Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education

ISSN: 1359-866X (Print) 1469-2945 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/capj20

The Relationship Between Teachers' Perceptions

of Student Motivation and Engagement and
Teachers' Enjoyment of and Confidence in
Teaching

Andrew J. Martin

To cite this article: Andrew J. Martin (2006) The Relationship Between Teachers' Perceptions of
Student Motivation and Engagement and Teachers' Enjoyment of and Confidence in Teaching,
Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education , 34:1, 73-93, DOI: 10.1080/13598660500480100

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660500480100

Published online: 18 Jan 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1691

Citing articles: 34 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=capj20
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education
Vol. 34, No. 1, March 2006, pp. 73–93

The Relationship Between Teachers’

Perceptions of Student Motivation and
Engagement and Teachers’ Enjoyment
of and Confidence in Teaching
Andrew J. Martin*
University of Western Sydney, Australia

This paper examines teachers’ perceptions of their students’ motivation and engagement and their
enjoyment of and confidence in teaching. Drawing on Martin’s Student Motivation and
Engagement Scale, 10 facets of motivation and engagement were explored amongst a sample of
1,019 teachers. These facets comprised three adaptive cognitive dimensions of motivation (self-
efficacy, valuing of school, mastery orientation), three adaptive behavioural dimensions (planning,
study management, persistence), two impeding dimensions (anxiety, failure avoidance), and two
maladaptive dimensions (uncertain control, self-handicapping). Male teachers tended to report
significantly higher student motivation and engagement than female teachers (though effect sizes
were small) and primary school teachers reported significantly higher student motivation and
engagement than high school teachers (effect sizes were moderate). Adaptive dimensions were
more strongly associated with enjoyment and confidence in teaching than impeding and
maladaptive dimensions. Of the adaptive dimensions, students’ mastery orientation was the
strongest correlate of teachers’ enjoyment of teaching and students’ persistence and students’
planning were the strongest correlates of teachers’ confidence in teaching. These associations were
more marked for male teachers and relatively independent of years spent teaching. Implications for
teacher education and professional development are discussed.

Introduction
Motivation and engagement can be conceptualized as students’ energy and drive to
engage, learn, work effectively, and achieve to their potential at school and the
behaviours that follow from this energy and drive. Motivation and engagement play a
large part in students’ interest in and enjoyment of school and study. Motivation and
engagement also underpin their achievement (Martin, 2001, 2002a, 2002b; Martin
& Debus, 1998; Martin & Marsh, 2003; Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001a, 2001b,

*Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation (SELF) Research Centre, Bankstown

Campus, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South DC, New South Wales,
Australia 2750. Email: a.martin@uws.edu.au
ISSN 1359-866X (print)/ISSN 1469-2945 (online)/06/010073-21
ß 2006 Australian Teacher Education Association
DOI: 10.1080/13598660500480100
74 A. J. Martin

2003; Martin, Marsh, Williamson, & Debus, 2003; Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles,
1990; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Schunk, 1990). Conceivably, teachers’ enjoyment,
confidence, and satisfaction in their role are likely to vary as a function of their
students’ motivation and engagement. Yet, there is not a great deal known about the
specific facets of students’ motivation and engagement that are most highly related to
teachers’ enjoyment of and confidence in teaching. Knowing this would provide
direct insight for teacher educators, administrators, and researchers alike as to which
orientations and behaviours are particularly critical in the class environment and
which might be ideal elements to promote—particularly for those teachers who are
not enjoying or confident in their role as teachers.
This paper focuses on the Student Motivation and Engagement Scale (Martin,
2001, 2003), a measure of student motivation and engagement that identifies
specific facets of motivation and engagement that can be related to teachers’
enjoyment of teaching. In doing so, the investigation is able to conduct a more fine-
grained account of the factors associated with teachers’ enjoyment of and confidence
in teaching and also provide more focused guidance as to factors to address in
teacher education, professional development, programming, and administration.
Research shows that more fine-grained and focused intervention is more effective
than intervention that does not focus on specific target behaviours (Weisz, Weiss,
Han, Granger, & Morton, 1995) and so it is proposed that this paper represents a
significant advance on previous research in teacher satisfaction.

Student Motivation and Engagement

The Student Motivation and Engagement Scale assesses the thoughts, feelings, and
behaviours underpinning academic motivation and engagement at school. The Scale
separates motivation and engagement into factors that reflect enhanced motivation
and engagement, those that reflect impeded or constrained motivation and
engagement, and those that reflect reduced motivation and engagement. These are
called adaptive, impeding, and maladaptive dimensions respectively. Adaptive dimen-
sions comprise cognitions subsumed by self-efficacy, mastery orientation, and
valuing of school and also comprise behaviours subsumed by persistence, study
management, and planning. Impeding dimensions comprise anxiety and failure
avoidance. Maladaptive dimensions are uncertain control and self-handicapping.
Research has shown that these facets of motivation and engagement are significantly
related to students’ enjoyment and participation at school, future educational plans,
literacy and numeracy, and achievement in science, maths, and English (Martin,
2001, 2002b, 2003).

Teachers and Student Motivation and Engagement

Hill and Rowe (1996) have shown that a significant portion of student achievement
and engagement is explained by teacher- and classroom-level variables. According to
 Student Motivation and Teachers’ Enjoyment 75

