4.5.1. Assessing teacher motivation
Past research has repeatedly confirmed that there is no single best way to measure teacher motivation, but invariably draws on data gathered from diverse sources, such as questionnaires, observations, proxy measures, interviews, existing documentations and quantitative datasets (Muijs 2006, also see: Bastick 2000; Michaelowa 2002; VSO 2002; Zembylas & Papanastasiou 2004; Bennel & Akyeampong 2007; Tanaka 2010; Guajardo 2011; VSO 2011; NEP 2012). Nearly all teacher motivation studies on developing country contexts reviewed in the present thesis (see Chapter 3) gathered their data regarding the level of teacher motivation either through surveys, interviews or existing quantitative datasets.
Figure 4-1. Sequential explanatory strategy
Quantitative Data Collection (Ch.5) Quantitative Data Analysis (Ch.5) Qualitative Data Collection (Ch.6) Qualitative Data Analysis (Ch.6) Interpretation of entire analysis (Ch.7) Source: Cresswell 2008, adapted by the author
The questionnaire instrument enables researchers to identify the level of teacher motivation through several lenses: (i) how teachers themselves feel about their motivation; (ii) others’ perceptions of the motivation of their colleagues; and (iii) the extent to which teachers are satisfied as well as motivated. However, the weaknesses of the questionnaire are that (i) respondents engagement tends to be rather shallow, and (ii) complex perceptions cannot be explored directly (Dörnyei & Ushioda 2010).
Conversely, the ‘proxy measure’ approach reads variables such as teacher attendance or teacher misconduct like a scientific instrument to reveal levels of teacher motivation (Bennel & Akyeampong 2007). One problem with such an approach is the difficulty in obtaining data systematically, often due to political reasons. For example, ministry or school officials might not want to disclose such information and open themselves to criticism or sanctions.
In addition to the questionnaire, observation is another potential methodology (Muijs 2006). A striking finding that emerged from an earlier literature review (Fukao 2013) was the absence of studies that incorporated classroom observation methodologies in teacher motivation research in developing countries. How can teacher motivation be effectively assessed if we cannot observe the ‘consequences’ of it? Given the complexity around the notion of motivation, careful classroom observation would enable the researcher to assess how teachers prepare for classes and allocate their time during instructional periods to promote student learning – in effect, the consequences of their motivation. However, observation data collection takes much more effort, time and cost, as compared with the questionnaire and/or utilising existing datasets (see also Section 4.6. with regard to the limitations of observation data collection).
In short, the ‘best’ measurement method is determined by the particular socio-economic context under study. Inevitably, it is also determined by the resource constraints faced by the researcher, including time, cost, access, and effort. It would seem that a hybrid data
collection strategy would come closest to the ideal of pure ‘objectivity’: balancing survey and observation data collection with analysis of existing datasets, and followed up with a set of interviews. The present study sought to adapt a hybrid data collection strategy32 to
measure levels of motivation, which lends it more credibility and reliability than utilising any single method alone.
4.5.2. Survey Data
This study utilises the raw dataset of a research project jointly sponsored by the World Bank and MoEYS. This nationwide survey was conducted from December 2012 to February 2013, and primarily comprised a questionnaire administered to teachers, school directors, and community representatives, and a series of standardised classroom observations. The questionnaire instrument used with teachers contained items regarding teacher perceptions of financial incentives, working and living conditions, instructional support, teacher and student behaviour, work satisfaction, and motivation. There were 180 questions in total, which participants were allocated approximately 60 minutes to answer, giving their responses to enumerators who filled out the questionnaire form. In total, 676 respondent teachers distributed among 150 primary schools participated in the survey. These schools, which had already been selected for a pilot national standardised test, were located in both urban and rural areas.
Of the 676 surveyed individuals, 284 teachers were also observed at work. Such classroom observation included checking teacher attendance and lesson plan preparation prior to the class. Preliminary analysis of variables identified trends and associations in terms of teacher motivation and its determinants, which allowed me to make selections for follow-up interviews.
32 That is, a hybrid data collection strategy was used to measure teacher motivation while a mixed-methods
I personally took charge of survey design as well as its implementation with a MoEYS team in order that I might interpret the analysis with awareness and reflexivity with regard to design weaknesses or dataset limitations. The dataset is further discussed in the next chapter (Section 5.2), and specimen survey questions and observation formats can be found in Appendix III.
4.5.3. Individual interview data
After reviewing the raw data on 284 teachers who had participated in both the survey and had had their classes observed, I selected from their number 18 individuals to interview. Accordingly, I sought to make a balanced selection based on the results of my quantitative analysis according to three criteria: (i) level of motivation (both positive and negative) as determined by answers to key survey and observation variables, teacher attendance, and lesson plan preparation); (ii) biometric characteristics (gender, years of work experience, training history, etc.); and (iii) school context criteria (urban or rural).
The primary objectives of these semi-structured individual interviews were to (i) verify the results of the quantitative analysis, such as the correlation between motivation and its determinants; and (ii) understand the complexities of the process that generates motivation (and lack of motivation) in the Cambodian context.
In addition to teachers, this study also conducted interviews with 11 school directors and 10 district education officers mainly to (i) verify the general motivation level of teachers, (ii) learn more about strong drivers of motivation, and (iii) understand how principals viewed current issues related to the motivation of their staff. Further details of these interviews and the corresponding dataset are presented in Section 6.2, and relevant interview questions can be found in Appendix III.