Motivation toward specific work tasks among elementary and high school teachers: The Work Tasks Motivation Scale for Teachers (WTMST)

Transcription

1 GUA05372 Motivation toward specific work tasks among elementary and high school teachers: The Work Tasks Motivation Scale for Teachers (WTMST) Claude Fernet School of Psychology, Laval University, Canada Caroline Senécal, Frédéric Guay, Martin Dowson, and Herbert W. Marsh SELF Research Centre, University of Western Sydney, Australia The purpose of the present research was to develop and validate a measure of teachers motivation toward specific work tasks: The Work Tasks Motivation Scale for Teachers (WTMST). The WTMST is designed to assess the constructs of intrinsic motivation, identified, introjected, and external regulations, and amotivation toward six work tasks (i.e., class preparation, teaching, evaluation, class management, administrative, and complementary tasks). Three studies conducted among 657 teachers were used to develop and validate the WTMST. Overall, results reveal that the WTMST is composed of five reliable factors (internally consistent and temporally stable) for each of the six work tasks. The construct validity of the WTMST is also supported by simplex-like patterns of relations and correlations with theoretically related variables. In addition, the pattern of correlations among the WTMST subscales across the work tasks indicated that teachers types of motivation are specific to work tasks. Implications for research on teachers motivation are discussed. Recent studies showed that teachers suffer from a lack of work motivation more than any other professionals (Jesus & Lens, 2005). Teachers motivation appears crucial because it predicts not only teachers engagement and well being but also students outcomes such as motivation and learning. Different approaches have been used in order to capture teachers motivation. However, few motivation theories have provided insight as to why teachers engage in their work tasks and as to how teachers integrate the different tasks within their self. A potentially useful theoretical framework for understanding teachers motivation is Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002). More precisely, this theory makes an important distinction between self-determined and controlled types of motivation. Thus, the theory focuses not only on the quantity of motivation but also on the quality. Based on SDT, the purpose of this paper is to present the development and the validation of a measure of teachers motivation, namely, the Work Tasks Motivation Scale for Teachers (WTMST). In the sections that follow, we introduce SDT and we present the issue of domain specificity for teachers motivation. Self-determination theory SDT posits the existence of three basic types of motivation that vary along a self-determination continuum. These types of motivation represent the reasons why a person engages in an activity. From high to low self-determination, these are intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. Intrinsically motivated behaviors are engaged for the pleasure or the satisfaction derived from performing them (Deci, 1975). The activity is performed with a sense of volition in the absence of any constraints. On the other hand, extrinsically motivated behaviors are those instrumental in nature. That is, behaviors are not performed for the activity itself, but rather as a mean to an end. Different types of extrinsic motivation have been proposed by SDT, and can also be ordered along the self-determination continuum. From lower to higher levels of self-determination, these are external, introjected, and identified regulations. External regulation occurs when behaviors are regulated to obtain a reward or in order to avoid a constraint. Introjected regulation corresponds to the process whereby an external demand becomes an internal representation. Individuals put pressure on themselves through internal coercion (e.g., anxiety, shame or guilt) in order to make sure that a particular behavior is performed. Finally, identified regulation is defined as behavior that individuals choose to perform because it is congruent with their own values and goals. Instead of succumbing to external or internal pressures, individuals experience choice while doing the activity, although the activity is not interesting. SDT also proposed a last concept namely amotivation, which refers to being neither intrinsically nor extrinsically motivated. Amotivation corresponds to the lower level of self-determination. Individuals are amotivated when they have no intentions for a particular behavior and do not really know why they are doing it.

