This study drew on Chilean teacher survey responses from TALIS 2018 data on teacher motivation in order to examine the extent to which these data reveal different motivational profiles among Chilean teachers. Also, it explores the influence of those profiles on quality teachers’ instruction. As a conceptual scaffold, this article uses Agency Theory and Public Service Motivation theory to conceptualize and explore the data. Using latent classes analysis, multivariate regressions with survey methods, results showed three different motivational profiles: utility-laden, modal, and socially-laden. From these profiles, modal teachers seem to produce better teaching quality compared with the others profiles. These results suggest that the teachers’ profiles are more diverse when it comes to work motivation and teaching quality than what it is described in the literature. These findings give interesting insights for policymakers and school leaders to better understand the teaching workforce and think in diverse governance and teacher management tools. It also opens a set of interesting questions about how to motivate the teacher workforce in Chile.
AcuñaF (2015) Incentivos al trabajo profesional docente y su relación con las políticas de evaluación e incentivo económico individual. Estudios Pedagógicos (Valdivia)41(1): 7–26. DOI: 10.4067/S0718-07052015000100001.
2.
AcuñaFAssaélJContrerasP, et al. (2014) La traducción de los discursos de la política educativa en la cotidianeidad de dos escuelas municipales chilenas: La metáfora médica como vía de análisis. Psicoperspectivas13(1): 46–55.
3.
AhnIChiuMMPatrickH (2021) Connecting teacher and student motivation: student-perceived teacher need-supportive practices and student need satisfaction. Contemporary Educational Psychology64: 101950.
4.
AinleyJCarstensR (2018) Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018 Conceptual Framework (No. 187; OECD Working Papers). OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/799337c2-en.
AuW (2007) High-stakes testing and curricular control: a qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher36(5): 258–267. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X07306523.
7.
AucoinP (1990) Administrative reform in public management: paradigms, principles, paradoxes, and pendulums. Governance3(2): 115–137.
8.
AvalosB (2004) Teacher regulatory forces and accountability policies in Chile: from public servants to accountable professionals. Research Papers in Education19(1): 67–85. DOI: 10.1080/0267152032000179981.
9.
Avalos-BevanB (2018) Teacher evaluation in Chile: highlights and complexities in 13 years of experience. Teachers and Teaching24(3): 297–311. DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2017.1388228.
10.
BatsonC. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? In: Berkowitz L (Ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 65–122). New York: Academic Press.
11.
BoglerR (2001) The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational Administration Quarterly37(5): 662–683. DOI: 10.1177/00131610121969460.
12.
BrookhartSMFreemanDJ (1992) Characteristics of entering teacher candidates. Review of Educational Research62(1): 37–60. DOI: 10.3102/00346543062001037.
13.
BrouwersATomicW (2000) A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education16(2): 239–253. DOI: 10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8.
14.
CarnoyMBrodziakIMolinaA, et al. (2007) The limitations of teacher pay incentive programs based on inter-cohort comparisons: the case of Chile’s SNED. Education Finance and Policy2(3): 189–227. DOI: 10.1162/edfp.2007.2.3.189.
15.
ContrerasDFloresLLobatoF (2003) Monetary Incentives for Teachers and School Performance: The Evidence for Chile. Mimeo, Departamento de Economía, Universidad de Chile.
16.
ContrerasDRauT (2012) Tournament incentives for teachers: evidence from a scaled-up intervention in Chile. Economic Development and Cultural Change61(1): 219–246. DOI: 10.1086/666955.
17.
DemirtasZ (2010) Teachers’ job satisfaction levels. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences9: 1069–1073. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.287.
18.
DenhardtRBDenhardtJV (2000) The new public service: serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review60(6): 549–559.
19.
DunleavyP (2005) New public management is dead—long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16(3): 467–494. DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mui057.
20.
EisenhardtKM (1989) Agency theory: an assessment and review. The Academy of Management Review14(1): 57–74. DOI: 10.2307/258191.
21.
ElacquaGTreviñoEPlaceK, et al. (2014) Los efectos de las presiones de accountability sobre las políticas y prácticas pedagógicas en escuelas de bajo desempeño: El caso de Chile (The effects of accountability pressure on policies and pedagogical practices in low-performing schools: The case of Chile). Programa de Promoción de la Reforma Educativa en América Latina y el Caribe (PREAL).
FalabellaAde la VegaLF (2016) Políticas de responsabilización por desempeño escolar: Un debate a partir de la literatura internacional y el caso chileno. Estudios Pedagógicos (Valdivia)42(2): 395–413. DOI: 10.4067/S0718-07052016000200023.
FehrEGintisH (2007) Human motivation and social cooperation: experimental and analytical foundations. Annual Review of Sociology33: 43–64.
26.
FreyBSHombergFOsterlohM (2013) Organizational control systems and pay-for-performance in the public service. Organization Studies34(7): 949–972. DOI: 10.1177/0170840613483655.
27.
FriedlandR.AlfordR. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In: Powell W and DiMaggio P (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. The University of Chicago Press.
