Teachers’ Motivations for Refraining from Professional Learning Activities
Master thesis Educational Sciences University of Amsterdam B.J. Beerman, 11406321 Supervisor: dhr. dr. J. (Joost) Jansen in de Wal Second assessor: dhr. dr. J. (Jaap) Schuitema Amsterdam, March, 2019 Word count: 10697
Table of contents
Abstract 3
Introduction 4
Theoretical framework
Teachers’ professional learning
Motivation and the self-determination theory Motivations for refraining from activities
6 6 7 9 Method Sampling procedures Participants Instruments Analysis 11 12 12 13 14 Results
Motivations for refraining from professional learning activities Basic need satisfaction preceding different motivations for refraining
15 16 22 Discussion Limitations Theoretical implications
Practical implications and conclusion
27 28 29 31
References 33
Appendix 1: Topic list 36
Abstract
As teachers not always spend as much time on professional learning as they are expected to, this research focuses on teachers’ motivations for refraining from professional learning activities. Based on self-determination theory, a qualitative study was conducted. Our research questions were: 1) Which forms of motivations for refraining from professional learning can be recognized among teachers (amotivation, oppositional defiance, reflective defiance and any possible sub-forms)? And 2) What patterns of basic need satisfaction or frustration precede these forms of motivations for refraining from professional learning. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 secondary school teachers in the Netherlands who had refrained from professionals learning activities that they had been expected, asked or obliged to engage in. Amotivation, reflective defiance and oppositional defiance were observed. For reflective defiance, we found sub-forms that were more autonomous and a sub-form that were more controlled. As for basic needs (the need for autonomy, the need for competence and the need for relatedness), we found the degree of autonomy satisfaction to differ among cases. Oppositional defiance we found to co-occur with autonomy frustration. Reflective defiance we found to co-co-occur with autonomy
satisfaction. Low competence satisfaction as to the professional learning activity (in the form of a lack of challenge) enhanced feelings of freedom to refrain (i.e., feeling autonomous). Relatedness enhanced perceived autonomy satisfaction such that a positive relationship to one’s direct
superior enhanced feelings of freedom to refrain. In two cases, ample autonomy co-occurred with amotivation. Further research is recommended to determine how basic needs satisfaction within a professional learning activity affects teachers’ motivations for refraining from these activities. Since a perceived lack of challenge was often mentioned as a reason for refraining from learning activities, we would suggest providers of learning activities to invest in more challenging
activities.
Keywords: teachers; professional learning; motivation; self-determination; basic needs;
Introduction
Teachers are the foundation of education. In order to secure the quality of education,1 it is therefore important to have enough teachers, and they need to be capable as well (OECD, 2005; Education Council, 2018). However, many countries suffer from teacher shortages and deal with concerns about retaining capable teachers in schools. One way of securing the quality of
education, is reducing teacher attrition rates. High rates of teacher attrition are especially a problem among new teachers, but also more experienced teachers often leave the teaching job before their retirement (OECD, 2005). This is problematic, since several studies make clear that teachers’ years of experience contribute to students’ test results (Coenen et al., 2018; Houkes-Hommes, Bolhaar, & van der Wiel, 2018). By reducing teacher attrition rates, the expertise of capable teachers will more often be retained for education (OECD, 2005).
Besides workload, payment and career prospects, investment in professional development is an important factor that influences teachers’ well-being and motivations for remaining in the teaching profession (Boogaard, Glaudé, Schenke, Wijers, & Snoek, 2018; Kamil, 2014; OECD, 2005; Snoek, et al., 2017; Tang, He, Liu, & Li, 2018). This is in line with what the theory of self-determination (SDT) suggests by stating that all individuals have an inner tendency to strive for growth (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In order to retain capable teachers for the teaching profession, it is therefore important to continually invest in teachers’ development.
Not only because of their innate need for personal growth but also because their work constantly changes, teachers in all stages of their careers need to be continuously engaged in learning. Policies, student populations, parents’ expectations and curricula change and scientific insights regarding teaching methods evolve (OECD, 2005; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Van Veen, Zwart, & Meirink, 2012; Vermunt & Endedijk, 2011). In order to vouch for the quality of education, teachers need to keep abreast of these changes and insights. Many countries therefore invest in deliberately organized learning activities for teachers (OECD, 2014).
In the Netherlands, where this study is conducted, professional learning is voluntary for teachers to a large extent (Louws, 2016). As stated in the collective labor agreement, secondary school teachers in the Netherlands can spend ten percent of their total working time on
professional learning activities. This comes down to 166 hours on a yearly basis, 83 of which can
1 Quality of education not only refers to students’ academic performance and stude nts’ welfare (OECD, 2014) but it
also encompasses education as a process in which teachers continually judge how to act (Priestley, Biesta, & Robinson, 2015).
be filled in at the teachers’ own insights. On average, secondary school teachers in the
Netherlands spend only 55 hours on professional learning activities. They therewith do not even come close to the target set by the collective labor agreement, whether these activities are individually chosen or scheduled by schools (General Education Union, 2017). Although most teachers in the Netherlands do engage in professional learning activities on a regular basis, they spend less time on professional learning activities than their colleagues abroad (OECD, 2014). According to OECD (2014), twelve percent of teachers in the Netherlands barely engage in professional learning activities.
Teachers refrain from professional learning activities for various reasons. In a small-scale qualitative study, Van Eekelen, Vermunt, and Boshuizen (2006) found that teachers do not always see the need to learn. Some teachers rather hold on to established habits of teaching, others seem willing to learn but wonder how to do so. Moreover, teachers often indicate the learning activities are not relevant and participating in them does not fit in with their timetables (Jansen in de Wal, 2017; OECD, 2014). In addition, teachers in the Netherlands often mention a limited supporting environment as a reason for refraining from professional learning (OECD, 2014). However, exactly what is meant by a limited supporting environment, is not clear. In order to effectively foster and promote teachers’ professional learning, more research is needed on teachers’ motivations for refraining from it, in connection with perceived support.