2 Because the types of motivation are posited to vary along a self-determination continuum, SDT makes specific predictions concerning motivational consequences. Since self-determination is associated with enhanced psychological functioning (Deci, 1980; Ryan, Deci, & Grolnick, 1995), it is hypothesized that self-determined types of motivation (intrinsic motivation and identified regulation) lead to positive outcomes, whereas less self-determined types of motivation (introjected regulation, external regulation, and amotivation) lead to negative ones. Research in the work domain has supported this hypothesis. For instance, work self-determined types of motivation are associated with more job satisfaction (Blais, Lachance, Riddle, & Vallerand, 1993; Richer, Blanchard, & Vallerand, 2002), organizational commitment (Gagné, Boies, Koestner, & Martens, 2004) and organizational citizenship behaviors (Lévesque, Blais, & Hess, 2004), and less emotional exhaustion (Blais et al., 1993) and turnover intentions (Richer et al., 2002). Content domain specificity in assessing teachers motivation Most studies examining teachers self-determined motivation have assessed motivation through a global motivational orientation at work (e.g., Blais, Lachance, & Richer, 1992, Fernet, Guay, & Senécal, 2003, 2004; Lévesque et al., 2004; Pelletier, Séguin-Lévesque, & Legault, 2002). A motivational orientation describes the reasons underlying the engagement in a given work. This kind of assessment may appear too broad to get a clear picture of motivation at work. Indeed, it may be problematic because respondents are asked to report their beliefs about their job without any specific tasks in mind (Bandura, 1997). Marsh (1990) suggested that while answering a global measure, respondents might simply base their responses on their immediate experience, mood, or the contents of their short-term memory, instead of pursuing the more cognitively demanding task of searching for accurate information. Accordingly, assessment of teachers motivational orientation could be mainly determined by a particular task (i.e., teaching) or even by some personality characteristics of the respondent. Thus, global measures do not take into account the complexity and the variation of self-perceptions. As a result, they may impair the ability to understand and predict behavior in particular situations (Marsh & Yeung, 1998). In line with Marsh, we believe that measures of teacher motivation need to be more specific, thereby reflecting the various tasks that typically form a teacher s work. In other words, multidimensional assessment of teacher motivation should consider teachers motivation across the range of tasks that they are asked to perform. This reflects the fact that motivation may vary significantly from one task to another. The purpose of the present research was to develop and validate a multi-tasks measure of teachers motivation according to the different types of motivation proposed by SDT. Pilot study The pilot study comprised two steps. First, open-ended interviews were conducted among six teachers (i.e., 3 elementary and 3 high school teachers) to identify the various tasks related to their work. In turn, the 46 different tasks reported by these six teachers were put into 10 broad categories. In order to verify the relevance of these broad categories, a short questionnaire was distributed to a total of 42 school teachers. This second step was conducted to ensure an objective classification of the teachers tasks. In line with the results, six main tasks were identified: (1) class preparation (e.g., deciding instruction topics and material, determining the presentation forms and sequences, and establishing the work procedure), (2) teaching (e.g., presenting instruction, answering the questions, and listening to the students needs), (3) students evaluation (e.g., constructing assessments and exams, correcting, entering marks, giving remarks to the parents), (4) classroom management (e.g., handling discipline, applying the rules, and managing students interruptions and conflicts), (5) administrative tasks (e.g., taking and transmitting absences, building disciplinary files, participating in meetings with the parents and principals to study disciplinary cases, meetings with teachers, meetings with the direction, meetings with the union, and school assembles), and (6) complementary tasks (e.g., tutorial guidance, involvement in committees, extra-curricular activities, continuous betterment training, and extra-class monitoring). Study 1 Study 1 comprised two goals. The first one was to develop items assessing intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation, and amotivation. The second goal was to verify the factor structure of the WTMST and its reliability.

3 Methodology Scale development A committee of experts was asked to develop items reflecting the conceptual definition of the five motivational constructs. Items had to be worded as to indicate the underlying reasons for engaging a teacher s task. In addition, items had to be relevant for each task considering that the same items are presented for each task. This was done to ensure that the WTMST assesses the same motivational properties across the six tasks. With respect to the WTMST, respondents are asked the following question: Why are you engaged in the following task? Items represented potential answers to this question. Therefore, 55 items were generated for the five types of motivation of the WTMST. These 55 items were then presented to a second panel of experts. Thirty items were selected by the committee, which represented six items per motivational construct for each task. Consequently, the experimental version of the WTMST included a total of 180 items (30 items* 6 tasks). Each item was rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (does not correspond at all) to 7 (corresponds completely). Procedure and participants Data were collected from four schools in the province of Quebec, Canada. A total of 175 French Canadian teachers (50 men, 123 women) with a mean age of 39.6 years (SD= 10.89) and a mean of 14.5 years of experience (SD= 10.63) participated to the study. 76% of the participants had a life-partner and 52% were in charge of at least one child. There were 60 elementary teachers and 112 high school teachers. A total of 69% of the participants had a permanent position. The response rate for this study was 92% (only 15 teachers refused to participate). Measures Burnout The French version (Dion & Tessier, 1994) of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach & Jackson, 1986) was used to measure emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and personal accomplishment. Emotional exhaustion is composed of nine items (e.g., I feel emotionally drained from my work ). Five items assessed cynicism (e.g., I ve become more callous toward people since I took this job ). Personal accomplishment is measured by 8 items (e.g., I have accomplished many worthwhile things in this job ). Responses to all items of the MBI are scored on a seven-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (every day). In the present study, the Cronbach s alpha values for these three subscales were.90,.73, and.73, respectively. Results Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA) and Internal Consistency For each task, items of the experimental version of the WTMST were submitted to a maximum likelihood EFA with oblimin rotation. We decided to conduct six separate analyses in order to assess the multidimensionality of motivation within each task. Specifically, each EFA had to reflect the five motivational constructs. Then, six EFA were tested with the purpose of retaining the best three items for each motivational factor, which would reduce considerably the scale length. For each analysis, this was accomplished by progressively eliminating the items that had the lowest loadings (i.e., above.30) on the hypothesized factor. This procedure allows us to identify 15 items per work task (3 items per motivational constructs) for a total of 90 items. Means for the 90 items ranged from 1.64 to 5.40 and standard deviation from 1.28 to A final series of six EFA were performed on the 90-items version of the WTMST. Overall, results indicated six-factor solutions and pointed out that the total of variance accounted for was.58,.60,.67,.60,.63, and.73, respectively for Class Preparation, Teaching, Evaluation, Class Management, Administrative Task, and Complementary Task. Table 1 presents factor loadings, eigenvalues, and explained variance for each factor. Overall, all factor loadings were higher than.30 with no cross-loading. However, for complementary tasks, some identified regulation items loaded on the intrinsic motivation factor. Cronbach s values for all subscales are presented in Table 2. Overall, levels of internal consistency were adequate for each subscale of the six tasks (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