them, this underscores the centrality of quality pedagogy and the importance of
understanding the critical factors that contribute to quality pedagogy. Indeed, in a
major longitudinal analysis of pedagogy in Australia, Lingard and Ladwig (2001)
found that there were more differences in pedagogy between teachers than between
schools—demonstrating that the critical point of action is in the classroom with the
teacher. This research has also contributed to better understanding of school
effectiveness. According to Rowe, ‘‘it is primarily through the quality of teaching that
‘effective’ schools make a difference’’ (2000, p. 29).
The role of teachers’ enjoyment and confidence in effective pedagogy is proposed
to be a vital one. Confidence is akin to the notion of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).
Confidence or self-efficacy (a) constitutes a generative capacity such that individuals
high in self-efficacy tend to generate and test alternative courses of action when they
do not meet with initial success; (b) can enhance one’s functioning through elevated
levels of effort and persistence; and (c) can also enhance one’s ability to deal with a
problem situation by influencing cognitive and emotional processes related to the
situation. Individuals low in confidence tend to dwell on their deficiencies and view
situations as more difficult than they really are (Bandura, 1997). Following from
these points, it can be hypothesized that teachers high in confidence (self-efficacy)
are more likely to engage in pedagogy that is characterized by positive, proactive, and
solution-focused orientations.
It is also proposed that teachers’ enjoyment of and confidence in teaching impact
on their affective orientation towards their students (for example, through teacher–
student relationships) and that this is associated with their students’ motivation and
engagement. Indeed, a variety of studies reflect this. Students who believe their
teacher is a caring one also tend to believe they learn more (Teven & McCroskey,
1997). Positive relationships with teachers predict enhanced social, cognitive, and
language development in young children (Kontos & Wilcox-Herzog, 1997).
Students’ feelings of acceptance by teachers are associated with emotional, cognitive,
and behavioural engagement in class (Connell & Wellborn, 1991). Teachers who
support a student’s autonomy tend to facilitate greater motivation, curiosity, and
desire for challenge (Flink, Boggiano, & Barrett, 1990). Teachers higher in warmth
tend to develop greater confidence in students (Ryan & Grolnick, 1986). On the
other hand, when teachers are more controlling, students tend to show less mastery
motivation and lower confidence (Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981).
Hence, students’ motivation and engagement are related to their teachers’
enjoyment of teaching, pedagogical efficacy, and affective orientations in the
classroom. However, it seems that research to date has not explored the specific
facets of students’ motivation and engagement that are related to teachers’
satisfaction and efficacy in teaching. It is therefore considered important to explore
the role played by students’ motivation and engagement in their teachers’ affective
orientation to teaching. The present study does so by examining the link between
teachers’ perceptions of their students’ motivation and engagement and their self-
reported enjoyment of and confidence in teaching. To this end, the present research
76 A. J. Martin

poses the following questions: To what extent are specific facets of student
motivation and engagement associated with teachers’ enjoyment of and confidence
in teaching? What facets of motivation and engagement are the strongest correlates
of teachers’ enjoyment and confidence? Are there differing patterns of relationships
as a function of the teacher’s gender, school level (that is, primary versus high
school), and years teaching? What facets of students’ motivation and engagement are
of most concern to teachers and does this vary as a function of their gender and
school level?

Method
Sample and Procedure
In total, 1,019 teachers from schools in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, and Canberra
(Australia) participated in the study. A total of 888 teachers were from 19 schools at
which the author conducted in-house professional development on student motivation
and engagement and 131 were teachers (from approximately 80–100 schools)
attending off-site student motivation and engagement workshops also conducted by
the author. Of the 19 on-site schools, 10 were independent, two were systemic
Catholic, and seven were Government schools. A similar mix was observed at the off-
site workshops. Just under one in four (23%) teachers taught at single-sex boys’
schools, 3% taught at single-sex girls’ schools, and 74% taught at co-educational
schools. Just over half (53%) the teachers were female and 47% were male. On
average, respondents had taught for 15 years (SD59 years). Just over 10% taught
primary school students only, 85% taught secondary school students only, and 5%
taught both primary and secondary school students. Participation in this study was
voluntary. Participants were aware that they could withdraw at any stage with no
penalty to them or their school. They were assured of anonymity and confidentiality,
and that no school or individual would be identified in any dissemination of findings.
Teachers were administered the brief parallel teacher-form of the Student Motivation
and Engagement Scale1 (Martin, 2001, 2003) in addition to three items that measured
their enjoyment of teaching and three items that measured their confidence as a teacher.
Teachers were informed that they were not to identify themselves, their students, or
their school. In rating their students’ motivation they were asked to think in general
terms about students they taught.

Materials
The parallel teacher-form of the Student Motivation and Engagement Scale
measures teachers’ perceptions of their students’ motivation and engagement. It
assesses motivation and engagement through six adaptive, two impeding, and two
maladaptive dimensions. Each of the 10 dimensions was assessed through one item.
Enjoyment of and confidence in teaching were assessed through three items each.
 Student Motivation and Teachers’ Enjoyment 77

Adaptive dimensions. The adaptive dimension is separated into cognitions and

behaviour. Adaptive cognitions are the thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes students hold
that in the Student Motivation and Engagement Scale are self-efficacy, mastery
orientation, and valuing of school. Adaptive behaviours are the behaviours that
reflect these thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes and in the Scale are persistence,
planning, and study management.

N Self-efficacy (‘‘Most students in my class believe they can do a good job on their
schoolwork’’): Adapted in part from Midgley, Maehr, and Hicks et al’s (1997)
Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey, self-efficacy is students’ belief and
confidence in their ability to understand or to do well in their schoolwork, to
meet challenges they face, and to perform to the best of their ability.
N Valuing of school (‘‘Most students in my class believe that what they are taught at
school is important and useful’’): Adapted in part from Pintrich, Smith, Garcia,
and McKeachie’s (1991) Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
(1991), valuing of school is how much students believe what they learn at school
is useful, important, and relevant to them or to the world in general.
N Mastery orientation (‘‘Most students in my class are focused on learning and
improving more than competing and being the best’’): Adapted in part from
Nicholls (1989), mastery orientation is being focused on learning, solving
problems, and developing skills. The goal of a mastery orientation is to be the best
student one can be.
N Planning (‘‘Most students in my class plan how they will do their schoolwork and
check how they are going as they do it’’): Adapted in part from Miller, Greene,
Montalvo, Ravindran, and Nichols’s (1996) Cognitive Engagement Scale,
planning is how much students plan their schoolwork, assignments, and study
and how much they keep track of their progress as they are doing them.
N Study management (‘‘I believe most students in my class use their study time well
and try to study under conditions that bring out their best’’): Adapted in part from
Pintrich et al. (1991), study management refers to the way students use their study
time, organize their study timetable, and choose and arrange where they study.
N Persistence (‘‘Most students in my class persist at their schoolwork even when it is
challenging or difficult’’): Adapted in part from Miller et al’s (1996) Cognitive
Engagement Scale and Miserandino (1996), persistence is how much students
keep trying to work out an answer or to understand a problem even when that
problem is difficult or is challenging.

