a difference? European Journal of Psychology of Edu-cation, 28, 991-1006.

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: The Guilford Press. Knowles, K. T. (1999). The effect of teacher engagement on student achievement and motivation (NELS:88, eighth-

grade, tenth-grade). (Doctoral dissertation). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 1010. Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (2002). Distinguishing three ways of being highly motivated: A closer look at introjec-

tion, identification, and intrinsic motivation. In E.L. Deci & R.M. Ryan (Eds). Handbook of self-determination re-search (pp. 101-121). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.


Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., Jonas, K., Van Quaquebeke, N., & Van Dick, R. (2012). How do transformational leaders foster positive employee outcomes? A self-determination analysis of employees’ needs as mediating links. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1031-1052.

Kreijns, K., Vermeulen, M., Van Acker, F., & Van Buuren. H. (2014). Predicting teachers’ use of digital learning materials: combining self-determination theory and the integrative model of behaviour prediction. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 1-14.


Li, M., Wang, Z., You, X., & Gao, J. (2015). Value congruence and teachers’ work engagement: The mediating role of autonomous and controlled motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 80, 113-118.

Meirink, J. A., Meijer, P. C., Verloop, N., & Bergen, T. C. (2009). Understanding teacher learning in secondary education: The relations of teacher activities to changed beliefs about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 89-100.

Mueller, R. O. (1997). Structural equation modeling: Back to basics. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidiscipli-nary Journal, 4, 353-369.

Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2006). Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leadership in the UK. Teaching and Teach-er Education, 22, 961-972.

Pelletier, L. G., Séguin-Lévesque, C., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as deter-minants of teachers' motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 186-196.




145

Richardson, P. W., & Watt, H. M. G. (2010). Current and future directions in teacher motivation research. In T. C. Urdan & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.). The Decade Ahead: Applications and Contexts of Motivation and Achieve-ment; Advances in Motivation and Achievement, Volume 16B. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald.

Runhaar, P. (2008). Promoting teachers’ professional development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universi-teit Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social devel-opment, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Hand-book of self-determination research (pp. 3-33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press

Sørebø, Ø., Halvari, H., Gulli, V. F., & Kristiansen, R. (2009). The role of self-determination theory in explaining teachers’ motivation to continue to use e-learning technology. Computers & Education, 53, 1177-1187.

Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research truth or urban legend? Organizational research methods, 9, 221-232.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: a distributed per-spective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 3-34.


Tschannen-Moran, M. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism: The role of professional orientation and trust, Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 217-247.



Vallerand, R. J., & Ratelle, C. F. (2002). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A hierarchical model. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Van Dam, K., Schipper, M., Runhaar, P. (2010). Developing a competency-based framework for teachers’ entre-preneurial behaviour. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 965-971.


Woolfolk, A., Hughes, M., & Walkup, V. (2008). Psychology in education. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Ltd.