4 Table 1. Factor Loadings For Each Teaching Tasks. Class preparation Teaching Evaluation Class Management Administrative tasks Complementary tasks Items Factors Factors Factors Factors Factors Factors Intrinsic motivation Item Item Item Identified regulation Item Item Item Introjected regulation Item Item Item External regulation Item Item Item Amotivation Item Item Item Eigenvalues Explained variance

5 Construct Validity Correlational analyses revealed that most relations among the five subscales represented a simplexlike pattern of relations (see Table 3). That is, overall for each task, the pattern of interrelations among the subscales is formed of an ordered pattern in which those subscales adjacent along the self-determination continuum correlated more positively than those more distant along the continuum. Discussion Results of study 1 provided preliminary support for the psychometric properties of the WTMST Specifically, factor analyses revealed that the WTMST is composed of five factors reflecting the theorized constructs of SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Results also suggest that the WTMST possessed an adequate internal consistency and construct validity. Indeed, for each task, correlations among the motivation subscales form a simplex-like pattern of relations. Study 2 Study 1 has provided some support for the psychometric properties of the WTMST. However, this study has some limitations. First, the sample is small. Second, exploratory factor analysis could not estimate the true scores of items by removing the measurement error. Third, the invariance of WTMST across gender and teaching level was not assessed. Fourth, temporal stability was not evaluated. Fifth, a limited number of analyses assessed the construct validity of the WTSMT. Finally, the predictive value of teachers motivation at a multi-tasks level was not assessed. The purpose of Study 2 was to overcome these limitations and then to present additional support for the psychometric properties of the WTMST. Method Procedure and Participants Data of this study come from three school boards from the Quebec city area. A total of 434 teachers (122 men, 310 women, and 2 without gender identification) participated in the study. Participants mean age was 41.8 years (SD=10.79) and mean years of experience was 16.4 years (SD=10.68). 78% of the participants had a life-partner and 53% were in charge of at least one child. There were 230 elementary teachers and 202 high school teachers. A total of 83% yielded a permanent position and 88% were full-time. A month after the initial testing, a questionnaire was sent to the participants (n = 146) who indicated that they were willing to participate to a follow-up study. A total of 109 participants returned their questionnaire, giving a response rate of 75%. Measures Burnout A description of this scale is provided in Study 1. In the present study, the Cronbach s alpha values for emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and personal accomplishment were.91,.64, and.73, respectively. Work motivational orientation Work motivational orientation was assessed by the short version of the BWMI (Blais et al., 1993), which has been developed in French. The short version consists of 18 items that assess six motivational dimensions with three items per dimension. Each item represents a possible reason for working. Two subscales assessed intrinsic motivation: toward accomplishment (e.g., Because I experience satisfaction when my job provides me with interesting challenges ; =.81), and toward knowledge (e.g., Because I experience pleasure when learning new things ; =.86). Three subscales assessed types of extrinsic motivation: identified regulation (e.g., Because this is the type of work that I prefer regarding my career aspirations ; =.67), introjected regulation (e.g., Because I absolutely want to be good and if I m not, I ll be disappointed ; =.74), and external regulation (e.g., For the salary ; =.75). One subscale assessed amotivation (e.g., I don t know, I don t think that I have what it takes to do this job successfully ; =.63). Items were scored on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 7 (agree completely).

6 Table 2. Cronbach s values for all subscales among teacher s task Teachers tasks Cronbach s values ( ) MI ID IJ EX AM Class preparation Teaching Students evaluation Class management Administrative tasks Complementary tasks Table 3. Simplex-Like Pattern of relations among the WTMSTsubscales for teachers tasks. Tasks Class preparation Teaching Evaluation Class management Administrative tasks Complementary tasks IM ID IJ EX AM IM ID IJ EX AM IM ID IJ EX AM IM ID IJ EX AM IM ID IJ EX AM IM ID IJ EX AM IM ID.35** --.52** --.55** --.24** --.45** --.80** -- IJ.05.32** ** *.14* * EX -.19**.11.45** *.02.51** ** ** ** ** ** ** -.37**.41** -- AM -.32** -.43**.04.16* ** -.33** ** -.57**.15*.25** **.22**.29** ** -.36**.19*.36** ** -.48**.18*.56** -- Note. * p.05, ** p.01

