Attitudes of academic staff towards their own work and towards external evaluation, from the perspective of self-determination theory: Estonian case

Transcription

1 Quality in Higher Education ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: Attitudes of academic staff towards their own work and towards external evaluation, from the perspective of self-determination theory: Estonian case Riin Seema, Maiki Udam & Heli Mattisen To cite this article: Riin Seema, Maiki Udam & Heli Mattisen (2016) Attitudes of academic staff towards their own work and towards external evaluation, from the perspective of selfdetermination theory: Estonian case, Quality in Higher Education, 22:2, , DOI: / To link to this article: Published online: 08 Jul Submit your article to this journal Article views: 287 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at Download by: [Society for Research into Higher Education SRHE] Date: 10 January 2018, At: 05:40

2 Quality in Higher Education, 2016 VOL. 22, NO. 2, Attitudes of academic staff towards their own work and towards external evaluation, from the perspective of selfdetermination theory: Estonian case Riin Seema a,b, Maiki Udam a and Heli Mattisen a a Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA), Tallinn, Estonia; b School of Educational Sciences, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to ascertain the attitudes of academic staff towards their own work as well as towards external evaluations. The study was based on (1) an analysis of assessment reports of institutional accreditations conducted by the Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education and (2) self-determination theory on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The satisfaction of academic staff with their own teaching and research competencies was measured and links among the following attitudes were analysed: sense of competence, intrinsic motivation for research, attitudes towards assessment of students and towards external evaluations. The results indicate that a correlation between attitudes towards work and towards external evaluation exists and that the attitudes of academic staff at universities and professional higher education institutions differ. The study involved 252 academic staff members and showed that competent and intrinsically motivated people perceive external evaluation more positively, thus supporting selfdetermination theory. Introduction KEYWORDS Academic staff of higher education institutions; attitudes towards work; intrinsic motivation; extrinsic motivation; sense of competence; attitudes towards external evaluation There are two seemingly contradictory goals in external evaluation: to support autonomy and to assess and control. Autonomy support and control, as well as intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are the main keywords in self-determination theory (Deci et al., 1994; Deci & Ryan, 2000a, 2000b; Ratelle et al., 2007). The current study applies self-determination theory to a system-wide analysis of the work by the Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA) and might have a broader interest for quality agencies worldwide. External reviews of educational institutions in Estonia are carried out by EKKA whose main objective is to provide the institutions with feedback in support of their development, concurrently keeping them accountable and comparable to other institutions. The purpose of the current study was to ascertain the attitudes of academic staff at Estonian higher education institutions towards their own work and towards external evaluations. The CONTACT Riin Seema riin.seema@tlu.ee 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

3 118 R. Seema et al. satisfaction of academic staff with their own teaching and research competencies (the ability to use active teaching methods and conduct research), their intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and their attitudes towards assessing students were measured; and how these compared to staff perceptions of the impact of external evaluation was studied. Self-determination theory According to self-determination theory, people do their work because of the activity itself, from intrinsic motivations or autonomously, when they are interested in, enjoy, value and know how to do it (for example, I work because it s fun ) (Deci & Ryan, 2000a, 2000b; Gorozidis & Papaioannou, 2014). The sense of competence is an important element of intrinsic motivation. It is thought that autonomously oriented people are more likely to perceive social environments and feedback as supportive of their autonomy (Ryan & Connell, 1989; Deci et al., 1994; Deci & Ryan, 2000a, 2000b; Lam & Gurland, 2008). Intrinsic motivation, competence and support for autonomy have been considered to be important for any effective job performance (Deci & Ryan, 2000a, 2000b; Gillet et al., 2013). At the same time, workers who are oriented towards external control and do their work for external reasons often feel as though they have to do it (Deci & Ryan, 2000a, 2000b; Lam & Gurland, 2008). Extrinsically motivated workers perceive rules as being forced on them and their goal is not the work itself but external benefits (for example, promotion) (Stone et al., 2009). Workers may also do their work out of guilt or to gain the approval of others but in this case they also feel forced to perform these activities (Deci & Ryan, 2000a, 2000b; Van den Broeck et al., 2013). People oriented towards external control perceive the environment and feedback as controlling (Koestner & Zuckerman, 1994). Studies have shown that the more teachers perceive the school s management as restrictive of autonomy and as applying pressure the lower the intrinsic motivation the teachers have, the more controlling they are in teaching situations and the more their students exhibit controlled motivation (Pelletier & Sharp, 2009). Still, some studies have shown that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are not opposite points of one dimension. They exist independently of one another while still being connected (Ratelle et al., 2007; Lam & Gurland, 2008). Thus, when wishing to shape people s behaviour; awareness of their attitudes, motivations, values and abilities becomes important (Galanes et al., 2000). The purpose of external evaluation has shifted from controlling institutions to supporting their development in many countries; however, the correlation between academic staff s motivations and attitudes towards their work on the one hand, and their perceptions of external evaluations on the other, has not yet been studied. The current study The current study was carried out by EKKA. The purpose of the study was to ascertain the attitudes of academic staff towards their own work and towards external evaluations. When planning the study, the analysis of the institutional accreditation reports over the past three years were taken into account, which revealed the areas in need of further development within universities and professional higher education institutions (Udam et al., 2015). International assessment committees have most frequently made the following recommendations for improvement.