147

SAMENVATTING

Leraren vervullen een sleutelrol in het realiseren van kwalitatief goed onderwijs. Innovatief gedrag van leraren draagt bij aan die kwaliteit van onderwijs. Dit type gedrag bestaat uit het bewust en op eigen initiatief bedenken, introduceren en toepassen van nieuwe ideeën in het werk, zodat individuele, team- of schoolresultaten verbeterd worden. Het past in een maatschappij waarin het ontwikkelen, opdoen en delen van kennis steeds belangrijker wordt en waarin technologische ontwikkelingen elkaar in snel tempo opvolgen. Kunnen omgaan met veranderingen en de daarmee gepaard gaande onzekerheden wordt dan ook steeds belangrijker. Innovatief gedrag is een manier om zelf actief vorm te geven aan ver-anderingen die nodig zijn in het werk. Dit is niet alleen voor leraren van belang, maar ook voor leerlingen, die door middel van goed onderwijs voorbereid worden op hun functione-ren in onze maatschappij. Wanneer innovatief gedrag zo belangrijk is, dan is het relevant te weten welke factoren van invloed zijn op dit gedrag. Zicht krijgen op deze factoren helpt om innovatief gedrag te beïnvloeden of te voorspellen. In dit proefschrift wordt motivatie gekozen als invalshoek om deze factoren in kaart te brengen. Deze invalshoek is gekozen omdat motivatie aanzet tot gedrag. Het verwijst naar beweegredenen om iets wel of niet te doen. Door de jaren heen zijn verschillende motivatietheorieën ontwikkeld om gedrag te voorspellen of te verklaren. Twee belangrijke stromingen daarbinnen zijn theorieën die gericht zijn op intrinsieke motivatie, zoals de zelf-determinatie theorie van Deci en Ryan, en theorieën die gericht zijn op verwachtingen, onder meer ten aanzien van het eigen kunnen. De zelf-effectiviteitstheorie van Bandura is daar een bekend voorbeeld van. Elementen uit beide perspectieven worden in dit proefschrift gebruikt. Motivatie komt niet alleen van binnenuit, maar wordt mede beïnvloed door de omge-ving. Deze invloed kan bijvoorbeeld bestaan uit straffen of belonen, of uit focussen op indi-viduele ontwikkeling of onderlinge competitie. Hoe de omgeving motivatie beïnvloedt, wordt binnen de zelf-determinatie theorie verklaard aan de hand van drie psychologische basisbehoeften, namelijk de behoefte om je autonoom te voelen, je competent te voelen en je verbonden te voelen met anderen. Het gaat hier om percepties van de mate waarin een omgeving erin slaagt te voldoen aan deze drie psychologische basisbehoeften. Verschil-lende aspecten van bijvoorbeeld een werkomgeving kunnen op deze percepties van invloed zijn. De hoofdvraag van dit proefschrift is dan ook hoe percepties van aspecten van de werkomgeving en individuele motivationele processen een rol spelen in het voorspellen

148

van innovatief gedrag van leraren. Hierbij is enerzijds gekeken naar leiderschap en partici-patieve besluitvorming binnen scholen. Anderzijds zijn de psychologische basisbehoeften, verschillende vormen van motivatie, professioneel zelfvertrouwen, en sociale druk onder-zocht. Vier afzonderlijke studies zijn uitgevoerd. Elk draagt bij aan het beantwoorden van de hoofdvraag van dit proefschrift. De eerste drie studies zijn empirische studies op basis van vragenlijst-onderzoek onder leraren. In deze drie studies zijn conceptuele modellen ontwik-keld en getoetst door middel van zogeheten structurele vergelijkingsmodellen. Elke empiri-sche studie bouwt steeds voort op de resultaten van de voorgaande studie(s). De vierde studie kent een ander karakter. Het is een reviewstudie waarin op systematische wijze inzichten uit andere onderzoeken verzameld zijn. In Hoofdstuk 2 van dit proefschrift wordt de eerste studie beschreven. Het betreft een empirische studie onder 2385 leraren in het primair, voortgezet en middelbaar beroepson-derwijs. Doel van deze studie was na te gaan in hoeverre innovatief gedrag voorspeld kan worden door een keten van vervulling van de psychologische basisbehoeften, professioneel zelfvertrouwen en intrinsieke motivatie voor het werk. Met professioneel zelfvertrouwen wordt bedoeld het hebben van vertrouwen in het eigen vermogen om adequaat om te kunnen met veranderingen en uitdagingen in het werk. Intrinsieke motivatie houdt in dat je iets doet omdat je het leuk of interessant vindt. Aan de hand van deze vier constructen, dus psychologische basisbehoeften, professioneel zelfvertrouwen, intrinsieke motivatie en innovatief gedrag is een conceptueel model ontwikkeld en getoetst. De resultaten van deze studie lieten zien dat het vervullen van de psychologische ba-sisbehoeften niet alleen een positieve uitwerking heeft op de intrinsieke motivatie van leraren, maar ook op hun professioneel zelfvertrouwen. Ook was professioneel zelfver-trouwen een positieve voorspeller van intrinsieke motivatie. Daarnaast bleek dat vooral professioneel zelfvertrouwen een sterke voorspeller is van innovatief gedrag, sterker dan intrinsieke motivatie voor het werk. Hoofdstuk 3 beschrijft de tweede empirische studie. Deze studie is uitgevoerd onder 1049 leraren werkzaam binnen een schoolbestuur voor voortgezet onderwijs. Doel van deze studie was te onderzoeken in hoeverre aspecten van de werkomgeving van invloed zijn op innovatief gedrag en in welke mate deze invloed verklaard kan worden door het conceptuele model uit Hoofdstuk 2. Twee aspecten zijn onderzocht, namelijk transforma-tief leiderschap en participatieve besluitvorming. Transformatief leiderschap is in deze studie opgevat als de mate waarin de direct leidinggevende visie heeft, individuele aan-dacht schenkt aan leraren en leraren intellectuele uitdagingen biedt. Participatieve besluit-vorming betreft de mate waarin leraren in de school betrokken zijn bij het nemen van be-slissingen over onderwijs-gerelateerde zaken. Deze studie bevestigde de bevindingen uit Hoofdstuk 2. Daarnaast bleek de invloed van transformatief leiderschap op innovatief gedrag volledig via de vervulling van de psycholo-gische basisbehoeften en de daarop volgende motivationele constructen te verlopen. Parti-cipatieve besluitvorming was zowel indirect, dat wil zeggen via de motivationele construc-

