The self determination theory - Term Paper Example

Discussion of the results Introduction While the self determination theory may be attributed the prevalence of female teachers as opposed male teacher, it is necessary to note that there may also factors that cause this under the theory of motivation a met-analysis of mini theories under self teacher motivation to work. Mini theories such as Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET), the Organismic Integration Theory (OIT); Causality Orientations Theory (COT); Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT) and the Goal Contents Theory (GCT) tend to point towards intrinsic motivation, as opposed to extrinsic motivation. These concepts are all elucidated in the analysis and discussion part of the study below. One of the main outstanding features about the results of the study is the fact that the most of the data produced marked skewness. For example, the years of experience were much skewed. Firstly, the number of years any respondent has been in the loop, indicated that most of the respondents (36.2%) indicated they have less than 15 years in the service. 43.6% indicat6ed having been in service for between 5 to 10. Additionally 20.2% indicated that they have been in service for between 5 to ten years. This marked skewness indicates that people have a high resilience in the service. This may be attributed to factors such as resiliency, enthusiasm, and self-motivation. This may also mean that the retention policies may be highly effective as opposed to turnover. Years of Experience   Frequency Percent 5 TO 10 41 43.6 11 TO 15 19 20.2 MORE THAN 15 34 36.2 Total 94 100.0 Accorss gender, the spectrum is also decidedly skewed as the number of women respondents was much higher than that of men. Women are better in this respect as theytend to prescribe to empowerment than men. Woem have high spirit of self motivation while men tend to rely on gut. Female teachers are likely to seek extrinsic motivation while male are intrinsically motivation. This may be the reason why they are not common in seminars and motivational speaking sessions. Men are are not compared to women because women prefer motivational speakers. This may also be attributed to the number of women in the teaching profession as they choose their profession because they feel they have a calling for this work and a passion for sharing knowledge, (Johnson, Berg and Donaldson, 2005; and Waddell, 2007). Gender   Frequency Percent MALE 35 37.2 FEMALE 59 62.8 Total 94 100.0 Aditionaly racial distribution is much skewed; the number of white or Caucasian was double the percentage of the other groups combined. However, this may not be a perfect indication for the study because this is only attributed to the area or region or locality of the study. This may point to the fact that most of the respondent in the area were whites. This only indicates that the study was conducted in ann area where whites were the dominant teachers. Your ethnicity   Frequency Percent WHITE/CUACASIAL 64 68.1 OTHER 30 31.9 Total 94 100.0 Further analysis only pointed to the fact that the higher percentage was not ethnically biased, as there was an exceptionally high disparity amongst the individual ethnic groups. For example, while most of the respondents in the study were whites, a remarkably low number about 1.1% were African American, while the Hispanics were responsible for 11.7%. This may be attributed to the job of choice as most of the African American are in the blue collar jobs while the whites prefer the white collar job. As a measure of the internal consistency, Cronbach's alpha of 0.992, provides a 90% consistency and reliability, this shows that the reliability of the data used was high. The internal consistency in the data was high, on the short run, but had the data been collected over a long period than stability of the Cronbach’s alpha would have moved making the results unstable and unreliable. The summated scale is therefore, reliable and stable on the short run. The data also showed a significant correlation between the races and endurance. White teachers tend to endure and are more resilient than other races. Additionally, there is a significant correlation between the female teachers and resiliency than the male teachers. This means that the female teachers are likely to stay in the teaching profession, and the male teachers are likely to seek alternative employment or get into business. This might be a clarion call for the school administrators to be wary of pending exodus among the male teachers, it also means that the administrators should consider motivation or reward schemes geared at retaining the male teachers. Some of the reasons why there is a strong correlation between gender and duration of service are that the salary may not appeal to the male teacher as compared to the female, additionally the female teacher view teaching as a calling and not just a means to an end. The same results are also reliable considering the fact that the standard error of the estimate is exceptionally high. The higher the Standard Error of Measurement (SEM), the higher the reliability. It is healthy to indicate that the level of resiliency increases withy motivation. Resiliency amongst the teachers is also highly dependent on motivation and reward. Resiliency varies between genders, with the male teachers less resilient. There is a strong correlation between resiliency and reward. This means that the rewarded teachers tend to be more resilient as compared to the unrewarded teachers. Additionally the correlation between motivation and duration of service is also exceptionally strong. This may mean that if well motivated, the teachers are likely to stay in the profession regardless of the gender; all these are at 95% confidence level. This also indicates a high level of linearity in the population sampled. While it is healthy to assume that the null hypothesis is acceptable, it is imperative to note that the means of the data are not equal both at 95% confidence level and at 90% confidence level. Ethnicity   Frequency Percent White 64 68.1 African American 1 1.1 Hispanic 11 11.7 other 18 19.1 Total 94 100.0 While considering the reasons, why there is a high level of skewness in the data on stayers and quitters in the school. In addition, the level of exodus from the urban schools is high as compared to those in the local schools. It is clear that most of the teachers would not like to interact with their school community in the future based on their personal reasons, while exceeding few indicated that they feel that they could easily trust their school community. It is also healthy to say that most of the respondents are much into moving from one school to another due to working condition, as opposed to distance. This is because; most of the male who were interviewed indicated that they are better off teaching sciences in urban schools. This may be about the incentives to teach in urban school, as opposed to distance.   Mean Median Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum I felt distant to my school community. 5.73 6.00 1.297 1 7 prefer not to interact with my school community 6.29 7.00 1.267 1 7 I felt like I could really trust my school community. 4.99 5.00 1.470 1 7 I’d like a chance to interact with the school community more often. 4.46 4.00 1.676 1 7 I’d really prefer not to interact with my school community in the future. 6.13 7.00 1.401 1 7 I don’t feel like I could really trust my school community. 5.72 6.00 1.315 1 7 It is likely that my school community and I could become closer if we interacted a lot. 4.85 5.00 1.579 1 7 I feel close to my school community. 4.90 5.00 1.607 1 7   Mean Median Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum I think I am pretty good at teaching science in urban school. 5.09 6.00 .958 1 4 I think I did pretty well at teaching science, compared to other teachers. 5.85 6.00 1.057 3 7 After working at this school for a while, I felt pretty competent. 6.05 6.00 .988 3 7 I am satisfied with my performance at teaching science. 5.56 6.00 1.241 2 7 I was pretty skilled at teaching in urban school. 5.84 6.00 1.081 2 7 Teaching science in urban school was an activity that I couldn’t do very well. 1.55 1.00 .990 1 6   Mean Median Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum I feel that my administration provides me choices and options. 4.65 5.00 1.624 1 7 I feel understood by my principal. 4.47 5.00 1.764 1 7 I am able to be open with my principal during class. 4.52 5.00 1.916 1 7 My principal conveyed confidence in my ability to do well in the course. 5.26 6.00 1.759 1 7 I feel that my administration accepts me. 5.37 6.00 1.691 1 7 My principal made sure I really understood the goals of the course and what I need to do. 4.02 4.00 1.929 1 7 My principal encouraged me to ask questions. 4.54 5.00 1.910 1 7 I feel a lot of trust in my school administration. 4.13 4.00 1.885 1 7 My administration answers my questions fully and carefully. 4.14 4.00 1.823 1 7 My principal listens to how I would like to do things. 4.38 5.00 1.924 1 7 My administration handles people's emotions very well. 3.81 4.00 1.810 1 7 I feel that my principal cares about me as a person. 4.63 5.50 2.125 1 7 My principal tries to understand how I see things before suggesting a new way to do things. 4.01 4.00 2.003 1 7 I feel able to share my feelings with my principal. 4.14 4.50 2.158 1 7 I don't feel very good about the way my manager talks to me. 5.53 6.00 1.899 1 7 Based on the results above, it is healthy to say that most of the teachers are motivated through recognition of their efforts by the school administration. For example, most of the teachers consider putting more effort into their teaching profession based on the options that their admission offers them. Most of them indicated that they felt that their principal understood them when their efforts were recognized. On the other hand, most of the teachers are likely to quit because they disapprove the way their managers talk to them. Though this may be about non recognition of their efforts by their managers, it also indicates that most teachers look forwards to appreciation and respect. The mean for the number of respondents indicating their preference for money is extremely low as opposed to recognition, motivation and appreciation. Conclusion While it is a valuable thing to motivate teachers based on financial incentives such as recognition and respect, most men prefer financial rewards. Female teacher refers non financial rewards. It is also imperative to note that from the data, the results provide 95% confidence that the population linear correlation coefficient runs between 0.666 and 0.927. This is a reliable indicator of the importance of motivation to teachers. Recommendations Stress levels and exhaustion in urban schools may be particularly influential factors to consider when it comes to teaching in urban school as opposed to teaching in rural schools. However, while the two schools all use the same curriculum and teaching systems, there are no reason why there should be such disparity, it is advisable to look in the impact of motivation on stress level and exhaustion in urban school as stress levels may not be the main contributing factors for the low preference for urban school. There is the likelihood that this may be attributed to the economic status of urban school and challenges that teacher face in these urban schools. It is also healthy to say that male teachers may refer teaching in urban schools as opposed to female teachers. Appendix CROSSTAB BETWEEN 2 VARIABLE: Yre * 3 var ? Not acceptable Eth * 3 var ? Not acceptable (Minimum 5 cases in each category) Years of Experience * Gender Crosstabulation Gender Total MALE FEMALE Years of Experience 5 TO 10 Count 14 27 41 % within Years of Experience 34.1 (%) 65.9 (%) 100.0 (%) 11 TO 15 Count 6 13 19 % within Years of Experience 31.6 (%) 68.4 (%) 100.0 (%) LESS THAN 15 Count 15 19 34 % within Years of Experience 44.1 (%) 55.9 (%) 100.0 (%) Total Count 35 59 94 % within Years of Experience 37.2 (%) 62.8 (%) 100.0 (%) Years of Experience * Your ethnicity Crosstabulation Your ethnicity Total WHITE/CUACASIAL OTHER Years of Experience 5 TO 10 Count 31 10 41 % within Years of Experience 75.6 (%) 24.4 (%) 100.0 (%) 11 TO 15 Count 13 6 19 % within Years of Experience 68.4 (%) 31.6 (%) 100.0 (%) LESS THAN 15 Count 20 14 34 % within Years of Experience 58.8 (%) 41.2 (%) 100.0 (%) Total Count 64 30 94 % within Years of Experience 68.1 (%) 31.9 (%) 100.0 (%) RELIABILITY: Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .922 29 Correlation between variable: the correlation between variable Correlations R C A R Pearson Correlation 1 Sig. (2-tailed) N 94 C Pearson Correlation .162 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .118 N 94 94 A Pearson Correlation .282** .027 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .006 .800 N 94 94 94 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Descriptive Statistics N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic R 94 48.00 8.00 56.00 43.0745 .74211 7.19504 C 94 11.00 20.00 31.00 26.9468 .27782 2.69355 A 94 88.00 16.00 104.00 67.5957 2.39066 23.17828 Valid N (listwise) 94 Regression Analysis: Yre * var The Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .076a .006 -.005- 7.21314 a. Predictors: (Constant), Years of Experience ANOVAb Model Sum of Squares df The Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 27.771 1 27.771 .534 .467a Residual 4786.708 92 52.029 Total 4814.479 93 a. Predictors: (Constant), Years of Experience b. Dependent Variable: R Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 44.250 1.773 24.957 .000 Years of Experience -.611- .836 -.076- -.731- .467 a. Dependent Variable: R The Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .012a .000 -.011- 2.70796 a. Predictors: (Constant), Years of Experience ANOVAb Model Sum of Squares df The Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression .093 1 .093 .013 .911a Residual 674.641 92 7.333 Total 674.734 93 a. Predictors: (Constant), Years of Experience b. Dependent Variable: C Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 26.879 .666 40.381 .000 Years of Experience .035 .314 .012 .112 .911 a. Dependent Variable: C The Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .022a .000 -.010- 23.29834 a. Predictors: (Constant), Years of Experience ANOVAb Model Sum of Squares df The Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 23.877 1 23.877 .044 .834a Residual 49938.761 92 542.813 Total 49962.638 93 a. Predictors: (Constant), Years of Experience b. Dependent Variable: A Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 66.505 5.727 11.613 .000 Years of Experience .566 2.700 .022 .210 .834 a. Dependent Variable: A Anova Experience: ANOVA Sum of Squares df The Mean Square F Sig. R Between Groups 73.999 2 36.999 .710 .494 Within Groups 4740.480 91 52.093 Total 4814.479 93 C Between Groups 11.193 2 5.597 .768 .467 Within Groups 663.541 91 7.292 Total 674.734 93 A Between Groups 469.517 2 234.759 .432 .651 Within Groups 49493.121 91 543.880 Total 49962.638 93 Anova race ANOVA Sum of Squares df The Mean Square F Sig. R Between Groups 152.701 3 50.900 .983 .405 Within Groups 4661.778 90 51.798 Total 4814.479 93 C Between Groups 37.068 3 12.356 1.744 .164 Within Groups 637.666 90 7.085 Total 674.734 93 A Between Groups 1156.592 3 385.531 .711 .548 Within Groups 48806.046 90 542.289 Total 49962.638 93 T-test: Gender Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference Lower Upper R Equal variances assumed 5.040 .027 1.352 92 .180 2.06634 1.52831 -.96902- 5.10171 Equal variances not assumed 1.514 91.684 .133 2.06634 1.36493 -.64465- 4.77734 C Equal variances assumed 1.711 .194 -.011- 92 .991 -.00630- .57780 -1.15385- 1.14126 Equal variances not assumed -.012- 86.457 .991 -.00630- .53879 -1.07729- 1.06470 A Equal variances assumed 1.045 .309 -.063- 92 .950 -.31186- 4.97191 -10.18651- 9.56278 Equal variances not assumed -.065- 78.211 .949 -.31186- 4.82640 -9.92008- 9.29635 Ethnicity: Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference Lower Upper R Equal variances assumed .082 .775 -.637- 92 .526 -1.01667- 1.59713 -4.18870- 2.15537 Equal variances not assumed -.682- 67.813 .497 -1.01667- 1.49039 -3.99085- 1.95752 C Equal variances assumed 1.435 .234 -.952- 92 .344 -.56771- .59629 -1.75199- .61657 Equal variances not assumed -.893- 48.787 .376 -.56771- .63583 -1.84561- .71019 A Equal variances assumed .127 .722 .217 92 .829 1.11979 5.15502 -9.11853- 11.35812 Equal variances not assumed .212 53.503 .833 1.11979 5.28311 -9.47445- 11.71403 Read More