Deci and Ryan (2000) explain in their SDT how different levels of satisfaction of basic psychological needs precede different forms of motivation. This might be helpful in studying teachers’ motivations for professional learning, since limited satisfaction of these basic needs, seem to lead to suboptimal forms of motivations (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In addition, just like there are different forms of motivations for engaging in activities, there are different forms of
motivations for refraining. These different forms are expressed in amotivation, oppositional defiance and reflective defiance (Haerens, Aelterman, Vansteenkiste, Soenens, & Van Petegem, 2015; Haerens, Vansteenkiste, Aelterman, & Van den Berghe, 2016; Vansteenkiste, Lens, De Witte, De Witte, & Deci, 2004; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013; Vansteenkiste, Soenens, Van Petegem, & Duriez, 2014; Vansteenkiste, Williams, & Resnicow, 2012). Although these different forms of motivations for refraining have been mapped, more research is needed concerning how exactly basic psychological needs fulfillment precede them.
Although teachers’ professional learning has been widely studied and motivations for refraining have been mapped, no study to date has systematically investigated teachers’ motivations for refraining from professional learning activities. Moreover, it is not clear what processes precede teachers’ different motivations for refraining from these activities. Knowledge concerning these processes, could help in understanding different reasons for refraining. In addition, to scale up SDT, it is important to expand it with knowledge about how basic
psychological needs fulfillment precede different forms of motivations for refraining. The current study therefore deals with teachers’ motivations for refraining from professional learning. It aims to add to the knowledge on motivations for refraining from engaging in certain behavior in general and teachers’ motivations for refraining from professional learning activities in particular. It is important for teachers themselves as well as for school leaders, administrators and policy makers to know more about teachers’ motivations for refraining from professional learning in order to be able to support all teachers in their need for growth and to sustain the quality of education.
Theoretical framework Teachers’ professional learning
Teachers’ professional learning activities encompass a wide number of formal activities in which teachers participate in order to improve their own teaching. The aim of the activities is to enhance teacher knowledge, skills and attitude and change teacher behavior in order to improve student results (Van Veen et al., 2012). However, a lot of professional learning takes place on the job, by doing the job, reflecting on one’s actions and talking about the job with other people in an informal setting (Eraut, 2004; Priestley, Biesta, & Robinson, 2015). Eraut (2004) distinguishes three types of informal learning: implicit learning, a form of learning that occurs unintendedly, unconsciously, while doing the job, reactive learning occurs intentionally or semi-intentionally in the middle of an action and deliberate learning, whereby time is set aside for learning as a by-product of doing the job, with a defined learning goal. The focus of the current research is on formal learning activities (such as peer-to-peer coaching or attending a training) as well as on deliberate informal learning (such as a planned evaluation or rehearsing for future events). Implicit learning and reactive learning will be beyond the scope of this study since they are not planned on beforehand and therefore hard to deliberately refrain from or to defy.
Motivation and the self-determination theory
People engage in certain activities for several different reasons. For example, they might feel they are obliged to do something, or they do something because they simply enjoy doing the activity. Different types of motivations are described in the self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2000). SDT describes two categories of motivation: controlled motivation and autonomous motivation each containing subcategories. We will first describe these different categories and subcategories of motivation, next, we will go into motivations for refraining from certain behavior and how these motivations for refraining relate to teachers’ refraining from professional learning.
As described in SDT, controlled motivation involves behaving because of external incentives, whereas autonomous motivation involves behaving with a full sense of volition and choice (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Deci and Ryan distinguish two types of controlled motivation:
external regulation and introjected regulation. External regulation refers to an external
reinforcement as a reason for behavior or to avoiding negative consequences. This reinforcement could be a reward in the form of money or in the form of a certificate. Negative consequences that are avoided could be punishments. Introjected regulation refers to a reason for behavior that is slightly more internalized. Behavior is not engaged in because of a reward or because to avoid punishment, but to achieve a sense of pride or to avoid shame.
Autonomous motivation involves a sense of volition and self-endorsement, rather than external incentives. When behavior is engaged in because one has somewhat adopted external values and goals as one’s own, one can speak of identified regulation. Identified regulation involves people experiencing engaging in the behavior as important for themselves and in line with their personal goals. They identify with the value of the activity and engage in the behavior volitionally without feeling pressured or controlled by others. When external values or goals are completely adopted as one’s own, one can speak of integrated regulation. Integrated regulation is a form of motivation that arises when a person has fully adopted values that had previously been externally regulated (Deci & Ryan, 2008).
A third form of autonomous motivation is intrinsic motivation. It involves volitional choices and no external values or goals whatsoever. Intrinsically motivated behaviors are behaviors that do not depend on external reinforcements or rewards, nor do they depend on shame, pride or adopted values. Instead, engaging in the behavior is rewarding in itself because
the activity is interesting and spontaneously satisfying. When intrinsically motivated, people are interested in what they are doing, they display curiosity, explore novel stimuli, and work to master optimal challenges (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Deci, & Ryan, 2008). Autonomous motivation is associated with greater persistence, more positive affect, enhanced performance, more creativity, more control over prejudice, greater psychological well-being, better productivity and less burnout at work (Deci & Ryan, 2008).
People are considered to have an innate tendency to internalize externally regulated behavior. In this process, motivations that are initially externally regulated, turn into intrinsic motivations. However, for this process to occur, people must experience satisfaction of the basic psychological needs: the need for autonomy, the need for competence and the need for
relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). We will now continue by describing these basic psychological needs and how they influence the process of internalization.
Basic psychological needs are defined by Deci & Ryan (2000) as ‘innate psychological nutriments that are essential for ongoing psychological growth, integrity, and well-being’.
Autonomy, competence and relatedness are basic psychological needs of which the satisfaction or frustration influence people’s motivations. Autonomy refers to the desire to self-determine
experiences and behaviors. It concerns the experience of volition, and a sense of choice and freedom. The need for competence refers to the desire to be able to influence the environment as well as to attain valued outcomes within it. It encompasses demonstrating one’s abilities as well as working to improve one’s mastery. This means a task should be of optimal challenge, i.e. being a challenge without being too difficult to attain valued outcomes. Understanding the meaning or rationale behind the task, enhances feelings of competence. Moreover, it enhances feelings of autonomy too, such that when people grasp the relevance of a task, they are more likely to choose to engage in it volitionally. Relatedness refers to the desire to feel connected to others and to feel loved and accepted. When people are rewarded, threatened, surveilled, or evaluated, they tend to feel pressured and controlled, which reduces satisfaction of their need for autonomy. Competence satisfaction is low when people perceive a task as too difficult to
accomplish or as no challenge. Low relatedness satisfaction will be at hand when someone does not really feel connected to their colleagues for example, whereas thwarting of this basic need would be the case when someone is purposefully mistreated by their colleagues (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Deci & Ryan 2008).