Impeding dimensions. Impeding dimensions are anxiety and failure avoidance.

N Failure avoidance (‘‘A number of students in my class mainly do their schoolwork

to avoid failure or disapproval from parents or teachers’’): Adapted from an
orientation outlined by Harter, Whitesell, and Kowalski (1992), students have an
avoidance focus when the main reason they do their schoolwork is to avoid doing
poorly or to avoid being seen to do poorly.
78 A. J. Martin

N Anxiety (‘‘A number of students in my class get quite anxious about their
schoolwork and tests’’): Adapted in part from Pintrich and DeGroot (1990),
anxiety has two parts: feeling nervous and worrying. Feeling nervous is the uneasy
or sick feeling students get when they think about their schoolwork, assignments,
or exams. Worrying is their fear about not doing very well in their schoolwork,
assignments, or exams.

Maladaptive dimensions. Maladaptive dimensions are uncertain control and self-

handicapping.

N Uncertain control (‘‘A number of students in my class do not think they have much
control over how well they do at school’’): Adapted in part from Connell’s (1985)
Unknown cognitive dimension of the Multidimensional Measure of Children’s
Perceptions of Control (1985), this subscale assesses students’ uncertainty about
how to do well or how to avoid doing poorly.
N Self-handicapping (‘‘A number of students in my class seem to reduce their chances
of doing well—for example, waste time, not study, disrupt others, procrastinate,
etc’’): Adapted from the Academic Self-Handicapping Scale (Midgley,
Arunkumar, & Urdan, 1996) and the Shortened Self-handicapping Scale
(Strube, 1986), students self handicap when they do things that reduce their
chances of success at school. Examples are putting off doing an assignment or
wasting time while they are meant to be doing their schoolwork or studying for an
exam.

Enjoyment of and confidence in teaching. Enjoyment of teaching was assessed through

three items (for example, ‘‘On the whole, I enjoy being a teacher’’) which jointly
comprised a reliable scale (Cronbach’s a5.84). Confidence as a teacher was assessed
through three items (for example, ‘‘On the whole, I’m a good teacher’’) which jointly
comprised a reliable scale (Cronbach’s a5.71). Due to operational considerations,
each teacher was administered only one of the three-item enjoyment or confidence
sets. In total, 71% of the sample completed enjoyment items and 29% completed
confidence items. No primary school teachers completed confidence items.

Measurement and statistical analysis. To each item, teachers rated their perception of
their students’ motivation and their own enjoyment of or confidence in their teaching
on a scale of 1 (‘‘strongly disagree’’) to 7 (‘‘strongly agree’’). Data were analysed using
SPSS for Windows (Version 11) on which descriptive analyses, zero- and first-order
Pearson product moment correlations, independent samples t-tests, and multivariate
analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were carried out.
Data were also analysed using LISREL 8.54 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2001) on which
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted. In CFA, the researcher posits an
a priori structure and tests the ability of a solution based on this structure to fit the
data by demonstrating that (a) the solution is well defined; (b) parameter estimates
 Student Motivation and Teachers’ Enjoyment 79

are consistent with theory and a priori predictions; and (c) the x2 and subjective
indices of fit are reasonable (Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988; McDonald & Marsh,
1990). Maximum likelihood was the method of estimation used for the models.
In evaluating goodness of fit of target models, the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) is emphasized. Although the RMSEA is apparently the
most widely endorsed criterion of fit, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the x2 test
statistic, and an evaluation of parameter estimates are also presented. For RMSEAs,
values of less than .05 and .08 are taken to reflect a close fit and a reasonable fit
respectively (see Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993; Marsh, Balla & Hau, 1996; Schumacker
& Lomax, 1996). The CFI varies along a 0-to-1 continuum in which values greater
than .90 and .95 are typically taken to reflect acceptable and excellent fits to the data
respectively (McDonald & Marsh, 1990).

Results
Preliminary Assessment of Psychometrics
The scale administered to teachers was a brief parallel version of the Student
Motivation and Engagement Scale (Martin, 2001, 2003). The Student Motivation
and Engagement Scale is a 40-item self-complete instrument administered to
students that comprises 10 facets of motivation (six adaptive, two impeding, and two
maladaptive dimensions), with each facet subsumed by four items. Due to time
restrictions, it was not possible to administer a parallel 40-item instrument to
teachers. Instead, teachers were asked to make a summary rating in relation to each
of the 10 facets. Hence, single summary items comprised the teacher measure.
Because single-item constructs are not as reliable as multi-item constructs, it was
considered important to test the factor structure to ensure that the items reflected the
four hypothesized groups of adaptive cognitions, adaptive behaviours, impeding
dimensions, and maladaptive dimensions.
Accordingly, CFA was carried out on the 10 items that specified the four-factor
structure. The fit of the data to the model was very good (CFI5.97, RMSEA5.07,
x25178.38, df531). Factor loadings and correlations are presented in Table 1. In view
of these findings showing that the teacher’s summary rating scale is consistent with the
higher order factor structure derived through the 40-item student instrument, it was
considered a defensible proxy for the larger scale. Notwithstanding this, some
associated limitations are discussed at the conclusion of the paper.

