liking or disliking the teacher: student motivation, engagement and achievement

16
This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi] On: 21 December 2014, At: 07:19 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Evaluation & Research in Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/revr20 Liking or Disliking the Teacher: Student Motivation, Engagement and Achievement Gregory P. Montalvo a , Eric A. Mansfield a & Raymond B. Miller b a Western Illinois University , Macomb, IL, USA b The University of Oklahoma , Norman, OK, USA Published online: 22 Dec 2008. To cite this article: Gregory P. Montalvo , Eric A. Mansfield & Raymond B. Miller (2007) Liking or Disliking the Teacher: Student Motivation, Engagement and Achievement, Evaluation & Research in Education, 20:3, 144-158 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/eri406.0 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Upload: raymond-b

Post on 16-Apr-2017

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Liking or Disliking the Teacher: Student Motivation, Engagement and Achievement

This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]On: 21 December 2014, At: 07:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Evaluation & Research in EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/revr20

Liking or Disliking the Teacher: StudentMotivation, Engagement and AchievementGregory P. Montalvo a , Eric A. Mansfield a & Raymond B. Miller ba Western Illinois University , Macomb, IL, USAb The University of Oklahoma , Norman, OK, USAPublished online: 22 Dec 2008.

To cite this article: Gregory P. Montalvo , Eric A. Mansfield & Raymond B. Miller (2007) Liking or Dislikingthe Teacher: Student Motivation, Engagement and Achievement, Evaluation & Research in Education, 20:3,144-158

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/eri406.0

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in thispublication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Liking or Disliking the Teacher: Student Motivation, Engagement and Achievement

Liking or Disliking the Teacher: StudentMotivation, Engagement andAchievement

Gregory P. Montalvo and Eric A. MansfieldWestern Illinois University, Macomb, IL, USA

Raymond B. MillerThe University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

The current study combines multiple lines of research on student/teacher relation-ships, to identify characteristics of liked teachers and examine the impact of liking ordisliking the teacher on student learning and motivation. The study comparedmotivation data related to liked and disliked teachers from 125 students. Participantscompleted two versions of a motivation survey assessing their goals, perceivedability, effort and persistence. The findings suggest that when students like a teacherthey experience motivational and achievement benefits.

doi: 10.2167/eri406.0

Keywords: student�teacher relationships, student achievement, motivation

There is little doubt that teachers influence student motivation and achieve-ment. After all, teachers define the tasks that students must complete, providefeedback and define at least some of the consequences for completing tasks.One question often asked is why do some students put forth more effort andpersist on academic tasks for one teacher, but not for another? Con-temporary theories of motivation suggest that the varying levels of effortand persistence observed in different classes and subsequent achievement are,in part, due to internal purposes students have for doing academic activities(goals), and their perceived ability (Maehr, 1984; Pajares, 1996; Urdan & Maehr,1995). The current study is concerned with the potential effect teachers have onstudents’ goals, perceived ability, and subsequent effort and persistence indifferent classes. More specifically, the study examines how liking or dislikingthe teacher is related to student motivation and performance in school.

Recent qualitative research indicates that high school aged childrendifferentiate between various teachers based on teacher characteristics thatbenefit the student (Montalvo, 1995; Montalvo & Roedel, 1995; Phelan et al.,1992). Phelan and her colleagues (1992) studied 54 high school students forover a year to identify factors that affect students’ engagement with school andlearning. In the study, students often expressed the importance of having acaring and approachable teacher who provides written feedback, one-on-oneassistance and who is interested in students’ lives outside of school. Phelanand her colleagues note that caring teachers are in a better position than non-caring teachers to maintain student interest and cooperation in school, and

0950-0790/07/03 144-15 $20.00/0 – 2007 G.P. Montalvo et al.

EVALUATION AND RESEARCH IN EDUCATION Vol. 20, No. 3, 2007

144

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

7:19

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Page 3: Liking or Disliking the Teacher: Student Motivation, Engagement and Achievement

that a student’s perception of the teacher as caring or uncaring influences theirlevel of engagement in school and their persistence in seeking help.

In similar research, Montalvo and Roedel (1995) and Montalvo (1995)conducted a series of focus groups and interviews with high school students tounderstand the concept ‘pleasing the teacher’. As part of the study, theyinvestigated what teachers do that lead students to want to please them andhow students’ pleasing behaviour changes for different teachers. The findingsindicated that many students try to please their teachers and use a variety ofmethods in their attempts to please. Montalvo and Roedel found that teacherswhom students wanted to please were reported to have: (1) gone out of theirway to help, (2) provided positive, confidence-building feedback, (3) doneunnecessary things to be nice, (4) respected and trusted students and(5) spaced the workload so that students did not feel overwhelmed. Theresearchers also found that high school students indicate that peers behavedsimilarly for teachers they like and teachers they dislike, but that effortand quality of work changed. When students like the teacher their effort andquality of work improves. In contrast, when they dislike the teacher their effortand quality of work lessens.

