The Relationship Between Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, and Teachers' Perceptions of Principal's Leadership On Teacher Performance

The Relationship between Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, and Teachers’
Perceptions of Principal’s Leadership on Teacher Performance
Submitted by
Michael Sivertson
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctorate of Education
Grand Canyon University
Phoenix, Arizona
November 21, 2018

ProQuest Number: 10982611

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 10982611

Published by ProQuest LLC (2018 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© by Michael Sivertson, 2018
All rights reserved.

GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY
The Relationship between Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, and Teachers’
Perceptions of Principal’s Leadership on Teacher Performance
I verify that my dissertation represents original research, is not falsified or plagiarized,
and that I accurately reported, cited, and referenced all sources within this manuscript in
strict compliance with APA and Grand Canyon University (GCU) guidelines. I also
verify my dissertation complies with the approval(s) granted for this research
investigation by GCU Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Abstract
The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to measure the degree of
relationship between intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions
of principal’s leadership on teacher performance in a K-12 Southwestern U.S. public
school district from a sample of high performing teachers. The research questions in this
quantitative correlational study were founded in the theoretical framework of Self-
Determination Theory to measure the relationships between teachers’ intrinsic
motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of principal’s leadership on
teacher performance. It is not known if, and to what degree there is a relationship
between intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of
principal’s leadership on teacher performance. The target population for this study were
high performing teachers whose teaching performance was measured and evaluated as
high performing based on their annual teaching evaluation. Results of the data analysis
failed to reject the null hypotheses, as the correlation results generated were r(153) = .11
and p = .171, between intrinsic motivation and teacher performance, r(153) = -.06 and p
= .467, between extrinsic motivation and teacher performance, and r(153) = .02 and p =
.830, between teachers perceptions of principal leadership and teacher performance.
Although this study did not generate statistically significant correlations between the
associated variables independently, this study illuminates the uniqueness of motivation to
each individual high performing teacher, as well as demonstrates the absence of one
particular motivational factor, or recipe, that motivates high performing teachers.
Keywords: Teacher motivation, teacher performance, principal leadership,
intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation

vi
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my wife Heidi and my children Haley
and Casey. Your support over the past four years has been inspirational and unwavering
throughout the time I have been in the doctoral program. Thanks to all three of you for
your steadfast commitment to the time and energy required for me to complete this
academic milestone. I would also like to thank of my extended family and friends who
have been an additional and significant source of motivation and support. I appreciate all
the support I have received throughout this process from all of you. The love and support
I have received throughout this process from family and friends has been greatly felt,
appreciated, and necessary to complete this journey.

vii
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my chair, Dr. Ron Black, my content expert, Dr. Zach
Munoz, and my methodologist, Dr. Kerry Burner, for all of their support and guidance
throughout this process. Your commitment to my success has been tremendous and is
greatly appreciated. You have helped me learn so much as we have been constructing this
dissertation. I appreciate you all and the scholarship you have provided for me. I want to
acknowledge and thank my classmate, friend, and esteemed colleague, Jennifer Kazmar
for all of her support over the past four years, as we have been completing our doctoral
programs. I greatly appreciate all of the dialogue that we have had and am so thankful
that you were on the journey with me. You have always been there to answer my
questions, offer support, and have been instrumental in keeping me moving forward.
Your contributions to my completion of this program are significant, greatly appreciated,
and will never be forgotten. I would also like to thank my school district for all of their
support and encouragement. In particular, I would like to thank the wonderful people in
my department for the continuous support and encouragement.