To the extent that the need satisfaction is low, or needs are thwarted, people will be less effective at internalizing regulations (Deci & Ryan, 2008). In addition, SDT states that existing autonomous motivation can decrease when basic needs satisfaction is low or when basic needs are thwarted. In short, to internalize motivations, as well as to foster already existing autonomous motivations, it is important to invest in basic needs satisfaction. In the Netherlands, many
teachers have more controlled motivations for professional learning rather than autonomous motivations (Jansen in de Wal et al., 2014). Research shows that fostering teachers’ basic needs, would bolster their autonomous motivations (Lam, Cheng, & Choy, 2010).
Hence, to pave the way for internalization of teachers’ motivations for professional learning to occur, as well as to foster already existing autonomous motivations, it is important to secure teachers’ basic needs satisfaction. Feelings of autonomy could be enhanced by allowing teachers the freedom to choose what, when and how to undertake professional learning activities. This freedom of choice will not only enhance feelings of autonomy, but possibly satisfies the need for competence as well. That is, showing faith in teachers to take responsibility for their own learning, may serve as positive feedback to them, and positive feedback has been shown to contribute to feelings of competence (Haerens et al., 2016).
Motivations for refraining from activities
Just like there are motivations for engaging in activities, there are also motivations for refraining from certain activities (Haerens et al., 2015; Haerens, et al., 2016; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013; Vansteenkiste et al., 2014; Vansteenkiste et al., 2012). In this paragraph, theories concerning different forms of motivations for refraining will be described.
Amotivation is a lack of motivation which results in a passive state, either not engaging in
the required behavior at all or apathetically performing the behavior, not knowing why (Deci & Ryan, 2000). It is associated with feelings of indifference, discouragement and unhappiness. Amotivation reflects a lack of intention to act. It results from not valuing a behavior or outcome, not believing that a valued outcome is reliably linked to specific behaviors, or not feeling
competent to behave effectively. Deci and Ryan (2000) state that amotivation can be thought of as impersonal, since it is neither controlled nor autonomous. However, they also state it can appear in the form of controlled motivation, in which people join the activity because they are forced into it, but they do not actively participate in it (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Teachers who show amotivation for engaging in professional learning activities and are free to refrain from the
activity, tend to not engage in these activities for no reason. In these cases, amotivation can be thought of as what Deci and Ryan (2000) call impersonal. If they are forced into engaging in a learning activity and apathetically perform the required behavior, amotivation would be controlled.
Apart from amotivation, Vansteenkiste et al. (2004) found that people can have
alternative motivations for refraining from activities. In a study regarding unemployed people’s motivations for refraining from job search, they found motivations for not searching to be either autonomous or controlled. Thus, people can make an autonomous choice not to search in order to spend time doing something else they find more interesting or more important, such as spending time in nature. In addition, people may feel pressured or controlled to do something other than finding a new job, such as being a housewife, or feeling an internal obligation to care for one’s sick mother. Similarly, teachers might refrain from engaging in professional learning activities because of autonomous motivations or because of controlled motivations. Autonomous
motivations would include refraining from the learning activity because one would willingly decide to engage in more interesting tasks, such as preparing classes, or spending time on one’s hobby, whereas controlled motivations would include feeling pressured to do other job-related tasks such as marking tests, or because one feels the internal obligation to spend more time with one’s family.
Besides the distinction between autonomous and controlled motivations for refraining, researchers have also made a distinction in displayed behavior regarding the refraining. That is, people might display oppositional defiance of reflective defiance (Haerens et al., 2015; Haerens, et al., 2016; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013; Vansteenkiste et al., 2014). Oppositional defiance can emerge in response to a controlling environment. It refers to behavior whereby people
straightforwardly defy pressuring requests and expectations and show a tendency to engage in the opposite behavior. Oppositional defiance is an active form of refraining from the required activity and involves blunt rejection and seeking distance from the authority figures that impose the activity. Because oppositional defiance is a result of emerging impulses to rebel and to engage in misbehavior in a non-volitional way, it involves little consideration and often results in undesired situations. Oppositional defiance involves feelings of pressure and is therefore thought of as controlled form of defiance.
In addition, people may also refrain from an activity after having seriously thought about it. They then displaying reflective defiance. People might display reflective defiance because in their opinion the requested activity does not seem to be of any value to them or because they see little challenge in doing the activity. As it involves reflection and consideration, it does not necessarily result in negative situations. Reflective defiance involves deliberation which results in a volitional decision not to engage in the requested activity and is therefore thought of as an autonomously regulated form defiance (Haerens et al., 2016; Vansteenkiste, Williams, & Resnicow, 2012).
Up till now, it has remained unclear whether subcategories of controlled and autonomous motivations for refraining from activities can be distinguished, just like subcategories of
controlled and autonomous motivations for engaging in activities have been found. Moreover, exactly how different constellations of need satisfaction or need thwarting lead to different
motivations for refraining, has remained unclear up till now. This is problematic because it means an important part of the motivational theory has not been fully developed.
Knowing more about possible subcategories of defiance and the different patterns of basic need satisfaction that precede them, can help in avoiding unwanted forms of motivations for refraining (Haerens et al., 2015; Haerens et al., 2016; Vansteenkiste et al., 2004). In addition, it can help in creating more supportive environments thus enhancing more autonomous motivations when it comes down to teachers’ professional learning. The current research therefore focuses on the following questions:
1) Which forms of motivations for refraining from professional learning activities can be recognized among teachers (amotivation, oppositional defiance, reflective defiance and any possible sub-forms)?
2) What patterns of basic need satisfaction or frustration precede these forms of motivations for refraining from professional learning activities?
Method
Because of the explorative nature of this study, we have chosen for a qualitative research method, based on semi-structured interviews. It is descriptive in the way that it explores
motivations of a sample of teachers who have refrained from professional learning activities (Creswell, 2014). The design is phenomenological in the sense that it explores a phenomenon: teachers’ motivations for refraining from professional learning. In this paragraph the sampling procedures will be outlined first. Next, the participants and the instruments will be described. To conclude this paragraph, a description of the procedures of analyzing will be given.
