NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

VOLUME 27, NUMBER 4, 2010

How Do Cognitive and Motivational Factors Influence

Teachers' Degree of Program Implementation?: A Qualitative
Examination of Teacher Perspectives

Agnes Cave, Ph.D.

The Catholic University of America
Washington, DC

Maura Mulloy, Ph.D.

The University of Maryland
Baltimore, MD

ABSTRACT

Understanding the reasons why teachers vary in their implementation of

educational interventions is essential to developing more effective professional
development programs. This article used qualitative methods to illuminate and
examine the cognitive and motivational dimensions that impacted teachers’
adoption of an innovative early childhood education program. The teachers’
perspectives regarding “what worked” and “what did not work” helped coalesce a
set of themes and recommendations that can be used to inform future professional
development efforts.

Introduction

No matter how innovative and well-designed an educational intervention may be,

it will be ineffective unless teachers are provided with appropriate professional
development to support program implementation. Yet the process of implementing and
sustaining a new program often meets with uneven success wherein some teachers
enthusiastically integrate concepts into their classrooms and other teachers either never
make the effort or quickly give it up. In order to develop more effective professional
development programs, it is essential to comprehend the reasons why teachers vary in
their degrees of program implementation. The purpose of this exploratory qualitative
case study, then, was to examine the cognitive and motivational factors that affected
teachers‟ degree of implementation of an authentic problem-based early childhood
education program.
This study is an offshoot of a larger professional development partnership, in
which university faculty members at an education department collaborated with a local

1
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
2____________________________________________________________________________________

public elementary school in a major metropolitan city to implement an early childhood

authentic and problem-based educational program. The first author of this study
conducted semi-structured interviews with four classroom teachers who had implemented
the program with the evaluative intent of uncovering the cognitive and motivational
factors that had helped or hindered the teachers‟ implementation. Though the original
purpose of the interviews was to serve as a formative evaluation to refine and improve
the program, the teachers‟ perspectives regarding comprehension and motivation were
sufficiently broad that they could serve to refine a theoretical and practical understanding
of how to successfully implement professional development programs.
Research on motivation comprises a vast area in the literature; however, most of it
focuses on student rather than teacher motivation (Butler, 2007). Furthermore, present
models of professional development do not sufficiently address the cognitive and
especially motivational issues in program implementation from a teacher perspective. A
major contribution of this study to the professional development literature is to “give
voice” to teachers by garnering their own perspectives on how teacher comprehension
and motivation could be improved to achieve professional development goals. By
illuminating the factors that affect teachers‟ decisions to implement programs and
maintain implementation over time, a better understanding will be achieved regarding
what matters to teachers and how best to motivate them (Ozcan, 1996).
In a practical sense, findings from this study allow formulation of a best practices
framework for program implementers that address both cognitive and motivational
aspects of professional development. This framework is aimed at anyone who plans to
implement professional development programs; however, the recommendations are
especially useful for university faculty who work in partnership with schools. These
guidelines can be used to increase the degree of program implementation and thus create
more effective professional development partnerships.

Literature Review

This article examined teacher performance and degree of program implementation

from the perspectives of cognitive science and motivational research. By way of
background and before launching into a review of the cognitive and motivational
theoretical models that are used to undergird this study, the next sections will present a
brief review of the tenets of effective professional development as well as a synopsis of
the professional development schools (PDS) model‟s essential principles.

Effective Professional Development

Research on effective professional development reveals the following essential

criteria for success: providing opportunities for practice, research, and reflection;
embedding professional development in daily work; sustaining professional development
over time; and creating a sense of collaboration and community among teachers and
between teachers and principals (Sparks, 2002). Reitzug (2002) synthesized findings
from professional development research into principles. He pointed out that professional
 AGNES CAVE AND MAURA MULLOY
____________________________________________________________________________________3

development should take place over an extended period of time, model effective
pedagogy, focus on communities of practice instead of individual teachers, and provide
follow-up support in terms of modeling and coaching.
Indeed, the consensus in the literature is that professional development efforts
should create ongoing support structures and develop collaborative communities of
practice in order to ensure effective implementation and sustainability. In particular,
professional development activities and follow-up should build community and
sustainability through structures like mentoring, modeling, coaching, and increasing
leadership capacity (Elmore, 2002; Fullan, 2002; Schmoker, 2004).
Elmore (2002) wrote about this need to create collaborative communities of
practice while also noting that professional development efforts should aim to effect
systemic change, not just individual teacher development:

Professional development, in the consensus view, should be designed to develop

the capacity of teachers to work collectively on problems of practice, within their
own schools and with practitioners in other settings…this view derives from the
assumption that learning is essentially a collaborative, rather than an individual,
activity – that educators learn more powerfully in concert with others who are
struggling with the same problems – and that the essential purpose of professional
development should be the improvement of schools and school systems, not just
the improvement of individuals who work in them. (Elmore, 2002, p. 8)

Professional development schools (PDS) were designed to support exactly this kind of
broader systemic improvement and will be discussed in the next section.

Professional Development Schools, Their Context, and Cultures

The traditional model of professional development is delivered in one- or two-day

in-service workshops and has been recently criticized in the professional literature
because it is not integrated with the school community, does not form collaborative
learning communities, and does not provide opportunities for follow-up to ensure
sustained integration of professional development concepts (InPraxis Group Inc., 2006).
The professional development school (PDS) model, on the other hand, represents
an evolution towards a more in-depth formation of a sustainable and collaborative
learning community. Professional development schools are schools in which university
faculty, teachers, and student teachers (from the university) work collaboratively to
improve professional development for teachers and staff and enhance student teaching
experiences. These goals are achieved through the university faculty‟s active
engagement in the school, formal professional development experiences (in the form of
workshops, coaching, consultation, and modeled skill practice), and school-based
collaborative research (Reitzug, 2002). Reitzug (2002) cited Little (1994), who argued
that issues, such as the complexity of current educational reforms including authentic
teaching, fair assessment, curricular integration, and achievement of equity often do not
lend themselves to simple skill training. Instead, successful professional development and
effective enactment of teaching call for the creation of professional growth cultures in
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
4____________________________________________________________________________________

schools where teachers are supported to function as intellectuals rather than as

technicians; i.e., teachers are enabled, supported, and empowered to integrate their newly
acquired knowledge and skills into their teaching. PDS work should also be collaborative,
develop leadership, create a learning community, and eventually lead to systemic
changes. These objectives are clearly aligned with the tenets of effective professional
development described in the prior section.
It will also be useful to examine the other side of the coin, in regards to how
teachers respond to professional development efforts. The next sections will introduce
cognitive and motivational models as a lens through which to examine various factors
that affect teachers‟ degree of program implementation.

Expert vs. Novice Paradigm

Novice-expert cognitive models of professional development describe a series of

developmental stages in acquiring knowledge, from novice to competent to expert (e.g.,
Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986). Such models contribute towards our understanding of
professional development as a progression of initially acquiring basic understanding of
concepts (declarative knowledge) and then progressively learning more application and
know-how (procedural knowledge) (Anderson, 1983; Anderson & Lebiere, 1998).
The expert-novice line of research has evolved from focusing on the concept of
expertise in the area of problem-solving applicable in a wide range of domains (Newell &
Simon, 1972) to studying professional development continua in specific professional
disciplines, such as with doctors (Patel & Groen, 1991), nurses (Benner, 1984), and
teachers (Borko & Livingston, 1989; Carter, Sabers, Cushing, Pinnegar, & Berliner,
1987). This line of research shows that novices move through a developmental
progression towards expertise (Daley, 1999).
Cognitive psychologists utilize the expert vs. novice paradigm to study
characteristics of expert cognition and performance with the stated intention of
developing novices to be experts. In order to help novices move towards expertise in a
given domain, they should be engaged in authentic tasks in a “legitimate peripheral
participation” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 27), a more peripheral, supportive role with
close supervision and feedback, and then transition gradually into more independent roles
(Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989). According to Dreyfus‟ five-stage model of skill
acquisition, novices demonstrate rigid adherence to rules and little discretionary
judgment and need close monitoring with instructional feedback in order to progress
along the novice-expert continuum (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986).
Experts and novices vary greatly in their knowledge representation and problem
solving. Reviewing differences between experts and novices, Chi, Glaser, and Farr
(1988) pointed out that experts 1) have a greater amount of domain knowledge, 2)
distinguish larger, more meaningful patterns in their field of expertise, 3) complete tasks
and solve problems with faster speed and fewer errors, 4) have superior working and
long-term memories (due to a capacity to “chunk” pieces of information and automation
of basic skills, as well as to their better developed “schemas,” which are more elaborate
interconnected, detailed, and accessible), 5) conceptualize problems on a deeper
structural level, 6) take more time to analyze a problem before attempting to solve it, and
 AGNES CAVE AND MAURA MULLOY
____________________________________________________________________________________5

7) have more powerful self-regulating skills that enable them to plan, monitor, and
evaluate their progress more effectively.
This study utilizes the concept of the novice-expert continuum in order to classify
teachers who exhibit various degrees of program implementation. For example, those
who implement a program to a high degree can be considered “experts” of a particular
educational reform, and those who implement to a low degree (or not at all) can be
classified as “novices.” The high implementing teachers in this study demonstrated many
of these expert characteristics listed above, and an analysis of the interview data provides
specific examples of these featured differences between “experts” and “novices” that will
be examined in the Results section.

Teacher Motivation

Research in the field of cognitive psychology suggests that motivation and other
affective factors impact both students and teachers, and play a significant role in learning
(Alexander & Murphy, 1998; Hawley & Valli, 2000). As Butler (2007) wrote, school is
an “achievement arena” not only for students but also for teachers, who presumably want
to do well at their job but who may have different achievement goal orientations
(Pintrich, 2000) and thus may differ in the ways they define success and in the goals they
set for themselves and for their students. For example, students or teachers with a
performance-goal orientation (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002) judge their own capabilities by
comparing themselves with others. Consequently, they may assume they have low ability
in an area in which they experience difficulty and may seek to avoid exposing their
inadequate ability through “work avoidance” or by not seeking help from others. Thus,
due to their perceptions of inferiority, they may be less motivated to seek assistance or
take the risks that are necessary for learning and growing.
Danielson (2002) wrote: “(o)nly by understanding how people – both children and
adults – learn, can educators hope to design instructional programs that maximize
learning” (p. 22, italics added). One might also suggest that it is important to understand
not only how but why children and adults choose to learn. Theories of motivation that
focus on student learning abound in the literature (Bandura, 1986; Covington, 1992; Deci
& Ryan, 2002; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Locke & Latham, 2002; Maslow, 1970; Skinner,
1953; Weiner, 1986; Wigfield & Eccles, 2002); however, there is limited research in the
area of teacher motivation. Various authors have emphasized the importance of studying
teacher motivation (Goldsmith & Schifter, 1997; Schifter & Fosnot, 1993; Shulman &
Shulman, 2004) as highly motivated teachers are more likely to feel happier and stay in
the profession longer, engage in educational reform, and more importantly, implement
innovative programs to increase student learning (Jesus & Lens, 2005). Research studies
that do examine teacher motivation often approach this construct by listing (rather than
integrating) multiple theories (Ames & Ames, 1984; Butler, 2007; Hoy, 2008; Kocabas,
2009; Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, 2007; Smith & Gillespie, 2007). These
models also fail to address teachers‟ motivation for gaining increasing understanding in a
particular domain.
Researchers have called for a comprehensive and integrated theoretical model of
teacher motivation to understand all aspects of teacher motivation and resulting behavior,
 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
6____________________________________________________________________________________

and to suggest possible intervention strategies for program implementation and

professional development – the focus of this study. With a “theory-integration approach”
(p. 121) Jesus and Lens (2005) set out “to harmonise the specificity and the
complementary nature of the theories” (p. 121), i.e., to synthesize various theories of
motivation in a global framework that more aptly addresses the complexities of teacher
motivation and resulting behaviors. In particular, Jesus and Lens‟ integrated model
(2005) outlines the relationship between teachers‟ motivation and their resulting
professional engagement. Because this study focuses on how teachers‟ cognition and
motivation affect their degree of program implementation, this model offers a fitting lens
through which to explore the relationship between teachers‟ motivation and their degree
of program implementation.

Jesus & Lens’ integrated model of cognitive-motivational theories. Jesus and

Lens‟ integrated model of cognitive-motivational theories (2005) attempts to coalesce the
following concepts and theories into one unified model: 1) learned helplessness
(Seligman, 1975), 2) motivational discrepancy theory (Jesus, 1995), 3) self-efficacy
theory (Bandura, 1977), and 4) intrinsic motivation theory (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Figure 1
provides a visual representation of this integrated motivational framework. This model
explains low teacher performance by integrating the various attribution and expectancy
factors that play a major role in teachers‟ cognitive-motivational behavior.

Goal value
(decrease)
Results -----------Attributions

Professional (failure) (mental and Control Success

engagement
expectancy expectancy
stable)
(decrease) (external) (low)
(success) (external and

unstable)
Efficacy
Intrinsic
expectancy
motivation
(low)
(decrease)
Figure 1. Integrated motivational framework.

First, the integration of Seligman‟s concept of learned helplessness highlights

teachers‟ potential reactions to experiencing failure. If they attribute teaching difficulties
to internal, stable, and uncontrollable factors (e.g., lack of teaching skills), they may
come to believe that success cannot be achieved no matter what they do. In other words,
they develop an expectancy of external control and believe that only external,
uncontrollable, and unstable attributes (e.g., luck or a good day) can lead to success.
Perceiving that outcomes are uncontrollable leads to learned helplessness and a low
expectancy of success. Teachers may feel that no matter how hard they try, they will not
be able to experience success for themselves and their students. Thus, in this state they
 AGNES CAVE AND MAURA MULLOY
____________________________________________________________________________________7

can easily become disillusioned and unmotivated. This pattern of thinking usually results
in lower effort and decreased professional engagement.
The motivational discrepancy component of this model assumes that teachers‟
lack of motivation can be attributed to their low expectancy of attaining highly valued
goals. This aspect represents an important addition to the integrated model of motivation
because it presumes that teachers experience burnout only if they attach high value to a
seemingly unattainable goal (e.g., improving their students‟ achievement levels). Low
expectancy of attaining valued goals can thereby explain a teacher‟s lack of professional
engagement and a low desire to implement educational interventions.
In their integrated model of motivation, Jesus and Lens (2005) derive teachers‟
self-efficacy from various attributions. Using Weiner‟s (1986) theory of causal
attribution, they address how distinctive locus, stability, and responsibility differences in
attributions influence teachers‟ self-efficacy. For instance, teachers who attribute internal,
stable causes to teaching difficulties (e.g., poor understanding of a given educational
intervention) will experience low expectancy of teaching efficacy. Bandura (1977) states
that teachers‟ performance expectations are influenced by their efficacy beliefs; hence,
teachers who do not consider themselves competent tend to have lower expectancy of
positive student outcomes. Jesus and Lens (2005) state that expectancy of control over
results and teacher self-efficacy influence success expectancy – an important factor
related to the degree of program implementation. Teacher self-efficacy also influences
whether a teacher is motivated intrinsically or extrinsically since a sense of competence
increases a teacher‟s desire (intrinsic motivation) to be highly engaged in professional
tasks and development, and this intrinsic motivation in turn makes teaching goals seem
more valuable.
This comprehensive model can contribute to a better understanding of the various
motivational factors that may influence teachers‟ implementation of a new educational
program. According to the model‟s tenets, teachers who are disillusioned may reduce
their stress level by lowering their level of professional effort, which in turn may feel
more acceptable if they simultaneously attach a lower value to the new program that they
are supposed to implement. For example, teachers who experience a heightened level of
stress due to a low expectancy of success as well as a perceived low level of competence
and teaching efficacy may be more critical of and less motivated to implement a given
program.
Since this theoretical model does not include specific suggestions for improving
practice, this article will attempt to address this gap by providing a series of practical
guidelines to improve professional development efforts by addressing teachers‟
motivational needs.

Methodology

In order to set the stage for a fuller understanding of the present study, this section
briefly describes the original intervention, delineates how a purposeful sample of project
teachers was selected for participation in this qualitative study, outlines the research
questions and procedures that guided this inquiry, and details the methods used to analyze
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
8____________________________________________________________________________________

the collected data.

Technology-Rich Authentic Learning Environments (TRALE)

Walker and Yekovich (1999) designed the Technology-Rich Authentic Learning

Environments (TRALE) project to increase young urban learners‟ educational
achievement by providing opportunities for meaningful learning using authentic,
problem-based activities in a technology-rich and socially-based environment. Each
classroom assumed a unique authentic role (e.g. store, theater, newspaper publisher, post
office, museum) within the larger school-based community (Walker & Yekovich, 1999),
which provided meaningful purpose and real-life context within which to practice skills
and acquire new knowledge. The authentic, goal-oriented activities were aligned with
student learning standards and allowed for contextualized practice of important literacy,
math, and technology skills. These activities also had a social communicative purpose
(Purcell-Gates, Duke, & Martineau, 2007) for students (e.g., selling goods in the
community store) and positively impacted children‟s motivation. Technology was
integrated in the classrooms to facilitate task completion in various authentic activities
(e.g., generating invitations for the theatrical performance) in order to support children‟s
learning (e.g., editing one‟s writing) and to serve as an additional motivating factor for
students. A more detailed description is provided by Cave, Yekovich, and Walker (2010).

Participants

Four teachers were selected for inclusion in this study according to a purposeful
sampling technique that measured their degree of program implementation. The teachers
were selected for participation based upon their scores on a “Degree of Implementation”
(DOI) instrument (described below), in order to create a sample composed of both low
and high performing teachers. According to the DOI instrument, two teachers were
categorized as “high implementers” (HI), and two teachers were categorized as “low
implementers” (LI).
In order to measure the effectiveness of professional development efforts, the
program coordinators created the Degrees of Implementation (DOI) instrument to assess
the degree to which the program had been integrated into the instructional practices of the
participating teachers. Data from this instrument were supplemented by additional data
from 1) calendars of events, cross-referenced against minutes of the weekly meetings and
teacher journals in order to obtain an index of the level to which teachers accomplished
their goals, 2) information about the teachers‟ level of involvement in the program as
measured by teachers‟ attendance at weekly meetings, 3) the quality and quantity of
journal entries, and 4) the program coordinator‟s journal entries that included anecdotal
descriptions of teachers‟ daily implementation of the program.
Classifying teachers along this expert-novice continuum allowed for exploration
of the cognitive and motivational factors that either enhanced or hindered teachers‟
program implementation. The results of the comparative analysis can point to
recommendations regarding ways to better structure professional development programs
in the future.
 AGNES CAVE AND MAURA MULLOY
____________________________________________________________________________________9

Procedures

This qualitative case study utilized semi-structured interviews to inquire into

teachers‟ experiences with program implementation. The interview questions were geared
towards developing an understanding of the cognitive and motivational factors that
influenced teachers‟ degree of program implementation and involvement in professional
development. The following research questions guided the development of the interview
protocol:

1) How did teachers‟ conceptualization of the project affect the degree and quality of
implementation? What were perceived to be the major factors that enhanced or
hindered implementation?
a. How did teachers‟ comprehension of program goals and activities affect
the degree of implementation?
b. How did teachers perceive that the program‟s goals and activities could be
integrated into their own activities and aligned with standards? How did
this degree of coherence affect their implementation?
c. What factors affected teachers‟ motivation to adapt the program goals and
activities in terms of comprehension, ease of integration, alignment with
standards, as well as incentives and compensation?
d. What did teachers perceive as the major challenges and obstacles that
hindered full program implementation?

2) How can professional development programs be better structured to address what

failed to work and to promote better development of instructional interventions?
a. What are teachers‟ suggestions for improvement?
b. What other incentives or supports would have been useful or motivating?

Analysis

Each interview was transcribed, analyzed, and subjected to rigorous recursive

analysis in order to discern teachers‟ perceptions of the cognitive and motivational factors
that helped or hindered their performance, as well as their suggestions regarding factors
that could have improved program implementation. The interview data were analyzed
based on the recommendations and procedures created by Bogdan and Biklen (1998) and
Miles and Huberman (1984) using a coding system including a list of codes and subcodes
for various units and categories of data. The analytic strategy for these multiple cases
(i.e., four teachers) revolved around identifying issues within each case and then looking
for common themes transcending the cases (Yin, 2003). As themes and categories began
to emerge and coalesce, the initial coding system was further refined. The analysis of
cases in this way allowed for a broader interpretation of the common themes and factors
that helped or hindered program implementation, and illuminates recommendations for
improving professional development efforts to better support teachers‟ cognitive and
motivational needs.
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
10____________________________________________________________________________________

Data from the document analysis together with observations and student
interviews were used for triangulation purposes. In order to supplement the interview
data, field notes were also collected about the impressions of the data collector and extra
remarks before, during, and after the interview. The content of the field notes included
the entire interview transcripts supplemented by the description of the site and a portrait
of the interview participants.

Limitations

Due to the inherent nature of qualitative research, the generalizability of results is

sometimes seen as more limited because of the focus upon the experiences of a small
group of individuals or upon a single context. However, it is important to recognize that
the “transferability” is determined not by these researchers but by those who may apply
the findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) – whether to inform future research studies or to
utilize the recommendations as a foundation for improving professional development
practice.

Results

The analysis of the interviews revealed a central dynamic and interactive

relationship between cognitive and motivational factors – wherein the degree of teachers‟
cognitive understanding of the project influenced their degree of motivation to adapt the
program. More specifically, teachers‟ cognitive understanding (or lack thereof!) of the
whats, the hows, and whys of the program greatly influenced their capacity as well as
their motivation to implement the intervention. In addition to cognitive factors, other
intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors affected the degree of implementation. All of
these influences are discussed in more detail below, along with a delineation of teachers‟
suggestions for improving professional development efforts. In the Discussion section,
these suggestions for improving practice are expanded upon and tied back to the research
literature.

Expert vs. Novice Paradigm

Results from the data analysis of high and low implementers revealed numerous
examples of expert-novice thinking, which are presented and explicated below.

Well-organized knowledge representation. Analysis of the high implementer

interview data revealed numerous examples showing that they had achieved a well-
organized knowledge representation of the program‟s key tenets. For example, one high
implementer noted the following:

I understood right at the beginning what I was supposed to do and what the
expectations were…there‟s always more clarification, but it always seems to
make sense that…this is all your curriculum, your community was supposed to be
your whole classroom (HI #2)…
 AGNES CAVE AND MAURA MULLOY
____________________________________________________________________________________11

This was in contrast to the low implementers, who took much longer to grasp the key
concepts and thus became less and less motivated to implement the program (a resulting
effect on their motivation, which is discussed in more depth in the motivation section of
the analysis). For example, one high implementer noted that some of the lower
implementing teachers did not sufficiently comprehend the purpose of the program and
how it aligned with standards:

Some people just didn‟t know what was being asked of them, how it‟s supposed
to fit in. (HI #2)

The high implementing teachers, in contrast, had formed an elaborate schematic

understanding of how to integrate the new program into their instruction and how to tie
the program‟s goals to learning standards. One teacher whose classroom role was a
theater noted the following:

I decided to…take the theater and try to form everything around it as much as you
could, you know, just try to fit in all the language activities and try to fit in math.
(HI #2)

High implementers also spent time initially trying to understand and analyze the project
in order to develop a sense of the value it could bring to increasing student achievement.
When one high implementer was asked whether her understanding of the project had
changed dramatically since the beginning of the program, she responded that:

There‟s more understanding now and the effect it can have, you know the
positive… at first, I wasn‟t sure where it was going to turn up and what the kids
were really getting out of it, but that knowledge is increasing. (HI #1)

These expert teachers could conceptualize the learning environment on a deeper level and
planned their lessons accordingly; i.e., they selected activities only when they were
meaningful, standards-based, and instructional rather than superficially appealing. They
were faster at creating community events and had a larger repertoire of instructional
methodology appropriate for authentic learning. High implementers were able to manage
the flow of students with more ease, which allowed them more capacity to focus on
student learning and behavior. They also had highly automated computer skills that
allowed them to give their students more autonomy in their learning and handling
computers. One high implementer noted how students were able to become more
independent and help each other learn:

Once the students learned new skills, it was amazing to watch them. I just had
them teach other children. I got to the point where I would teach something to the
whole class, and if they asked me again about the same thing, I wouldn‟t help
them if they raised their hands… I‟d find someone else [another student] in the
classroom who knew how to do it. (HI #1)
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
12____________________________________________________________________________________

A low implementing teacher shared that she needed to take the time to do the work
consistently in order to build her comprehension and her ability to integrate the skills into
her classroom:

It‟s just my unwillingness to…not really unwillingness…not really difficulty, if

you just, you know, if you just took the time to do it consistently every day, but
it‟s hard to do that… I would actually have to teach it to them, and that‟s a lot of
work. It‟s a lot of work. (LI #1)

Trial and error and learning over time. High implementers acknowledged that
their deeper and more intuitive understanding grew over time and emerged from
experience, practice, and their willingness to endure a “trial and error” period of making
mistakes and learning from them. High implementers were willing and able to
experiment and learn from their own mistakes and experiences. They expected and
accepted that first they would feel unsure of themselves, but as time passed, they would
gain more proficiency. This sentiment did not impact their self-efficacy negatively, so
they were not threatened to ask questions and try new things. They were comfortable
with the idea of making mistakes and not achieving perfection immediately. Through trial
and error they were able to refine their understanding and become more familiar with
expectations from the project staff, school system, and principal. The high implementers
displayed more expert-like planning when aligning authentic activities with standards and
were more comfortable to give their students more autonomy in their learning. For
example, one high implementer noted that:

Last year…just going through, you pick up things that “Oh I could have done that.
Oh that would‟ve worked too. Oh, this just failed miserably.” I mean, you really
have to experience it to start understanding, this worked, this didn‟t work, you
know, “I could‟ve done this differently, next time I‟ll do this, this is something
I‟ll keep because it worked really well and the kids liked it.” This year has been a
lot smoother on the computer…it just flowed, you know, naturally like “Oh yeah,
go do that.” I don‟t even have to look at them anymore. (HI #2)

One of the low implementers who experienced difficulty comprehending the various
components of the project shared that it took her a long time to conceptualize the role her
museum was supposed to play in the community, which certainly affected her degree of
implementation:

It took me… well, I started in September, but I think it wasn‟t till around January,
February till I really actually understood what was going on, what I was actually
supposed to do. (LI #1)

Because the integration of the museum activities with the standards seemed confusing
and challenging, this teacher could not see the overall framework and experienced
difficulty in creating a vision to guide her efforts. She was unsure of herself, in
comparison to the other teachers, so eventually, due to the conceptual difficulties and
 AGNES CAVE AND MAURA MULLOY
____________________________________________________________________________________13

lessened teacher self-efficacy, her motivation for active engagement decreased. She also
confessed to being envious of the other teachers who had understood the program and
had successfully operating microcommunities in their classes. She did not ask for help
from other teachers or the program coordinator to help hone her understanding.
Consequently, this low implementing teacher procrastinated program activities with her
students and gradually isolated herself from the community of practice (i.e., she arranged
fewer visits to other teachers‟ classrooms).

Teachers’ conceptualization of novice-expert continuum. Teachers reported

differences in the level of program implementation across the classrooms in terms of the
teachers‟ relative degrees of comprehension. The high implementers believed that the low
implementers may have been able to get on board with program implementation if the
program coordinator had set up all activities in their classrooms initially. If the activities
had been designed and the classrooms had been set up for their role in the community,
the lower implementers would have understood the essence of the program and been able
to continue implementation when scaffolded (Vygotsky, 1978):

I was just like “I don‟t think [lower implementers] have understood what they‟re
doing and what the community roles are.” It‟s so far apart, it‟s almost like they‟re
not in [the program]. I know for a fact that some people don‟t understand the
learning communities. How it‟s supposed to actually work. Some… you can just
see the light click on in some people‟s heads towards the end of the school year
and say “Oh, that‟s how we were supposed to do it? Oh.” … and I‟m thinking
“Where were you before? Why didn‟t it click in your head?” Granted, I know
that everyone is not on the same level, but… I don‟t even know how it could‟ve
been explained better. (HI #2)

This high implementing teacher suggested that the program coordinator could have
helped scaffold teachers‟ understanding by setting up more curriculum help and
encouraging the low implementers to make the connection between the program and their
own classroom goals. For example, she suggested:

“I‟ll set up all your activities around the first play, so you can understand how to
do it.” I mean, some people needed that. They needed it spelled out. (HI #2)

However, high implementers also pointed out that there are limits of how far and fast a
program coordinator can push low implementing teachers, so a balance has to be
achieved between “sounding too pushy” or “pounding [new program] in someone‟s
head” and encouraging teachers. According to one high implementer:

Suggestions were made [to the low implementers], and they weren‟t even looked
at, “I don‟t wanna do that.” And you can‟t force something on someone else, it
has to be your own thought process: “How can I make this work in my
classroom?” (HI # 2)
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
14____________________________________________________________________________________

For the low implementer who admitted that it was difficult to understand what she was
“actually supposed to do,” she suggested that it would have helped scaffold her
understanding if she had been able to learn from observing a fellow teacher:

…(if I could) go to another teacher‟s classroom who had an African Museum…

I‟m a „see person‟ first – it‟s hard for me to see it in my head. I had nothing to fall
back on… I don‟t have anybody that‟s been where I‟m trying to go or has done
what I‟m trying to do. I need to visualize things… I need to see it. (LI #1)

Indeed, in order to be successful, novices have a need for competence, autonomy,

relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2002) as well as a sense of significance, power, (Coopersmith,
1967), and choice (Kohn, 1993). With appropriate scaffolding, monitoring, and
explanations, teachers can be guided towards expertise. Low implementing teachers can
feel competent when appropriate scaffolding is provided, however, they also need to take
the initiative to be autonomous and active participants to feel empowered, significant, and
contributing members of the community:

… you need to go back to the basics and talk about it. You know, “What is your
community doing? What are your activities?”… You have to really start to focus
in on that, and then balloon out. (HI #1)

Because the low implementing teachers did not feel competent, they tried to control the
students by exerting more control than necessary:

I wasn‟t comfortable just opening up the center and just letting them to it and was
like I had to be in control and I felt like I had to be able to sit there and monitor
them. (LI #2)

Taking the initiative to actively participate in program implementation is closely related

to the degree teachers feel motivated. The following section of the data analysis explores
the motivational variables that teachers identified as affecting their degree of program
implementation.

Motivational Factors

In reflecting upon “what worked”, teachers tended to stress the inherent

motivational aspects of the authentic learning communities (including the program‟s
focus on students‟ collaboration and contextualized skill practice). They also emphasized
the following suggestions that would bolster their motivation to implement the program:
clear and consistent feedback from program staff, opportunities to demonstrate what they
have done well (public recognition, peer coaching, presenting at conferences), and
financial remuneration.
 AGNES CAVE AND MAURA MULLOY
____________________________________________________________________________________15

Inherently motivating aspects of the program: Improving student learning,

behavior, and self-esteem. Recognizing the value of a particular educational
intervention (in terms of its positive effect upon students‟ learning and the classroom
environment) is a powerful, intrinsically motivating reason for teachers to implement a
program. Because the students in the project classes enjoyed working and learning
together, they helped each other without prompting, and most of them became more self-
reliant. When students become independent learners, teachers have fewer challenges with
classroom management and meeting diverse students‟ needs. In the project classrooms,
peer coaching became the norm, and time on task increased. Contributing to the
classroom role was so motivating for the students that they were more willing to focus
their attention on skill practice that is not in itself inherently interesting or fulfilling:

If they see that this is like the real world, it just sinks in, and then they try to work
for it more. (HI #1)

The social nature of the tasks and the activities that were embedded in interactions among
the students and across the classes provided an impetus for even the struggling students to
get involved in their assigned roles in their microcommunities. The teachers saw how the
program‟s intrinsically motivating tasks could help motivate their students to achieve
greater academic success and could be relevant to their future career and life
development. These two realizations became salient motivating factors in the teachers‟
desire to implement the program. Some examples are listed below:

If they‟re reading, they‟re going to be better writers, and they‟re going to be

better employees… (HI #1)

…in the store they benefit from learning about money. (HI # 2)

… [working] teaches them responsibility because [students] have to

understand and complete their jobs… (HI #1)

We did the “Rainbow People” in the theater, which was about accepting
others as they are, regardless of color. I incorporated color words and got into
social studies of how to accept other people. (HI #2)

The opportunity to bolster students‟ self-esteem and excitement about learning also
appealed to teachers:

I think that they need good self-esteem at a young age, and this really gives it to
them, they feel motivated about their part: “I have a part in the play, look at
me”… and they get motivated by it: “Other people are gonna see me, and I‟m
gonna look smart.” And that‟s important at a young age…to think that “I‟m
important, I have an important part in this because of my role.” (HI #2)
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
16____________________________________________________________________________________

[It‟s] another way to teach the skill that isn‟t through workbooks and dittos, and
they might get excited about it. (HI #1)

The realization that the program could help address behavior issues in the classroom also
became an important motivating factor for the teachers:

As time went on, I realized it‟s not only motivational but if I set it up like it‟s a
real job, like the real world, that it might have more effect on those that are real
troublesome…if they see this is like the real world… it sinks in, and then they try
to work for it more. (HI #1)

Attributions, expectancies, and values. As we can see from the above examples,
effective teachers were motivated to implement the program because it helped them
achieve some of their valued goals, such as increasing their students‟ intrinsic motivation,
improving student learning and self-esteem, or addressing behavior issues. When high
implementers became professionally engaged in the project and experienced success,
they attributed their students‟ learning to their own lesson planning, program
understanding, and professional effort. The teachers‟ internal control expectancy and
efficacy expectancy increased; i.e., they came to believe that student learning was within
their control and improvement was due to their teaching abilities. On the contrary, the
low implementing teachers experienced several setbacks. Though both low implementers
were enthusiastic about the program initially, they soon felt overwhelmed by the tasks
involved in setting up and running their microcommunities:

I didn‟t know what questions to ask in order to get the program moving, and I
didn‟t know what was expected of me from this program. (LI #1)

One of the low implementers even confessed that she could not „compete‟ with her
colleagues who had their communities set up within a short time:

I was kind of real scared about having people come down and thinking my kids
wouldn‟t respond appropriately or they would come back and say: “you know,
they didn‟t do anything” based on some of the things that the other teachers did.
(LI #1)

From the low implementing teachers‟ comments it was clear that they felt helpless,
hopeless, and overwhelmed in their classes:

I can‟t get going. I don‟t know what to do. I have all these ideas, and I can‟t get
them expressed unless I have the [program coordinator] come in. (LI #2)

When teachers attribute their difficulties to their lack of skills, they can soon feel that no
matter how hard they try, they cannot achieve success. This expectancy of external
control (believing that an external factor, such as luck, is the only factor that can lead to
success) may result in low expectancy of success:
 AGNES CAVE AND MAURA MULLOY
____________________________________________________________________________________17

I didn‟t know the computer, …, it bothered me because I had to … ask other

people and that interrupted their classes…, so I was disenchanted about that. (LI
#2)

It is easy in this state to become disillusioned and unmotivated. Project staff observed
that the low implementers‟ effort and engagement in the project progressively decreased.
Eventually, these teachers placed less and less focus on the program and began to
consider it as a supplemental activity for the end of the day or week if time permitted it.
One high implementer commented:

It's not a little activity that's for half an hour a day… some people just, "Oh, well,
that's my social studies. I'll fit this in when I have time on Friday."

This tendency seemed to indicate that the low implementing teachers‟ initial enthusiasm
for the program lessened, and they attached lower value to the original goal. For example,
the video store teacher allowed her students to use the computer very rarely though the
children kept asking:

If a student used the computer on Mondays, maybe it would be a couple of

Mondays before the same child got the chance again. (LI #2)

The same teacher appeared not to totally understand the concept and value of authentic
learning environments. She did think that the video store was a great experience for her
children, so they could see how the real world operates. However, she did not make the
connection that this learning environment could be used for meaningful literacy activities
for her students:

Some children didn‟t learn to read the covers, but to me, it wasn‟t important how
well they knew how to read the cover, it was “Did they know the process, moving
from checkout to paying the money?” (LI #2)

In effect, the teachers who had a poor understanding of the program eventually developed
a low expectancy of teaching efficacy and expectancy of positive student outcomes.
These two teachers‟ efficacy lowered and decreased their intrinsic motivation. Low
implementing teachers also tended to complain about their students‟ low level of
academic achievement more often than their successful counterparts. It seemed that the
lower implementers tended to find external variables (students‟ low skills upon entering
their classes, low project support, unreasonable expectations from principal and school
district, and limited time) to explain their lack of progress in the project.
At times, however, all teachers mentioned some external motivating factors that
would have helped program implementation, which will be described below. These
factors included financial incentives, time to plan, public recognition, personal attention,
opportunities to demonstrate their expertise, and appreciation for their hard work.
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
18____________________________________________________________________________________

Teachers’ Suggestions for Improving Motivation

Teachers shared candidly that working in the project took an enormous amount of
time and required them to stay after school until late hours. Some teachers suggested that
having additional planning time during the day would have been a great incentive to
increase program implementation and teacher participation:

It‟s just a lot of work for one thing… and sometimes I think… is it worth it? Is
what I‟m doing really worth it? For the amount of work that‟s expected from
me?... It‟s stress on me, that‟s stress on my kids…You know, what benefits…it
shouldn‟t be what I‟m getting out of it, it should be the kids. But you have to
have some incentive to go on. (HI #2)

She returned to this same sentiment later in the interview:

There‟s enough stresses and pressure… you have to do all this other stuff for the
school district. Then to be asked to put all this other things on top of that and not
to be rewarded, it‟s hard. It‟s really hard to say “Yeah I‟m coming back in and
fully implement it 100% next year even though I know I have 15 other things that
I have to accomplish, but sure I‟ll do it!” That‟s a hard thing. (HI #2)

The teachers also admitted that incentives in many forms (monetary and recognition)
would have been much appreciated among participating teachers:

I tell you honestly money is an incentive. I mean, to think that “OK, I‟m putting
in all this extra energy in working on something”... I‟m like “Yeah, I want
supplies, but I want to be rewarded in other ways.” … Yeah, supplies are helpful,
and I never turn them down, but knowing that other teachers in the building are
getting the same things as I am…and they‟re not working as hard…you know,
why should I keep doing it? What‟s my reward for doing this? (HI #1)

Public recognition and a chance to teach others would have motivated teachers more.
High implementers wanted to get published and share what they had learned by
presenting at conferences:

To be able to go to California and explain… to show what I‟ve done. To get

some recognition whether it be monetary or some published thing that had my
name…if I knew that I‟ve got to go somewhere and present what I‟m doing, that
would be a big incentive. (HI #2)

Another high implementing teacher wanted to be a peer teacher for low implementers in
order to help them master the skills and improve their degree of program implementation:

… let us be the teacher for other teachers. (HI #1)

 AGNES CAVE AND MAURA MULLOY
____________________________________________________________________________________19

Teachers also suggested that receiving more attention and recognition from the program
directors would be a motivating factor. Teachers wanted the principal investigators to be
present at the school much more often and spend more time in their classrooms observing
and helping with student learning. The teachers also wanted to be singled out in their own
community as hard working program implementers:

When you don‟t see people regularly, or they pop in and pop out… I‟m thinking
to myself, “Do you really care? Is this really an important thing to you? I know,
you‟re probably doing papers about it, but you‟re forgetting the people who‟re
doing it for you.” (LI #2)

One of the low implementing teachers also shared that she would have enjoyed more
recognition and feeling more unique as a member of the project:

I enjoyed the program better last year. I guess because last year was just a small
group of us, and we became pretty much like a family, and then all these other
people came in, and we‟re not as close as we were last year… We don‟t get the
attention that they gave us before…I need somebody who likes what I‟m doing…
they would just come in, and they would see you work, and they would say
“Wow, what a good job you did” and pat you on the back, and make you feel
good that somebody really appreciates all that effort. (LI #1)

Discussion

This study aimed at achieving a qualitative understanding of the cognitive and

motivational factors that either helped or hindered teachers‟ implementation of an early
childhood intervention program. Analysis of the findings revealed that the low
implementing teachers found it challenging to obtain a deep understanding of the
program‟s overall goals and founding principles. It was even more challenging for them
to create learning activities that were based on the program‟s principles and at the same
time were aligned with the students‟ learning standards. The low implementing teachers
designed many of their activities based on their appeal with no reference to the standards.
Even if a few activities were designed successfully, they did not form an integrated
whole, and the message about the purpose of those activities and their real-life
applications were not communicated to the students.
On the other hand, the high implementing teachers constructed elaborate schema
of the project and refined their understanding as the result of constant feedback from the
program directors, the facilitator, and the successes of the activities with children. These
exemplary teachers were also able to give a very detailed description of how they
integrated the standards into their instruction.
Besides conceptual understanding, there were other relevant factors that played a
major role in the degree of program implementation. Teachers shared that additional
planning periods, clear and consistent feedback from program staff, financial incentives,
further support from the school system, financial compensation, and other forms of
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
20____________________________________________________________________________________

appreciation would have increased their motivation to implement the program to a greater
degree.

Suggestions for Future Program Implementation

The school‟s context is integral to promoting effective, locally situated

professional development. Time, resources, leadership, collaboration, focused goals, and
support structures are necessary to foster effective and sustained program implementation
(Killion, 1999). Based on the teacher interviews that revealed the cognitive and
motivational factors that helped or hindered implementation, the following
recommendations may prove to be instrumental in engaging teachers in improved
professional development and implementation of educational reform programs.

I. Scaffold teachers‟ comprehension of a given program.

a. Improve teachers‟ cognitive understanding of the essence and goals of the
new program and the means to achieve those goals. Clearly and repeatedly
state the purpose of the program and make program goals relevant and
motivating to teachers.
b. Discuss research evidence and theoretical principles that underpin the
program. Provide overview of central features of the project. Discuss with the
teachers how the components of the project fit together and how they are
long-term motivating factors.
c. Prepare a Teachers‟ Guide (Guthrie et al., 2004) that outlines major principles
of the program and gives suggested lessons and strategies for
instruction. Teachers can freely adapt these ideas and activities to their own
unique classrooms. Include resources with daily lessons designed to meet
instructional goals while integrating standards.
d. Allow for continued ongoing learning and on-the-job support, where you
emphasize the development and refinement of both declarative and procedural
knowledge (Anderson, 1983).
e. Provide opportunities for peer teaching and training. Ask each teacher to
generate and share examples of lessons from her own classroom. Have high
implementers peer coach. Teachers-in-training learn well from exemplary
teachers who present model lessons and accompanying student
work. Teachers can also watch videos of other teachers at the same grade level
who model lessons (Guthrie, 2004). Research has demonstrated that teachers
learn best from other teachers (Dede, 2006).
II. Provide continuing support in order to increase teachers‟ comprehension and
motivation.
a. Provide more consistent and constant support throughout the year that is more
closely related to a day-to-day tool to use in classroom. Point out what worked
and did not work in the past. Demonstrate activities that fit teachers‟ interest
and skills. Scaffold initial implementation of program components. Have
ideas for follow-up activities (in this case, activities for students following
visits to other microcomunities).
 AGNES CAVE AND MAURA MULLOY
____________________________________________________________________________________21

b. Model the use of each strategy for teachers and have them present their own
lessons to enable teachers with beginning understandings to practice planning
and implementing lessons that incorporate the major tenets and principles of
the program.
c. Design instructional environments around collaborative problem solving and
cooperative learning.
d. Make arrangements for teachers to have sufficient time for planning lessons
individually, on grade level, and across grades.
e. Explain what the specific expectations are for program implementation.
f. Clarify who is responsible for which task and what the deadlines are on a
calendar.
g. Provide adequate monitoring and specific and timely feedback. As with any
new program, teachers must receive ongoing and effective support to
understand, conceptualize, and carry out the program‟s goals. Give teachers
frequent feedback and coaching from program facilitators or investigators
throughout the duration of the program‟s implementation. A central principle
is constant monitoring of participants‟ understanding of practice in question in
order to realize issues that need to be addressed. Monitoring of understanding
can involve formal and informal assessment as well as informal means of
obtaining feedback (Dall‟Alba & Sandberg, 2006).
h. Design and share with teachers an evaluation form, degree of program
implementation instrument, or assessment guidelines that the project team
uses.
i. Create opportunities for critical reflection and exchange of ideas centering on
discovering or creating solutions and alternatives with others. Enhancing
one‟s understanding through guided reflective dialogues about practice and
gaining exposure to others‟ understandings and enactments of teaching are
central to refining knowledge (Ball & Cohen, 1999). Focused dialogue can
bring about such reflection (Dall‟Alba & Sandberg, 2006).
j. Provide structure. Create timelines for implementation with teachers and
schedule follow-up meetings with clearly set goals and activities to avoid
procrastination.
k. Hold regular teacher seminars to exchange successes and challenges, progress
and obstacles, ideas and techniques (Guthrie, 2004). Make sure the meetings
focus on exchanging ideas and do not turn into gripe sessions. Weekly or
biweekly meetings should be structured and focus on what goals were
achieved and what new goals can be planned.
l. Document teachers‟ and students‟ progress using various means, e.g.,
videotape lessons, performances, and community events.
m. If technology is involved, provide logistical support for set up and
maintenance and replace old equipment, such as headphones, computers,
software, and printers.
III. Build teachers‟ motivation to implement program to a high degree by emphasizing
intrinsically and extrinsically motivating factors.
a. Provide incentives, such as financial remuneration, not only supplies.
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
22____________________________________________________________________________________

b. Show teachers appreciation, recognition, and attention for their efforts.

c. Allow high implementing teachers to demonstrate their mastery by becoming
peer trainers, presenting at conferences, and/or being involved in publishing
efforts.

Conclusion

This study aimed at achieving a qualitative understanding of the cognitive and

motivational factors that either helped or hindered teachers‟ implementation of an early
childhood intervention program. Analysis of the findings revealed that teachers‟
conceptual understanding of the program played a major role in supporting their
implementation efforts. Teachers also shared that other relevant factors, such as support
from the school in the form of additional planning periods, financial incentives for
participation in the study, opportunities for public recognition (e.g., opportunities to
present, publish, or be mentors for other teachers), and consistent and supportive
feedback would have increased teachers‟ involvement in the program. This deeper
understanding of the cognitive and motivational issues that helped or hindered teachers‟
program implementation led to a set of recommendations to improve professional
development endeavors. These recommendations align with tenets outlined in cognitive
and motivational theories, and represent an important addition to the literature because
they draw upon teachers‟ own perspectives of the cognitive and motivational issues that
help or hinder professional development efforts.

References

Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (1998). The research base for APA's learner-centered
principles. In N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs (Eds.), Issues in school reform: A
sampler of psychological perspectives on learner-centered schools (pp. 25–60).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1984). Systems of student and teacher motivation: Toward a
qualitative definition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 536-556.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. J. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners:
Toward a practice-based theory of professional development. In L. Darling-
Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook
of policy and practice (pp. 3-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 91-215.
Benner, P. (1984). From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing
practice. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
 AGNES CAVE AND MAURA MULLOY
____________________________________________________________________________________23

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Foundations of qualitative research in education

(3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in
mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Education
Research Journal, 26(4), 473-498.
Butler, R. (2007). Teachers‟ achievement goal orientations and associations with
teachers‟ help seeking: Examination of a novel approach to teacher motivation.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 241–252. doi: 10.1037/0022-
0663.99.2.241
Carter, K., Sabers, D., Cushing, K., Pinnegar, S., & Berliner, D. C. (1987). Processing
and using information about students: A study of expert, novice, and postulant
teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(2), 147-157.
Cave, A., Yekovich, F. R., & Walker, C. (2010). The effect of a technology-rich
authentic learning environment on young urban learners‟ intentionality in writing.
i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology, 6(4), 21-46.
Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching
the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing,
learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco, CA: W. H.
Freeman.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and
school reform. New York, NY: Hold, Rinehart, & Winston.
Daley, B. (1999). Novice to expert: An exploration of how professionals learn. Adult
Education Quarterly, 49(4), 133-147.
Dall‟Alba, G., & Sandberg, J. (2006). Unveiling professional development: A critical
review of stage models. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 383-412.
Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing student achievement: A framework for school
improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination research.
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Dede, C. (Ed.). (2006). Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models
and methods. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Dreyfus, S. E., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human
intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York, NY: Free Press.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert
Shanker Institute.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59, 16-20.
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
24____________________________________________________________________________________

Goldsmith, L. T., & Schifter, D. (1997). Understanding teachers in transition:

Characteristics of a model for the development of mathematics teaching. In E.
Fennema & B. S. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 19–54).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H.,
Scafiddi, N. T., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and
engagement through Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96, 403–423.
Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A
new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes, (Eds.) Teaching as the
learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hoy, A. W. (2008). What motivates teachers? Important work on a complex question.
Learning and Instruction 18, 492-498.
InPraxis Group Inc. (2006). Effective professional development. What the research says.
Edmonton, AB: Alberta Education.
Jesus, S. (1995). Análise da motivação para a profissão docente segundo o modelo da
discrepância motivacional. Um estudo preliminar. [Analysis of motivation for the
teaching profession according to the motivational discrepancy model: Preliminary
study]. Revista Portuguesa de Educação, 8, 163–180.
Jesus, S. N., & Lens, W. (2005). An integrated model for the study of teacher motivation.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(1), 119-134.
Killion, J. (1999). What works in the middle: Results-based staff development. Oxford,
OH: National Staff Development Council.
Kocabas, I. (2009). The effects of sources of motivation on teachers' motivation levels.
Education, 129(4), 724-733.
Kohn, A. (1993). Punishment by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans,
A’s, praise and other bribes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Little, J. W. (1994). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of education
reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting
and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Van
Nostrand.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Ozcan, M. (1996, September). Improving teacher performance: Toward a theory of
teacher motivation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York.
 AGNES CAVE AND MAURA MULLOY
____________________________________________________________________________________25

Patel, V. L., & Groen, G. J. (1991). The general and specific nature of medical expertise:
A critical look. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of
expertise (pp. 93-125). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation
terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25,
92–104. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1017
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research and
applications (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write
genre-specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42, 8-45.
Reitzug, U. C. (2002). Professional development. In A. Molnar (Ed.), School reform
proposals: The research evidence (pp. 235-258). Greenwich. CT: Information
Age Publishing.
Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation
for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 761–774. doi: 10.1037/0022-
0663.99.4.761
Schifter, D., & Fosnot, C. T. (1993). Reconstructing mathematics education: Stories of
teachers meeting the challenges of reform. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Schmoker, M. (2004). Tipping point: From feckless reform to substantive instructional
improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(6), 424–432.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San
Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Shulman, L. S., & Shulman, J. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting
perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257–271.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: MacMillan.
Smith, C., & Gillespie, M. (2007). Research on professional development and teacher
change: Implications for adult basic education. Retrieved from
[Link]
Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful staff development for teachers and principals.
Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, (Eds. &
Trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walker, C., & Yekovich, F. R. (1999). TRALEs to writing. Educational Leadership,
57(2), 57-60.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York, NY:
Springer.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2002). The development of competence beliefs, expectancies
of success, and achievement values from childhood through adolescence. In A.
Wigfield & J. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 91-
120). San Diego,CA: Academic Press.
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
26____________________________________________________________________________________

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research, design and methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.