4 Quality in Higher Education Increase the efficiency of research (especially in the case of professional higher education institutions). 2. Increase the use of active study methods and e-learning. 3. Apply formative assessment in a greater extent to better support student development. The qualitative data discussed above, regarding possible weaknesses of Estonian academic staff, along with the basic self-determination theory (Ryan & Connell, 1989; Deci, et al., 1994; Deci & Ryan, 2000a, 2000b) were used in developing a scale for the current study. The main questions addressed in this study were the following. 1. What are the attitudes of academic staff members towards their work, including intrinsic motivation for research and satisfaction with their skills? 2. Are there differences between the attitudes of academic staff at universities and those at professional higher education institutions? 3. Are there links between the attitudes of academic staff towards their work, towards assessment of students and towards external evaluations, and if so, what kind? The hypotheses were: 1. In areas where experts have noted less effectiveness and more room for development, a significant portion of teaching staff are not particularly satisfied with their own teaching and research competencies and at the same time have less intrinsic motivation to do their work. 2. There are differences between the attitudes of the academic staff at universities and those at professional higher education institutions. 3. Academic staff with positive attitudes towards their own work (who like their jobs and who feel competent) think that the main goal of assessing students is to support their development; and at the same time they also feel most positive about external evaluation. Method This article forms part of a larger study that was conducted in spring An Internet-based questionnaire was sent to all Estonian higher education institutions. In addition to self-determination theory, studies on the subject of external evaluation (Laughton, 2003; Van Kemenade & Hardjono, 2010) were also used when compiling the questionnaire. In this study, different types of external evaluation (study programme accreditation, institutional accreditation and quality assessment of study programme groups) were considered jointly under the term external evaluation because the procedures in all models are similar. The study was anonymous: the collected data did not make it possible to identify either the respondent or the specific higher education institution (no exact names of the institutions, persons, nor specific positions were asked). The collected data was analysed using the following methods: factor analysis, reliability analysis, descriptive statistics, independent samples t-test, analysis of variance and k-means cluster analysis.