Sampling procedures
First, a database from the Education Executive Agency was used for generating a random sample of schools. These schools were contacted in order to come to a purposeful sample of teachers who met the requirements for participating as described in the next paragraph. However, because of the nature of the phenomenon to be studied, it appeared to be very difficult to recruit enough participants in this way. School leaders often mentioned that refraining from engaging in professional learning activities was no issue at their school, or they stated their teachers were too busy to be interviewed. This sampling strategy yielded only six participants and the researchers therefore switched to a purposeful convenience sample to recruit the other six participants. Secondary school teacher within the researchers’ networks were asked to participate. One participant was recruited through snowball sampling.
After having obtained email addresses from teachers that met the requirements for participating, the researchers sent the participants additional information about the research and made an appointment for an interview. Participants received a book voucher worth 15 euros to thank them for their time and effort. Two of the participants preferred the 15 euros to be donated to charity instead. One pilot interview was conducted with a colleague of the main author. This participant did not receive a book voucher.
Participants
Participants were all secondary school teachers who had refrained from two or more professional learning activities over the past two years, even though they were expected, asked or obliged to engage in these activities. Engaging in the activities could have been expected, asked or obliged either by colleagues or by the school management. Twelve participants were recruited, one of which was female, the others were all male. In order to secure anonymity, the female participant is referred to as male in this text. The participants were teachers of different subjects (e.g., English, Economics, Physical Education, Woodwork) at different levels (practical
(mainstream, Montessori, Waldorf). No more than three participants were selected from the same school. Ages varied between 25 and 65 (mean age: 45.5). See table 1 for an overview of
participants. Table 1 Participant Characteristics Teacher (pseudonym) Age (years) Teaching experience (in years) Level2 Type of education
Chris 64 26 pre-vocational/general secondary/pre-university Waldorf
Beau 60 35 practical mainstream
Sam 50 21 practical mainstream
Robin 65 40 practical mainstream
Jos 55 8 pre-vocational mainstream
Pascal 38 14 pre-vocational mainstream
Jamie 35 11 pre-vocational mainstream
Charlie 47 19 pre-vocational/general secondary/pre-university Waldorf
Ezra 25 5 pre-vocational Montessori
Henny 36 8 pre-vocational/general secondary/pre-university Waldorf
Marijn 46 24 pre-vocational/general secondary/pre-university mainstream
Noa 25 5* pre-vocational/general secondary mainstream
*still in training
The first participant was a colleague of the first author. Initially, this interview was meant to be the second pilot interview. However, this interview was included in the analysis because participants appeared hard to find, and the interview provided useful data. The last participant was not yet fully qualified at the time of the interview.
Instruments
Interview protocols for semi-structured interviews were developed. Interview questions focused on 1) learning activities that participants refrained from (e.g., What learning activities did you refrain from, even though you were expected, asked or obliged to engage in them?), 2) motivations for participants not to engage in professional learning activities (e.g., What, to you, was the main reason for refraining from this particular learning activity?), and 3) the level of need satisfaction or frustration experienced in connection with refraining from learning activities (e.g., To what extent did you expect the activity to be a challenge to you? To what extent did you feel
2 A Dutch translation for the levels of secondary education would be: practical = praktijkonderwijs; pre-vocational =
free to refrain from the activity? To what extent did the relationship with your colleagues play a role in refraining from the activity?). In this way, participants were asked to reflect on two or three cases of refraining from professional learning activities. See appendix 1 for the complete topic list.
Most interviews took place at the participants’ schools and lasted between 40 and 70 minutes. One interview took place at the University of Amsterdam and another one at the participant’s house. Audio recordings were made of all interviews. The interviews were conducted by the first author, apart from two interviews with colleagues of hers. These two interviews were conducted by the second author.
Analysis
First, interview recordings were transcribed, and transcripts were ‘chunked’ into meaningful parts which were coded. Initial coding was based on self-determination theory. Examples of codes are relatedness, autonomy and reflective_defiance. Since the initial coding was based on already existing theories, this stage was deductive.
In order to enhance inter-rater reliability, the first researcher selected chunks of data from the first transcript and coded them. The transcript with the selected chunks was then presented to the second author, who independently coded the chunks. The allocated codes were compared, and discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Definitions and examples were adapted in the code book before moving on to coding the second transcript. This process was repeated until the first six interviews had been coded and inter-coder agreement of 80% was achieved. Subsequently, the remaining six interviews were coded by the first author.
The next stage consisted of an inductive approach, in which codes were formulated in order to label sub-forms of motivations. In this way, a distinction within the different forms of motivations for refraining was sought for. After all chunks of data had been coded inductively, codes were grouped into themes. A further answer to research question 1 was sought for, by applying constant comparison. Interviews were coded and one by one compared to the previously coded chunks. As the analysis proceeded, new codes were added, and new themes were formed, resulting in the code book as presented in appendix 2.
After all interview transcript were coded as described above, an answer to research question 2 was sought for. First, within case analyses were conducted. For each case, a list was made of codes that appeared within that specific case. Thus, reflecting a pattern of basic needs
satisfaction in connection to motivations for refraining. Textural descriptions were developed of the participants’ experiences concerning refraining from professional learning activities and patterns of basic need satisfaction. This was done through phenomenological analysis of the interview recordings (for intonation) and the interview transcripts. Next, structural descriptions of the experiences were developed, in which these experiences were described in their contexts (Creswell, 2014). In this way, an essence of the experience was sought for.
To vouch for credibility, member checks (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) were conducted by having interpretations and conclusions checked with the participants. Unfortunately, one of the participants had passed away before the member check was conducted. Two other participants did not respond to the member check. These participants’ data were included in the analysis anyway, since all other data had been checked by the participants and no significant deviations were found.
The next stage of the analysis was a classical content analysis. We checked whether any cross-case patterns could be found concerning forms of defiance in connection with needs satisfaction or frustration. Deviant cases were analyzed until they revised, broadened and confirmed the patterns that had emerged from the data analysis.