viii
Table of Contents
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xiii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. xiv
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study....................................................................................1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................1
Background of the Study ...............................................................................................2
Problem Statement .........................................................................................................4
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................6
Research Questions ........................................................................................................7
Advancing Scientific Knowledge and Significance of the Study ................................10
Rationale for Methodology ..........................................................................................12
Nature of the Research Design for the Study...............................................................14
Definition of Terms......................................................................................................17
Assumptions, Limitations, Delimitations ....................................................................18
Summary and Organization of the Remainder of the Study ........................................19
Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................22
Introduction to the Chapter and Background to the Problem ......................................22
Libraries, databases, and search terms ...................................................................24
Identification of the Gap ..............................................................................................25
Theoretical Foundations and/or Conceptual Framework .............................................28
Review of the Literature ..............................................................................................32
Studies on teacher motivation and job performance ..............................................32
Teacher efficacy .....................................................................................................33
Teacher job satisfaction and performance .............................................................38

ix
Effect of extrinsic factors on teacher motivation ...................................................44
Teacher motivation and student motivation...........................................................50
Performance pay and incentives ............................................................................52
Influence of principal leadership on teacher motivation........................................55
Methodology ................................................................................................................63
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................65
Work Preference Survey ........................................................................................65
Leadership Behavior Survey ..................................................................................67
Teacher Evaluation Instrument ..............................................................................67
Summary ......................................................................................................................68
Chapter 3: Methodology ....................................................................................................71
Introduction ..................................................................................................................71
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................71
Research Questions and Hypotheses ...........................................................................72
Research Methodology ................................................................................................75
Research Design...........................................................................................................78
Population and Sample Selection.................................................................................80
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................82
Work Preference Survey ........................................................................................82
Leadership Behavior Survey ..................................................................................83
Teacher Evaluation Instrument ..............................................................................85
Validity ........................................................................................................................86
Reliability.....................................................................................................................88
Data Collection and Management ................................................................................90

x
Data Analysis Procedures ............................................................................................92
Data preparation and cleaning ...............................................................................93
Descriptive statistics ..............................................................................................94
Inferential statistics ................................................................................................95
Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................97
Limitations and Delimitations......................................................................................99
Summary ....................................................................................................................100
Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results ..............................................................................102
Introduction ................................................................................................................102
Descriptive Findings ..................................................................................................104
Data screening ......................................................................................................105
Meeting Pearson assumptions ..............................................................................105
Derivation of summated scales ............................................................................106
Reliability checks with Cronbach’s Alpha. ..........................................................106
Study Demographics and Descriptive Statistics for the Variables of Interest ...........107
Sample profile ......................................................................................................107
Descriptive statistics for the variables of interest ................................................108
District Teacher Evaluation System Instrument ..................................................108
Worker Preference Survey (Motivation) .............................................................110
Intrinsic motivation descriptive statistics.............................................................111
Extrinsic motivation descriptive statistics ...........................................................112
Leadership Behavior Survey ................................................................................116
Data Analysis Procedures ..........................................................................................117
Results ........................................................................................................................118
xi
Research Question 1 Results................................................................................118
Summary ....................................................................................................................122
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ............................................125
Introduction and Summary of Study ..........................................................................125
Summary of Findings and Conclusion.......................................................................127
Hypothesis 1.........................................................................................................128
Hypothesis 2.........................................................................................................129
Hypothesis 3.........................................................................................................130
Conclusion .................................................................................................................132
Implications................................................................................................................133
Theoretical implications.......................................................................................133
Practical implications ...........................................................................................134
Future implications ..............................................................................................136
Strengths and weaknesses of the study ................................................................137
Recommendations ......................................................................................................138
Recommendations for future research .................................................................138
Recommendations for future practice. .................................................................140
References ........................................................................................................................142
Appendix A. District Teacher Evaluation Instrument ....................................................156
Appendix B. G Power Data for the Study.......................................................................190
Appendix C. Copy of Instruments and Permissions Letters to Use the Instruments ......191
Appendix D. Danielson Framework Validity .................................................................197
Appendix E. Site Authorization Letter ...........................................................................198

xii
Appendix F. Introductory Letter of Research Study to Teachers ...................................199
Appendix G. Informed Consent ......................................................................................200
Appendix H. IRB Approval Letter..................................................................................202
Appendix I. Data Screening ............................................................................................203

xiii
List of Tables
Table 1. Teacher Demographics .................................................................................... 104
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Teacher Performance............................................... 109
Table 3. Reliability Statistics for Intrinsic Motivation .................................................. 111
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation Summated