28.
FuhrmanSElmoreRF (2004) Redesigning Accountability Systems for Education. USA: Teachers College Press, 38.
29.
FullanM (1993) Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform. England, UK: RoutledgeFalmer.
30.
FullerBWoodKRapoportT, et al. (1982) The organizational context of individual efficacy. Review of Educational Research52(1): 7–30.
31.
GarcíaLYCerdaAADonoso-DíazS (2011) Determinantes de la calidad docente: Programa de Asignación de Excelencia Pedagógica. Innovar: revista de ciencias administrativas y sociales21(39): 7–22.
32.
Gil-FloresJ (2017) The role of personal characteristics and school characteristics in explaining teacher job satisfaction. Revista de Psicodidáctica (English Ed.)22(1): 16–22. DOI: 10.1387/RevPsicodidact.15501.
GoldhaberDDearmondMDeburgomasterS (2011) Teacher attitudes about compensation reform: implications for reform implementation. ILR Review64(3): 441–463. DOI: 10.1177/001979391106400302.
35.
GrantAM (2007) Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review32(2): 393–417.
36.
GrantAM (2013) Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success. UK: Penguin.
37.
GuskeyTRPassaroPD (1994) Teacher efficacy: a study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal31(3): 627–643.
38.
HanushekEARivkinSG (2006) Teacher quality. Handbook of the Economics of Education2: 1051–1078.
39.
HenryKLMuthénB (2010) Multilevel latent class analysis: an application of adolescent smoking typologies with individual and contextual predictors. Structural Equation Modeling17(2): 193–215.
40.
HoodC (1991) A public management for all seasons?Public Administration69(1): 3–19.
41.
HoodC (1995) The “new public management” in the 1980s: variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society20(2): 93–109.
42.
HoutMElliottS (eds) (2011) Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Education. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?recordid=12521.
43.
IngersollRM (2003) Who Controls Teachers’ Work? Power and Accountability in America’s Schools. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.
44.
JensenMCMecklingWH (1976) Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics3(4): 305–360. DOI: 10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X.
45.
KankarasMVermuntJK (2014) Simultaneous latent class analysis across groups. In: Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 5969–5974.
46.
KeselmanHJCribbieRHollandB (2002) Controlling the rate of type I error over a large set of statistical tests. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology55(1): 27–39. DOI: 10.1348/000711002159680.
47.
KokkinosCM (2007) Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology77(1): 229–243. DOI: 10.1348/000709905X90344.
48.
LazearEP (2003) Teacher incentives. Swedish Economic Policy Review10(2): 179–214.
49.
KrepsD. M. (1997). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives. The American Economic Review87(2): 359–364.
50.
Le GrandJ (2003) Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy: Of Knights and Knaves, Pawns and Queens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51.
LevačićR (2009) Teacher incentives and performance: an application of principal–agent theory. Oxford Development Studies37(1): 33–46. DOI: 10.1080/13600810802660844.
52.
LipskyM (2010) Street-level Bureaucracy Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. 30th ann. edition. New York, USA: Russell Sage Foundation.
53.
LortieDC (1975) Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54.
LouisKS (1998) Effects of teacher quality of work life in secondary schools on commitment and sense of efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement9(1): 1–27. DOI: 10.1080/0924345980090101.
MasynKE (2013) 25 Latent class analysis and finite mixture modeling. In: LittleTD (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Quantitative Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 551.
58.
MintropH (2004) Schools on Probation: How Accountability Works (And Doesn’t Work). USA: Teachers College Press.
59.
MintropHÓrdenesM (2017) Teacher work motivation in the era of extrinsic incentives: performance goals and pro-social commitments in the service of equity. Education Policy Analysis Archives25: 44.
60.
MintropHSundermanGL (2009) Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement—And why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher38(5): 353–364.
61.
MintropHSundermanGL (2013) The paradoxes of data-driven school reform: Learning from two generations of centralized accountability systems in the United States. In: AnagnostopoulosDRutledgeSJacobsenR (eds) The Infrastructure of Accountability: Data Use and the Transformation of American Education. Cambridge, USA: Harvard Education Press, 23–39.
62.
MizalaARomagueraP (2002) Evaluación del desempeño e incentivos en la educación Chilena. Cuadernos de Economía39(118): 353–394. DOI: 10.4067/S0717-68212002011800004.
63.
MizalaARomagueraP (2004) School and teacher performance incentives: the Latin American experience. International Journal of Educational Development24(6): 739–754. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2004.04.006.
64.
MizalaASchneiderBR (2014) Negotiating education reform: teacher evaluations and incentives in Chile (1990-2010): negotiating education reform. Governance27(1): 87–109. DOI: 10.1111/gove.12020.
65.
MizalaATorcheF (2013) ¿Logra la subvención escolar preferencial igualar los resultados educativos? [Documento de Referencia]. Espacio Público.
66.
MontecinosCMadridRFernándezMB, et al. (2014) A goal orientation analysis of teachers’ motivations to participate in the school self-assessment processes of a quality assurance system in Chile. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability26(3): 241–261. DOI: 10.1007/s11092-014-9190-5.
67.
MuthénLKMuthénB (2017) Mplus User’s Guide: Statistical Analysis with Latent Variables, User’s Guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
68.
NeilsonC (2013) Targeted Vouchers, Competition Among Schools, and the Academic Achievement of Poor Students. Job Market Paper, 1–62.
69.
NiasJ (1981) ‘Commitment’ and motivation in primary school teachers. Educational Review33(3): 182–190. DOI: 10.1080/0013191810330302.
70.
OECD (2013) Teachers for the 21st Century: Using Evaluation to Improve Teaching. OECD. DOI: 10.1787/9789264193864-en.
OECD (2019b) Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools. OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/b7aaf050-en.
73.
PerryJL (1996) Measuring public service motivation: an assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory6(1): 5–22.
74.
PerryJLHondeghemA (eds) (2008) Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
PollittC (2000) Is the emperor in his underwear?Public Management Review2(2): 181–200. DOI: 10.1080/14719030000000009.
77.
PollittCBouckaertG (2011) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis-New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
78.
PollittCvan ThielSHomburgV. (Eds.). (2007) New public management in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
79.
PufferSMMeindlJR (1992) The congruence of motives and incentives in a voluntary organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior13(4): 425–434.
80.
RichardsonPWWattHMG (2005) ‘I’ve decided to become a teacher’: influences on career change. Teaching and Teacher Education21(5): 475–489. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.007.
81.
RyanRMDeciEL (2020) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology61: 101860. DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860.
82.
RyanR. M.WeinsteinN. (2009) Undermining quality teaching and learning: A selfdetermination theory perspective on high-stakes testing. Theory and Research in Education7(2): 224–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104327
83.
SantelicesMVGalleguillosPGonzálezJ, et al. (2015) Un estudio sobre la calidad docente en Chile: El rol del contexto en donde enseña el profesor y medidas de valor agregado. Psykhe (Santiago)24(1): 1–14.
84.
SchiefeleU (2017) Classroom management and mastery-oriented instruction as mediators of the effects of teacher motivation on student motivation. Teaching and Teacher Education64: 115–126.
85.
ShahM (2012) The importance and benefits of teacher collegiality in schools: a literature review. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences46: 1242–1246. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.282.
86.
ShamirB (1991) Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies12(3): 405–424.
87.
SistoVFardellaC (2011) Nuevas políticas públicas, epocalismo e identidad: El caso de las políticas orientadas a los docentes en Chile. Revista de Estudios Universitarios37(1): 123–141.
StapletonLM (2014) Incorporating sampling weights into single-and multilevel analyses. In: RutkowskiDRutkowskiL, von DavierM (eds) Handbook of International Large-Scale Assessment: Background Technical Issues, and Methods of Data Analysis. USA: CRC Press, 363–388.
90.
TautSSunY (2014) The development and implementation of a national, standards-based, multi-method teacher performance assessment system in Chile. Education Policy Analysis Archives22: 71. DOI: 10.14507/epaa.v22n71.2014.
91.
Torres IrribarraDCarrascoD (2021) Profiles of Good Citizenship. In: TreviñoECarrascoDClaesEKennedyK.J. (eds) Good Citizenship for the Next Generation. IEA Research for Education, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75746-5_3
92.
Tschannen-MoranMHoyAWHoyWK (1998) Teacher efficacy: its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research68(2): 202–248.
93.
VaillantDManceboMELlambíC, et al. (2017) Understanding the effects of educational governance in Chile and Uruguay. In: PerryGAngelescu NaqviR (eds) Improving Access and Quality of Public Services in Latin America. London: Palgrave Macmillan US, 137–182. DOI: 10.1057/978-1-137-59344-3_5.
94.
ValenzuelaJPVillarroelGVillalobosC (2013) Ley de Subvención Escolar Preferencia (SEP): Algunos resultados preliminares de su implementación (Preferential school subsidy act (SEP): some preliminary results of its implementation). Pensamiento Educativo Revista de Investigación Educacional Latinoamericana50(2): 113–131.
95.
VegasE (ed) (2005) Incentives to Improve Teaching: Lessons from Latin America. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. DOI: 10.1596/978-0-8213-6215-0.
96.
VermuntJKMagidsonJ (2013) LG-syntax User’s Guide: Manual for Latent GOLD 5.0 Syntax Module. Statistical Innovations Inc.
97.
WattHMGRichardsonPW (2008) Motivations, perceptions, and aspirations concerning teaching as a career for different types of beginning teachers. Learning and Instruction18(5): 408–428. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.002.
98.
WattHMGRichardsonPW (2015) Teacher motivation. In: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 64–71). Elsevier.
99.
YuanKLeV-NMcCaffreyDF, et al. (2012) Incentive pay programs do not affect teacher motivation or reported practices: results from three randomized studies. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis35(1): 3–22. DOI: 10.3102/0162373712462625.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