Descriptive Statistics
Before exploring relationships amongst variables, the descriptive properties of the
items were explored. Means, standard deviations (SDs), and distribution statistics
are presented in Table 2. These ratings reflect teachers’ judgements about their
students in general (but will in part be idiosyncratic to the item wording).
80 A. J. Martin

Table 1. Factor loadings and correlations for the hypothesized four latent factors

Adaptive Adaptive Impeding Maladaptive

cognitions behaviours dimensions dimensions

LOADINGS
Self-efficacy .76
Valuing of school .76
Mastery orientation .53
Planning .71
Study management .81
Persistence .78
Anxiety .46
Failure avoidance .45
Uncertain control .60
Self-handicapping .62
CORRELATIONS
Adaptive cognitions —
Adaptive behaviours .84 —
Impeding dimensions 2.04 .01 —
Maladaptive dimensions 2.53 2.60 .75 —

In terms of the adaptive dimensions, these data show that teachers perceive their
students to be highest in self-efficacy and also relatively high in terms of their belief in
the valuing of school, mastery orientation, and persistence. On the other hand, they
also see their students to be relatively lower in their proclivity to plan their
schoolwork and study. In terms of impeding and maladaptive dimensions, teachers
see their students’ anxiety, self-handicapping, and failure avoidance as relatively
high. All facets of motivation assessed are approximately normally distributed.
Correlations amongst these facets of motivation are presented in Table 3.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for each facet of motivation

Mean /7 SD Skew Kurtosis

Adaptive cognitions
Self-efficacy 5.20 1.07 21.13 1.43
Valuing of school 4.79 1.19 2.76 .27
Mastery orientation 4.60 1.31 2.38 2.66
Adaptive behaviours
Planning 3.73 1.35 .13 2.90
Study management 4.07 1.35 2.21 2.79
Persistence 4.58 1.28 2.62 2.36
Impeding dimensions
Anxiety 5.00 1.29 2.81 .29
Failure avoidance 4.64 1.19 2.65 .08
Maladaptive dimensions
Uncertain control 4.17 1.38 2.19 2.86
Self-handicapping 4.79 1.40 2.62 2.18
 Student Motivation and Teachers’ Enjoyment 81

Table 3. Correlations amongst adaptive, impeding, and maladaptive

Self Value Mastery Study Failure Uncertain Self-

efficacy school orient Plan manage Persist Anxiety avoid control handicap
(SE) (VS) (MO) (PLN) (SM) (P) (ANX) (FA) (UC) (SH)

SE —
VS 55 —
MO 31 35 —
PLN 36 37 35 —
SM 46 46 37 56 —
P 45 48 40 49 58 —
ANX 03 11 203 04 05 09 —
FA 205 206 218 204 208 208 18 —
UC 221 224 209 219 223 222 17 22 —
SH 221 223 221 228 234 229 15 20 35 —

Note. Decimals omitted; Correlations ..07 significant at p,0.05.

Patterns of Teachers’ Enjoyment and Confidence

It was of interest to determine patterns of teachers’ enjoyment and confidence as a
function of their gender and their school level (primary versus high school).
Accordingly, one way MANOVAs were conducted with gender and school level as
independent variables and the ten adaptive, impeding, and maladaptive dimensions
as dependent variables. There was a statistically significant multivariate effect for
gender, F(10,824)56986.28, p,0.001. Follow-up independent samples t-tests are
presented in Table 4 along with group means, standard deviations, and effect sizes.
Data in Table 4 show that in terms of self-efficacy, valuing of school, study
management, and control, male teachers rate their students statistically significantly
higher than their female counterparts (although effect sizes are small). There is no
statistically significant gender difference in enjoyment of and confidence in teaching.
There was also a statistically significant multivariate effect for school level,
F(10,821)52203.66, p,0.001. Follow-up independent samples t-tests are presented
in Table 4 along with group means, standard deviations, and effect sizes. Data in
Table 4 show that in terms of self-efficacy, valuing of school, mastery orientation,
study management, and persistence, primary school teachers rate their students
statistically significantly higher than their high school counterparts. Primary school
teachers also rate their students statistically significantly lower in anxiety and self-
handicapping than do high school teachers. Generally, the effect sizes associated
with these differences were moderate. There is no statistically significant school-level
difference in enjoyment of teaching and because confidence items were not
administered to primary school teachers, differences as a function of school-level
could not be determined.
The interaction between teacher gender and school level was also tested. This
yielded no statistically significant interaction, F(10,782)5.98, p5ns. The relation-
ship between the school’s gender composition (single-sex boys, single-sex girls, and
co-educational) and students’ motivation was not explored as teachers from
 82
A. J. Martin
Table 4. Means, SDs, t-values, and effect sizes testing for teacher gender effects and school level effects

Teacher’s gender School level

Mean / 7 (SD) Mean / 7 (SD)
Female Male t Effect size Primary High t Effect size

Adaptive cognitions
Self-efficacy 5.14 (1.12) 5.28 (.97) 2.09* .13 5.51 (1.02) 5.19 (1.04) 2.96** .32
Valuing of school 4.67 (1.24) 4.88 (1.11) 2.80** .18 5.19 (1.04) 4.72 (1.19) 3.81*** .42
Mastery orientation 4.61 (1.35) 4.57 (1.27) .38 — 4.87 (1.19) 4.58 (1.32) 2.15* .23
Adaptive behaviours
Planning 3.67 (1.36) 3.76 (1.32) .95 — 3.85 (1.29) 3.71 (1.35) .98 —
Study management 3.96 (1.35) 4.16 (1.29) 2.18* .15 4.65 (1.18) 4.03 (1.34) 3.90*** .37
Persistence 4.53 (1.33) 4.60 (1.20) .85 — 4.91 (1.22) 4.54 (1.29) 2.77** .30
Impeding dimensions
Anxiety 5.04 (1.31) 4.96 (1.27) .85 — 4.68 (1.38) 5.02 (1.28) 2.51* .26
Failure avoidance 4.68 (1.21) 4.58 (1.18) 1.22 — 4.43 (1.17) 4.66 (1.19) 1.86 —
Maladaptive dimensions
Uncertain control 4.33 (1.36) 4.00 (1.38) 3.68*** .24 3.91 (1.32) 4.18 (1.38) 1.88 —
Self-handicapping 4.86 (1.39) 4.72 (1.40) 1.61 — 4.44 (1.44) 4.81 (1.38) 2.59** .26
Outcome variables
Enjoyment 6.13 (.79) 6.10 (.89) .44 — 6.19 (.83) 6.09 (.84) 1.09 —
Confidence 5.72 (.71) 5.63 (.65) 1.06 — N/A

* p,0.05, ** p,0.01, *** p,0.001; N/A: Surveys to primary school teachers did not include confidence items.
Note. No significant multivariate interaction between gender and school level, F(10,782)5.98, p5ns.
 Student Motivation and Teachers’ Enjoyment 83

single-sex girls’ schools comprised only three percent of the sample. Although this
proportion might be deemed significant to note in its own right (perhaps suggestive
of a differential need for professional development on student motivation as a
function of a school’s gender composition) it may not be representative.

Relationship Between Teachers’ Perceptions of Students’ Motivation and Teachers’

Enjoyment and Confidence
Pearson product moment correlations were used to explore the relationship between
teachers’ perceptions of their students’ motivation and their enjoyment of and
confidence in teaching (recalling that no primary school teachers were administered
confidence items). Table 5 shows zero-order correlations for the pooled sample as well
as first-order correlations for the pooled sample controlling for years teaching. Because
there were statistically significant associations between both gender and school level
and students’ motivation (see Table 4), correlations in Table 5 are also disaggregated
by these two factors (males and females; primary school and high school teachers).
Taken together, results show that teachers’ enjoyment and confidence are most
correlated with the presence of adaptive dimensions in their students’ academic lives.
That is, adaptive dimensions appear to have the capacity to increase their enjoyment
and confidence to a greater extent than impeding and maladaptive dimensions have a
capacity to reduce their enjoyment and confidence. Of the adaptive dimensions,
teachers’ perceptions of students’ mastery orientation was the strongest correlate of
teachers’ enjoyment of teaching. Furthermore, teachers’ perceptions of students’
persistence and students’ planning were the strongest correlates of teachers’
confidence in teaching. Interestingly, these associations were more marked for male
teachers and relatively independent of years spent teaching.
The relationship between the higher order factors (adaptive cognitions, adaptive
behaviours, impeding, and maladaptive dimensions) and teachers’ enjoyment and
confidence was explored in two separate CFAs (one for enjoyment and one for
confidence). Findings are presented in Table 6. The first model exploring enjoyment
(CFI5.97; RMSEA5.07; x25299.77, df557) shows that adaptive dimensions are the
strongest correlates with enjoyment while the role of impeding and maladaptive
dimensions is relatively negligible. The second model exploring confidence (CFI5.94;
RMSEA5.08; x25468.04, df557) shows that adaptive dimensions are even stronger
correlates with enjoyment while the role of impeding and maladaptive dimensions is
relatively less marked.

Discussion
This study sought to examine the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of
students’ motivation and their teachers’ enjoyment of and confidence in teaching as
well as the differential patterns of motivation, enjoyment, and confidence as a function
of the teacher’s gender, years teaching, and the school level. Male teachers tended to
report higher student motivation than female teachers and primary school teachers
 84
A. J. Martin
Table 5. Correlations between perceived student motivation and enjoyment of and confidence in teaching

Enjoyment of teaching Confidence in own teaching

Pooled Pooled
controlling controlling
Pooled for years Pooled for years
Females Males Primary High sample teaching Females Males Primary High sample teaching

Adaptive cognitions
Self-efficacy .12* .15** .11 .14** .13*** .09* 2.01 .26** N/A .16** .14* .15*
Valuing of school .20*** .28*** .24* .24*** .23*** .21*** .14 .24** N/A .18** .19* .20***
Mastery orientation .28*** .33*** .35*** .29*** .30*** .28*** .25** .34*** N/A .29*** .28*** .28***
Adaptive behaviours
Planning .22*** .23*** .19 .24*** .22*** .20*** .26*** .35*** N/A .34*** .31*** .31***
Study management .16** .23*** 2.06 .24*** .19*** .18*** .19* .18* N/A .25*** .23*** .22***
Persistence .23*** .30*** .18 .28*** .25*** .23*** .27*** .45*** N/A .38*** .35*** .35***
Impeding dimensions
Anxiety .15** .11 .03 .15*** .12** .11** .09 .02 N/A .09 .09 .07
Failure avoidance 2.03 2.12* 2.07 2.06 2.07 2.08* .10 2.14 N/A .03 .02 .02
Maladaptive dimensions
Uncertain control .04 2.05 .10 2.03 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.20* N/A 2.08 2.06 2.10
Self-handicapping 2.15** 2.07 2.13 2.10* 2.11** 2.09* .01 2.19* N/A 2.07 2.07 2.06

* p,0.05, ** p,0.01, *** p,0.001; N/A5Primary school teachers did not complete a confidence measure.
 Student Motivation and Teachers’ Enjoyment 85

Table 6. Findings from CFA correlating latent factors with enjoyment and confidence

Correlation with enjoyment Correlation with Confidence

Adaptive cognitions .37*** .43***

Adaptive behaviours .36*** .45***
Impeding dimensions .01 .17**
Maladaptive dimensions 2.13* 2.13*
MODEL FIT
2
x 299.77 468.04
CFI .97 .94
RMSEA .07 .08

reported higher student motivation than high school teachers. Adaptive dimensions
were more strongly associated with enjoyment and confidence in teaching than
impeding and maladaptive dimensions. In particular, teachers’ perceptions of
students’ mastery orientation was the strongest correlate of teachers’ enjoyment of
teaching and teachers’ perceptions of students’ persistence and planning were the
strongest correlates of teachers’ confidence in teaching. These associations were more
marked for male teachers and relatively independent of years spent teaching.