S A M E N V A T T I N G

149

ten in het model, als rechtstreeks van invloed op innovatief gedrag. De rechtstreekse in-vloed was echter kleiner dan de indirecte invloed. Al met al liet dit onderzoek zien dat een werkomgeving waarin sprake is van transformatief leiderschap en participatieve besluit-vorming recht doet aan de psychologische basisbehoeften van leraren. Dit draagt vervol-gens bij aan hun professioneel zelfvertrouwen en intrinsieke motivatie. Evenals in Hoofd-stuk 2 bleek ook hier vooral een hoge mate van professioneel zelfvertrouwen van belang voor innovatief gedrag. In Hoofdstuk 4 wordt de derde empirische studie beschreven, uitgevoerd onder 1953 leraren in het voortgezet onderwijs. Doel van deze studie was om te onderzoeken in hoe-verre een samenspel van motivationele constructen innovatief gedrag voorspelt, en wel aan de hand van een uitgebreide variant van het conceptuele model uit Hoofdstuk 2. Het model in deze derde studie kende drie wijzigingen ten opzichte van het model in Hoofdstuk 2. In de eerste plaats zijn de drie psychologische basisbehoeften (autonomie, competentieen sociale verbondenheid) afzonderlijk onderzocht. In de tweede plaats is niet naar intrin-sieke motivatie voor het werk gekeken, maar naar autonome en gecontroleerde motivatievoor professionele ontwikkeling. In geval van autonome motivatie doe je iets omdat je hetzelf leuk of belangrijk vindt. Bij gecontroleerde motivatie is er sprake van externe druk omiets te doen, bijvoorbeeld doordat er een beloning tegenover staat, of om straf, schuldge-voel of schaamte te vermijden. Ten derde is, naast professioneel zelfvertrouwen, een ande-re variabele opgenomen die voorkomt uit verwachtingen-gerelateerde theoretische per-spectieven, namelijk sociale druk. Het betrof hier de door leraren ervaren druk vanuit deomgeving om innovatief gedrag te vertonen.

Deze studie liet zien dat niet alle motivationele processen van invloed zijn op innovatief gedrag van leraren. Zo bleken zowel sociale druk als gecontroleerde motivatie geen signifi-cante voorspellers van innovatief gedrag te zijn. Autonome motivatie en professioneel zelfvertrouwen daarentegen wel. Daarbij gold dat autonome motivatie voor professionele ontwikkeling een sterkere voorspeller was van innovatief gedrag dan professioneel zelfver-trouwen. Vervulling van de behoefte aan sociale verbondenheid bleek geen voorspeller van de motivationele constructen te zijn. Wel is een klein positief verband gevonden tussen sociale verbondenheid en innovatief gedrag. Vervulling van de behoefte aan competentie bleek in het model positief samen te hangen met professioneel zelfvertrouwen. Vervulling van de behoefte aan autonomie bleek een positieve voorspeller van autonome motivatie te zijn en een negatieve voorspeller van gecontroleerde motivatie. Daarnaast is er een rechtstreeks positief verband gevonden tussen vervulling van de behoefte aan autonomie en innovatief gedrag. Innovatief gedrag werd echter het sterkst voorspeld door vervulling van deze be-hoefte aan autonomie via autonome motivatie voor professionele ontwikkeling. Deze resul-taten geven aan dat de mate waarin leraren autonomie ervaren van belang is voor zowel hun autonome motivatie voor professionele ontwikkeling als voor innovatief gedrag. In aanvulling op de drie empirische studies is een systematische literatuurreview uitge-voerd. Deze reviewstudie wordt beschreven in Hoofdstuk 5. Doel van deze studie was ener-