Scales ............................................................................................................... 112
Table 5. Reliability Statistics for Extrinsic Motivation ................................................. 112
Table 6. Pearson Correlation Matrix of Extrinsic Motivation SS and Outward

Survey Items, N = 155 Participants ................................................................. 114
Table 7. Pearson Correlation Matrix of Extrinsic Motivation SS and Compensation

Survey Items, N = 155 Participants ................................................................. 115
Table 8. Reliability Statistics for Leadership ................................................................. 116
Table 9. Descriptive Statistics for Leadership Summated Scales .................................. 117
Table 10. Pearson Correlation Matrix of Associations between Teacher

Performance, Motivation and Leadership, N = 155 Teachers ........................ 119
xiv
List of Figures
Figure 1. Frequency distribution of teacher performance scores among

high-performing teachers. ............................................................................... 109
Figure 2. Scatter plot of the association between intrinsic motivation and teacher
performance. .................................................................................................... 120
Figure 3. Scatter plot of the association between extrinsic motivation and teacher
performance. .................................................................................................... 121
Figure 4. Scatter plot of the association between leadership and teacher

performance. .................................................................................................... 122
1
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Introduction
The objective of this quantitative, correlational study was to examine the
relationship of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of
principal leadership on teacher performance. Teacher contributions toward academic
achievement are essential to the generation of positive educational outcomes for students
and schools. The educational environment is significantly affected by the motivation of
teachers and its influence on teacher efficacy, job satisfaction, and teacher performance
(Wildman, 2015). Visser-Wijnveen, Stes, and Van Petegem (2012) recognized a
significant need to study the motivational factors of teachers and its effect on
performance, as it has been an understudied area in education. The educational
community will benefit from a greater understanding of the relationship between the
intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors that drive high performing teachers.
Hasan and Hynds (2014) acknowledged the need for further studies on teacher
motivation to determine what sustains effective teacher drive and enthusiasm, which will
subsequently enhance student achievement. Additional insights regarding teachers’
perceptions of principal’s leadership and its effect on teacher motivation will provide the
educational community with a greater understanding of the role of principal’s leadership
on teacher motivation. With a greater understanding of the motivating factors effecting
high performing teachers, hiring processes and staff development approaches can be
designed to identify and develop the requisite personnel and create environments that are
meaningful and motivating. Cerasoli, Nicklin, and Ford (2014) asserted that a further
understanding of motivational tendencies of high performing teachers will illuminate the