Teachers’ Enjoyment of and Confidence in Teaching

It is significant to note that adaptive dimensions impact on teachers’ confidence and
enjoyment in more marked ways than the impeding and maladaptive dimensions. In a
potentially stressful profession (Fry & Martin, 1994), this may be a very adaptive
coping mechanism, allowing the positive dimensions of student motivation and
engagement to impact on one’s experience and affect and giving less emphasis to
maladaptive aspects of student motivation. A positive focus along these lines is
supported by recent developments in the positive psychology literature which suggests
that a focus on positive emotions and processes—such as positive dimensions of
students’ motivation – has the capacity to not only reflect a healthy end-state but also is
a means to achieving psychological growth and improved well-being over time
(Fredrickson, 1998, 2001). Indeed, the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions
(Fredrickson, 1998, 2001) proposes that positive emotions and processes provide the
potential to broaden individuals’ momentary thought-action repertoires and also
increase individuals’ capacity to enhance their personal resources. Hence, students’
motivational strengths are important to teachers’ enjoyment and confidence and their
capacity to cope effectively with the demands placed on them in their roles.

The Role of School Level

It is significant to note that primary school students’ motivation and engagement
were rated higher than high school students’ motivation and engagement. Research
86 A. J. Martin

into student transitions is gaining increasing attention, particularly in the context of

difficult transitions that can lead to disengagement, negative attitudes towards
school, reduced self-confidence, and reduced intrinsic motivation. The transition
from primary school to high school is a major transition and one which has been
connected to reduced motivation and engagement. Some of the more frequently
cited difficulties that can impact on motivation are that: (a) friendship networks are
often disrupted during transition times and this can reduce relatedness to school and
the classroom; (b) transition usually entails moving from a relatively smaller
environment to a relatively larger environment and this can reduce a sense of
community in the educational setting (Bryk, Lee, & Holland, 1993); (c) high school
is often structured such that students typically have several teachers and this makes it
difficult to establish meaningful and supportive relationships important for
motivation; (d) teacher–student relationships in high school tend to be more
authority based and less intrinsically motivating (Maehr & Midgley, 1996); and (e)
high school is a more competitive and norm-referenced environment than primary
school and as a result less intrinsically engaging (Kaplan & Maehr, 2002). The
present findings provide some specific insight and direction as to the facets of
motivation and engagement that need to be sustained as students move from primary
to high school. In particular, data in this study show that self-efficacy, valuing of
school, mastery orientation, study management, and persistence are adaptive
dimensions to monitor at this critical transition time as are anxiety and self-
handicapping which can escalate in the high school years.

The Role of Teachers’ Gender

It is interesting to note that although both male and female teachers’ enjoyment of
and confidence in teaching were significantly related to their perceptions of students’
motivation and engagement, this was the case to a greater extent amongst males and
particularly in relation to their confidence and their students’ mastery orientation,
valuing of school, self-efficacy, study management, and planning. Clearly, these are
facets of motivation and engagement that male teachers link more closely to their
confidence in teaching. Although this is to their advantage when students’
motivation and engagement are high, when students’ motivation and engagement
are low it has a more negative impact on their confidence and enjoyment than it does
for their female counterparts.
This brings into consideration the possibility that in terms of teachers’ confidence
and enjoyment, student motivation and engagement can be something of a double-
edged sword: for those teachers whose students are high on these attributes there is
clearly a greater subjective experience of positive affect whereas for those whose
students are low on these attributes this is not the case. In can be hypothesized, then,
that teachers’ excessive affective reliance on students’ motivation may render them
somewhat vulnerable to shifts in their students’ level of motivation. This is not to
suggest that teachers should not feel pleased with their students’ adaptive levels of
 Student Motivation and Teachers’ Enjoyment 87

motivation or disappointed in the face of relatively lower levels of motivation.

However, if they base their enjoyment and confidence too heavily on their students’
motivation and engagement, then this can place a good degree of their professional
satisfaction into the hands of others. This may serve to diminish their sense of
control over their affective states and a low sense of control coupled with
disappointment or unhappiness can lead to helplessness (Peterson, Maier, &
Seligman, 1993).

Teacher Education and Professional Development: Building teachers’ capacity to motivate

their students
At a meta-level, intervention designed to enhance students’ motivation and
engagement involves improving students’ (a) approach to their schoolwork; (b)
beliefs about themselves; (c) attitudes towards learning, achievement, and school;
(d) study skills; and (e) reasons for learning. Also at a meta-level, intervention
involves addressing (a) educators’ messages to students; (b) educators’ expectations
for students; (c), how learning is structured and paced, (d) feedback to students on
their work; and (e) classroom goals and assessment.
To enhance students’ motivation and engagement, however, it is important to move
beyond the meta-level to address the specific ways in which motivation and
engagement are enacted in students’ lives and in the classroom. The data in this
study suggested that specific dimensions most associated with teachers’ enjoyment
and confidence are mastery orientation and the three engagement dimensions
planning, study management, and persistence. Specific strategies teachers can use to
develop these in the classroom are detailed in Martin (2001, 2002a, 2002b, 2003; see
also Martin & Marsh, 2003). What has not been addressed in these publications is the
role of professional development in enhancing students’ motivation and engagement.
Teacher professional development or in-servicing is widely cited as an important
factor in enhancing educational outcomes for students and assisting teachers to
operate more effectively in the classroom. For example, Cherubini, Zambelli, and
Boscolo (2002) examined the effects of professional development regarding the role
of the teacher in facilitating student motivation. In their study, teachers participated
in professional development related to theoretical and methodological aspects of
motivation research and strategies to modify and sustain student motivation. Their
data showed that participants increased their practical knowledge about student
motivation, were better able to identify and consider motivational problems, and
planned new instructional programs to sustain their students’ motivation (see also
Schorr, 2000). Stipek, Giwin, Salmon, and MacGyvers (1998) found that teachers
participating in professional development focused on student motivation were more
likely than non-participating teachers to emphasize mastery and understanding,
encourage student autonomy, and create a psychologically safer environment.
Participating teachers were also more likely to make more accurate judgments of
students’ motivation.
88 A. J. Martin

Clearly, professional development targeting student motivation can be effective.

However, if professional development around motivation and engagement is to be
implemented, it is important that it be of high quality. Early work (Hutson, 1979) on
best practice in teacher professional development identified three domains of
professional development: the procedural domain, the substantive domain, and the
philosophical domain. Principles for best practice in the procedural domain include
emphasis on intrinsic professional rewards, focus on continual professional growth
activities, an ambitious professional development program that revolves around an
assessed need, and a sound evaluation of professional development with the purpose
of informing future planning and program implementation. In terms of the
substantive domain, best practice encompasses content directly relevant to an
assessed need, a focus on changing teaching, and the modeling of good teaching. In
relation to philosophy, professional development should be an integral part of a
whole-school program and should follow a developmental model rather than a deficit
model—consistent with the broaden-and-build theorizing presented earlier (see
Fredrickson, 1998, 2001). In more recent research, Lingard and Ladwig (2001)
recommended that effective professional development is linked to a focus on
pedagogy, is relevant to issues pertinent to the school and community, and is focused
on increasing the professional learning community in the school. When there is a
focus of professional development on motivation and that focus is of high quality, it
is likely that opportunities for enhanced student motivation and subsequent teacher
enjoyment and confidence will be optimized.

Limitations and Future Research

The present study provides a number of important insights into teachers’ enjoyment
of and confidence in teaching, the relationship between these and their perceptions
of students’ motivation and engagement, and specific dimensions of motivation and
engagement that might be a focus for teacher education and professional
development. Notwithstanding this, there were some aspects of the study that
require qualification and which provide direction for future research.
Because of time-pressures at the data collection phase, only single-item summary
constructs were used to assess motivation and engagement. Single-item constructs
are less reliable than multi-item ones and so future research needs to expand the
study to incorporate more items in target constructs. Having said this, however, it is
important to note that the factor analysis confirmed a factor structure consistent with
that derived in previous research using multi-item constructs underpinned by higher
order adaptive cognitions, adaptive behaviours (or engagement), impeding dimen-
sions, and maladaptive dimensions.
Future research might also seek to match teachers’ responses with their own
students’ responses in order to establish the validity of both students’ and teachers’
ratings. The present study was based on teachers’ perceptions of their students’
motivation and this may not necessarily represent the students’ actual levels of
 Student Motivation and Teachers’ Enjoyment 89

motivation. Findings should therefore be interpreted with appropriate care and in

the context of research finding teachers are not always accurate in their perceptions
on some motivational dimensions in children’s academic lives (for example, see Carr
& Kurtz-Costes, 1994). Notwithstanding this, teachers’ enjoyment of and
confidence in teaching will be primarily based on their perceptions of their students’
motivation and engagement, so in this sense, perception is hypothesized to be a
construct important in its own right. Also related to teachers’ ratings, it is important
to note that they were asked to make a general rating about all students they taught
and not asked to think about specific students, specific classes, or specific subjects.
To the extent that a lack of specificity qualifies the present findings, future research
might attend to student-, class-, and/or subject-specific considerations.
It is also important to recognize that there were not as many primary school teachers
as high school teachers in the study and so future research should seek a more balanced
sample—particularly because the pattern of relationships between the two groups of
teachers was somewhat different in cases. Additionally, no primary school teachers
were administered confidence items and so findings in relation to confidence pertain to
high school teachers only. Future research should test the generalizability of the
confidence findings by extending the sampling to also include primary school teachers.
Also, the reasons why schools convened the professional development day or why
teachers attended the off-site workshops were unclear. It might be assumed that
those attending were there because their students were not motivated or engaged.
However, there may have been some representation by schools and teachers who
were interested in sustaining their students’ motivational strengths. Alternatively,
there may have simply been a general interest in the topic that prompted schools to
convene the day or teachers to attend the workshop. No data collected were able to
ascertain the precise reason for attendance and so it is unclear whether teachers were
rating ‘‘problem classes’’ or rating classes whose motivation is not particularly
problematic. Anecdotal observation of ‘‘league tables’’ (final year school rankings in
newspapers) suggests that there was a good cross-section of schools participating and
if this was actually the case, the generalizability of findings is on stronger ground.
Moreover, given that the sample of teachers is a large one, generalizations to the
broader teaching population can be made with greater confidence.
It is not unreasonable to propose that the relationship between students’
motivation and teachers’ enjoyment of and confidence in teaching is bi-directional.
For example, student motivation is both influenced by and an influence on teachers’
own attitudes and orientations towards the student. Or, it may be that there are other
factors that explain both rather than the two relating to each other. There is,
therefore, a need for longitudinal research that is most effectively capable of
exploring the reciprocity of effects and the potential role of other explanatory factors
and, indeed, whether there is a causal ordering that can be revealed through high
quality multi-wave modeling (see Marsh, Byrne, & Yeung, 1999). Indeed, related to
this, an untested premise of the study is that teachers really do have a role in
students’ motivation. It is clear that teachers impact on students’ achievement (Hill
90 A. J. Martin

& Rowe 1996; Lingard & Ladwig, 2001; Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004;
Rowe, 2000) but there remains rigorous research assessing their role in terms of
motivation and engagement. Indeed, advances in statistical software enable
researchers to more accurately assess the relative influence of individual-, teacher-,
and school-level factors using multi-level modeling (see Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992;
Goldstein, 1995) and so future research can readily explore the influence of teacher-
and school-level motivation climates relative to individual-level variation in
motivation and engagement.

Conclusion
The present study has explored the issue of student motivation and engagement and
teachers’ enjoyment and confidence in their professional role. The data show that
there is a relationship between teachers’ perceptions of students’ motivation and
teachers’ satisfaction and efficacy. Enhancing student motivation and engagement
and increasing teachers’ enjoyment of and confidence in teaching is achieved by not
only focusing on students themselves but also building teachers’ capacity through
professional development. Indeed, the data suggest that activity targeting the
adaptive dimensions of students’ motivation and engagement promises to be an
effective channel through which to enhance teachers’ enjoyment and confidence.
Taken together, the data presented in this investigation suggest that research and
practice seeking to more fully understand student motivation and engagement and
teachers’ enjoyment and confidence should recognize that the two are not
independent and that intervention to address these phenomena is likely to be more
effective when there is ample consideration given to the degree to which they are
inter-related and the precise nature of that inter-relationship.

Notes on Contributor
Andrew Martin is a Research Fellow at the SELF Research Centre, University of
Western Sydney. He is also a registered psychologist and specializes in student
motivation, engagement, and research methods.

Note
1. The Student Motivation and Engagement Scale items can be requested through www.
ajmartinresearch.com

References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman & Co.
Bryk, A. S., Lee V, E., & Holland, P. B. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive
approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100,
432–459.
 Student Motivation and Teachers’ Enjoyment 91

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Carr, M., & Kurtz-Costes, B. E. (1994). Is being smart everything? The influence of student
achievement on teachers’ perceptions. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 263–276.
Cherubini, G., Zambelli, F., & Boscolo, P. (2002). Student motivation: An experience of in-
service education as a context for professional development of teachers. Teaching & Teacher
Education, 18, 273–288.
Connell, J. P. (1985). A new multidimensional measure of children’s perceptions of control. Child
Development, 56, 1018–1041.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational
analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar, & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes in
development: Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol 29. pp.244–254). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults’
orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic
motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642–650.
Flink, C., Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1990). Controlling teaching strategies: Undermining
children’s self-determination and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
916–924.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2,
300–319.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. American
Psychologist, 56, 218–226.
Fry, G., & Martin, A. J. (1994). Factors contributing to identification and incidence of stress
during the school practicum as reported by supervising teachers. In T. A. Simpson (Ed.),
Teacher educators’ annual handbook (pp. 198–216). Queensland: QUT Press.
Goldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel statistical models. London: Edward Arnold.
Harter, S., Whitesell, N. R., & Kowalski, P. (1992). Individual differences in the effects of
educational transitions on young adolescent’s perceptions of competence and motivational
orientation. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 777–807.
Hill, P. W., & Rowe, K. J. (1996). Multilevel modeling in school effectiveness research. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7, 1–34.
Hutson, H. (1979). Inservice best practices: The learnings of general education (ED 215990).
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS
command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8.5. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2002). Adolescents’ achievement goals: Situating motivation in
sociocultural contexts. In F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents.
Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Kontos, S., & Wilcox-Herzog, A. (1997). Influences on children’s competence in early childhood
classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 247–262.
Lingard, B., & Ladwig, J. (2001). The Queensland school reform longitudinal study: A strategy for
shared curriculum leadership (Teacher summary). Brisbane: Education Queensland.
Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A
clarification of mathematical and empirical processes. In G. A. Marcoulides, & R. E. Schumacker
(Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling techniques. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indices in confirmatory
factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 391–410.
Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., & Yeung, A. S. (1999). Causal ordering of academic self-concept and
achievement: Reanalysis of a pioneering study and revised recommendations. Educational
Psychologist, 34, 155–167.
92 A. J. Martin

Martin, A. J. (2001). The Student Motivation Scale: A tool for measuring and enhancing
motivation. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 11, 1–20.
Martin, A. J. (2002a). Motivation and academic resilience: Developing a model of student
enhancement. Australian Journal of Education, 14, 34–49.
Martin, A. J. (2002b). The lethal cocktail: Low self-belief, low control, and high fear of failure.
Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 12, 74–85.
Martin, A. J. (2003). The Student Motivation Scale: Further testing of an instrument that
measures school students’ motivation. Australian Journal of Education, 47, 88–106.
Martin, A. J., & Debus, R. L. (1998). Self-reports of mathematics self-concept and educational
outcomes: The roles of ego-dimensions and self-consciousness. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 68, 517–535.
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2003). Fear of failure: Friend or foe? Australian Psychologist, 38, 31–38.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001a). A quadripolar need achievement
representation of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism. American Educational Research
Journal, 38, 583–610.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001b). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism:
Exploring a model of predictors and outcomes from a self-protection perspective. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93, 87–102.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism:
A model of self-protection from a longitudinal perspective. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 28, 1–36.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., Williamson, A., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Self-handicapping, defensive
pessimism, and goal orientation: A qualitative study of university students. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95, 617–628.
McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and
goodness-of-fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247–255.
Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of mathematics anxiety and its
influence on young adolescents’ course enrolment intentions and performance in
mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 60–70.
Midgley, C., Arunkumar, R., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). ‘‘If I don’t do well tomorrow, there’s a
reason’’: Predictors of adolescent’s use of academic self-handicapping strategies. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88, 423–434.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hicks, L., Roesser, R., Urdan, T., Anderman, E., Kaplan, A.,
Arunkumar, R., & Middleton, M. (1997). Patterns of adaptive learning (PALS). Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan.
Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996).
Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing
others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388–422.
Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competence
and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 203–214.
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237–257.
Peterson, C., Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1993). Learned helplessness: A theory for the age of
personal control. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (1991). Ann Arbor, MI: National
Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
 Student Motivation and Teachers’ Enjoyment 93

Rowe, K. J. (2000, November). Exploring ‘‘real’’ effects from evidence-based research in teacher and
school effectiveness. The educational performance of males and females in school and tertiary
education. Paper presented at Educational attainment and labour market outcomes: Factors
affecting boys and their status in relation to girls, Melbourne.
Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and
projective assessments of individual differences in children’s perceptions. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 550–558.
Schorr, R. Y. (2000). Impact at the student level: A study of the effects of a teacher development
intervention on students’ mathematical thinking. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19,
209–231.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Introduction to the special section on motivation and efficacy. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 3–6.
Stipek, D., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (1998). Can a teacher intervention
improve classroom practices and student motivation in mathematics? Journal of Experimental
Education, 66, 319–337.
Strube, M. J. (1986). An analysis of the Self-Handicapping Scale. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 7, 211–224.
Teven, J. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student
learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1–9.
Weisz, J. R., Weiss, B., Han, S. S., Granger, D. A., & Morton, T. (1995). Effects of psychotherapy
with children and adolescents revisited: A meta-analysis of treatment outcome studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 450–468.