In order to enhance credibility, analyst triangulation was exercised by the second author. Peer debriefing has taken place as the two authors explored aspects of the analysis with each other. The two authors intended to uncover biases, taken for granted perspectives and
assumptions by questioning each other. Furthermore, the second author acted as the first author’s inquiry auditor and examined the process of the inquiry and determined its acceptability in order to enhance dependability. In the current study, confirmability was enhanced by exercising an audit trail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Results
This chapter will first describe which forms of refraining from professional learning can be recognized among teachers. We will first go into reflective defiance and the sub-forms we found before we go into our findings concerning oppositional defiance and amotivation. Subsequently, the patterns of basic need satisfaction or frustration preceding these forms of refraining will be outlined.
Motivations for refraining from professional learning activities
We found most cases to concern forms of reflective defiance. Participants often said the refraining involved some sort of deliberate consideration, resulting in a decision to refrain from the activity. The following quotations are examples of expressions that refer to this deliberation.
“[…] a bit of a process, first weighing the pros and cons, […]” (Charlie)
“it was well-considered” (Henny)
“This time, it was much more deliberate. Because I […] had read more and I had talked to colleagues about it, like, well, what have you read? And, well, I had thought about it this time the most” (Noa)
Although the cases of reflective defiance have in common that they involved some degree of deliberate consideration, these considerations differed in their composition of motivations for refraining. We found three different forms of motivations for refraining: usefulness-driven,
interest-driven and congruence-driven motivations. In the following paragraphs we will
respectively discuss these different motivations.
We labelled motivations for refraining as usefulness-driven when engaging in the activity felt of little use or not useful enough to the participant. There seemed to be no rationale for engaging in the activity. In some cases, the participants felt a lack of usefulness because they felt they were already competent in or already familiar with the content that the activity dealt with:
“Especially the Master SEN is asked. I still don’t have it. I should not say this, but I refuse that too, to put it like that. Because I already know enough about autism and I read
enough about autism. […] I also worked in special secondary education for 15 years. There, you deal only with pupils that have down syndrome, ADHD, autism etcetera. I think I do bring that experience too and I can deal with it effectively” (Robin)
This is in line with what Haerens et al. (2016) found in a study among adolescents. Students can refuse to participate in an activity because in their opinion the offered activities do not make
sense to them or because they are highly competent in the subject at hand and see little challenge in the offered activities. We will elaborate on this in the next paragraph, where we consider the second research question.
In addition to experiencing the activity as of little use because it was not thought of as being a challenge, we found that sometimes participants stated the activity was not useful because it was a repetition of what they had done before:
“I think it is nonsense, me having to do it all twice. […] It is good to do it but especially doing it twice, that I think is just foolish. I think, waste of money” (Marijn)
In other cases, the participants experienced the activities as not being useful due to the form or the quality of the activity:
“I don’t even know what it was about, but everybody was complaining about it. At a workshop, one expects a kind of active part, but it really was just companies giving a speech. That lady was very boring and only speaking. It lasted forever, well, that is not what we come for.” (Jamie)
In some cases, participants made clear that they experienced the activity as not useful enough (as opposed to not useful at all), and that they had other priorities. When it comes down to priority setting, we found this to appear in the form of a continuum with on one end clearly having other priorities, without showing any negative feelings about the required learning activity. Participants sometimes almost regretted not being able to go to the activity. In these cases, the motivation for refraining was controlled for the participants did not make an
autonomous choice to refrain from the activities. The refraining was a result of external forces demanding people to refrain or causing people to feel pressured to refrain (Vansteenkiste et al., 2004). On the other end of the continuum we found cases which involved strong negative feelings towards the required learning activity resulting in feelings of having to engage in more important things. These cases reflected motivations for refraining that were autonomous as the participants decided to refrain from the activity with a sense of volition and choice
neutral feelings concerning the activity and having other priorities along with it. In the current study, the expressions referring to controlled motivations for refraining, i.e., having other priorities, while being positive about the required learning activity were:
“But I don’t do that wholeheartedly, but again, that concerned bringing my kids to school,…” (Henny)
And:
“If I look at my time table, unfortunately, […] because that just went wrong with the allocation of hours. Well, then I think, I could go there, but it takes two weeks for the exams to start and I can only be there for one afternoon. So, I thought, I had better hang on to my classes” (Marijn)
Close to the other end of the continuum were cases involving strong negative feelings towards the required learning activity, resulting in feeling the urge to do more important things. The form or the quality of the learning activity was such that the participants indicated they experienced the learning activity as rather useless, which made them choose to do more useful things. These cases showed autonomous motivations for refraining:
“Everybody came out complaining: you should not go there. Then I thought, well, I had better check some tests. I still have a pile of them.” (Jamie)
And:
“Well, the quality of the workshop. Just that it annoyed me very much that we really urgently needed to work with our section, we did not get time for that, and that we just had to sit there for half a morning, spilling time. Really bad training, and then I also start calculating: so we are there with 100 people, a full day, times so much per hour, well, that just costs the school a few thousands of euros. Waste of money.” (Marijn)
Somewhere in between these two ends of the continuum, we found expressions indicating having other priorities, without particularly regretting not being able to join the required activity. We found participants being modestly negative about the activity, or slightly positive and having
other things to do too. These cases also showed autonomous motivations for refraining. Examples of these expressions are:
“I am just going to perform one out of two and then I will do the one I think is the most interesting and the other one I’ll just skip” (Henny)
And:
“in addition, that might be important too, and that is of course inherently to education, that your other work load is not being cut down. So, it just really is additional, and especially in my case, because I spend an enormous amount of time on professional learning, being a research teacher and studying and all other things, so I’ve more than spent those 160 hours. So, if I do take that up, I really do it in my spare time” (Ezra)
In some cases, the reasons for refraining regarded the nature of the activity itself, not necessarily co-occurring with expressions referring to the usefulness of the activity or the lack of it. We labelled these reasons for refraining as interest-driven. Expressions of this kind regarded the form of the activity rather than the subject at hand and participants indicated to feel
uncomfortable or unhappy engaging in the activity itself because of the learning format. Where intrinsic motivation involves engaging in behavior because the activity itself is interesting and satisfying and positive feelings result from doing the activities themselves (Deci & Ryan, 2008), we found interest-driven motivations for refraining being the negative counterpart of intrinsic motivation. Participants stated to feel the activity itself was boring or frustrating and therefore willingly refrained from it, thus showing autonomous motivation to refrain. Interest-driven motivations for refraining involved negative feelings and a sense of aversion resulting from (the idea of) doing the activities:
“In this case, I thought, drawing, meditative drawing? I had a certain image of it, which just did not make me happy, nearly sad even, if I had to do that. It is a little exaggerated, but it tended to be like that. I felt, yes, I’ll use the word melancholic, a bit. That is what I felt. I thought, well, I had better not do that” (Charlie)
When reasons for refraining considered the feeling that the activity did not match with what participants valued in life, with whom they are or what they are searching for, we labelled these reasons congruence-driven. Congruence-driven reasons for refraining never stood by themselves but always co-occurred with interest driven motivations (concerning the learning format of the activity) or usefulness-driven motivations (either the form or the content of the activity were not satisfactorily). Congruence-driven reasons for refraining involved autonomous motivations to refrain. Participants volitionally refrained from the activity because the activity contradicted with their personal desires:
“P: […] it does not serve me, it does not match with what I want I: or who you are...