One limitation of the above-mentioned studies is the treatment of academicachievement. The work by Phelan et al. (1992), as well as the work byMontalvo and Roedel (1995), fails to address a relationship between liking theteacher and academic achievement. At best, the studies’ findings suggest thatthe quality of work for high and low achieving students is different when thestudent perceives the teacher to be caring (Phelan et al., 1992). However, qualityof work is not clearly defined in either study. Furthermore, the studies do notaddress the relationship between achievement and liking or disliking theteacher. The current study seeks to extend the previous qualitative findingsthrough a quantitative examination of liking or disliking the teacher and itsrelationship between student effort, persistence and achievement. If previousresearch is correct, we expect that students’ self-reported levels of effort andpersistence will be higher for liked teachers as compared to disliked teachers.In turn, students’ academic achievement will be higher for teachers thatstudents like as compared to teachers they dislike.

Classroom Goals and Student ConfidenceIn addition to extending the qualitative findings of previous research

regarding students’ effort, persistence and achievement, the current studyexamines the potential differences in students’ motivational goals andconfidence for teachers they like or dislike. In recent years, a number ofmotivation theorists have suggested that teachers can improve studentachievement by creating environments that support learning, with anemphasis on helping students to develop learning goals as opposed toperformance goals (Ames, 1992; Maehr & Midgley, 1991; Newman, 2002).This idea stems from past research, which outlines the effects of learning andperformance goals (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett,1988). When students adopt a learning goal-orientation, they focus onacquiring new knowledge and skills or trying to understand something new.

Student Motivation and Engagement 145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

7:19

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Page 4: Liking or Disliking the Teacher: Student Motivation, Engagement and Achievement

These students use adaptive learning strategies, seek help when needed,persist when a task becomes difficult, and believe their efforts will assist theirlearning. In contrast, when students adopt a performance goal-orientation,they are concerned with gaining favourable judgements of their competenceor avoiding unfavourable judgements. Each task is viewed as a test oftheir capabilities, thus creating an opportunity to fail. Those students whoencounter repeated failure eventually develop learned helplessness. To protecta sense of self-esteem or self-worth (Covington, 1992), students often employsurface learning strategies (guessing, memorising and rehearsing information)and put forth minimal effort.

Classroom environments that emphasise learning goals encourage studentsto master individual tasks, reinforce the idea that making errors is a normalpart of the learning process and support students’ learning and confidence.Similarly, the research on liked teachers shows them to be encouraging ofstudents and supportive of student learning by providing confidence-buildingfeedback (Montalvo, 1995; Montalvo & Roedel, 1995; Phelan et al., 1992). Thesefindings suggest that liked teachers create an atmosphere more consistent witha learning-oriented environment, one in which learning goals and confidenceare supported by the teacher. Thus, we hypothesise that students will reporthigher levels of learning goals and perceived ability in classes taught by ateacher they like, and lower levels of learning goals and perceived ability inclasses taught by teachers they dislike.

Yet another body of research suggests that student engagement (e.g. effortand persistence) in school learning tasks is related to perceived instrumental-ity. Perceived instrumentality may be defined as students’ perceptions of aschool task as being instrumental to attaining personally valued future goals(Miller & Brickman, 2004). Several studies indicate that perceived instrumen-tality scores have a moderate positive correlation with students’ learning goalscores (Brickman & Miller, 2001; DeBacker & Nelson, 1999; Greene et al., 1999;Miller et al., 1996); effort and persistence (Brickman & Miller, 1998, 2001;DeBacker & Nelson, 1999; DeVolder & Lens, 1982; Greene et al., 1999); andachievement/grades (Brickman & Miller, 1998, 2001; DeBacker & Nelson, 1999;DeVolder & Lens, 1982; Greene et al., 1999; Miller et al., 1996; Raynor, 1970;Schutz, 1997; Schutz & Lanehart, 1994).