150

zijds om zicht te krijgen op concepten en perspectieven die elders gebruikt worden om motivatie en professioneel zelfvertrouwen te onderzoeken. Anderzijds was het doel om verdere antwoorden te vinden op de vraag welke motivatie-gerelateerde factoren van invloed zijn op innovatief gedrag van leraren. Aan de hand van verschillende zoektermen en combinaties van zoektermen is, met behulp van meerdere zoekmachines, naar relevante literatuur (wetenschappelijke artikelen en proefschriften) gezocht. Uiteindelijk bleven 22 relevante publicaties over. Deze 22 publicaties hanteerden ofwel een theoretisch perspec-tief gebaseerd op intrinsieke motivatie, ofwel een theoretisch perspectief gerelateerd aan verwachtingen, ofwel een ander of onduidelijk theoretisch perspectief. Twee publicaties combineerden een intrinsieke motivatie- en verwachtingen-perspectief. Ten aanzien van de op intrinsieke motivatie gebaseerde studies geldt dat verreweg de meeste publicaties de eerder genoemde zelf-determinatietheorie hanteerden. In deze publicaties werd een grote diversiteit aan onderzoeksinstrumenten gebruikt. Ondanks deze diversiteit kan gesteld worden dat autonome motivatie van belang is voor innovatief ge-drag. Binnen de onderzoeken die zich baseerden op een verwachtingen-gerelateerd perspec-tief werden uiteenlopende theorieën, constructen en instrumenten gevonden. Professio-neel zelfvertrouwen is in geen enkel onderzoek aan bod gekomen. Wel andere vormen van zelf-effectiviteit van leraren, vooral in de vorm van het vertrouwen van een leraar in zijn of haar vermogen om daadwerkelijk een positieve invloed uit te oefenen op de leerresultaten van leerlingen. In hoeverre deze vorm van zelf-effectiviteit van belang is voor innovatief gedrag werd uit de verschillende publicaties niet duidelijk. Mogelijk speelt hierbij een rol dat beide constructen te verschillend van aard en niveau zijn, wat het vinden van onderlin-ge relaties of effecten bemoeilijkt. Samenvattend liet de reviewstudie zien dat de bestudeerde onderzoeken verschillen in de theoretische perspectieven, constructen en onderzoeksinstrumenten die gebruikt wor-den. Desondanks bleek uit de onderzoeken die gebaseerd zijn op de zelf-determinatie-theorie dat autonome motivatie een belangrijke factor is voor innovatief gedrag. Dit sluit aan bij de bevindingen van de empirische studies in dit proefschrift. De vier studies zoals hierboven samengevat dragen gezamenlijk bij tot beantwoording van de hoofdvraag van dit proefschrift. In Hoofdstuk 6 wordt op deze beantwoording inge-gaan en worden de belangrijkste conclusies en implicaties van het proefschrift samengevat. Geconcludeerd wordt dat individuele motivationele processen daadwerkelijk van belang zijn in het voorspellen van innovatief gedrag van leraren. Zowel professioneel zelfvertrou-wen als autonome motivatie blijken daarin relevant. Het vervullen van de psychologische basisbehoeften is voor deze beide constructen van betekenis. Van belang voor professio-neel zelfvertrouwen is vervulling van de behoefte aan competentie. Van belang voor auto-nome motivatie is vervulling van de behoefte aan autonomie. Externe sociale druk of ge-controleerde motivatie draagt niet bij tot innovatief gedrag van leraren. Voor de onder-zochte aspecten van de werkomgeving geldt dat transformatief leiderschap en participatie-