7 Leadership style of school principal Perception of school director leadership was assessed with the French version of the Supervisory Style Inventory (Blais, Lachance, Brière, Dulude, & Richer, 1991). The measure consists of 24 items that are scored on two subscales assessing: Informational style (13 items; e.g., My school director asks for and seriously considers my opinions regarding decisions involving different aspects of my work ), and Controlling style (11 items; e.g., I am very closely monitored by my school director ). All items are scored on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 7 (very strongly agree). In the present study, the Cronbach s alpha values for informational style and controlling style were.94, and.84, respectively. Working conditions Job demands and job control were assessed by the French version (Brisson, et al., 1998) of the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ; Karasek, 1985). This measure is composed of 18 items that assess job demands (e.g., I always have enough time to perform my tasks ) and job control (e.g., My job allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own ). Items are answered on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). A mean score was calculated for each subscale. In the present study, the Cronbach s alpha values for job demands and job control were.72 and.78, respectively. Teacher perceived self-efficacy This scale was developed by Friedman and Kass (2002). We used the adapted form of the scale (Friedman, 2003), which was translated into French for the purpose of this study. This measure consists of 30 items that are scored on two subscales assessing: Classroom efficacy (17 items; e.g., I see myself as an interesting and motivating teacher ) and Organizational efficacy (13 items; e.g., I believe I am quite persuasive when communicating with my principal ). All items were rated on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (always). In the present study, the Cronbach s alpha values for classroom efficacy and organizational efficacy were.88, and.85. Work Satisfaction This measure is an adaptation of the French version of the satisfaction with life scale (Blais, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Brière, 1989; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). The construct reflects a global evaluation of the quality of worklife. A sample item was If I could change anything in my work I would change practically nothing. Items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 7 (strongly agree). In the present study, the Cronbach s alpha value was.87. Turnover intentions Turnover intentions were assessed by three items adapted in French from O Driscoll & Beehr (1994). Items asked whether respondents thought about leaving their job, planned to look for a new job over the next 12 months, and would actively search for a new job. Responses were assessed on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). In the present study, the Cronbach s alpha value was.85. Results Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) The adequacy of the factor structure was assessed by structural equation modeling (EQS; Bentler, 1993). CFA analyses were conducted in two steps with the purpose to assess the within and the between validity of teachers tasks motivation. Within-construct validity of teachers tasks motivation would be supported if the five types of motivation were differentiated within each task. In contrast, between teachers tasks motivation validity would be supported if each motivational construct could be differentiated across the different work tasks. For example, intrinsic motivation should be assessed separately from one task to another, which would provide the specificity of teachers motivation. In the next series of analyses, we used the chi-square, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and the Bentler-Bonnet Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI). In general, models with CFI and NFI.90 indicate a good fit, whereas RMSEA values between.05 and.08 indicate reasonable errors of approximation (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). First, we tested the within teachers tasks motivation validity. Thus, six models (one model for each task) were tested with standardized coefficients obtained from the maximum likelihood method of estimation. For each task, the proposed model provided a good fit to the data. All fit indices have value.90, and the RMSEA are.08. Factor loading standardized solutions and fit indices of the six CFA models are presented in Table 4. In the present study, all factors had salient loadings (higher than.30) with no crossloadings. That is, with no exception in the present study, all motivational constructs loaded on the hypothesized factors given support for the within validity of the WTMST. In contrast with results reported in Study 1, it seems that intrinsic and identified regulations could be differentiated within the complementary tasks. Secondly, we have tested the between teachers tasks motivation validity of the scale. Then, we

8 Table 4. Factor loadings standardized solutions and fit indices of the WTMST. Class preparation Teaching Evaluation Class Management Administrative tasks Complementary tasks Items Factors Factors Factors Factors Factors Factors Intrinsic motivation Item Item Item Identified regulation Item Item Item Introjected regulation Item Item Item External regulation Item Item Item Amotivation Item Item Item Fit indices Df NNFI CFI RMSEA

