Advertisement

European Journal of Psychology of Education

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 187–208 | Cite as

Why teachers cooperate: an expectancy-value model of teacher cooperation

  • Kerstin DrosselEmail author
  • Birgit Eickelmann
  • Stefanie van Ophuysen
  • Wilfried Bos
Article
  • 269 Downloads

Abstract

While cooperation among teachers is considered an important indicator of school quality, the empirical evidence on the efficacy of teacher cooperation is manifold. Some findings show that cooperation leads to improvements in teachers’ professionalization by reducing stress, while others show positive effects with regard to students’ academic performance. In order to better comprehend – and ultimately promote – cooperation among teachers, conditions of successful cooperation – such as voluntariness, shared objectives, and trust – have been identified. Thus far, however, research has not focused on the individual motivations of teaching staff in terms of why they do or do not cooperate. To explore this topic both theoretically and empirically, an expectancy-value model will be employed. The theoretically derived model is tested empirically by means of a structural equation model using data gathered in the German [place holder] project (N = 582). The results indicate that the subjective value component, in particular personal relevance, is the decisive factor in determining why teachers cooperate in teaching-related forms of cooperation. It is therefore key for all forms of cooperation that the individual teacher voluntarily wants to cooperate and shows interest in doing so. No relationship is found between the expectation of success and cooperation.

Keywords

Professional development Quantitative research Teacher research Motivation Teacher beliefs Informal teacher education 