Research by Greene et al. (2004) tested a causal model in which threeteacher-related variables, perceptions of classroom tasks as meaningful andmotivating, perceptions of classrooms being autonomy supportive andperceptions of evaluation being mastery-oriented, were hypothesised to becausally related to students’ perceptions of their course work being instru-mental to their future goals. The path analysis revealed that studentperceptions that the teacher used meaningful and motivating tasks had asignificant direct effect on their perceptions of course instrumentality, whileboth perceived autonomy support and mastery-oriented evaluations hadindirect influences through their impact on student self-efficacy. Thus, in thepresent study we examined whether students’ perceptions of the instrumen-tality of their schoolwork for attaining their personally valued future goalswere related to their reports of liking or disliking their teachers. We expect thatliked teachers create a condition similar to those found in Greene et al. (2004),

146 Evaluation and Research in Education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

7:19

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Page 5: Liking or Disliking the Teacher: Student Motivation, Engagement and Achievement

thus students’ perceived instrumentality scores should be higher in classeswhere they like the teacher.

Method

Participants

One hundred and seventy-two students from a public school district in thesouth central USA participated in the study. The school was one of three highschools (Grades 10�12) which primarily served middle-income families for apopulation of about 92,000. Of the 172 participants, 47 were dropped from thestudy. Thirty-six did not complete both surveys or did not follow instructions,three used fake names and eight were identified as multivariate outliersduring data screening (Mahalanobis Distance�73.40, pB0.001). The remain-ing 125 participants included 39 in Grade 10, 58 in Grade 11 and 28 in Grade12. There were 55 males and 70 females. The ethnic makeup consisted of61 Caucasians, 27 African Americans, 12 Hispanics, 8 Native Americans and8 Asian Americans. Six students indicated they were from backgrounds notlisted on the survey. The mean GPA for the sample was 3.2 on a five-pointscale.

Procedures

Data collection occurred three weeks before the end of the fall semester toallow students time to become acclimated to their classroom environments.Those who returned signed parent consent forms and completed informedconsent forms participated in the study. Recognising the ethical concerns increating an experiment in which some students were assigned to a warm,caring, supportive, approachable teacher and other students to a non-caring,non-supportive, unapproachable teacher, participants were asked to reflect oncurrent teachers to whom they were already assigned. This was accomplishedby administering two versions of The Survey on High School Student Motivation.The instructions on one version asked participants to think of a current teacherthey liked a lot who teaches an academic subject, and to complete theinstrument as it relates to that teacher and the class he/she teaches. Theinstructions on the other survey asked participants to think of a currentteacher they disliked a lot who teaches an academic subject, and complete thesurvey as it relates to that teacher and the class he/she teaches. To maintainteacher anonymity, participants were asked for only the titles of the classestaught by each teacher so that semester grades could be matched to individualsurveys. To control for order of presentation effects, the instruments werecounterbalanced so that half of the participants completed the ‘liking theteacher survey’ first, while the other half completed the ‘disliking the teachersurvey’ first. In addition, the teachers were allowed to remain in the classroomwhile students completed the two surveys. Two months after the surveys wereadministered semester grades were collected.

Measures

Two versions of The Survey on High School Student Motivation weredeveloped to explore the construct ‘pleasing the teacher’ in classes where

Student Motivation and Engagement 147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

7:19

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Page 6: Liking or Disliking the Teacher: Student Motivation, Engagement and Achievement

students like and dislike the teacher. The instruments were identical anddiffered only in the instructions, which directed participants to complete thesurveys as they related to liked and disliked teachers. The instrument includedsubscales for learning goals, performance goals, perceived instrumentality(college admissions and school recognition goals), as well as measures ofperceived ability, effort, persistence and prior interest. The learning andperformance goal items, as well as the perceived ability, persistence and effortitems were adapted from The Attitude Toward Mathematics Survey (Greene &Miller, 1996). The perceived instrumentality items were adapted from a surveyused by Miller et al. (1995) to examine future consequences for college andreceiving school recognition. A five-point Likert-type format anchored with‘Strongly Agree’ to ‘Strongly Disagree’ was used for all items except effort. Theeffort item, which asked students to rate their typical amount of effort for thisteacher as compared to classes taught by other teachers, was anchored with‘Extremely High’ and ‘Extremely Low’ (all of the items used in the twoversions of The Survey on High School Student Motivation are found in theAppendix).

Achievement was measured using students’ semester grades for the classesthey identified in the two surveys. Their teachers reported grades from ‘F’ to‘A� ’. Working with the reported information, the students’ grades werecoded with ‘F’�1, ‘D’�2, ‘C’�3, ‘C� ’�4, ‘B’�5, ‘B� ’�6, ‘A’�7 and‘A� ’�8.

ResultsThe research on student motivation cited in the literature review used

qualitative and quantitative methods with the quantitative research applyingcorrelational designs. The current study, being comparative by design,examines students’ beliefs related to liking or disliking the teacher and usestwo lengthy surveys. Because of this, it was necessary to reduce the number ofitems used in measuring the motivational goal variables. As a consequence ofreducing the number of items, it was first necessary to perform a confirmatoryfactor analysis to provide validity evidence for the goal structures. Theconfirmatory factor analysis for the liking and disliking responses are reportedfirst, followed by subscale reliabilities, descriptive statistics and finally acomparison of means for the two sets of responses.

Motivation subscales

The instruments included scales to measure students’ effort, persistence,goals (learning and performance goals), perceived instrumentality (collegeadmissions and school recognition) and perceived ability.

Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to test the factor validity ofthe four goal subscales on The Survey on High Student Motivation. Fourteenitems were used to measure four goal factors (F1�Learning goal; F2�Performance goals; F3�Perceived instrumentality for college admissions;and F4�Perceived instrumentality for school recognition). Results from apilot study (Montalvo, 1997) and work by Miller et al. (1995) were used toestablish initial model specifications. The top section of Table 1 shows the pilot

148 Evaluation and Research in Education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

7:19

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Page 7: Liking or Disliking the Teacher: Student Motivation, Engagement and Achievement

study subscale intercorrelations for the learning and performance goals on theliking and disliking versions of the instrument. The bottom section of Table 1shows the intercorrelations related to college admission and school recognitionreported by Miller et al. (1995). Pairs of variables with significant Pearsonproduct moment correlations were allowed to covary in the initial modelspecification. Values were not entered for the relationship between perceivedinstrumentality for college and school recognition. This information was notreported by Miller and his colleagues (1995), therefore the covariance for thesetwo subscales were set to zero for initial model tests.

Models for both the liking and disliking instruments shared the followingspecifications across four factors: (1) four items for learning goals, (2) fouritems for performance goals, (3) three items for college admissions and(4) three items for school recognition. The two models differed only withregard to learning and performance goals. Findings from the pilot study(Montalvo, 1997), which was conducted to assist with model specification,indicate that learning and performance goals only have a significant correla-tion when students dislike the teacher. For this reason, learning andperformance goals were set to covary in the model specifications for thedisliking survey data. Because the pilot study findings indicated a nonsigni-ficant correlation between learning and performance goals in the liking surveydata, the covariance for them was set to zero in model specifications.

The two confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using a maximumlikelihood method in Amos. In anticipation that two models might emergefrom the different data sets, the following procedures were used: (1) Analyseboth data sets, examining their goodness of fit summaries; (2) If both testsproduced a x2 degrees of freedom ratio (2/df) less than 2.0 and a comparativefit index (CFI) greater than 0.90, then the models would be consideredacceptable; (3) If one or both of the models did not meet the above criteria, theModification Indexes (MI) would be examined to identify modifications thatcould be made to improve both models; (4) If no common modifications wereapparent, then both MI would be examined for logical modifications thatcould be made to both models to produce adequate model fits.

Table 1 Subscale intercorrelations used for model specification

Subscales

Liking/disliking

1 2 3 4

1. Learning

2. Performance** 0.36*/0.18

3. Perceived InstrumentalityAdmission to College

0.24* 0.20*

4. Perceived InstrumentalitySchool Recognition

0.24* 0.41* Unknown

Number on left: Correlation from Pilot Study (Montalvo, 1997) (N�55, *pB0.05). Number onright: Correlation from Miller et al. (1995) (N�153, *pB0.01)

Student Motivation and Engagement 149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

7:19

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Page 8: Liking or Disliking the Teacher: Student Motivation, Engagement and Achievement

Confirmatory factor analyses

The initial test results showed a poor model fit for both data sets (Liking:2/df�2.04, CFI�0.913; Disliking: 2/df�2.15, CFI�0.898). An examinationof the modification indexes revealed possible dual loadings for two items. Item3 of the Perceived Instrumentality for School Recognition subscale showed adual loading with Perceived Instrumentality for College. Performance GoalItem 3 dual loaded with Perceived Instrumentality for School Recognition.Both items were dropped from the final models. These modifications yieldedadequate model fit for both the liking (2/df�1.90, CFI�0.938) and disliking(2/df�1.92, CFI�0.935) models. The chi-square tests of independence weresignificant (Liking: 2(66)�797.9, pB0.001; Disliking: 2(66)�765.9, pB0.001).The chi-square tests for the final models compared to the independencemodels were also significant (Liking: 2(50)�95.2, N�125, pB0.001; Disliking:2(49)�94.1, N�125, pB0.001). As a final assessment of model verification, thestandardised residual covariances and item factor loadings were examined.Both were acceptable. The residual covariances were all below 2.19. The finalfactor loadings were all above 0.64 (see Tables 2 and 3). Together, all testsindicated adequate model fit for both the liking and disliking data.