S A M E N V A T T I N G

151

ve besluitvorming een positieve invloed hebben op het vervullen van de psychologische basisbehoeften van leraren. Dit proefschrift bevestigt eerder gedane constateringen dat een robuust theoretisch raamwerk en robuuste onderzoeksinstrumenten nodig zijn om motivatie van leraren te onderzoeken. Dit leidt enerzijds tot aanbevelingen voor het (door)ontwikkelen van een dergelijk robuust raamwerk en bijbehorend instrumentarium. Gepleit wordt voor het com-bineren van verschillende theoretische perspectieven in een dergelijk raamwerk, evenals voor het opnemen van de invloed van de omgeving. Voor scholen en leraren geldt dat dit proefschrift laat zien dat professioneel zelfvertrou-wen en autonome motivatie van belang zijn voor innovatief gedrag. Het vertrouwen heb-ben dat je weet om te gaan met uitdagende situaties of veranderingen helpt om zelf nieu-we ideeën te bedenken, uit te proberen en te delen. Ook het leuk of belangrijk vinden om jezelf professioneel te ontwikkelen draagt bij tot innovatief gedrag. Het zelfvertrouwen en de motivatie die bevorderlijk zijn voor innovatief gedrag vraagt om een werkomgeving waarin aan de psychologische basisbehoeften van leraren wordt voldaan. Een druk uitoefe-nende of controlerende aanpak past daar niet bij, wel organisatieaspecten als transforma-tief leiderschap en participatieve besluitvorming. Beide aspecten dragen bij aan een werk-omgeving die van belang is voor professioneel zelfvertrouwen en autonome motivatie, wat het innovatieve gedrag in het onderwijs ten goede komt.

153

DANKWOORD

“Luctor et emergo”, zo luidt de wapenspreuk van de provincie waar ik geboren en getogen ben. Oftewel, ik worstel en kom boven. Dat is niet alleen van toepassing op de geschiedenis van Zeeland, maar ook op mijn promotietraject. Want de afgelopen jaren heb ik nogal wat geworsteld. Soms zichtbaar, soms onzichtbaar. En steeds kwam ik, mede door inspiratie en inzichten van anderen, weer boven. Reden genoeg om aan het einde van dit proefschrift stil te staan bij diegenen aan wie ik veel te danken heb. Om te beginnen mijn ouders. Hoewel op afstand zijn jullie dagelijks in gedachten bij me. Dankbaar ben ik voor alle waardevolle kansen die jullie me geboden hebben. Die kan-sen hebben onmiskenbaar aan de basis gelegen van deze mijlpaal. Mijn lieve grote zus, Marylka. Je hebt, samen met jouw gezin, voor heel wat harmoni-euze momenten en fijne afleiding gezorgd. En al was je op vakantie in Italië, bij spannende momenten en belangrijke deadlines kon ik steeds bij je terecht om even te stuiteren of te snotteren. Ik kan me geen betere zus wensen! Mario, na onze mooie trouwdag op 15-5-15 nu opnieuw een bijzonder moment in ons leven. Hoe feestelijk kan een jaar zijn?! Dankjewel voor de ruimte die je me gaf om aan m’n promotie te werken, voor je relativerende gedachten, voor alle maaltijden die na een dag hard werken klaar stonden, voor je verwondering over de punten en de komma’s in de wetenschap, voor je vertrouwen en voor je humor (waar stond de afkorting SDT ook alweer voor…?). Samen staan we sterk! Hanneke, onze vriendschap gaat al sinds onze studententijd mee. Mooi te zien en te horen hoe jij je sinds die tijd ontwikkeld hebt als leerkracht! Met veel plezier kijk ik terug op de werkweekendjes met “George Clooney-koffie” waarin je me geholpen hebt met mijn reviewstudie. Dat was niet alleen heel zinvol, maar ook nog eens erg gezellig. Ik ben blij dat jij mijn paranimf wilt zijn! “Foto-Mariëlle”, van goede collega’s zijn we uitgegroeid tot vriendinnen. Wat ben ik er trots op dat er een echte Verhoef op de voorkant van mijn proefschrift prijkt. Kim, vanaf het begin van mijn promotietraject hebben we in verschillende projecten samengewerkt. Het aantal gezamenlijke projecten is weliswaar minder geworden, maar je aanstekelijke ambities en ideeën maken dat ik het altijd weer plezierig vind om bij te pra-ten. Dank voor de rol die jij en de Onderwijs Innovatie Groep (OIG) gespeeld hebben in mijn promotie-onderzoek. En top dat ook jij mij als paranimf terzijde wilt staan.