Notes

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.Google Scholar
  2. Ancess, J. (2000). The reciprocal influence of teacher learning, teaching practice, school restructuring, and student learning outcomes. Teachers College Record, 102(3), 590–619.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0161-4681.00069.Google Scholar
  3. Areepattamannil, S., Freeman, J. G., & Klinger, D. A. (2011). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and academic achievement among Indian adolescents in Canada and India. Social Psychology of Education, 14(3), 427–439.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9155-1.Google Scholar
  4. Argyle, M. (2014). Cooperation: The basis of sociability. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64(6), 359–372.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043445.Google Scholar
  6. Bos, W., Bonsen, M., Gröhlich, C., Guill, K. & Scharenberg, K. (2009). KESS 7 – Skalenhandbuch zur Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente [KESS 7 - Scales handbook for the documentation of survey instruments]. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  8. Burbank, M. D., & Kauchak, D. (2003). An alternative model for professional development: Investigations into effective collaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(5), 499–514.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00048-9.Google Scholar
  9. Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: What do we know? School Leadership & Management, 34(5), 553–571.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.928680.Google Scholar
  10. Butler, R. (2007). Teachers‘ achievement goal orientation and association with teachers‘ help-seeking: Examination of a novel approach to teacher motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 241–252.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.241.Google Scholar
  11. Butler, D. L., Lauscher, H. N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 435–455.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.04.003.Google Scholar
  12. Canrinus, E. T., Helms-Lorenz, M., Beijaard, D., Buitink, J., & Hofman, A. (2012). Self-efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: Exploring the relationships between indicators of teachers‘ professional identity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27, 115–132.Google Scholar
  13. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., Petitta, L., & Rubinacci, A. (2003). Teachers’, school staff’s and parents’ efficacy beliefs as determinants of attitudes toward school. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(1), 15–31.Google Scholar
  14. Chan, C. K. K., Law, N., & van Aalst, J. (2008). Developing principle-based understanding for knowledge building in a teacher community. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Cook, J. W. (2014). Sustainable school leadership: The teachers’ perspective. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 9(1).Google Scholar
  17. DeBacker, T. K., & Nelson, R. M. (1999). Variations on an expectancy-value model of motivation in science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(2), 71–94.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0984.Google Scholar
  18. Dempsey, J. M., Kimiecik, J. C., & Horn, T. S. (1993). Parental influence on children’s moderate to vigorous physical activity participation: An expectancy-value approach. Pediatric Exercise Science, 5(2), 151–167.  https://doi.org/10.1123/pes.5.2.151.Google Scholar
  19. Diekmann, A., & Lindenberg, S. (2001). Cooperation: Sociological aspects. International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 4). Oxford: Pergramon-Elsevier.Google Scholar
  20. DuFour, R. (2011). Work together but only if you want to. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 57–61.  https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171109200513.Google Scholar
  21. Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women's educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(4), 585–609.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb01049.x.Google Scholar
  22. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.Google Scholar
  23. Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., & Meece, J. L. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75–146). San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  24. Egodawatte, G., McDougall, D., & Stoilescu, D. (2011). The effects of teacher collaboration in grade 9 applied mathematics. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 10(3), 189–209.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-011-9104-y.Google Scholar
  25. Fussangel, K. (2008). Subjektive Theorien von Lehrkräften zur Kooperation. Eine Analyse der Zusammenarbeit von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern in Lerngemeinschaften. Wuppertal. elpub.bib.uniwuppertal.de/edocs/dokumente/fbg/paedagogik/diss2008/fussangel/.Google Scholar
  26. Fussangel, K., & Dizinger, V. (2014). The challenge of change? Developing all-day schools and its implications for teacher stress. The Journal of Educational Research, 6(3), 115–133.Google Scholar
  27. Gemma, P. (2015). Teachers’ autonomy. Research in Education, 93(1), 19–33.Google Scholar
  28. Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877–896.Google Scholar
  29. Gräsel, C., Fussangel, K., & Pröbstel, C. (2006). Lehrkräfte zur Kooperation anregen – Eine Aufgabe für Sisyphos? [encouraging cooperation between teachers - a Sisyphean task?]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 52(2), 205–219.Google Scholar
  30. Gumus, S., Bulut, O., & Bellibas, M. S. (2013). The relationship between principal leadership and teacher collaboration in Turkish primary schools: A multilevel analysis. Education Research and Perspectives, 40, 1–29.Google Scholar
  31. Hamilton, M. L., & Richardson, V. (1995). Effects of the culture in two schools on the process and outcomes of staff development. Elementary School Journal, 95(4), 367–385.Google Scholar
  32. Harazd, B., & Drossel, K. (2011). Formen der Lehrerkooperation und ihre schulischen Bedingungen – Empirische Untersuchung zur kollegialen Zusammenarbeit und Schulleitungshandeln [Forms of teacher cooperation and their educational conditions - Empirical research on collegial cooperation and school leadership]. Empirische Pädagogik, 25(2), S. 145–160.Google Scholar
  33. Homburg, C., & Pflesser, C. (2008). Strukturgleichungsmodelle mit latenten Variablen: Kausalanalyse [structural equation models with latent variables: Analysis of causality]. In A. Herrmann, C. Homburg, & M. Klarmann (Eds.), Marktforschung: Methoden, Anwendungen, Praxisbeispiele [market research: Methods, applications, practical examples] (pp. 633–659). Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  34. Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities. Communities of continous inquiry and improvement. Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
  35. Hudson, P., Hudson, S., Gray, B., & Bloxham, R. (2013). Learning about being effective mentors: Professional learning communities and mentoring. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1291–1300.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.031.Google Scholar
  36. Kelchtermans, G. (2006). Teacher collaboration and collegiality as workplace conditions. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 52(2), 220–237.Google Scholar
  37. Keller-Schneider, M., & Albisser, S. (2013). Kooperation von Lehrpersonen und die Bedeutung individueller und kollektiver Ressourcen [cooperation of teachers and the importance of individual and collective resources]. In M. Keller-Schneider, S. Albisser, & J. Wissinger (Eds.), Professionalität und Kooperation in Schulen. Beiträge zur Diskussion über Schulqualität (pp. 33–56). Klinkhardt: Bad Heilbrunn.Google Scholar
  38. Kiliç, S., Demir, I., & Ünal, H. (2011). Teachers co-learning through mutual collaboration and students’ mathematics performance in TIMSS 2007. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3258–3262.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.281.Google Scholar
  39. Kullmann, H. (2012). Erwünschte Charakteristika von partner/−innen für Lehrerkooperation. Eine empirische analyse anhand der Selbstbestimmungstheorie der motivation [desired characteristics of teacher co-operation partners. An empirical analysis based on the self-determination theory of motivation]. In E. Baum, T. Idel, & H. Ullrich (Eds.), Kollegialität und Kooperation in der Schule. Theoretische Konzepte und empirische Befunde (pp. 77–89). VS Verlag: Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  40. Lee, J. C., Zhang, Z., & Yin, H. (2011). A multilevel analysis of the impact of a professional learning community, faculty trust in colleagues and collective efficacy on teacher commitment to students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 820–830.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.006.Google Scholar