5 120 R. Seema et al. Measures 1. A questionnaire with 14 statements measured academic staff attitudes (intrinsic motivation, sense of competency, values) on a six-point scale: 6 strongly agree to 1 strongly disagree (Tables 1 and 2). There was also a 0 response offered, I ve had no experience in this ; the 0 responses were not included in the data processing. 2. A questionnaire with 10 items on a six-point scale examined how academic staff perceived the impact of external evaluation (Table 1). Table 1. Results of factor analysis*. Scale item Factor loading M (SD) Factor 1: Perceived positive impact of external evaluation External evaluation helps to raise awareness of the weaknesses in the system and (1.12) to find solutions. External evaluation encourages organisational restructuring and/or other (1.21) developmental activities. External evaluation provides a good opportunity to share experience with (1.20) experts and to get useful feedback from them. External evaluation is a positive challenge for those being assessed (1.20) External evaluation enhances the reliability of Estonian higher education (1.25) External evaluation strengthens teamwork within an organisation (1.21) External evaluation causes those being assessed to feel supported and (1.12) encouraged. Cronbach s alpha 0.91 Factor 2: Intrinsic motivation for research I enjoy conducting research (0.96) I like participating in the work of research teams (0.91) Writing scientific articles/books is interesting and enjoyable to me (1.14) Participation in international conferences and training sessions is important to (0.81) me. I am satisfied with my skills in conducting research (1.09) My English skills are adequate for my professional work (1.11) Cronbach s alpha 0.80 Factor 3: Perceived negative impact of external evaluation External evaluation causes stress among those being assessed (1.20) External evaluation causes those being assessed to feel controlled and pressured (1.20) External evaluation increases bureaucracy within the higher education institute (1.30) Cronbach s alpha 0.82 Factor 4: Satisfaction with teaching skills or sense of competence I am satisfied with my ability to use active teaching methods (1.00) I am satisfied with my skills in motivating people (students and co-workers) (0.92) I am satisfied with my skills required to prepare and carry out e-courses (1.15) I am satisfied with my ability to plan my work (0.96) Cronbach s alpha 0.72 *EFA factor structure and loadings after Principal Component Analysis and Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalisation of all items used in this study with means, standard deviations and Cronbach s alpha values. Table 2. Attitudes towards student assessment and general extrinsic and intrinsic motivations to work. M (SD) I feel that the main objective of assessing students is to check their knowledge (1.32) I feel that the main objective of assessing students is to support their development (0.82) When working, I often feel that I have to do it (1.20) When working, I often feel that I want to do it (0.94)

6 Quality in Higher Education 121 Sample In 2014, there were 22 higher education institutions (15 professional higher education institutions and seven universities) with 4708 academic staff members in Estonia. There were slightly more men than women among academic staff (HaridusSILM, 2014). When designing the study, the goal was to get a representative sample that would include all important subgroups; and which would maintain some balance between proportions within the sample and proportions that occur in the overall population being examined (Denscombe, 2010). The study sample included a total of 252 members of Estonian academic staff whose work involved at least some amount of teaching: 77 staff members from professional higher education institutions and 175 from universities took part in the survey. Twenty respondents were up to 30 years of age, 62 respondents were years old, 52 respondents were years old, 67 respondents were 51 60, and 51 respondents were aged 61+. There were 148 women and 104 men among the respondents. Results Factor analysis of all items in the questionnaire was carried out in order to identify main constructs in the study (Child, 2006). As a result, four factors with high Cronbach s alpha values emerged, indicating internal consistency. This enabled them to be treated as subtopics or subscales of the study (Table 1): the perceived positive impact of external evaluations; the perceived negative impact of external evaluations; intrinsic motivation for research; satisfaction with teaching skills or sense of competence. The perceived positive and negative impacts of external evaluations Two distinctive factors emerged regarding the attitudes towards external evaluations: perceived positive impact of external evaluations and perceived negative impact of external evaluations (Table 1, factors 1 and 3). Academic staff, in general, think that external evaluations raise awareness of weaknesses in the system as well as provide possible solutions for eliminating them, thus enhancing the reliability of Estonian higher education. However, academic staff, in general, do not agree with the statement that external evaluation causes those being evaluated to feel supported and encouraged. The perceived negative effects of external evaluation include an increase in bureaucracy, stress and a feeling of being controlled. Academic staff perceive the positive and negative effects of external evaluation in relatively equal amounts: the score for the perceived positive impact was 3.9 (SD = 0.94), while the average assessment of negative impact was 4.2 (SD = 1.0). Staff at professional higher education institutions assessed the positive effect of external evaluations more highly than staff at universities (p > 0.05) but the negative effects of external evaluation were assessed similarly regardless of the type of higher education institution (One-way ANOVA and T-test).

7 122 R. Seema et al. Intrinsic motivation for research The factor of intrinsic motivation for research was isolated that included two types of questions: (1) how much staff members enjoy or value conducting research, writing articles and books, and participating in conferences; and (2) how competent they feel conducting research and expressing themselves in English (Table 1, factor 2). The analysis showed that satisfaction with own skills to carry out research and English skills are closely related to intrinsic motivation for research in the sample of Estonian academic staff. The Cronbach s alpha value.80 indicated that the internal consistency of the subscale was good and therefore this group of six items could be considered as a subtopic. It turned out that academic staff have a relatively high level of intrinsic motivation for research (arithmetic mean 4.7; SD = 0.83). Such motivation levels are higher among staff at universities and lower among staff at professional higher education institutions (p < 0.001): at universities, the average intrinsic motivation to do research is 4.9 (SD = 0.69), while at professional higher education institutions it is 4.3 (SD = 0.97). Many academic staff members are not satisfied with their own competencies in research: 34.6% of academic staff at professional higher education institutions and 18.9% at universities are dissatisfied. Satisfaction with teaching skills or sense of competence The subscale satisfaction with teaching skills collated statements about staff satisfaction with their own teaching competencies (Table 1, factor 4). Staff members are fairly satisfied with their skills of using active teaching methods, motivating students and co-workers and planning their work. They tend to be dissatisfied with their skills of preparing and carrying out e-courses. Average satisfaction with skills was 4.2 (SD = 0.75), which means that there is still room for improvement. Satisfaction with teaching competencies among academic staff does not exhibit significant differences with regard to the types of educational institution (p > 0.05). Attitudes towards assessment of student learning and general extrinsic and intrinsic motivations to work At this point, four statements are observed that are important in the context of the current study (Table 2). As a result of factor analysis, these statements did not form a distinct subtopic. Two of these statements addressed attitudes towards assessing students and the other two addressed general intrinsic and extrinsic motivations to work. Academic staff believe that the main objective of assessing students is to support their development (mean 5.14; SD = 0.82). Staff feel less strongly that the main objective of assessing students is to check their knowledge (mean 3.75; SD = 1.32). Academic staff at universities and professional higher education institutions do not differ significantly in these attitudes (p > 0.05). The current study also included two items that addressed general extrinsic and intrinsic motivations to work. Those statements were: When working, I often feel that I have to do it and When working, I often feel that I want to do it. Academic staff tend to feel that they want to do their job (average 4.60; SD = 0.94) rather than having to do it (average 3.78;

8 Quality in Higher Education 123 SD = 1.20). Academic staff at universities and professional higher education institutions do not differ significantly in their extrinsic and intrinsic motivations to work (p > 0.05). Academic staff segments or profiles The academic staff were divided into groups based on several concomitant attitudes that became evident from similar responses to the statements. Based on cluster analysis, three groups or profiles of academic staff were isolated (Table 3): (1) highly motivated and competent staff, (2) staff with average motivation and (3) staff with low motivation levels and feelings of being incompetent. The variable that differentiated the three groups most clearly was, I feel that the main objective of assessing students is to check their knowledge. It had a very different mean value for all three groups (4.8; 4.0; 2.6). Highly motivated academic staff who felt that they wanted and had to do their work were most likely to believe that the purpose of assessment was to check knowledge. The staff with average motivation and who felt the least that they had to do their work, believed least that the purpose of assessment was to check knowledge. The academic staff with low motivation levels remained somewhere in between with their opinions that the main objective of student assessment was to check their knowledge. At the same time, the opinion that the objective of assessment was to support development had a relatively high value in all three groups (5.5; 5.4; 4.6). This result conflicts with the findings of a recent analysis of the institutional accreditation reports showing that formative assessment should be applied in a greater extent to better support student development (Udam et al., 2015) and needs to be studied further. The study suggests that teachers are aware of the importance of assessment as a development tool but have not yet sufficiently applied it. In conclusion, the group of highly motivated academic staff whose intrinsic motivation to do research, sense of competence and perception of the positive impact of external evaluation were highest, felt that the purpose of the assessment of students is both to support their development and to check their knowledge. An interesting result was that the cluster group of staff who felt most strongly that they wanted to do their work, also felt most strongly that they had to do their work (see also Van den Broeck et al., 2013). Respondents with low levels of motivation felt most incompetent, were least willing to do their jobs and also had the lowest perceptions of the positive impact of external evaluation. Respondents with low levels of motivation assessed the impact of external evaluation most negatively. At the same time, perceptions of the negative effects of external evaluations differentiate the groups the least; which means that regardless of their motivations, competencies and attitudes towards assessing students, academic staff perceive the negative impact of external evaluation quite similarly. The first hypothesis was confirmed. In areas of external evaluation where experts have noted less effectiveness and more room for development, a significant proportion of academic staff are not satisfied with their own skills regarding research and teaching (research skills, e-courses, English skills), and their intrinsic motivation is relatively low. There was a roughly equal number of staff in all three cluster groups. However, those with low levels of motivation were the largest group (N = 95) and those with high motivation were least frequently represented (N = 71). Based on self-determination theory in order for academic staff to be more active in the field of research, in compiling e-courses and in using active teaching methods, extra attention must be given to increasing the competence of staff. People are