9 specified five models, considering each type of teachers motivation separately across the tasks. For intrinsic motivation, identified regulation and introjected regulation, the proposed models provided a good fit to the data, which were respectively ( 2 (120, n= 432) = 130,50; CFI =1.00, NNFI = 1.00, RMSEA =.02), ( 2 (120, n= 432) = ; CFI =.94, NNFI =.92, RMSEA =.07), and ( 2 (120, n= 432) = ; CFI =.97, NNFI =.96, RMSEA =.05). For amotivation, the fit indices of the model were questionable ( 2 (120, n= 432) = ; CFI =.91, NNFI =.88, RMSEA =.08), while they were clearly unacceptable for the one testing external regulation ( 2 (120, n= 432) = ; CFI =.79, NNFI =.73, RMSEA =.13). Correlations among the tasks showed low positive correlations for intrinsic motivation (.03 to.47; mean r =.24) and identified regulations (.16 to.59; mean r =.37), moderate and positive relations for introjected regulation (.50 to.79; mean r =.64) and amotivation (.35 to.64; mean r =.53), but high and positive relations for external regulation (.37 to.93; mean r =.70). The present results suggested that most types of motivation could be differentiated among the tasks, then, supporting the specificity of teachers work tasks motivation. This finding is discussed more thoroughly in the general discussion section. Gender and teaching level differences For each task, multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA s) were performed to verify if there were gender and level teaching differences on WTMST subscales. In regard to gender, a multivariate significant effect was obtained for two tasks: teaching (F(5, 392)=2.23, p.05, 2 =.03)) and evaluation (F(5, 396)=2.30, p.05, 2 =.03)). Univariate F tests revealed that women showed more identified regulation than men toward teaching ( 2 =.02). In addition, results indicated that women presented more identified regulation ( 2 =.01) but less intrinsic motivation ( 2 =.03) toward evaluation than did men. However, the effects size for these differences were small (cf., Cohen, 1977). Considering teaching levels, two significant effects were observed: class preparation (F(5, 397)=2.23, p.05, 2 =.03.)) and complementary tasks (F(5, 397)=9.64, p.05, 2 =.11)). More precisely, univariate F tests revealed that elementary teachers have higher levels of identified regulation than high school teachers toward class preparation ( 2 =.03). Moreover, elementary teachers showed less intrinsic motivation ( 2 =.09) and identified regulation ( 2 =.08) but more amotivation ( 2 =.03) than did high school teachers toward complementary tasks. While complementary tasks indicated a medium effect size for the difference, class preparation showed a small effect size. These results are discussed more extensively in the general discussion section. Invariance analyses were conducted to verify whether the WTMST factor structure was invariant across gender and teaching levels. Overall results revealed that the factor structure of the scale was invariant across gender and teaching levels with the exception of one very small difference across gender and teaching levels for the teaching task. Since, these differences are not substantial we decided not to present them in details. Reliability Across the tasks, Cronbach s values ranged from.83 to.96 (mean r =.92) for intrinsic motivation,.72 to.89 (mean r =.82) for identified regulation,.79 to.89 (mean r =.85) for introjected regulation,.64 to.87 (mean r =.76) for external regulation, and.75 to.81 (mean r =.77) for amotivation. In order to assess the temporal stability of the WTMST, 109 participants completed the WTMST twice over a one-month period. Test-retest correlations across tasks ranged from.55 to.81 (mean r =.68) for intrinsic motivation,.32 to.67 (mean r =.53) for identified regulation,.50 to.63 (mean r =.58) for introjected regulation,.53 to.80 (mean r =.67) for external regulation, and.39 to.77 (mean r =.61) for amotivation. These results appeared fairly acceptable, considering that the WTMST is a measure assessing motivation toward specific tasks. Construct validity The construct validity of the WTMST was assessed with correlations between motivation subscales and variables theoretically associated. Results revealed that most correlations among the WTMST are associated with some motivational antecedents and consequences, which supported the self-determination continuum (see Table 5). It can be seen, that in general, positive determinants and consequences are positively associated with self-determined types of teachers motivation (intrinsic motivation and identified regulation) and negatively with non self-determined types of motivation (introjected regulation, external regulation, and amotivation). For instance, teachers self-determined types of motivation are positively linked to teacher classroom efficacy, while non self-determined types are negatively related to this variable.

10 Table 5. Correlations between WTMST subscales, determinants and consequences. Tasks and Determinants Consequences motivational constructs Controlled style of school direction Informational style of school direction Job demands Job Control Classroom efficacy Organizational efficacy Emotional exhaustion Cynicism Personal accomplishment Class Preparation IM.01.15** -.15**.17**.25**.19** -.19** -.14**.14**.23** -.16** ID *.06.25**.30**.13** **.21**.11* -.18** IJ.05.11*.09* -.10*.21** -.15**.15**.15** -.15** * EX **.10* AM.09* * -.09* -.13** -.12*.09*.22** -.15** ** Work satisfaction Intention to quit Teaching IM ** **.36**.20** -.18** -.22**.31**.29** -.25** ID -.09*.11*.07.33**.36**.22** **.28**.22** -.31** IJ ** -.12* -.12*.14**.11* *.05 EX * -.16** -.13**.14**.11* -.11* -.10*.09* AM.14** -.10* ** -.23**.25**.37** -.25** -.23**.31** Evaluation IM ** -.29**.01.16**.09* -.25** -.10*.10*.27** -.15** ID ** -.11*.05.19**.16** ** -.14** IJ.10*.03.16** * -.11*.24**.17** *.03 EX.11* ** ** -.17**.21**.15** **.12* AM.18** * ** -.17**.19**.23** -.11* -.13**.22** Class management IM.03.12* -.11*.12*.31**.15** -.25** -.18**.24**.25** -.14** ID **.00.23**.25**.23** -.11* -.13**.28**.25** -.23** IJ.06.09* ** -.09*.17**.17** *.04 EX ** -.17**.15**.18** -.11* * AM.21** -.15** ** -.26** -.29**.29**.32* -.26** -.18**.23** Administrative Tasks IM **.15**.11*.23**.16** -.25** -.19**.19**.28** -.25** ID -.15**.16** -.12*.20**.22**.20** -.19** -.22**.20**.23** -.24** IJ ** ** -.17**.24**.17** **.04 EX.13** ** ** -.18**.25**.18** -.14** -.16**.17** AM.29** -.18**.22** -.13* -.23** -.21**.37**.35** -.19** -.25**.26** Complementary tasks IM -.13**.16** -.12*.15**.12*.12* -.23** -.11*.18**.15** -.20** ID -.10*.16** -.12*.20**.20**.21** -.23** -.15**.22**.21** -.18** IJ.12* ** -.12* -.14** -.14**.23**.16** *.06 EX.24** -.09*.18** -.15** -.16** -.22**.29**.19** -.14** -.14**.24** AM.32** -.15**.19** -.13** -.16** -.20**.39**.31** -.16** -.21**.34** Note. * p.05, ** p.01

