Abstract
The aim of our investigation is to identify teacher motivation profiles towards information technology, according to achievement goal and expectancy-value theories. Latent profile analysis (LPA) was applied to examine if homogenous latent profiles exist within a sample of 866 teachers in China. Four distinct profiles of teachers were identified: Very Low Goal Orientation, High Goal Orientation, High Mastery-Approach and Expectancy/Very Low Work-Avoidance, and Low Mastery- and Performance-Approach. Furthermore, profile membership was related to monitoring motivation, effort, help seeking, and future intention. Finally, we found the added benefits of integrating achievement goal and expectancy-value theories when forming teacher motivation profiles. These results, taken together, suggest that support for teacher motivation to use information technology ought to be differentiated.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
Anderson, S. E., Groulx, J. G., & Maninger, R. M. (2011). Relationships among preservice teachers’ technology-related abilities, beliefs, and intentions to use technology in their future classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(3), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.45.3.d
Appova, A., & Arbaugh, F. (2018). Teachers’ motivation to learn: Implications for supporting professional growth. Professional Development in Education, 44(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2017.1280524
Archbell, K. A. (2014). Chinese kindergarten teacher beliefs, attitudes, and responses towards social behaviours in the classroom: Examining social withdrawal and social engagement [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Carleton University
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Using the BCH method in Mplus to estimate a distal outcome model and an arbitrary secondary model. Retrieved from http://www.statmodel.com/examples/webnotes/webnote21.pdf
Bai, B., Wang, J., & Chai, C. S. (2019). Understanding Hong Kong primary school English teachers’ continuance intention to teach with ICT. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1627459. Advance online publication
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall
Cellar, D. F., Stuhlmacher, A. F., Young, S. K., Fisher, D. M., Adair, C. K., Haynes, S. … Riester, D. (2011). Trait goal orientation, self-regulation, and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(4), 467–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9201-6
Cheng, S. L., Lu, L., Xie, K., & Vongkulluksn, V. W. (2020). Understanding teacher technology integration from expectancy-value perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 91, 103062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103062
Clark, S. L., & Muthén, B. (2009). Relating latent class analysis results to variables not included in the analysis. Available at: http://statmodel2.com/download/relatinglca.pdf
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum
Conley, A. M. (2012). Patterns of motivation beliefs: Combining achievement goal and expectancy-value perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026042
Crombie, G., & Armstrong, P. I. (1999). Effects of classroom gender composition on adolescents’ computer-related attitudes and future intentions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(4), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.2190/XW2D-THFA-T6RW-Y8H9
Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teachers as codesigners of technology-rich learning activities for early literacy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24, 443–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2014.953197
Du, J., Xu, J., & Fan, X. (2016). Investigating factors that influence students’ help seeking in math homework: A multilevel analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 48, 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.03.002
Du, J., Xu, J., & Liu, F. (2019). Expectancy Value Scale on information technology: A validation study. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(5), 447–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00445-5
Du, J., Xu, J., Liu, F., Huang, B., & Li, Z. (2019). Factors influence kindergarten teachers’ emotion management in information technology: A multilevel analysis. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(6), 519–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00452-6
Duncan, T. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (2005). The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4002_6
Eccles, J. S. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.). Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75-146). Freeman
Eccles, J. S. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832368
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–514. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59, 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
Graham, S. (2020). An attributional theory of motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101861
Hofman, R. H., & Dijkstra, B. J. (2010). Effective teacher professionalization in networks? Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1031–1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.046
Huang, F., Teo, T., Sánchez-Prieto, J. C., García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Olmos-Migueláñez, S. (2019). Cultural values and technology adoption: A model comparison with university teachers from China and Spain. Computers & Education, 133, 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.012
Ihmeideh, F., & Al-Maadadi, F. (2018). Towards improving kindergarten teachers’ practices regarding the integration of ICT into early years settings. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 27(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-017-0366-x
Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Lim, E. (2018). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ intention to use technology. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 48–59