9 124 R. Seema et al. Table 3. K-means cluster groups with ANOVA results among sample of Estonian academic staff (N = 246). Cluster High motivation Average motivation Low motivation N = 71 N = 80 N = 95 F Internal motivation for research *** Satisfaction with skills/sense of competence *** Perceived positive impact of external *** evaluation. Perceived negative impact of external * evaluation. I feel that the main objective of assessing *** students is to check their knowledge. I feel that the main objective of assessing *** students is to support their development. When working, I often feel that I have to do it *** When working, I often feel that I want to do it *** Notes. N = number of academic staff. Fewer stars show that the variable is less descriptive of the groups. * p <.01; *** p <.0001 most effective in their work if they feel competent and enjoy and value their activities (Deci & Ryan, 2000a, 2000b; Gillet et al., 2013). The second hypothesis was also confirmed. There were differences between the attitudes of academic staff at universities and at professional higher education institutions. The academic staff at universities have a higher sense of competence and intrinsic motivation to do research than the academic staff at professional higher education institutions. Acquiring competence in the area of scientific research at professional higher education institutions must be supported in particular. At the same time, staff satisfaction with their teaching skills, their attitudes towards student assessment and general extrinsic and intrinsic motivations to work did not show significant differences with regard to the types of educational institution. An interesting result was that even while the academic staff at professional higher education institutions were less intrinsically motivated and less competent to do research than the staff at universities, they perceived a more positive influence from external evaluations. This contradiction can be explained by the fact that professional higher education institutions do not prioritise research as highly as universities and therefore do not require the same skills from their staff. Also, as a large proportion of Estonian professional higher education institutions have transformed from institutions of vocational education to institutions of higher education in the past 20 years, it can be suggested that external evaluations have helped to boost the confidence of academic staff and enhance the image of the institutions. The study showed that academic staff at both universities and professional higher education institutions perceive that external evaluation helps to raise awareness of the weaknesses in the system and to find solutions but they also see the external evaluation as a controlling measure. Academic staff at both universities and professional higher education institutions perceive the negative impact of external evaluation similarly. The third hypothesis was only partially confirmed. K-means cluster analysis showed a link between academic staff s attitudes towards their own work, assessing students (supporting

10 Quality in Higher Education 125 development and checking knowledge) and how positively or negatively they perceive external evaluation. Staff with the most positive attitudes towards their own work believe that the important goals of assessing students are both to support development and to check knowledge. The staff who are intrinsically motivated, who like their jobs and who feel competent, perceive the impact of external evaluation as being more positive. Academic staff with less intrinsic motivation and who are less satisfied with their competence perceive the impact of external evaluation as being more negative. Still, differences in perceptions of the negative impact between cluster groups were very small. The study also showed that academic staff generally believe that the objective of student assessment is to support development but there is less agreement regarding the purpose of assessment being to check knowledge. There are some limitations in the current study. First, the sample size was a bit smaller than needed to obtain a margin of error of 5 per cent. According to Denscombe (2010), the size of the sample should be approximately 300 persons if the total population is Therefore, the confidence level that our sample size of 252 aptly represents the Estonian academic staff population is less than 95%. Second, although the number of men among academic staff is slightly higher than the number of women, more women than men were represented in this study. Since the study was conducted by EKKA, it would be useful for improving the reliability of the study results if an independent research institution were to conduct a parallel analysis to enable the results to be compared. Conclusion In areas of external evaluation where experts have noted less effectiveness and more room for development, a significant number of Estonian academic staff appear to have a relatively low sense of competence and intrinsic motivation. Academic staff perceive both the positive and negative effects of external evaluation. The academic staff who are most satisfied with their competencies and who feel most that they want and have to do their jobs, are both supportive towards and demanding of students and perceive the positive impact of external evaluations most. At the same time, academic staff perceive the negative impact of external evaluations quite similarly regardless of their motivations, competencies and attitudes towards assessing students. It can be concluded that external evaluation is inevitably a source of stress for those under evaluation; agencies need to be aware of it and evaluators should cope with it and, where possible, mitigate it. It can also be assumed that the more one has invested in development activities, or the enhancement of competencies, the greater the positive impact of external evaluation will be. This study also illustrated how intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are not opposite points of one dimension but exist independently of one another while still being connected (Ratelle et al., 2007; Lam & Gurland, 2008). Similarly to Van den Broeck et al. (2013), the study revealed that staff members may be intrinsically motivated and enjoy their work whether or not they feel controlled or forced, either externally or internally. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

11 126 R. Seema et al. References Child, D., 2006, The Essentials of Factor Analysis, third edition (New York, NY, Continuum). Deci, E.L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B.C. & Leone, D.R., 1994, Facilitating internalization: the self-determination theory perspective, Journal of Personality, 62(1), pp Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M., 2000a, The what and why of goal pursuits: human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior, Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), pp Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M., 2000b, Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, pp Denscombe, M., 2010, The Good Research Guide for Small-Scale Social Research Projects, fourth edition (New York, NY, McCraw-Hill). Galanes, G.J., Adams, K. & Brilhart, J.K., 2000, Communication in Groups: Application and skills, fourth edition (New York, NY, McGraw-Hill). Gillet, N., Colombat, P., Michinov, E., Pronost, A. & Fouquereau, E., 2013, Procedural justice, supervisor autonomy support, work satisfaction, organizational identification and job performance: the mediating role of need satisfaction and perceived organizational support, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(11), pp Gorozidis, G. & Papaioannou, A.G., 2014, Teachers motivation to participate in training and to implement innovations, Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, pp HaridusSILM, 2014, Teaching staff. Available at: hm.htm?document=htm_avalik.qvw&host=qvs%40qlikview-pub&anonymous=true (accessed 12 August 2014). Koestner, R. & Zuckerman, M., 1994, Causality orientations, failure, and achievement, Journal of Personality, 62(3), pp Lam, C. & Gurland, S.T., 2008, Self-determined work motivation predicts job outcomes, but what predicts self-determined work motivation?, Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), pp Laughton, D., 2003, Why was the QAA approach to teaching quality assessment rejected by academics in UK HE?, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(3), pp Pelletier, L.G. & Sharp, E.C., 2009, Administrative pressures and teachers interpersonal behavior in the classroom, Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), pp Ratelle, C.F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R.J., Larose, S. & Senécal, C., 2007, Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: a person-oriented analysis, Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), pp 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(5), pp Stone, D., Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M., 2009, Beyond talk: creating autonomous motivation through selfdetermination theory, Journal of General Management, 34, pp Udam, M., Seema, R. & Mattsien, H., 2015, Eesti kõrgharidus institutsionaalse akrediteerimise tulemuste taustal ehk Mida juhid peaksid teadma, Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri, Estonian Journal of Education, 3(1), pp Van den Broeck, A., Lens, W., De Witte, H. & Van Coillie, H., 2013, Unraveling the importance of the quantity and the quality of workers motivation for well-being: a person-centered perspective, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(1), pp Van Kemenade, E. & Hardjono, T.W., 2010, A critique of the use of self evaluation in a compulsory accreditation system, Quality in Higher Education, 16(3), pp