11 Predictive validity Regression analyses were used to determine the predictive value of the WTMST. In particular, we evaluated whether the WTMST could predict outcomes beyond a global motivational orientation at work (BWMI; Blais et al., 1993). Accordingly, the WTMST should allow to explain more variance of different variables theoretically associated, than a general measure of motivation. This is a stringent test of the incremental validity of the WTMST considering the conceptual overlap between the WTMST subscales and the BWMI subscales. Following Cohen and Cohen (1983), sets of independent variables were defined to test hierarchically the impact of tasks motivation versus a motivational orientation at work on teachers psychological outcomes (i.e., leadership style of school principals, job demand, job control, teacher efficacy, job burnout, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions). In a first hierarchical model, the tasks motivation set was entered first in the equation regression equation; next, the motivational orientation subscales set was entered to examine if the addition of this set would have explained any residual variance in the dependent variable. In a second hierarchical model, the order of entrance of the two sets in the regression equation was reversed. This procedure was applied to all outcomes. With the first model, we wanted to examine if the motivational orientation at work adds any value once the variance explained by tasks motivation is partialled out from dependent variables. With the second model, we wanted to examine if tasks motivation, in turn, adds any value once the variance explained by motivational orientation at work is partialled out from dependent variables. Table 6 presents the different incremental R-squared in the different hierarchical regression models tested. Overall, results indicated that the WTMST is superior to a motivational orientation measure in predicting specific outcomes in the teachers domain. However, a global assessment of the motivational orientation at work appears well-suited to evaluate more global outcomes, such as work satisfaction or turnovers intentions. Discussion Results of Study 2 provided confirming evidence for the factorial structure of the WTMST. More precisely, CFA analyses provided good support for the within teachers tasks motivation validity, as well as some support for the between tasks motivation. In addition, the factorial structure of the WTMST was invariant across gender and teaching level. Gender and level teaching differences were observed on the motivation subscales, but with relatively small effects size. With respect to the reliability of the scale, results revealed that the internal consistency of subscales were adequate. Results also indicated that the WTMST displayed acceptable levels of temporal stability. Construct validity was supported through correlations between the WTMST and motivational determinants and outcomes. Finally, results indicated that the WTMST predicted teachers specific outcomes, over and above, the teachers motivational orientation at work. General discussion The WTMST was designed to assess the constructs of intrinsic motivation, identified, introjected, and external regulations, and amotivation toward six teachers specific work tasks (i.e., class preparation, teaching, evaluation, class management, administrative, and complementary tasks). Results provided good support for the psychometric properties of the WTMST. First, results from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the WTMST has a satisfactory five-factor structure for each task, given support for the within teachers tasks motivation validity. In addition, CFA analyses provided some support for the between tasks motivation validity of the scale, suggesting that types of motivations are specific to work tasks. Second, internal consistency values for each subscale across the six tasks were satisfactory. Third, the WTMST subscales displayed acceptable levels of temporal stability over a month-period. Fourth, multiple correlational analyses supported the construct validity of the WTMST. More precisely, for each task, correlations among the motivation subscales form a simplex-like pattern of relations. Moreover, correlations between the WTMST and variables assessing motivational determinants and consequences yielded a pattern of results in line with the self-determination continuum. Finally, it seems that a specific measure of teachers tasks motivation captures teachers work-related outcomes more adequately then a global motivational orientation. The present findings lead to a number of methodological and theoretical implications as well as directions for future research. These are detailed below along with the limits of the present research.

12 Table 6. Incremental R-squared. Controlled style of school direction Informational style of school direction Job demands Job control Classroom efficacy Organizational efficacy Emotional exhaustion Cynicism Personal accomplishment Work satisfaction Intention to quit First model WTMST set.20**.14**.22**.26*.37**.24**.31**.27**.28**.26**.26** BWMI set.06**.05**.04**.13**.04**.07**.08**.06**.07**.19**.15** Second model BWMI set.13**.09**.06**.29**.27**.21**.23**.22**.24**.36**.34** WTMST set.12**.10**.20**.10**.15**.10**.15**.10**.11**.09**.08* Note. * p.05, ** p.01

13 Theoretical and practical implications The present research has some theoretical contributions. First, it underscores the multidimensional nature of teachers motivation. As far as teachers motivation is concerned, each work task performed by elementary and high school teachers can be conceptualized appropriately through intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation (identified, introjected, and external regulations), and amotivation. With respect to the tasks depicted by the WTMST, types of motivation may vary within any given task and can be differentiated by teachers. In line with the conceptualization of human motivation proposed by SDT, this result provides insight as to the reasons why teachers engage in their work tasks. In addition, the present research has showed that teachers motivation could be assessed at a multitasks level. The results suggest that types of motivation vary among the different tasks and also indicate that teachers motivation is specific to each of the tasks proposed by the WTMST. In other words, teachers seem to engage in their work tasks for different reasons. For instance, a teacher could accomplish his-her courses preparation with intrinsic motivation, even if he-she performed administrative tasks with a less sense of selfendorsement. However, the results of the present study indicate that external regulation is a type of motivation that teachers tended to have more difficulty to set apart from one task to another. Similar results were also reported by Guay, Larose, Boivin, Vitaro, and Tremblay (submitted for publication) in a recent study on motivation toward different school activities. A plausible explanation is that external regulation is less influenced by the characteristics of a task. Considering that external regulation reflects a source of control lying outside the activity, then it could be more determined by the social context within the work take place or even by some features of the person. Future research is needed on this issue. In sum, the assessment of motivation at a multi-task level opens an important door to a deeper understanding of teachers motivational processes. In fact, teachers motivation seems not limited to unifaceted and stable representations such as a global contextualized motivational orientation, but rather represents an important dynamic entity that is operative and responsive to particular tasks (with the exception of external regulation). Further work is needed in order to better understand the interplay between tasks motivation, and to determine how the fluctuations in motivation at the multi-tasks level facilitate or impede teacher psychological adaptation to work. A second implication of the present research concerns the gender and teaching level differences of teachers tasks motivation. In regard to gender, results indicate that women displayed greater identified regulation than men toward teaching. In addition they showed more identified regulation, but less intrinsic motivation than men toward the task of students evaluation. Even if the effect size of these differences was small, these results are not negligible taking into account the literature on motivation and gender differences. In fact, these findings contrasted those generally obtained, which revealed that overall (i.e., in different life contexts) women reported greater self-determined motivation than men (see Vallerand, 1997). The present results suggested to consider the inherent gender differences of teachers tasks motivation. In regard to teacher level differences, results indicated that elementary teachers reported higher levels of identified regulation that those in high school regarding class preparation, but less intrinsic motivation and more amotivation toward complementary tasks. Such differences could simply reflect the difference of work autonomy allowed to teachers with respect to their teaching level. For instance, elementary teachers could have more latitude to decide on the school pedagogical curriculum, while such kind of autonomy is offered to a greater extent to high school teachers in their complementary tasks. Future research on teachers motivation should address this issue. A third implication concerns the predictive value of a multi-tasks measure of teacher motivation. Traditionally, most researchers operationalized teacher motivation in global terms. The results of the present research suggested that a motivational orientation at work cannot adequately reflect the diversity of motivations specific to teachers work tasks. Given the magnitude of correlations between the motivational orientation at work and the work-related outcomes reported in previous studies (e.g., Blais et al., 1993; Fernet et al., 2004, Richer et al., 2002), it is even more convincing that the WTMST would be more than useful to predict teachers specific outcomes. In fact, present findings suggest that, after controlling the effect of the motivational orientation at work, the WTMST improved the prediction of specific teachers-related outcomes. This implies the importance to measure teachers motivation with scales specific to given tasks in order to capture more adequately teachers work-life. Future research should seek to establish the impact of teachers tasks motivation to predict more of teachers outcomes (e.g., behavioral, physical, and cognitive outcomes) and also educational outcomes (e.g., students achievement and motivation). The findings of this research also carry out practical implications. For many years, most of the educational interventions highlighted the importance of creating school climate that facilitates teachers

14 motivation. Based of the validation of the WTMST, additional research is called to develop interventions that would enhance teachers motivation. Presumably, these interventions should include ways to improve teachers motivation with respect to the array of tasks they are asked to perform. Accordingly, the WTMST would allow the possibility to target interventions with more precision. Hence, researchers and practitioners should consider multiple dimensions of teachers motivation that are particularly relevant to the concerns of their inquiries. For instance, the WTMST could be of a great help in program evaluation attempts where practitioners might be interested in assessing the motivational changes produced by implantation of various education programs or reforms. Limitations Although the present results provided strong support for the psychometric properties or the WTMST, certain limitations should be taken into account when interpreting these results. First, only a limited number of variables were used to assess the construct validity of the WTMST. In fact, considering that the WTMST is a specific measure of teacher motivation, specific work tasks outcomes and determinants with respect to each task should be investigated in future studies to provide additional support of the construct validity. Second, only self-reported measures were used to assess the psychometric properties of the WTMST, which could give rise to the common problem of shared method variance. Future research could add to the construct validity of the WTMST, in examining more objective measures. Third, the use of terminology determinants and outcomes is not appropriate to make causal inference in the present study. The crosssectional nature of the research does not allow such inferences. Further longitudinal research is thus needed to test causal ordering among the variables.

15 About the authors Claude Fernet is a Ph.D. psychology student at Laval University. His primary research interests are related to human motivation and individuals psychological adjustment in the work context. Professor Caroline Senécal is a professor of psychology at Laval University. She has developed an extensive research program on factors that foster dietary self-care activities among adolescents with diabetes. Caroline.Senecal@psy.ulaval.ca Professor Frederic Guay is a professor of guidance counselling in the Faculty of education at Laval University. Since 2003, he is the Chairholder of the Canada Research Chair on Motivation and Academic Success. Frederic.Guay@fse.ulaval.ca Dr. Martin Dowson is Research Fellow at the SELF Research Centre, University of Western Sydney. His research interests centre on educational psychology (particularly self-concept, motivation, and metacognition), the psychology of religion (particularly spirituality, burnout, and religious identity/selfconcept), and psychometrics (particularly Structural Equation Modeling). mdowson@unisurf.com.au Professor Herbert Marsh is Professor of Educational Psychology, founding Director of the SELF Research Centre. He is Australia s most widely cited researcher in both education and psychology, and the 11 th mostly widely cited researcher in the world across all disciplines of psychology. h.marsh@uws.edu.au Contact details Claude Fernet, M.Ps. École de Psychologie Pavillon Félix-Antoine-Savard Université Laval Québec (Québec) G1K 7P4 claude.fernet.1@ulaval.ca Phone: (418) #8437 Fax: (418) References Bentler, P. M. (1993). EQS: Structural equation program manual. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software. Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M., Lachance, L., Riddle, A. S., & Vallerand, R. J. (1993). L'inventaire des motivations au travail de Blais. Revue Québécoise de Psychologie, 14, Blais, M. R., Lachance, L., & Richer, S. (1992, November). A motivational model of job burnout : Crosssectional and longitudinal tests via LISREL. Paper prensented at the 2 nd American Psychological Association/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Washington, DC. Blais, M. R., Lachance, L., Brière, N. M., Dulude, D. M., & Richer, S. (1991). L inventaire des perceptions du style de supervision au travail (IPSST): Une mesure d antécédents motivationnels. Congrès annuel de la SQRP, Résumé des communications. Blais, M. R., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Brière, N. M. (1989). L'échelle de satisfaction de vie: Validation canadienne-française du "Satisfaction With Life Scale". Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 21, Brisson, C., Blanchette, C., Guimont, C., Dion, G., Moisan, J., Vézina, M., Dagenais, G. R., & Mâsse, L. (1998). Reliability and validity of the French version of 18-items Karasek Job content questionnaire. Work and Stress, 12(4),

16 Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long [Eds.] Testing Structural Equation Models. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage, Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Eflbaum. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum. Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology of self-dtermination. Lexington, MA: Health. Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Platinum Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), Dion G., & Tessier R. (1994). Validation and translation of the burnout inventory of Maslach and Jackson. Canadian Journal of Behavior Science, 26, Fernet, C., Guay, F., & Senécal, C. (2003, November). Les déterminants de la motivation au travail: Le rôle de l'organisation du travail et des besoins psychologiques. Paper presented at the 26 e Congrès de la Société Québécoise pour la Recherche en Psychologie (SQRP), Montréal, Québec. Fernet, C., Guay, F., & Senécal, C. (2004). Adjusting to job demands: The role of work self-determination and job control in predicting burnout. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), Friedman, I. A. (2003). Self-efficacy and burnout in teaching: the importance of interpersonal-relations efficacy. Social Psychology of Education, 6, Friedman, I. A., & Kass, E. (2002). Teacher self-efficacy: a classroom-organization conceptualisation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, Gagné, M., Boies, K., Koestner, R., & Martens, M. (2004). How work motivation is related to organizational commitment: A series of organizational studies. Unpublished manuscript, Concordia University. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-Determination Theory and Work Motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Guay, F., Larose, S., Boivin, M., Vitaro, R., & Tremblay, R. E. (Submitted for publication). Motivations underlying elementary school subjects: The elementary school motivation scale (ESMS). Journal of Career Assessment. Jesus, S. N., & Lens, W. (2005). An integrated model for the study of teacher motivation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(1), Karasek, R. A. (1985). Job content questionnaire and user s guide. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Southern Los Angeles, California. Lévesque, M., Blais, M. R., & Hess, U. (2004). Motivation, discretionary organizational behaviors, and wellbeing in an African setting: When is it a duty? Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 36(4), Marsh, H. W. (1990). A multi-dimensional, hierarchical self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychological Review, 2, Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1998). Top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal models: The direction of causality in multidimentional, hierarchical self-concept models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1986). Maslach Burnout Inventory. Manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. O Driscoll, M. P., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Supervisor behaviors, role stressors and uncertainty as predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(2), Pelletier, L. G., Séguin-Lévesque, C., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teacher s motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, Richer, S. F., Blanchard, C., & Vallerand, R. J. (2002). A motivational model of work turnover. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32,