Jung, T., & Wickrama, K. A. (2008). An introduction to latent class growth analysis and growth mixture modeling. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 302–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00054.x
Karaseva, A., Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, P., & Siibak, A. (2018). Relationships between in-service teacher achievement motivation and use of educational technology: Case study with Latvian and Estonian teachers. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2017.1339633
Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., & Burke, P. F. (2018). Teachers’ technology adoption and practices: Lessons learned from the IWB phenomenon. Teacher Development, 22(4), 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2017.1363083
King, R. B., & McInerney, D. M. (2014). The work avoidance goal construct: Examining its structure, antecedents, and consequences. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.12.002
Lai, H. M., Hsiao, Y. L., & Hsieh, P. J. (2018). The role of motivation, ability, and opportunity in university teachers’ continuance use intention for flipped teaching. Computers & Education, 124, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.013
Lee, K., Choi, H., & Cho, Y. H. (2019). Becoming a competent self: A developmental process of adult distance learning. Internet and Higher Education, 41, 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.12.001
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Patall, E. A. (2016). Motivation. In L. Corno, & E. Anderman (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (3rd ed., pp. 91–103). Taylor & Francis
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Wormington, S. V., Snyder, K. E., Riggsbee, J., Perez, T., Ben-Eliyahu, A., & Hill, N. E. (2018). Multiple pathways to success: An examination of integrative motivational profiles among upper elementary and college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(7), 1026–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000245
Lo, Y., Mendell, N. R., & Rubin, D. B. (2001). Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika, 88(3), 767–778. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/88.3.767
Mac Callum, K., & Jeffrey, L. (2014). Factors impacting teachers’ adoption of mobile learning. Journal of Information Technology Education, 13, 141–162
Ministry of Education (2014). Number of kindergarten heads, fulltime teachers by educational attainment and professional rank. Retrieved from https://old.moe.gov.cn//publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s8494/201412/181602.html
Neugebauer, S., Hopkins, M., & Spillane, J. (2019). Social Sources of Teacher Self-Efficacy: The Potency of Teacher Interactions and Proximity to Instruction. Teachers College Record, 121, 040305. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811912100405
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education, 55, 1321–1335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.002
Qvortrup, L. (2016). Capacity building: Data- and research-informed development of schools and teaching practices in Denmark and Norway. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(5), 564–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1253675
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Schwartz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136
Senko, C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2011). Achievement goal theory at the crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538646
Sharma, L., & Srivastava, M. (2019). Teachers’ motivation to adopt technology in higher education. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 12(4), 673–692. https://doi.org/10.1108/jarhe-07-2018-0156
Sun, M., Du, J., & Xu, J. (2020). The validation of Teachers’ Goal Orientations for Professional Learning Scale (TGOPLS) on information technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 29(5), 527–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1808523
Urdan, T., & Kaplan, A. (2020). The origins, evolution, and future directions of achievement goal theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101862
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and interest: definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. Developmental Review, 30(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.12.001
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Fredricks, J. A., Simpkins, S., Roeser, R. W., & Schiefele, U. (2015). Development of achievement motivation and engagement. In M. E. Lamb & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science, Vol. 3. Socioemotional processes (7th ed., pp. 657-700). Wiley
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R. W., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006). Development of achievement motivation. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 933-1002). Wiley
Wolter, I., Ehrtmann, L., Seidel, T., & Drechsel, B. (2019). Social or economic goals? The professional orientation of students enrolled in STEM and non-STEM majors in university. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2065. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02065
Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3804_1
Wolters, C. A. (2011). Regulation of motivation: Contextual and social aspects. Teachers College Record, 113(2), 265–283
Wormington, S. V., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2017). A new look at multiple goal pursuit: The promise of a person-centered approach. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 407–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9358-2
Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173–207
Xu, J. (2008). Models of secondary students’ interest in homework: A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1180–1205. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208323276