P: or who I am, yes, too, you could say that too.” (Charlie)
In addition to the forms of reflective defiance discussed above, we found one case of oppositional defiance, involving behavior that was likely to lead to disapproval or rebukes. In this case the participant straightforwardly defied pressuring requests and expectations and showed the opposite behavior: ostentatiously staying working in the assembly hall, even though he realized it could lead to unwanted consequences.
“P: I also once just went sitting by myself in the assembly hall, working at my laptop. […] at that moment, I had already had two of those workshops, what am I doing here? Well, then I just stayed there.
[…]
I: And the fact that you felt pressured, did that play a role in the choice not to go there? P: Well, that only made me more headstrong. It worked adversely, indeed. Especially that, the pressure of us having to go to that seminar, that works adversely with me. Then I just oppose it.” (Marijn)
This was an active form of refraining from the required behavior and involved blunt rejection and seeking distance from the authority figures that had imposed the activity.
“I just wanted to put the cat among the pigeons. Like, guys, what are you all doing for God’s sake? Why does this day cost us ten thousand euros?
[…]
I have also just been invigorating things, by ostentatiously sitting in the assembly hall” (Marijn)
The oppositional defiance was a result of emerging impulses to rebel: “more like feelings of rebellion” (Marijn). Although he knew he could get himself into undesired situations, he felt the urge to defy and to refrain from the required learning activity:
“You weigh up: is it worth the trouble, or is the annoyance such that I have to do it?” (Marijn).
This participant refrained from the activity for autonomous motivations. No external factors pressured him to refrain from the activity. On the contrary, he very much wanted to refrain from the activity. As reasons for refraining from the activity, the participant mentioned “the quality of the workshops”, “really bad training” and “we really had many other plans”, thus indicating usefulness-driven motivations (such that he thought the content was useless and he also had other priorities) and interest-driven motivations to play a role.
In addition to oppositional defiance and different forms of reflective defiance, we also found two cases of amotivation. These cases showed a lack of motivation and a passive state, not engaging in the required activity at all. Participants showed feelings of indifference and not seeing the value of engaging in that activity (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Haerens et al., 2015). In the first case, there was no deliberate decision to refrain from the learning activity, but it just not happened to occur:
“We have a training ‘Making Learning Visible’. Part of it is giving feedback. For that we had to visit each other’s lessons. So far, that has not happened once, for that would be re-addressed in the next training. […] If the management had connected consequences to it, then, yes... but nothing was said about it.” (Beau)
The second case also showed inactivity towards what was asked, without any form of active defiance and without any conscious motivation. Instead, there seemed to be a void:
“I – Could you say something about why you did not want to participate in it? What the main reason was for not participating?
P – Uhm, I don’t really know. No, it just did not appeal to me” (Jos)
In short, cases of reflective defiance and cases of oppositional defiance were observed, as well as cases of amotivation. Within reflective defiance, we found three sub-forms: usefulness-driven motivations, interest-usefulness-driven motivations and congruence-usefulness-driven motivations. In cases of usefulness-driven motivations, priority setting was at hand. We found this to appear in the form of a continuum with on one end clearly having other priorities, leading to controlled motivations for refraining. On the other end of the continuum we found cases which involved strong negative feelings towards the required learning activity resulting in feelings of having to engage in more important things. These cases displayed autonomous motivations for refraining. In between these two extremes, we found cases that involved rather neutral feelings concerning the activity and having other priorities along with it. The one case displaying oppositional defiance, concerned autonomous motivation for refraining. In addition, we found two cases of amotivation, in which participant refrained from the learning activity for no specific reason.
Basic need satisfaction preceding different forms of motivations for refraining
In this paragraph, results regarding the second research question will be presented: What patterns of basic need satisfaction or frustration precede the different forms of refraining from professional learning (i.e., amotivation, reflective defiance and oppositional defiance)? No autonomy restriction whatsoever, lead to impersonal amotivation. This was to be expected, for if there is nothing that limits one’s autonomy, there is nothing to defy either. For reflective defiance to appear, we found there had to be some autonomy restriction in the sense that the activity was asked, expected or obliged to engage in. We found that one has to feel some restriction as to the refraining, in order to be able to exercise defiance. If there is nothing that is asked, expected or obliged, there is nothing to defy either. Yet, one must feel a certain level of autonomy satisfaction
as to the refraining as well, in order to even be able to refrain. Without feeling any autonomy to refrain, people would inherently do what is demanded.
Autonomy thwarting, an unsatisfactorily relatedness to the school management and a lack of challenge preceded oppositional defiance. The participant stated not to feel free to refrain from the required activity at all:
“again a day on which one is forced, while we had requested to work together and well, that was, yet again, not allowed […] That also played a role, that I was just annoyed about that, and then, I was there in the morning, I thought, what on earth am I doing here? So, I was only being vexed” (Marijn)
This is in line with SDT, which states people being subject to a more controlling environment, tend to feel pressured and controlled, which diminishes satisfaction of their autonomy need (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In this case, the participant indicated to feel pressured by the school management (“the pressure of us having to go to that seminar”). The oppositional defiance seems to be a reaction to the experienced external pressure and shows a form of defiance that involves blunt rejection of the request and seeking distance to the authority figures. Through oppositional defiance, the participant regained a sense of autonomy. This is in line with SDT, which describes oppositional defiance to occur when the need for autonomy is thwarted (Haerens et al., 2016).