2
desirable intrinsic and extrinsic factors that must be present to perform at the highest
educational levels.
Chapter 1 includes the background of the study, the problem statement associated
with understanding of the factors that drive high performing teachers, and the purpose
statement. With a greater understanding of the factors that are present within the highest
performing group of teachers, environments can be created to promote motivation and
personnel may be best selected and trained to achieve educational goals. Chapter 1 also
includes an explanation of the significance of the study, the research methodology and
design, research questions, definitions of terms, as well as the assumptions, limitations,
and delimitations in the study. Chapter 1 concludes with a summary that summarizes the
chapter.
Background of the Study
Previous researchers have analyzed the various ways that teacher motivation
impacts the educational outcomes of student and school achievement. A continual
emphasis on academic achievement and established standards within K-12 education has
caused for a greater emphasis on awareness of the multiple factors that affect student
achievement. Howes and Goodman-Delahunty (2015) acknowledged the significance of
having quality teachers in attaining high levels of school and student achievement and
recognized the effect of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors, as they influence
teacher performance, retention, and attrition. As the importance of a motivated and
effective teacher manifest as a crucial component of student achievement, a deeper
understanding of teacher motivation and the motivating factors that propel them will
positively impact the academic performance of schools (Remijan, 2014). Wildman (2015)
3
recommended as an area of continual research, additional examinations of motivation and
performance determined through further qualitative and quantitative studies will generate
additional knowledge regarding teacher motivation, job satisfaction, and retention.
Irwandi (2014) suggested additional research should be conducted to garner
continuous views, insights, and knowledge of the motivation factors demonstrated by
high performing teachers. High performing teachers are evaluated and identified through
the use of the district evaluation system by demonstrating the requisite components of
professional practice that include: excellence in the areas of planning and preparation,
classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities, as described in
Appendix A.
Konig and Rothland (2012) recognized a paucity of research regarding the
motivational factors that drive high performing teachers and called for additional research
to ensure motivations of teachers are understood to ensure a stable and effective cadre of
teachers. Additionally, Cerasoli et al. (2014) encouraged future research regarding the
joint impact of incentives and intrinsic motivation and the potential antecedents and
mediators of their relationship. Howes and Goodman-Delahunty (2015) acknowledged
the influence of principal leadership on teacher motivation both intrinsically and
extrinsically. Teacher motivation is significantly influenced by principal leadership, as
principals are instrumental in shaping environmental conditions that will influence their
teachers’ extrinsic and intrinsic motivations in the school setting. Jerotich (2015)
recognized the effect of principal leadership on creating environments were teachers feel
extrinsically and intrinsically rewarded and continually develop their senses of autonomy,
relatedness, and competency. The continued study of the intrinsic and extrinsic
4
motivational factors that affect teacher motivation is essential to the recruitment,
retention, and development of teachers in the contemporary educational setting (Cerasoli
et al., 2014; Wildman, 2015). Mertler (2016) confirmed the current challenges faced
within the K-12 educational setting for principals to staff their schools with high
performing teachers, who remain motivated and satisfied with their jobs in their chosen
profession. The gap in this study is the paucity of research specifically related to issues
examining teacher motivation and understanding of the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations
affecting teachers’ levels of performance, job satisfaction, influence of leadership on
teacher performance, and retention in the profession of high performing teachers
(Mertler, 2016).
Problem Statement
It is not known if, and to what degree there is a relationship between intrinsic
teacher performance by high performing teachers. Wildman (2015) affirmed the necessity
of a motivated teacher to affect student and school achievement. Cerasoli et al. (2014)
acknowledged the unknown intrinsic and extrinsic factors that combine to effect teacher
motivation and impact academic performance in the contemporary educational setting.
The general population is high performing teachers from the state of Arizona who are
increasingly evaluated based on their students’ test scores and levels of performance as
compared to various state and national standards. The target population for this study was
a sample of high performing teachers in a K-12 Southwestern U.S. public school district
that have been designated as high performing through the evaluation process at their
schools. The unit of analysis is high performing teachers in a Southwestern U.S. public
5
school district. Mertler (2016) recognized the influence of motivation on teacher efficacy,
job satisfaction, and the cumulative impact of measurements and standards for student
achievement on the motivation of teachers. Sun and Leithwood (2012) acknowledged the
necessity of school principals being cognizant of the motivational factors that drive and
inspire their teachers, which will affect their levels of instruction and student
achievement.
Contemporary teachers are held accountable for comprehensive school grading
standards, as well as individual student achievement results, which aggregate to form a
significant extrinsic factor influencing their motivation. Mertler (2016) acknowledged the
cumulative effect of incessant testing and student achievement scoring as demotivating
elements on teacher’s motivation, jobs satisfaction, and retention. Coggins and
Diffenbaugh (2013) recognized the effects of external factors and pressures on teacher’s
levels of satisfaction and motivation through their professional experiences. Liu and
Onwuegbuzie (2014) confirmed the need for a perpetual attention toward teachers’
motivation, as they are impacted by intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors, and the
cumulative effects generated on their levels of motivation and job satisfaction throughout
their careers. This study provides an understanding of the prominent intrinsic and
extrinsic motivational factors that drive high performing teachers to levels of professional
competency, which can be utilized by school principals to facilitate the requisite factors,