Table 2 Standardised factor loadings for goals on the disliking survey

Item

Factor loadings

F1 F2 F3 F4

I like to understand the material I study. 0.64

I like to understand complicated ideas. 0.83

I like learning interesting things. 0.76

I like to solve challenging problems. 0.86

I don’t want other students to think I’m not smart. 0.64

I don’t want to be the only one who cannot do thework well.

0.76

I would be embarrassed if I could not do the work. 0.75

Good grades are important for college admissionsor scholarships.

0.89

Doing well is necessary for admissions to college. 0.88

Getting into college is important to me. 0.82

If I do well I get praise or rewards from people atschool.

0.66

I get some reward or recognition from others atschool for doing well.

0.87

150 Evaluation and Research in Education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

7:19

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Page 9: Liking or Disliking the Teacher: Student Motivation, Engagement and Achievement

Subscale reliabilities and descriptive statistics

Internal consistency reliability coefficients were computed for the four goalvariables, perceived ability and persistence. Cronbach alpha coefficientsranged from 0.74 to 0.90 for the subscales in the disliking data, and 0.74 to0.88 for the subscales in the liking data. The subscale means, standarddeviations and reliability coefficients are listed in Table 4.

Correlations

To hold alpha at the 0.05 significance level for the collection of correlationsfor each data set, significance was set at p�0.001 using a Bonferroniadjustment (0.05/36). The correlation matrixes for the liking and dislikingdata sets revealed relatively similar patterns. The correlation matrixes for eachdata set are shown in Tables 5 and 6. As expected, learning goals andperformance goals were not significantly related in the two data sets. Thetables also show significant positive relationships among learning goals,perceived ability and persistence. These were also expected.

Unexpectedly, the significant positive relationship between perceivedability and effort found in previous research (Miller et al., 1996) wasonly found in the disliking data, r (125)�36, pB0.001. Similarly, only inthe disliking data were significant relationships observed with regard to

Table 3 Standardised factor loadings for goals on the liking survey

Item

Factor loadings

F1 F2 F3 F4

I like to understand the material I study. 0.79

I like to understand complicated ideas. 0.76

I like learning interesting things. 0.82

I like to solve challenging problems. 0.77

I don’t want other students to think I’m not smart. 0.72

I don’t want to be the only one who cannot do thework well.

0.67

I would be embarrassed if I could not do the work. 0.70

Good grades are important for college admissions orscholarships.

0.86

Doing well is necessary for admissions to college. 0.92

Getting into college is important to me. 0.80

If I do well I get praise or rewards from people atschool.

0.85

I get some reward or recognition from others atschool for doing well.

0.83

Student Motivation and Engagement 151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

7:19

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Page 10: Liking or Disliking the Teacher: Student Motivation, Engagement and Achievement

semester grades. The disliking data produced a positive relationshipbetween perceived ability and semester grades, r (125)�0.28, pB0.001; anda positive relationship between effort and semester grades, r (125)�0.28,pB0.001.

Table 4 Means, standard deviations and alpha coefficients for motivation variables,effort, persistence and achievement

Disliking Liking

Subscale Means sd a Means sd a t-value h2

Learning 3.25 0.99 0.85 3.86 0.84 0.86 -7.24* 0.29

Performance 2.76 0.98 0.76 2.76 1.02 0.74 -0.001

Perceived Instr. �College

4.32 0.83 0.91 4.54 0.66 0.89 -3.72* 0.10

Perceived Instr. �School

2.12 0.88 0.73 2.44 0.97 0.83 -3.37* 0.08

Perceived ability 3.07 1.05 0.86 3.92 0.71 0.84 -8.03* 0.34

Persistence 3.19 1.00 0.82 3.83 0.81 0.77 -7.14* 0.29

Effort 3.24 1.22 4.15 0.80 -6.38* 0.24

Prior interest 3.17 1.85 3.67 0.99 -3.85* 0.10

Achievement(semester grades)

4.27 2.04 5.64 2.12 -9.74* 0.43

*pB0.005 for multiple t-tests

Table 5 Subscale correlations of motivation variables, effort, persistence, prior-interestand achievement-disliking data

Subscale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Learning goal

Performance goal 0.27

Perceived Instr. �College

0.32* 0.25

Perceived Instr. �School

0.33* 0.30* 0.06

Perceived ability 0.50* 0.09 0.27 0.24

Effort 0.36* 0.29* 0.22 0.15 0.36*

Persistence 0.69* 0.24 0.25 0.19 0.40* 0.42*

Prior interest 0.37* 0.08 0.15 0.03 0.20 0.13 0.28*

Achievement(semester grades)

0.17 0.07 0.20 0.07 0.28* 0.28* 0.21 -0.05

152 Evaluation and Research in Education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

7:19

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Page 11: Liking or Disliking the Teacher: Student Motivation, Engagement and Achievement

Mean differences: Liking and disliking the teacher

A within-subjects multivariate analysis of variance was used to examinedifferences among variables within the liking and disliking the teacher datasets. Specifically, the test compared students’ grades, reported levels of effort,persistence and perceived ability, as well as their learning goal scores,performance goal scores, perceived instrumentality scores, and prior interest.The overall test of differences between variables in the liking and dislikingdata sets was significant, F(9,116)�15.96, pB0.001.

Univariate dependent t-tests were next examined to further identify thesignificant differences between the liking and disliking data. Significantdifferences were observed in Achievement, t(124)��9.74, pB0.001; Effort,t(124)��6.38, pB0.001; Persistence, t(124)��7.14, pB0.001; Learning goals,t(124)��7.24, pB0.001; Perceived ability, t(124)��8.03, pB0.001; PerceivedInstrumentality � College, t(124)��3.72, pB0.001; Perceived Instrumentality� School Recognition, t(124)��3.37, pB0.005; and Prior Interest, t(124)��3.85, pB0.001. The effect sizes for each univariate t-test were measuredusing h2. The t-test results and effect size values can be found in Table 4.

DiscussionThe current study sheds light on the potential impact that different teachers

have on student motivation and achievement. The major supposition is thatteachers who are perceived to be warm, caring and supportive have a positiveeffect on students (Montalvo, 1995; Montalvo & Roedel, 1995; Phelan et al.,1992). While asking students to think about teachers they like and dislike doesnot constitute an experimental procedure, we cannot think of any school that

Table 6 Subscale correlations of motivation variables, effort, persistence, prior interestand achievement-liking data

Subscale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Learning goal

Performance goal 0.18

Perceived Instr. �College

0.45* -0.01

Perceived Instr. �School

0.34* 0.37* 0.13

Perceived ability 0.49* -0.02 0.35* 0.22

Effort 0.34* 0.18 0.27 0.16 0.11

Persistence 0.56* 0.04 0.45* 0.02 0.45* 0.29*

Prior interest 0.52* 0.21 0.25 0.23 0.34* 0.24 0.33*

Achievement(semester grades)

0.07 -0.03 0.15 0.00 0.21 -0.03 0.08 0.02

Student Motivation and Engagement 153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

7:19

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Page 12: Liking or Disliking the Teacher: Student Motivation, Engagement and Achievement

would allow students to be purposely assigned to a treatment conditionwhere the teacher displays characteristics of a disliked teacher. Ironically,every year students are placed in classes where the teachers display dislikedteacher characteristics. We believe asking students to think about teachersthey like and dislike, while a limitation, allows us to examine the types ofquestions posed in the current study without creating an artificial setting. Thislimitation serves as a reminder of the difficulties faced by educationalresearchers.

Findings from the current study supported the proposed research hypoth-eses regarding effort, persistence, achievement, learning goals, perceivedinstrumentality and perceived ability. Previous qualitative research (Montalvo,1995; Montalvo & Roedel, 1995; Phelan et al., 1992) suggested thatstudents’ level of effort and persistence will be higher for liked teachers ascompared to disliked teachers. Our findings provide quantitative support forthis relationship. Students reported having higher levels of effort andpersistence in classes in which they liked the teacher. In addition, the currentstudy provides evidence of the relationship between liking the teacher andacademic achievement not addressed in the Phelan and Montalvo studies. Inthe current study, students earned higher grades in classes where they likedthe teacher.

As an extension to previous research on classroom goals (Brickman &Miller, 1998, 2001; DeBacker & Nelson, 1999; Greene et al., 1999, 2004; Miller &Brickman, 2004; Miller et al., 1996) we also predicted that students will reporthigher levels of learning goals, perceived instrumentality for schoolwork andperceived ability in classes taught by teachers they like. This too wassupported. When students thought about teachers they liked, they reportedhigher levels of learning goals, perceptions of ability, perceptions of schoolbeing instrumental for both obtaining rewards and recognition at school andfor attaining the goal of getting into college, than when they thought aboutteachers they disliked.

Findings from the current study suggest that student motivation is differentfor liked and disliked teachers. We believe these differences emerge as a resultof the classroom environment created by teachers. Previous research indicatesthat liked teachers create a classroom environment that emphasises learning,promotes mastery and supports students by providing confidence-buildingfeedback (Montalvo, 1995; Montalvo & Roedel, 1995; Phelan et al., 1992). Basedon the present findings, it appears that such an environment promotes studentinterest and cooperation, encourages them to adopt learning goals, see thevalue of school to attaining personally valued future goals and to persist whentasks become difficult; all of which improve student achievement. However,an alternative explanation for the current findings is that liked teachersrespond better to individual students’ perceived needs, such as the needfor support in learning, thus impacting the student’s perception of theclassroom environment, the goals the student adopts for the class, thestudent’s perception of ability and subsequent achievement. One mightalso argue that a student’s classroom performance early in the school yearimpacts the way a teacher interacts with the student, which in turn influencesthe student’s perception of the classroom environment, motivation and

154 Evaluation and Research in Education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

7:19

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Page 13: Liking or Disliking the Teacher: Student Motivation, Engagement and Achievement

subsequent achievement. For example, when a student attends to the teacher’sdirections, turns in assignments promptly and appears to put forth effort inschool, the teacher responds favourably to the student.

What seems to be unclear is the causal link between liking the teacher,student motivation, and achievement. Future research may want to extend thiswork by examining models of prediction for liked and disliked teachers. It ispossible that liking or disliking the teacher has differential effects on the abilityof traditional motivation variables to predict student effort, persistence andachievement. In addition, we encourage researchers to explore the causal roleof liking and disliking the teacher. The present study has shown liking anddisliking to be related to important motivational outcomes and achievement;however, this was not an experimental design, nor was it a test of ahypothetical causal model. Future research should attempt to tease out thecausal role of liking and disliking, if any, in the outcomes examined in thestudy. Also, research that provides insight into the causal order of liking anddisliking the teacher, and student perceptions of the classroom environment isneeded. Is it the students’ perceptions of the classroom environment that leadsthem to like or dislike their teachers, or does their liking or disliking ofteachers influence their perceptions of the classroom environment? Further-more, research should try to tease out the role of prior interest in liking theteacher and student motivation. Do students with higher levels of priorinterest in a subject tend to like the teacher, or does prior interest serve as aprecursor to a student liking the teacher? One approach to examining thesequestions may be to explore student/teacher relationships from the outset ofthe school year to better understand the causal interplay between individualstudent behaviour, teacher behaviour, motivation and achievement. Addres-sing these issues will help provide a foundation enabling educators to planpre-service and in-service experiences that will help teachers create betterrelationships with students and classroom environments that support studentlearning.

CorrespondenceAny correspondence should be directed to Gregory P. Montalvo, Western

Illinois University, Horrabin Hall 115, 1 University Circle, Macomb, IL 61455,USA ([email protected]).

References

Ames, C. (1992) Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal ofEducational Psychology 84 (3), 261�271.

Ames, C. and Archer, J. (1988) Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learningstrategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology 80 (3), 260�267.

Brickman, S.J. and Miller, R.B. (1998) Valuing of Future Goals and Instrumentality asPredictors of Cognitive Engagement. Paper presented at the 6th Workshop onAchievement and Task Motivation, International Conference on Motivation,Thessaloniki, Greece, March.

Brickman, S.J. and Miller, R.B. (2001) The impact of sociocultural knowledge on futuregoals and self-regulation. In D. McInerny and S. Van Etten (eds) Research onSociocultural Influences on Motivation and Learning. Greenwich, CT: Information AgePublishing.

Student Motivation and Engagement 155

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

7:19

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Page 14: Liking or Disliking the Teacher: Student Motivation, Engagement and Achievement

Covington, M.J. (1992) Making the Grade: A Self-worth Perspective on Motivation and SchoolReform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

DeBacker, T. and Nelson, R.M. (1999) Variations on an expectancy value model ofmotivation in science. Contemporary Educational Psychology 24, 71�94.

DeVolder, M.L. and Lens, W. (1982) Academic achievement and future time perspectiveas a cognitive-motivational concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42,566�571.

Dweck, C. (1986) Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist 41,1040�1048.

Dweck, C. and Leggett, E. (1988) A social-cognitive approach to motivation andpersonality. Psychological Review 95, 256�273.

Greene, B., DeBacker, T., Ravindran, B. and Krows, A.J. (1999) Goals, values, and beliefsas predictors of achievement and effort in high school mathematics classes. Sex Roles40 (5), 421�458.

Greene, B. and Miller, R. (1996) Influences on course performance: Goals, perceivedability, and self-regulation. Contemporary Educational Psychology 21, 181�192.

Greene, B., Miller, R., Crowson, H.M., Duke, B. and Akey, K. (2004) Predictinghigh school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions ofclassroom perceptions and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology 29 (4),462�483.

Maehr, M. (1984) Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. InR. Ames and C. Archer (eds) Research on Motivation in Education: Vol. 1 StudentMotivation. San Diego: Academic Press.

Maehr, M. and Midgley, C. (1991) Enhancing student motivation: A school-wideapproach. Educational Psychologist 26 (3&4), 399�428.

Miller, R. and Brickman, S. (2004) A model of future-oriented motivation and self-regulation. Educational Psychology Review 16 (1), 9�33.

Miller, R.B., Greene, B.A., Henderson, L.K., Williams, P.G., Brickman, S. and Krows, A.J.(1995) Future consequences: A unidimensional or multidimensional construct?Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Francisco, CA.

Miller, R.B., Greene, B.A., Montalvo, G.P., Ravindran, B. and Nicholls, 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.

Montalvo, G.P. (1995) Pleasing the teacher: A student perspective. Unpublishedmanuscript.

Montalvo, G.P. (1997) Pleasing the teacher: An exploration of the construct and itsbehavioral and motivational patterns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, TheUniversity of Oklahoma.

Montalvo, G.P. and Roedel, T. (1995) Pleasing the teacher: A qualitative look. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,San Francisco, CA.

Newman, R. (2002) What do I need to do to succeed when I don’t understand what I’mdoing: Developmental influences on student adaptive help seeking. In A. Wigfieldand S. Eccles (eds) Development of Achievement Motivation. San Diego, CA: AcademicPress.

Pajares, F. (1996) Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research66 (4), 543�578.

Phelan, P., Davidson, A. and Thanh Cao, H. (1992) Speaking up: Students perspectiveson school. Phi Delta Kappa 73, 695�704.

Raynor, J.O. (1970) Relationship between achievement-related motives, future orienta-tion, and academic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 15,28�33.

156 Evaluation and Research in Education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

7:19

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Page 15: Liking or Disliking the Teacher: Student Motivation, Engagement and Achievement

Schutz, P.A. (1997) Educational goals, strategies use and the academic performance ofhigh school students. High School Journal 80, 193�201.

Schutz, P.A. and Lanehart, S.L. (1994) Long-term educational goals, subgoals, learningstrategies use and the academic performance of college students. Learning &Individual Difference 6, 399�412.

Urdan, T. and Maehr, M. (1995) Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation andachievement: A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research 65, 213�243.

Appendix

Items on The Survey on High School Student Motivation

Effort

How would you rate your effort for this teacher as compared to your typicalamount of effort for other teachers?

PersistenceWhen I run into a difficult part of a homework assignment I give up and goon to the next problem. (reversed scored)If I have difficulty with part of an assignment, I keep working until Iunderstand it.If I have trouble understanding an assignment, I go over it again until Iunderstand it.If I have trouble with part of an assignment, I don’t do it. (reverse scored)

Prior InterestHow would you rate your interest in the subject taught by this teacherbefore the school year started.

Learning GoalI do the work assigned in this class because I like to understand the materialI study.I do the work assigned in this class because I like to understandcomplicated ideas.I do the work assigned in this class because I like learning interestingthings.I do the work in this class because I like to solve challenging problems.

Performance GoalI do the work assigned in this class because I don’t want other students tothink I’m not smart.I do the work assigned in this class because I don’t want to be the only onewho cannot do the work well.I do the work assigned in this class because I want to look smart to myfriends. (Item removed from analyses after confirmatory factor analysis)I do the work assigned in this class because I would be embarrassed if Icould not do the work.

Student Motivation and Engagement 157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

7:19

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Page 16: Liking or Disliking the Teacher: Student Motivation, Engagement and Achievement

Perceived Instrumentality*CollegeI do the work in this class because good grades are important for collegeadmissions or scholarships.I do the work assigned in this class because doing well is necessary foradmissions to college.I do the work assigned in this class because getting into college is importantto me.

Perceived Instrumentality*SchoolI do the work in this class because if I do well, I get praise or rewards frompeople at school.I do the work assigned in this class because I get some reward orrecognition from others at school for doing well.I do the work assigned in this class because I receive recognition or honoursat school for earning good grades. (Item removed from analyses afterconfirmatory factor analysis)

Perceived AbilityI think I am doing better than other students in this class.Compared to others in this class, I think I am good at the subjectbeing taught.I have a good understanding of the concepts taught in this class.I am certain I understand the material presented in this class.

158 Evaluation and Research in Education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

7:19

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14