  41. Liu, P. (2015). Motivating teachers‘ commitment to change through transformational school leadership in Chinese urban upper secondary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(6), 735–754.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2014-0026.Google Scholar
  42. Lomos, C., Hofman, R. H., & Bosker, R. J. (2011). Professional communities and student achievement – A meta-analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 121–148.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.550467.Google Scholar
  43. Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757–798.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312033004757.Google Scholar
  44. Love, N. (2009). Building a high-performing data culture. In N. Love (Ed.), Using data to improve learning for all. A collaborative inquiry approach (pp. 2–24). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  45. Marsh, H. W., Shavelson, R. J., & Byrne, B. M. (1992). A multidimensional, hierarchical self concept. In R. P. Lipka & T. M. Brinthaupt (Eds.), Studying the self. Self-perspectives across the life-span (pp. 44–95). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  46. Mattessich, P. W., & Monsey, B. R. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work. St. Paul: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.Google Scholar
  47. McClelland, D. (1987). Human motivation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Miller, R. J., Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R., Larsen, R., & Jacob, R. (2010). Instructional leadership. A pathway to teacher collaboration and student achievement. Paper presented at the University Council for Educational Administration Convention, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  49. Moolenaar, N. M., Sleegers, P. J. C., & Daly, A. J. (2012). Teaming up: Linking collaboration networks, collective efficacy, and student achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 251–262.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.001.Google Scholar
  50. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  51. Nelson, N. W., & Kinnucan-Welsch, K. (1992). Curriculum-based collaboration. What is changing? ASHA, 34(11), 45–47.Google Scholar
  52. Nias, J., Southworth, G., & Yeomans, R. (1989). Staff relationships in the primary school. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  53. Nye, J. S., & Welch, D. A. (2013). Understanding global conflict and cooperation: An introduction to theory and history. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  54. Olk, T., Speck, K., & Stimpel. (2011). Professionelle Kooperation unterschiedlicher Berufskulturen - Zentrale Befunde eines qualitativen Forschungsprojektes [professional cooperation of different professional cultures - central findings of a qualitative research project]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 14(3), 63–80.Google Scholar
  55. Pröbstel, C. H., & Soltau, A. (2012). Wieso Lehrkräfte (nicht) kooperieren. Die Bedeutung “personaler Faktoren” in der Zusammenarbeit am Arbeitsplatz Schule [why teachers do (not) cooperate. The significance of “personal factors” for the collaboration at the workplace that is school]. In E. Baum, T. Idel, & H. Ullrich (Eds.), Kollegialität und kooperation in der Schule. Theoretische Konzepte und Empirische Befunde [collegiality and cooperation at school. Theoretical concepts and empirical findings] (pp. 55–75). Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  56. Ring, P. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90–118.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1994.9410122009.Google Scholar
  57. Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. A. (2015). Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 475–514.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215585562.Google Scholar
  58. Scheerens, J. (1990). School effectiveness research and the development of process indicators of school functioning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1(1), 61–80.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345900010106.Google Scholar
  59. Schratz, M. (1998). Schulleitung als Changeagent: Vom verwalten zum gestalten von schule [The school administration as an agent of change: From administering to shaping school]. In H. Altrichter, W. Schley, & M. Schratz (Eds.), Handbuch der Schulentwicklung [manual of school development] (pp. 160–189). Innsbruck, Austria: Studienverlag.Google Scholar
  60. Schwarzer, R. (1993). Measurement of perceived self-efficacy. Psychometric scales for cross-cultural research. Berlin: Free University of Berlin.Google Scholar
  61. Spieß, E. (2004). Kooperation und Konflikt [cooperation and conflict]. In H. Schuler (Ed.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie/Organisationspsychologie [encyclopedia of psychology and organizational psychology] (pp. 193–250). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  62. Steinert, B., Klieme, E., Maag Merki, K., Döbrich, P., Halbheer, U., & Kunz, A. (2006). Lehrerkooperation in der Schule: Konzeption, Erfassung, Ergebnisse [teacher cooperation at school: Conception, data collection, results]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 52(2), 185–204.Google Scholar
  63. Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002.Google Scholar
  64. Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., & Raes, E. (2016). Team learning in teacher teams: Team entitativity as a bridge between teams-in-theory and teams-in-practice. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31, 275–298.Google Scholar
  65. Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 47–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.001.Google Scholar
  66. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004.Google Scholar
  67. von Blanckenburg, C., von Böhm, B., Dienel, H.-L., & Legewie, H. (2005). Leitfaden für interdisziplinäre Forschergruppen: Projekte initiieren¬ Zusammenarbeit gestalten [a manual for interdisciplinary research groups: Initiating projects, shaping collaboration]. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
  68. Walker, C. O., Greene, B. A., & Mansell, R. A. (2006). Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16(1), 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.06.004.Google Scholar
  69. Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2007). Motivational factors influencing teaching as a career choice: Development and validation of the FIT-choice scale. Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 167–202.Google Scholar
  70. Watt, H. M. G. & Richardson, P. W. (Guest Eds.). (2012). Teaching motivations in different countries: Comparisons using the FIT-choice scale. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3).Google Scholar
  71. Weiner, B. (1980). Human motivation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  72. Wendt, H., & Bos, W. (Hrsg.). (2015). Auf dem Weg zum Ganztagsgymnasium. Erste Ergebnisse der wissenschaftlichen Begleitforschung zum Projekt Ganz In [On the way to the Ganztagsgymnasium. First results of scientific accompanying research on the project Ganz In]. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  73. Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49–78.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02209024.Google Scholar
  74. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015.Google Scholar
  75. Wimberley, C. E. (2011). Teacher collaboration and student achievement (doctoral dissertation). St. Charles: Lindenwood University Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/34/90/3490620.html.Google Scholar
  76. Wunderer, R. (2011). Führung und Zusammenarbeit. Eine unternehmerische Führungslehre [Leadership and cooperation. Enterpreneurial leadership training]. Munich: Luchterhand.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa, Portugal and Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Educational SciencePaderborn UniversityPaderbornGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Educational ScienceUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany
  3. 3.Center for Research on Education and School DevelopmentTechnical University of DortmundDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations