Previous research identifies instructional program coherence as a school condition that has positive effects on student performance. This study investigates how instructional program coherence (IPC) operates as a social mechanism that supports teachers’ psychological needs. We hypothesized that IPC would be positively related to teacher perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Hypotheses were tested in HLM 7.0. As expected, instructional program coherence had a statistically significant relationship with teacher autonomy and teacher relatedness. Interclass correlations for competence satisfaction did not reveal adequate variation at the school level, suggesting that in this data sample, teacher perceived competence had more to do with individual experiences of teachers rather than school-level differences. Findings in this study suggest that instructional program coherence works by creating conditions that enable teachers to thrive in the classroom, specifically by satisfying their needs for autonomy and relatedness.
AdamsCurtAdigunOlajumoke B.FiegenerAshlyn M. (2022). Student trust in school peers: A relational condition for optimal school functioning. Journal of Educational Administration, 60(6), 545–560. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2022-0028
2.
AdamsC.KhojastehJ. (2018). Igniting students’ inner determination: The role of a need-supportive climate. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(4), 382–397. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-04-2017-0036
3.
AdamsC.OlsenJ. (2017). Principal support for student psychological needs: A social-psychological pathway to a healthy learning environment. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(5), 510–525. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-05-2016-0045
4.
AdamsC. M.OlsenJ. J. (2019). Principal support of student psychological needs and a functional instructional core. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(3), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-04-2018-0076
5.
AhramR.StembridgeA.FergusE.NogueraP. (2011). Framing urban school challenges: The problems to examine when implementing response to intervention. RTI Action Network.
6.
AllenK.KernM. L.Vella-BrodrickD.HattieJ.WatersL. (2018). What schools need to know about fostering school belonging: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9389-8
7.
BrykA.SchneiderB. (2004). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.
8.
BrykA. S. (2015). 2014 AERA distinguished lecture: Accelerating how we learn to improve. Educational Researcher, 44(9), 467–477. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x15621543
9.
BrykA. S.GomezL. M.GrunowA.LeMahieuP. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press.
10.
BrykA. S.SebringP. B.AllensworthE.EastonJ. Q.LuppescuS. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
11.
Carver-ThomasD.Darling-HammondL. (2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters and what we can do about it. Learning Policy Institute.
12.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13.
CollieR. J.ShapkaJ. D.PerryN. E.MartinA. J. (2016). Teachers’ psychological functioning in the workplace: Exploring the roles of contextual beliefs, need satisfaction, and personal characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(6), 788–799. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000088
14.
ConleyS.YouS. (2009). Teacher role stress, satisfaction, commitment, and intentions to leave: A structural model. Psychological Reports, 105(3 Pt 1), 771–786. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.105.3.771-786
15.
Council of Great City Schools. (2016). Urban school statistics. Council of Great City Schools.
16.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01
17.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2016). Optimizing students’ motivation in the era of testing and pressure: A self-determination theory perspective. In Building autonomous learners: Perspectives from research and practice using self-determination theory (pp. 9–29). Springer Singapore.
18.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M.GagnéM.LeoneD. R.UsunovJ.KornazhevaB. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 930–942. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201278002
19.
De RuyterK. O.WetzelsM.FeinbergR. (2001). Role stress in call centers: Its effects on employee performance and satisfaction. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(2), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.1008
20.
DonnellyJ. H.Jr.IvancevichJ. M. (1975). Role clarity and the salesman. Journal of Marketing, 39(1), 71–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/1250806
21.
EyalO.RothG. (2011). Principals’ leadership and teachers’ motivation: Self-determination theory analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(3), 256–275. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111129055
22.
FiegenerA. M.AdamsC. M. (2023). Instructional program coherence, teacher intent to leave, and the mediating role of teacher psychological needs. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 22(3), 765–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2021.2022164
23.
FirestoneW. A.ManginM. M.MartinezM. C.PolovskyT. (2005). Leading coherent professional development: A comparison of three districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 413–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x04269605
24.
FordT. G. (2014). Trust, control, and comprehensive school reform: Investigating growth in teacher-teacher relational trust in success for all schools. In Van MaeleD.ForsythP. B.Van HoutteM. (Eds.), Trust and school life: The role of trust for learning, teaching, leading, and bridging (pp. 229–258). Springer.
25.
FordT. G.Van SickleM. E.ClarkL. V.Fazio-BrunsonM.SchweenD. C. (2017). Teacher self-efficacy, professional commitment, and high-stakes teacher evaluation policy in Louisiana. Educational Policy, 31(2), 202–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815586855
26.
FordT. G.WareJ. K. (2018). Teacher self-regulatory climate: Conceptualizing an indicator of leader support for teacher learning and development. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 17(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2016.1197283
27.
ForsythP. B.AdamsC. M.HoyW. K. (2011). Collective trust: Why schools can’t improve without it. Teachers College Press.
28.
FullanM.QuinnJ. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and systems. Corwin.
29.
GagnéM.DeciE. L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
30.
GaretM. S.PorterA. C.DesimoneL.BirmanB. F.YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915
HarrisA. (2011). Teacher leadership and school improvement. In HarrisA.DayC.HopkinsD.HadfieldM.HargreavesA.ChapmanC. (Eds.), Effective leadership for school improvement (pp. 1–12). Routledge.
33.
HattieJ. (2003). Teachers Make a Difference, what is the research evidence?Australian Council for Educational Research.
34.
HeckR. H. (2009). Teacher effectiveness and student achievement: Investigating a multilevel cross-classified model. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(2), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230910941066
35.
HonigM. I.HatchT. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x033008016
JangH.ReeveJ.DeciE. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682
38.
JohnsonS. M.KraftM. A.PapayJ. P. (2012). How context matters in high-need schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 114(10), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811211401004
39.
KelleyC. J.FinniganK. (2003). The effects of organizational context on teacher expectancy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(5), 603–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x03257299
40.
KingM. B.NewmannF. M. (2001). Building school capacity through professional development: Conceptual and empirical considerations. International Journal of Educational Management, 15(2), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540110383818
41.
LamS. F.ChengR. W. Y.ChoyH. C. (2010). School support and teacher motivation to implement project-based learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(6), 487–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.07.003
42.
LamS. F.LauW. S. (2008). Teachers’ acceptance of peer coaching: Impact of collegiality and goal orientation. Journal of School Connections, 1(1), 3–24. https://hdl.handle.net/10722/60754
MoèA.ConsiglioP.KatzI. (2022). Exploring the circumplex model of motivating and demotivating teaching styles: The role of teacher need satisfaction and need frustration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 118, 103823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103823
45.
MoonJ. M.CamburnE. M.SebastianJ. (2022). Streamlining your school: Understanding the relationship between instructional program coherence and school performance. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 33(2), 260–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2021.2011750
46.
NewmannF. M.KingM. B.YoungsP. (2000). Professional development that addresses school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. American Journal of Education, 108(4), 259–299. https://doi.org/10.1086/444249
47.
NewmannF. M.SmithB.AllensworthE.BrykA. S. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737023004297
48.
NiemiecC. P.RyanR. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318
49.
PearsonL. C.MoomawW. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 38–54. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ718115
50.
PelletierL. G.RocchiM. (2016). Teachers’ motivation in the classroom. In LiuW. C. (Ed.), Building autonomous learners: Perspectives from research and practice using self-determination theory (pp. 107–127). Springer.
51.
PelletierL. G.Séguin-LévesqueC.LegaultL. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers’ motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 186–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.186
52.
PelletierL. G.SharpE. C. (2009). Administrative pressures and teachers’ interpersonal behaviour in the classroom. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 174–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104322
53.
PorterL. W.SteersR. M.MowdayR. T.BoulianP. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037335
54.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1). Sage Publications.
55.
ReeveJ (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In DeciERyanR (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Determination Research (pp. 183–203). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.
56.
ReeveJ. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903028990
57.
RothG.AssorA.Kanat-MaymonY.KaplanH. (2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 761–774. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.761
58.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68
59.
RyanRDeciE (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In DeciERyanR (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.
60.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press.
61.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
62.
SalloumS. J. (2022). Building coherence: An investigation of collective efficacy, social context, and how leaders shape teachers’ work. American Journal of Education, 128(2), 203–243. https://doi.org/10.1086/717654
SchwarzC. V.GwekwerereY. N. (2007). Using a guided inquiry and modeling instructional framework (EIMA) to support preservice K‐8 science teaching. Science Education, 91(1), 158–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20177
65.
SkaalvikE. M.SkaalvikS. (2016). Teacher stress and teacher self-efficacy as predictors of engagement, emotional exhaustion, and motivation to leave the teaching profession. Creative Education, 7(13), 1785–1799. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.713182
66.
StoneD. N.DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2009). Beyond talk: Creating autonomous motivation through self-determination theory. Journal of General Management, 34(3), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/030630700903400305
67.
StosichE. L. (2018). Principals and teachers “craft coherence” among accountability policies. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-10-2016-0124
68.
Tschannen-MoranM. (2014). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. John Wiley & Sons.
69.
VansteenkisteM.RyanR. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032359
70.
VansteenkisteM.RyanR. M.SoenensB. (2020). Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion, 44(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1
71.
VermoteB.VansteenkisteM.AeltermanN.Van der Kaap-DeederJ.BeyersW. (2022). Teachers’ psychological needs link social pressure with personal adjustment and motivating teaching style. The Journal of Experimental Education, 91(4), 696–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2022.2039584
72.
WareJ. K.FordT. G. (2018). From teacher to student self-regulatory climate: Exploring how leader support of teacher psychological needs shapes teacher support of students psychological needs. Journal of Research on Organization in Education, 2, 25–46.
73.
WiseL. L.AltM. (2005). Assessing vertical alignment. In Council of Chief State School Officers (Ed.), Aligning assessment to guide the learning of all students (pp. 61–71). Council of Chief State School Officers.
74.
YoungsP.Holdgreve-ResendezR. T.QianH. (2011). The role of instructional program coherence in beginning elementary teachers’ induction experiences. The Elementary School Journal, 111(3), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1086/657655