Xu, J. (2018). Reciprocal effects of homework self-concept, interest, effort, and math achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 55, 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.09.002
Xu, J. (2022). A profile analysis of online assignment motivation: Combining achievement goal and expectancy-value perspectives. Computers & Education, 177, 104367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104367
Xu, J., & Du, J. (2013). Regulation of motivation: Students’ motivation management in online collaborative groupwork. Teachers College Record, 115(10), 1–27
Xu, J., Du, J., Cunha, J., & Rosário, P. (2021). Student perceptions of homework quality, autonomy support, effort, and math achievement: Testing models of reciprocal effects. Teaching and Teacher Education, 108, 103508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103508
Xu, J., Du, J., & Fan, X. (2014). Emotion management in online groupwork reported by Chinese students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(6), 795–819. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9359-0
Yang, C. (2006). Evaluating latent class analysis models in qualitative phenotype identification. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 50(4), 1090-1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2004.11.004
Yang, F., Xu, J., Tan, H., & Liang, N. (2016). What keeps Chinese students motivated in doing math homework? An empirical investigation. Teachers College Record, 118(8), 1–26
Zhang, S., & Liu, Q. (2019). Investigating the relationships among teachers’ motivational beliefs, motivational regulation, and their learning engagement in online professional learning communities. Computers & Education, 134, 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.013
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author has no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All data was collected with IRB approval.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix 1: Fit indices for latent profiles (n = 866)
Profiles of Teacher Motivation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
AIC | 9380.994 | 9257.405 | 9083.464 | 9025.457 |
BIC | 9428.633 | 9324.099 | 9169.214 | 9130.262 |
SSA-BIC | 9396.876 | 9279.639 | 9112.051 | 9060.396 |
Entropy | 0.744 | 0.786 | 0.847 | 0.835 |
LMPT | 253.328*** | 126.899* | 130.755*** | 144.058*** |
n in each profile | P1 = 314 P2 = 552 | P1 = 308 P2 = 70 P3 = 488 | P1 = 23 P2 = 289 P3 = 343 P4 = 211 | P1 = 23 P2 = 294 P3 = 161 P4 = 49 P5 = 339 |
Profiles with n ≤ 5% | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Appendix 2: The classification accuracy of teachers in each profile
Latent Profiles | n | % | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
1. Very Low Goal Orientation | 0.921 | 0.079 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 23 | 2.66 |
2. Low Mastery- and Performance-Approach | 0.007 | 0.931 | 0.048 | 0.014 | 289 | 33.37 |
3. High Goal Orientation | 0.000 | 0.067 | 0.911 | 0.022 | 343 | 39.61 |
4. High Mastery-Approach/Very Low Work-Avoidance | 0.000 | 0.033 | 0.055 | 0.912 | 211 | 24.27 |
Appendix 3: Description of teacher motivation profiles
Confidence Intervals | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SE | Lower 5% | Higher 5% | ||
1. Very Low Goal Orientation (n = 23) | |||||
Mastery-approach | 2.06 | 0.35 | 1.48 | 2.64 | |
Performance-approach | 2.21 | 0.39 | 1.57 | 2.84 | |
Work-avoidance | 1.80 | 0.16 | 1.54 | 2.06 | |
2. Low Mastery- and Performance-Approach (n = 289) | |||||
Mastery-approach | 3.97 | 0.07 | 3.86 | 4.08 | |
Performance-approach | 3.92 | 0.08 | 3.79 | 4.05 | |
Work-avoidance | 4.49 | 0.11 | 4.32 | 4.67 | |
3. High Goal Orientation (n = 343) | |||||
Mastery-approach | 6.06 | 0.06 | 5.95 | 6.16 | |
Performance-approach | 5.50 | 0.09 | 5.36 | 5.65 | |
Work-avoidance | 5.66 | 0.08 | 5.53 | 5.78 | |
4. High Mastery-Approach/Very Low Work-Avoidance (n = 211) | |||||
Mastery-approach | 6.15 | 0.07 | 6.02 | 6.27 | |
Performance-approach | 4.58 | 0.15 | 4.32 | 4.83 | |
Work-avoidance | 1.98 | 0.08 | 1.84 | 2.11 | |
Appendix 4: Means across latent profiles on effort, monitoring motivation, help seeking, and future intention
Profile 1: (n = 23) | Profile 2: (n = 289) | Profile 3: (n = 343) | Profile 4: (n = 211) | Overall chi-square test value (df = 3) | Effect size (d) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M (SE) | M (SE) | M (SE) | M (SE) | |||
Monitoring motivation | 2.82a (0.12) | 3.09b (0.04) | 3.45c (0.04) | 3.41c (0.05) | 32.830* | 0.40 |
Effort | 2.87a (0.09) | 2.86a (0.03) | 3.09b (0.02) | 3.10b (0.03) | 22.044* | 0.32 |
Help seeking | 3.47a (0.41) | 4.76b (0.07) | 5.82c (0.06) | 5.96c (0.08) | 62.012* | 0.56 |
Future intention | 3.65a (0.19) | 3.54a (0.05) | 4.04b (0.05) | 4.21c (0.05) | 29.519* | 0.38 |
Appendix 5: Pairwise differences between teacher motivation profiles
Pairwise Difference | Chi-Square, p-value | |
|---|---|---|
Monitoring motivation | 1 vs. 2 | 4.530, p = 0.033 |
1 vs. 3 | 26.003, p < 0.001 | |
1 vs. 4 | 21.397, p < 0.001 | |
2 vs. 3 | 42.433, p < 0.001 | |
2 vs. 4 | 27.965, p < 0.001 | |
3 vs. 4 | 0.443, p = 0.506 | |
Effort | 1 vs. 2 | 0.040, p = 0.842 |
1 vs. 3 | 5.360, p = 0.021 | |
1 vs. 4 | 5.759, p = 0.016 | |
2 vs. 3 | 35.597. p < 0.001 | |
2 vs. 4 | 33.731, p < 0.001 | |
3 vs. 4 | 0.086, p = 0.770 | |
Help seeking | 1 vs. 2 | 9.702, p = 0.002 |
1 vs. 3 | 32.845, p < 0.001 | |
1 vs. 4 | 35.858, p < 0.001 | |
2 vs. 3 | 116.625, p < 0.001 | |
2 vs. 4 | 111.708, p < 0.001 | |
3 vs. 4 | 1.665, p = 0.197 | |
Future intention | 1 vs. 2 | 0.340, p = 0.560 |
1 vs. 3 | 3.906, p = 0.048 | |
1 vs. 4 | 7.742, p = 0.005 | |
2 vs. 3 | 53.951, p < 0.001 | |
2 vs. 4 | 86.135, p < 0.001 | |
3 vs. 4 | 5.429, p = 0.020 |
Appendix 6: LPA of Teacher Motivation: Four-profile Solution
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Xu, J. A person-centered approach to teacher motivation towards information technology: integrating achievement goal and expectancy-value perspectives. Education Tech Research Dev 70, 397–417 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10085-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10085-0