Sources that limited the experienced autonomy satisfaction as to the refraining, included external pressure. This pressure being imposed by the school management, by requiring the participant to engage in the activity. Often, the learning activity was obligatory for everybody, without personal adjustments. One participant stated:
“Let the newcomers, who need it, let them do the whole course. If we want to change something in school, let us work together. That will bring about something.” (Beau)
Apart from external pressures, some participants mentioned an internal pressure imposing a feeling of having to engage, or a feeling that one is supposed to join one’s colleagues in the activity for moral reasons. SDT describes people to be inclined to internalize and integrate the regulation of activities that were initially regulated by external factors. When people experience
satisfaction of the basic psychological needs, they tend to accept the importance of the behavior for themselves and thus accepting it as their own and identify with the value of the activity. When people have identified with a regulation, they feel internally pressured to engage in the activity (see also Deci & Ryan, 2008). In a study among Chinese students, Zhou, Ma and Deci (2009) found perceived autonomy support to predict an increase in an internally pressured form of regulation. Just like students who experienced feelings of guilt when not complying with their parents’ rules, we found participants sometimes experienced feelings of guilt:
“I did not think it was an easy decision, no. Just because, it is like, well, my conscience, you know, that is going to play parts, like, you should be there” (Henny)
Some participants indicated to have difficulties refraining from the learning activity because they knew other people had taken an effort:
“I: Did you feel free to refrain from it?
P: Sometimes I do find it difficult, because I know they take an effort and they do mean it well, to put it like that. But I think the gain is too little for me and I think, okay, I just need to do what’s best for me.” (Jos)
One participant indicated not feeling free to refrain from the activity because communicating it required a lot of effort:
“I: Do you feel free to refrain from that?
P: No, I find it hard to communicate it. Then I must feel strong too, in order to express myself” (Chris)
Autonomy satisfaction seemed to be linked to the need for competence and the need for relatedness. We found competence dissatisfaction as well as relatedness satisfaction to be sources that could enhance the sense of autonomy to refrain. We will now elaborate on the role of these sources. First, we will go into the findings regarding competence dissatisfaction, followed by an outline regarding our findings as to relatedness satisfaction.
None of the cases showed any form of competence satisfaction as to the activity that the participants were expected, asked or obliged to engage in. This does not mean that the
participants did not feel competent as to their job in general or as to the subject matter presented in the learning activity. On the contrary, they often felt already highly competent in the subject matter at hand, thus experiencing a (complete) lack of challenge. In two cases, participants experienced the activity as too much of a challenge to sit still and to remain patient because they expected it to be so boring. Only in one case a participant indicated he expected to be able to show some of his abilities because the course would be concluded with presentations:
“I: Did you feel you could show some of your qualities by participating in that course, or by finishing that course?
P: In do think, in a way, because it is ended by a presentation, that I could have shown what I am up to” (Ezra)
However, as he did not think he could learn a lot by participating this course, it did not withhold him from refraining from the learning activity. Low competence satisfaction co-occurred with feeling rather free to refrain from the activity. The participants indicated that the lack of challenge made them feel free to refrain, often because they felt they could justify their refraining.
Relatedness satisfaction that enhanced the feeling of autonomy appeared in the sense that some participants felt related to their direct superiors which enhanced their feelings of freedom to refrain:
“I have got a rather good relationship with my team leader. Also, because at that time, I was also head of section, and we worked together a lot and that relationship was rather equal. So, I think to some extent, she just trusted my opinion in this.” (Ezra)
Autonomy support in these cases, involved a direct superior relating to the participant by supporting a sense of choice. When the participant’s autonomy is supported, they often feel free to follow their interests and consider the relevance and importance of the learning activity for themselves (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Apart from the relatedness to their direct superiors, participants generally stated that relatedness was of no influence in the decision to refrain from the activity. Only in a single case in which the learning activity involved social practices, a participant indicated relatedness dissatisfaction to be a reason for refraining.
Peer-to-peer coaching that encompassed colleagues visiting each other’s classes showed a slightly different picture. In these cases, it would have taken a considerable amount of effort to engage in the learning activity: finding a suitable colleague to do the activity with and finding a suitable time in both their time tables. Moreover, there was little structure supplied by those who asked the participants to engage in peer-to-peer coaching and there were no consequences when the teachers refrained from it. Like in other cases of refraining from professional learning, in cases regarding peer-to-peer coaching, participants generally experienced competence
satisfaction as very low when it came down to engaging in the activity, usually due to the lack of challenge. In one case of peer-to-peer coaching however, the low level of competence satisfaction clearly concerned a lack of structure provided by those who asked him to engage in peer-to-peer coaching. Although he said the topic of the activity was interesting, the form in which it was executed lacked structure, which, to him, was a reason for refraining:
“Maybe we should just have the assignment clearer, just on paper, so everybody knows what we are going to discuss and what is expected. Where do we see this in our education and in how we teach? How is it applicable and clearly visible? Yes, and more clarity. And Making Learning Visible, I think it’s a good topic, but I had rather implement it
differently and not in the way it is happening now.” (Beau)
In two cases of peer-to-peer coaching, participants indicated to expect some challenge in doing the activity. One participant expressed feelings of anxiety about being judged:
“It also might have to do a little with it being rather eerie, scary. They do come watching you and they do have an opinion: are you doing well or not?” (Sam)
“I forget the name of that program, but it is visiting each other’s classes. One has to fill in a form for that, which you then send each other. In itself I think it is okay, I think we can learn a lot from each other.” (Pascal)
In short, as for constellations of basic need satisfaction preceding different forms of motivations for refraining, we found the degree of autonomy satisfaction to differ among cases. Oppositional defiance we found to be a reaction to autonomy frustration as to the decision to refrain. Reflective defiance we found to appear in cases of autonomy satisfaction as to the decision to refrain. Low competence satisfaction as to the professional learning activity (in the form of a lack of challenge) enhanced perceived autonomy satisfaction as to the refraining.
Relatedness was of influence for perceived autonomy satisfaction such that a positive relationship to participants’ direct superiors, enhanced perceived autonomy satisfaction as to the refraining. For peer-to-peer coaching, participants generally experienced ample autonomy in the refraining, in some cases leading to amotivation.
Discussion
This research focused on secondary school teachers’ motivations for refraining from professional learning activities. Investment in professional development is an important factor that influences teachers’ motivations for remaining in the teaching profession and securing the quality of education (Kamil, 2014; OECD, 2014; Snoek, et al., 2017; Tang, He, Liu, & Li, 2018). However, teachers often indicate learning activities to be not very useful and participating in them does not always fit in with their timetables (Jansen in de Wal, 2017; OECD, 2014).
Moreover, teachers in the Netherlands often mention a limited supporting environment as reason for not engaging in professional learning (OECD, 2014). The current research adds to the
knowledge on motivations for refraining from engaging in certain behavior in general and teachers’ motivations for refraining from professional learning activities in particular. It is important for school leaders, administrators and policy makers to know more about teachers’ motivations for refraining from professional learning in order to be able to support all teachers in their need for growth. Thus, capable teachers will stay motivated for the teaching profession, which will add to the quality of education. The current study therefore deals with teachers’ motivations for refraining from professional learning and factors preceding these motivations. In
this paragraph an account will be given of the conclusions based on the results as described in the previous paragraph.
Limitations
Although the current research provides us with some useful information concerning motivations for refraining in general and teachers’ motivations for refraining from professional learning activities in particular, we would like to make some remarks concerning the limitations of this research. First, we would like to point out that because we were searching for a very specific group of teachers, not just any teacher met the requirements. Given the nature of the topic at hand, it was expected that those who did meet the requirements, were not always willing to cooperate. In addition, school leaders generally appeared to be reluctant to help us getting in touch with teachers that met the requirements for participating. School leaders often said
refraining from professional learning did not occur at their school or their teachers were too busy to be interviewed. It could therefore well be that the sample was somewhat biased towards teachers who still experienced enough autonomy to refrain from learning activities in the form of reflective defiance. On the other hand, it is also realistic to think that oppositional defiance not often occurs because most school leaders manage to create an autonomy supportive environment.
Regarding the method, we would like to point out that for this study, retrospective data were collected. We relied on participants’ episodic memory (information about events) and semantic memory (information about facts, names, numbers etcetera). Some of the participants clearly indicated that they did not exactly remember the details of the different cases of refraining from professional learning activities. Therefore, we would advise future researchers to plan interviews shortly after the incident of refraining, or have teachers keeping diaries about their refraining.
This study focused on perceived autonomy satisfaction in connection with refraining from an activity that teachers are expected, asked or obliged to engage in. In addition, it focused on perceived relatedness satisfaction regarding colleagues (including superiors) and perceived or expected competences satisfaction in doing the activity. It abstained from focusing on autonomy satisfaction within the activity (e.g., course leaders providing choice in how to achieve a set objective) or on relatedness satisfaction with respect to the course leader. For further research we suggest inquiring about the role of relatedness to those who lead the professional learning activity as well as the role of autonomy satisfaction within the professional learning activity.
Theoretical implications
This study adds important knowledge to SDT, concerning different forms of defiance and how they relate to autonomous and controlled motivations for refraining. Within reflective defiance, we found three qualitatively different motivations for refraining: 1) usefulness-driven motivations, 2) interest-driven motivations and 3) congruence-driven motivations. These different forms of motivations sometimes co-occurred. Moreover, for usefulness-driven motivations we found the presence or absence of other priorities to play a role in the deliberation prior to the refraining. We found most cases to involve autonomous motivations, such that the decision to refrain was the teacher’s own choice. In these cases, the teachers for example said to have refrained from the activity because they did not think the activity was useful and they preferred preparing classes instead. This is in line with what Vansteenkiste et al., (2004) describe
concerning autonomous motivations for refraining as well as with what Haerens et al. (2016) describe about reflective defiance. In addition, just like Vansteenkiste et al. describe controlled motivations for refraining from searching for a job, in some cases the motivations for refraining from engaging in professional learning activities were more controlled. This was the case when teachers would have liked to engage in the learning activity but could not because of pressuring external factors such as other job-related tasks that needed to be done or having obligations with respect to their family. Even though the motivation for refraining was a controlled form, the defiance was an autonomous form (i.e., reflective defiance). At first sight, this might seem contradictory. It is therefore that we need to distinguish between autonomous motivation for refraining (i.e., the reason for refraining) and the autonomy satisfaction regarding the refraining itself (i.e., feeling free to refrain). Within an autonomy supportive context, both autonomous motivations for refraining as well as controlled motivations for refraining, seem to lead to reflective defiance.
Within oppositional defiance we were not able to make a subdivision in more controlled or more autonomous motivations for the refraining, as we only found one case of it. This one case however, concerned autonomous motivation for refraining. It was the teacher’s volitional choice to refrain from the required activity. He refrained from the required activity because he thought it was useless to engage in it and he much rather wanted to do more relevant tasks. Again, this seems to be contradictory to what Haerens et al. (2016) describe, when they state oppositional defiance to be a controlled form. However, like reflective defiance seems to occur in an
autonomy supportive context, oppositional defiance seems to occur as a result of the controlling environment, regardless whether the motivation for refraining is autonomous or controlled. Table 2 is meant to make this clear.
Table 2
Amotivation, oppositional defiance, reflective defiance in their contexts
Environment Motivati on for refraining Controlled
Autonomous
Amotivati on controlled amotivation impersonal amotivation
Controlled (oppositional defiance) reflective defiance
Autonomous oppositional defiance reflective defiance
When teachers experienced ample autonomy in refraining. This could lead to amotivation. Ryan and Deci (2000; 2008) define amotivation as either controlled or impersonal. Although our results concerning amotivation are limited and we only came across cases of impersonal
amotivation, table 2 shows how these different forms of amotivation could be explained.
Controlled amotivation, such that one apathetically performs a required behavior, would occur in controlled environments. Impersonal amotivation would be at hand in environments of ample autonomy to refrain, in which people just not get around to engaging in the requested behavior.
In addition, this study adds important knowledge to SDT concerning patterns of basic needs satisfaction that are linked to motivations for refraining. As table 2 shows, whether the defiance is reflective or oppositional, seems to depend on the environment and the perceived autonomy in the form of perceived freedom to refrain. In this study, teachers generally felt free to refrain from the learning activity that they were supposed to engage in, resulting in reflective defiance. To what extent the teacher experienced freedom to refrain, was influenced by their perceived
