Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

A goal orientation analysis of teachers’ motivations to participate in the school self-assessment processes of a quality assurance system in Chile

  • 527 Accesses

  • 3 Citations

Abstract

The current study examined the goal orientations that could be inferred from how teachers from six municipal schools in Chile described their understandings, emotions, and behaviors during their participation in the assessment phase of the School Management Quality Assurance System. Content analysis of focus group interview transcripts evidenced three school-level patterns of participation, associated with distinct goal orientations. Projective participation to judge the quality of the school’s practices was associated with a learning orientation (one school). Consultant participation to demonstrate competence to external inspectors was associated with a performance-approach orientation (one school). Simple participation to complete tasks imposed by administrators was associated with a performance-avoidance orientation (four schools). School-level differences highlighted teachers’ perceptions of the characteristics of their school’s culture associated with the adoption of these goal orientations. These included existing internal accountability practices, the social capital the school could leverage to implement self-assessment and use external feedback, and the existing structures for teacher participation in decision making. These factors may prove to be a useful guide for the development of induction strategies to support the use of school assessment in ways that foster, rather than diminish, teachers’ motivation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    In Chile, there are four administrative categories for schools: (a) municipal, totally financed through a per-pupil voucher system based on student attendance; (b) subsidized private, which are financed through the same voucher system, with 70 % charging parents an additional fee; (c) corporation schools, vocational high schools funded by the state and managed by business corporations; and (d) private non-subsidized which are fully funded by parents. By 2009, private-voucher schools enrolled 51 % of the students, municipal schools 42 %, and private non-subsidized 7 % (Salinas & Fraser 2012). Only municipal schools were required to implement SACG.

  2. 2.

    After the assessment phase was completed, the SACG policy was discontinued and replaced by the Priority School Program. This program charged external consultants with a new school assessment and with proposing and guiding required improvement initiatives. This change shifted Chile’s school improvement policy from a bottom-up to a top-down model which persists to date.

References

  1. Álvarez, J. M. (1997). La autoevaluación institucional en los centros educativos: Una propuesta para la acción [Institutional self-evaluation in schools: a proposal for action]. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Curricular y Educativa, 1(5). Retrieved February 10, 2007, from http://www.2.uca.es/HEURESIS/heuresis97/v1n1-2.html

  2. Angelides, P., & Ainscow, M. (2000). Making sense of the role of culture in school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(2), 145–163.

  3. Bolívar, A. (1994). Autoevaluación institucional para la mejora interna [Institutional self-assessment for internal improvement]. In M.A. Zabalza (Ed.), Reforma educativa y organización escolar (pp. 915–944). Santiago de Compostela: Tórculo.

  4. Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: a core resource for reform. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 40–44.

  5. Butler, R. (2007). Teachers’ achievement goal orientations and associations with teachers’ help seeking: examination of a novel approach to teacher motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 241–252.

  6. Button, S., Mathieu, J., & Zajac, D. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: a conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 26–48.

  7. Cáceres, P. (2003). Análisis cualitativo de contenido: Una alternativa metodológica alcanzable [Qualitative content analysis: a methodological alternative]. Psicoperspectivas, 2, 53–82.

  8. DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2005). A motivated action theory account of goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1096–1127.

  9. Dragoni, L. (2005). Understanding the emergence of state goal orientation in organizational work groups: the role of leadership and multilevel climate perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1084–1095.

  10. Elliott, E., & Dweck, C. (1988). Goals: an approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5–12.

  11. Ehren, M. C. M., Altrichter, H., McNamara, G., & O’Hara, J. (2013). Impact of school inspections on improvement of schools describing assumptions on causal mechanisms in six European countries. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(1), 3–43.

  12. Emstad, A. B. (2011). The principal’s role in the post-evaluation process. How does the principal engage in the work carried out after the schools self-evaluation? Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 23(4), 271–288.

  13. Fasching, M. S., Dresel, M., & Dickhäuser, O. (2010). Goal orientations of teacher trainees: longitudinal analysis of magnitude, change and relevance. Journal for Educational Research Online/Journal für Bildungsforschung Online, 2(2), 9–33.

  14. Finnigan, K. S. (2010). Principal leadership and teacher motivation under high-stakes accountability policies. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(2), 161–189.

  15. Finnigan, K., & Gross, B. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago's low-performing schools. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 594–629.

  16. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011). Exploring the journey of school improvement: classifying and analyzing patterns of change in school improvement processes and learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(1), 1–27.

  17. Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional politics of teaching and teacher development: with implications for educational leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 1(4), 315–336.

  18. Hargreaves, D. H. (1995). School culture, school effectiveness and school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6(1), 23–46.

  19. Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 141–184.

  20. Karagiorgi, Y. (2012). School self-assessment at an embryonic stage: depicting teachers’ experiences with a participative project. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 37–41.

  21. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  22. Larroulet, C., & Montt, P. (2010). Políticas educativas de largo plazo y acuerdo amplio en educación: El caso chileno [Long term educational policies with wide agreements: the Chilean case]. In S. Martinic y G. Elacqua (Ed.) ¿Fin de ciclo? Cambios en la gobernanza del sistema educativo (pp. 19–54) [End of a cycle? Changes in governance in the educational system]. Santiago, Chile: Facultad de Educación de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile y la Oficina Regional para América Latina de UNESCO.

  23. Leicht, K., Walter, T., Sainsaulieu, I., & Davies, S. (2009). New public management and new professionalism across nations and contexts. Current Sociology, 57(4), 581–605.

  24. Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Jantzi, D. (2002). School leadership and teachers' motivation to implement accountability policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 94–119.

  25. Louis, K. S., Febey, K., & Schroeder, R. (2005). State-mandated accountability in high schools: teachers’ interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(2), 177–204.

  26. Louis, K. S., & Robinson, V. M. (2012). External mandates and instructional leadership: school leaders as mediating agents. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 629–665.

  27. Mallory, B. J., & Reavis, C. A. (2007). Planning for school improvement: closing the gap of culture with democratic principles. Educational Planning, 16(2), 8–18.

  28. MacBeath, J. (2011). No lack of principles: leadership development in England and Scotland. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organization, 31(2), 105–121.

  29. McCaslin, M. (2004). Co-regulation of opportunity, activity, and identity in student motivation: elaborations on Vygotskian themes. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning: Big theories revisited (pp. 249–274). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age.

  30. Ministerio de Educación (MINEDUC) (2005a). Sentidos y componentes del Sistema de Aseguramiento de la Calidad de la Gestión Escolar [Meanings and components of the System for Quality Assurance for School Management]. Chile: Ed. Unidad de Gestión y Mejoramiento.

  31. Ministerio de Educación (MINEDUC) (2005b). Calidad en todas las escuelas y liceos: Sistema de aseguramiento de la calidad de la gestión escolar [Quality in all schools: System for Quality Assurance for School Management]. Chile: Ed. Serie Bicentenario.

  32. Midthassel, U. V. (2004). Teacher involvement in school development activity and its relationships to attitudes and subjective norms among teachers: a study of Norwegian elementary and junior high school teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 435–456.

  33. Montecinos, C., Sisto, V., & Ahumada, L. (2010). The construction of parents and teachers as agents for the improvement of municipal schools in Chile. Comparative Education, 46(4), 487–508.

  34. Moreno, J. M (2004). Organización y gestión de centros educativos [Organization and management of schools]. Madrid: Editorial Unidad Didáctica, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia.

  35. Parker, P. D., Martin, A. J., Colmar, S., & Liem, G. A. (2012). Teachers’ workplace well-being: Exploring a process model of goal orientation, coping behavior, engagement, and burnout. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 503–513.

  36. Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 128–50.

  37. Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: from goal orientation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 185–192.

  38. Retelsdorf, J., Butler, R., Streblow, L., & Schiefele, U. (2010). Teachers’ goal orientations for teaching: associations with instructional practices, interest in teaching, and burnout. Learning and Instruction, 20, 30–46.

  39. Salinas, D., & Fraser, P. (2012). Educational opportunity and contentious politics: the 2011 Chilean student movement. Berkeley Review of Education, 3(1). Accessed January 5, 2014 from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/60g9j416

  40. Schoen, L., & Teddlie, C. (2008). A new model of school culture: a response to a call for conceptual clarity. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(2), 129–153.

  41. Seifert, T. L., & O'Keefe, B. A. (2001). The relationship of work avoidance and learning goals to perceived competence, externality and meaning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 81–92.

  42. Servat, B. (2005). Participación, comunicación y motivación del profesorado [Teachers’ participation, communication and motivation]. Buenos Aires: Editorial Magisterio del Río de la Plata.

  43. Schnellert, L. M., Butler, D. L., & Higginson, S. K. (2008). Co-constructors of data, co-constructors of meaning: teacher professional development in an age of accountability. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 725–750.

  44. Smith, W. J., & Ngoma-Maema, W. Y. (2003). Education for all in South Africa: developing a national system for quality assurance. Comparative Education, 39(3), 345–365.

  45. Torres, R. (2000). De agentes de la reforma a sujetos de cambio: La encrucijada docente en América Latina [From reform agents to change subjects: Latin American teachers at a crossroad]. Revista Perspectivas, 2, 1–20.

  46. Trilla, J., & Novella, A. (2001). Educación y participación social de la infancia [Education and social participation of children]. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 26, 137–164.

  47. Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519–558.

  48. VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 995–1015.

  49. Voulalas, Z., & Sharpe, F. (2005). Creating schools as learning communities: obstacles and processes. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(2/3), 187–208.

  50. Yeo, G., Loft, S., Xiao, T., & Kiewitz, C. (2009). Goal orientations and performance: differential relationships across levels of analysis and as a function of task demands. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 710–726.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by a grant from FONDECYT-CONICYT (#1060444). Additional funding has been provided to the authors by PIA-CONICYT, Project CIE-05. Funding agencies do not have editing control of the contents of this article. We thank Andy Hargreaves and the three anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Author information

Correspondence to Carmen Montecinos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Montecinos, C., Madrid, R., Fernández, M.B. et al. A goal orientation analysis of teachers’ motivations to participate in the school self-assessment processes of a quality assurance system in Chile. Educ Asse Eval Acc 26, 241–261 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-014-9190-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • School evaluation
  • Self evaluation
  • School improvement
  • Accountability
  • Teacher motivation
  • Chile