154

Ook vereniging Ons Middelbaar Onderwijs (OMO) hoort thuis in dit dankwoord. De contac-ten tussen OMO en (de voorgangers van) het Welten-instituut mondden niet alleen uit in interessante projecten, maar voor mijzelf ook in een tijdelijke parttime detachering naar de kernstaf van OMO. Wat een leerzame en leuke tijd heb ik daar gehad! Marga, Saskia en Jos, jullie wil ik in het bijzonder bedanken voor het warme welkom in Tilburg, de belangstelling voor het wel en wee in Heerlen en de boeiende samenwerking. T2-collega’s, hoe roerig de tijden soms waren, aan collegialiteit geen gebrek. Vooral in de LOOK-periode heeft de pingpongtafel daar een belangrijke rol in gespeeld. Een aantal van jullie heeft ook op andere manieren een belangrijke bijdrage geleverd aan mijn welbevinden gedurende mijn promotietraject. Daniël, jij beschikte over het vermogen om steeds op het juiste moment in de buurt te zijn wanneer ik behoefte had aan een opbeu-rend gebaar of wijze woorden. Bijzonder hoe jij me soms bewust wist te maken van veel te hoog gelegde latten. Joost, jouw enthousiasme is onnavolgbaar! Met veel plezier kijk ik terug op onze gezamenlijke “optredens” en de voorbereidingen daarop, of het nu een ORD-symposium betrof, of een virtuele masterclass. Arnoud, alleen al het even “mopperen” in jouw deuropening, bijvoorbeeld over frustrerende reviewprocedures, luchtte altijd weer op. Karel, jij beschikt over een onvoorstelbare mix van veel parate kennis en veel geduld. Met of zonder een “turbo”, bij jou kon ik steeds terecht met al mijn vragen. En daar maak ik nog altijd dankbaar gebruik van. Andere collega’s en oud-collega’s van de OU verdienen ook een plek in dit dankwoord. Sonja, jouw deur stond en staat altijd open om even gezellig bij te kletsen, bijvoorbeeld over “Grey’s”. Marcel, in de afrondende fase van mijn promotietraject zorgden jouw erva-ringen en relativerende kijk ervoor dat m’n zenuwen me minder in de weg zijn gaan zitten. Heel jammer en begrijpelijk dat je ons hebt verlaten! Lenny, dank voor jouw vriendschap en de lunches aan jullie keukentafel. Inne, als geen ander begreep jij hoe ik me de laatste tijd gevoeld heb. Liesje, hoe bijzonder dat we op dezelfde dag onze proefschriften mogen ver-dedigen! Janneke, we hebben elkaar wat uit het oog verloren, maar wat heb ik veel van jou geleerd. Ik kijk uit naar jouw aanwezigheid op 18 december! En Marieke, jouw tips, oog voor detail, en kritische blik op onderdelen van dit proefschrift zijn voor mij van grote waarde geweest. Hopelijk blijven we onze sushi-traditie nog lang voortzetten! Tot slot uiteraard mijn beide promotores. Rob, jouw autonomie-ondersteunende wijze van begeleiden kenmerkte zich door een welhaast oeverloos vertrouwen in mijn competen-ties en in een goede afloop. Dank voor je optimisme en voor je motiverende ideeën over wetenschappelijk onderzoek en de ontwikkelingen die daarin gaande (zouden moeten) zijn. En Marjan, of ik nu op was van de zenuwen vanwege een deadline voor een resubmission, of vanwege een paper-presentatie, je maakte tijd voor me. Ook als het je wat minder goed uit kwam. Daarnaast waren (en blijven!) je aandacht voor de grote lijn en je pragmatische aanpak heel waardevol voor mij. Het is nu nog even wennen, die lege plek in mijn agenda op dinsdagmiddag, maar ik hoop nog vaak op andere momenten met je van gedachten te wisselen, al dan niet tijdens een autoritje naar het station. Dankjewel voor jouw onvergete-lijke bijdrage aan mijn leerproces!

predicting teachers’ innovative behaviour: motivational processes at work · 2020-01-21 ·...

Documents