environments, and human capital needed to positively affect student and school
achievement.
6
Purpose of the Study
school district of teachers that have been designated as high performing through the
evaluation process at their schools. High performing teachers are defined as those who
demonstrate excellence through their teacher evaluation system in the areas of planning
and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities. A
survey was conducted of the target population of high performing teachers. The predictor
variables examined in this study included intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation as
defined and measured by the Worker Preference Survey and teachers’ perceptions of
principal leadership, as defined and measured by the Leadership Behavior Survey. The
criterion variable in this study was teacher performance, as defined and measured by the
District Teacher Evaluation System Instrument. The results of this study will further the
understanding of teacher motivational tendencies and provide another sample from a
unique geographic area, which will contribute to the existing domestic and international
studies present in the literature. Cerasoli et al. (2014) recommended an examination of
the key intrinsic and extrinsic motivating factors that affect high performing teachers to
better understand and replicate the factors that promote success. The motivation of
teachers is important to the motivation of students and is a key contributor toward the
academic achievement of the individuals, as well as the schools (Sun & Leithwood,
2012). Further understanding of the motivating factors that drive high performing
teachers will create additional knowledge of what factors must be present for optimal
7
educational performance, which will positively contribute toward student and school
performance and achievement.
Research Questions
Previous research has demonstrated a need for a deeper understanding of the
motivational factors that propel teachers to the performance levels they are attaining.
Cerasoli et al. (2014) asserted the necessity of further examination of the intrinsic and
extrinsic motivational factors that drive top performing teachers and determine their
levels of performance. The research questions where developed to address the identified
gap in the research regarding the influence of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation,
and teachers’ perceptions of principal’s leadership on teacher performance. The predictor
variables in this study were intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation, as measured by
a four point Likert scale in the Worker Preference Survey and teachers’ perceptions of
principal leadership, as measured by a five point Likert scale in the Leadership Behavior
Survey. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations were measured on a four point
Likert scale via the 30 questions in the Work Preference Instrument that indicates how
true a statement is of teacher motivational tendencies. The scale is comprised of the
responses of N=never or almost never true of you, S=sometimes true of you, O=often
true of you, and A=always or almost always true of you. Mean scores were generated
through the respondents’ answers in the WPI of the 15 intrinsic and 15 extrinsic questions
and provided the requisite scale of measurement needed to answer RQ1 and RQ2 in this
study. Carifio and Perla (2007) confirmed the effectiveness of Likert scale responses in
the generation of interval data, which can be utilized in Pearson correlational analysis.
Intrinsic factors are defined as internal motivational elements that affect an individual’s
8
behavior and extrinsic factors are defined as motivational elements that influence an
individual externally.
Teachers’ perception of principal leadership was measured to illuminate principal
leadership proclivities and their influence on teacher performance, as well as elucidate
the desirable leadership attributes sought by high performing teachers of their principals.
Teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership were measured via the 48 questions in the
Leadership Behavior Survey using a five point Likert scale that indicates a respondents
closest description of principal leadership in the areas of human relations, trust/decision-
making, instructional leadership, conflict, and control. The scale is comprised of the
responses of A=never, B=seldom, C=sometimes, D=often, and E=always that generated a
mean score scale measurement of principal leadership perceptions needed to answer RQ3
in this study.
The criterion variable in this study was teacher performance, as measured by the
District Teacher Evaluation System Instrument. Teacher performance is defined by the
aggregate scores on the District Teacher Evaluation System Instrument, which measures
teacher performance on a four point Likert scale in the areas of professional practice
inclusive of planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and
professional responsibilities. The numeric value generated by the District Teacher
Evaluation System Instrument aggregated the four point Likert scale domain scores and
generates the quantitative numeric value that establishes the category of teachers
designated as high performing. The research questions and hypotheses in this study are
founded in Self-Determination Theory, which illuminates a person’s innate motivations
for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Pearson correlational
9
analysis was used to measure levels of relationship between the predictor variables and
the criterion variable. A linear correlation value was generated via Pearson analysis
between each predictor variable and the criterion variable, producing a value between +1
and -1, which was used to test the research hypotheses. An electronic Survey Monkey
questionnaire was sent to the target population of high performing teachers, which
produced the sample for this study. Ordinal data were generated via the Likert scale
responses from the survey instruments, which generated the numeric quantitative data
required to address the research questions and test the hypotheses in the study.
Categorical-ordinal data were generated by calculating the means of the respondents’
Likert scale responses, which created an aggregate numerical value score used to test the
hypotheses.
The following questions and hypotheses provided the basis of the research for this
study:
RQ1: Is there a relationship between intrinsic motivation and teacher performance by
high performing K-12 teachers?
Ho1: There is no significant correlation between intrinsic motivation and teacher
performance by high performing K-12 teachers.
H1a: There is a significant correlation between intrinsic motivation and teacher
RQ2: Is there a relationship between extrinsic motivation and teacher performance by
Ho2: There is no significant correlation between extrinsic motivation and teacher

10
H2a: There is a significant correlation between extrinsic motivation and teacher
RQ3: Is there a relationship between perceptions of a principal’s leadership and
teacher performance by high performing K-12 teachers?
Ho3: There is no significant correlation between perceptions of a principal’s
leadership and teacher performance by high performing K-12 teachers.
H3a: There is a significant correlation between perceptions of a principal’s leadership
and teacher performance by high performing K-12 teachers.
Advancing Scientific Knowledge and Significance of the Study
The study was designed to further enhance and build off of previous research
surrounding the motivating factors that affect teachers. With a better understanding of the
intrinsic and extrinsic factors that affect teachers’ motivation, school principals will be
able to effectively advance the motivation of their teachers, which will lead to a greater
efficacy, job satisfaction, recruitment, retention, and performance. Wildman (2015)
acknowledged the need for further study of teacher motivation to determine effective
strategies to promote efficacy, performance, and job satisfaction. Visser-Wijnveen et al.
(2012) advocated for further research to garner a better understanding of the motivational
factors of teachers and the effect of motivational proclivities on the teacher’s
performance. Konig and Rothland (2012) called for a deeper understanding of
motivations of teachers to better identify, develop, retain, and equip the future teachers
coming into the profession.
Self-Determination Theory by Ryan and Deci (2000) was the theoretical
framework utilized by the researcher to examine the intrinsic and extrinsic motivational
11
factors that affect practicing teachers. Gillet, Vallerand, Lafreniere, and Bureau (2013)
endorsed the use of Self-Determination theory as an effective framework to examine how
extrinsic factors influence the core intrinsic values of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness. Rocchi, Pelletier, and Couture (2013) recommended the use of Self-
Determination Theory to create explanations of human behavior and engagement. Van
den Berghe et al. (2014) recognized the advantages of utilizing SDT as a motivational
theory because of the inherent psychological needs each individual possesses regarding
the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Self-Determination Theory provides
an effective framework to answer the research questions in this study pertaining to the
motivational tendencies of teachers and the effect of principal leadership on their
teaching performance. Butler (2012) confirmed the effectiveness of SDT in interpersonal
endeavors such as teaching, where the intrinsic factors are sources of motivation and the
internalization of extrinsic factors is also accounted for in human motivation and
behavior.
Remijan (2014) recognized the necessity of motivated teachers in the classrooms
of our schools and affirmed their influence on developing motivated students capable of
attaining the requisite academic standards and the highest levels of student achievement.
High performing teachers are required to maintain the highest levels of school and
student achievement, as well as provide the requisite capacities for change. With an
extensive understanding of what intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors combine to
effect teacher performance, the field of education can be significantly influenced via the
generation of the requisite factors and conditions needed to optimize teacher performance
(Cerasoli et al., 2014). Ryan and Deci’s (2000) Self-Determination Theory (SDT) will
12
provide the framework for this study, which will contribute to a deeper understanding of
the key combinations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors of high performing
teachers and further contribute to the existing body of knowledge surrounding teacher
motivation.
The educational community will benefit from a greater understanding of what
motivates their top educational performers and can institute strategies to identify the high
performers and replicate the environments needed to motivate their educators. Li, Wang,
You, and Gao (2015) endorsed the use of SDT as a means to identify the extant intrinsic
and extrinsic factors that affect teachers in order to stave off the problems associated with
demotivation, retention, job satisfaction, and efficacy. Gillet et al. (2013) advocated for a
continuous focus on teacher motivation via SDT practices to maintain the highest levels
of motivation, job satisfaction, and job performance. Motivation of teachers must be at
the forefront of educational institutions and their leaders as they strive to build and retain
a cadre of effective educators (Rocchi et al., 2013). Teachers that are highly motivated
impact student and school achievement results and will positively contribute toward
academic performance (Wildman, 2015). With a deeper understanding of the interplay
between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, educational leaders can maximize the effect
through self-determination approaches and maximize the stimuluses that affect teacher
performance, which will lead to positive advancements in the field of education.
Rationale for Methodology
This study utilized a quantitative methodology to measure the levels of
relationship between intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teacher’s perceptions
of principal’s leadership on teacher performance. A significant portion of the existing

13
literature is represented by quantitative approaches, where researchers have identified and
examined the motivational tendencies of teachers. Walker (2005) acknowledged the
effectiveness of quantitative methodologies to quantify and measure the relationships
between multiple variables. Data were generated from the research instruments which
produced a quantifiable numeric value that measured the relationship of the predictor
variables of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teacher’s perceptions of
principal’s leadership with the criterion variable of teacher performance. The numeric
value produced by a quantitative methodology is essential to measure the relationship
between the predictor variables and the criterion variable in this study. Quantitative
approaches of teacher motivational tendencies provides a broad representation of multiple
variables that further elucidates the combinations of motivational factors, which can be
gleaned from large sample groups (Cerasoli et al., 2014; Mertler, 2016).
Quantitative methods were used in this study to identify a broad composition of
intrinsic variables, extrinsic variables, and teachers’ perceptions of principal’s leadership
that illuminated the diverse groupings of factors that influence teacher motivation and
subsequent performance from a broad sample. This study sought to measure the
relationship of teacher performance exhibited by high performance teachers, as they are
influenced by intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of
principal’s leadership. The numeric values created via a quantitative method illuminated
the key factors that drive high performing teachers and provided data to elucidate the
surrounding context that promotes high performance in teaching and learning. Li et al.
(2015) utilized a quantitative methodology to measure the levels of teacher motivation,
values congruence, and levels of work engagement of professional educators. Muijs

14
(2010) endorsed the use of a quantitative methodology to measure the correlation
between multiple predictor variables and quantify their strength of relationship with the
criterion variable. Quantitative methods allow researchers to test their hypothesis and
prove or disprove their significance via the quantification of the variables present in the
of their research questions (Muijs, 2010). Quantitative methodology was required for this
study to garner numeric values from which to measure the relationship between the
variables in the research questions and hypotheses.
Nature of the Research Design for the Study
A quantitative correlational design was used to study teacher motivation. A
correlational design was used to examine and measure multiple predictor variables and
their relationships with the criterion variable. Adhi, Hardienata, and Sunaryo (2013)
utilized a correlational design to examine multiple predictor variables of organizational
culture, transformational leadership, and work motivation, as they affect the criterion
variable of teacher performance. Correlational analysis was used to answer the research
questions, which were needed to measure the predictor variables of intrinsic motivation,
extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of principal’s leadership with the criterion
variable of teacher performance, to measure the relationships between the variables. A
correlational research design was chosen over other quantitative and qualitative designs
because of the necessity to quantify and generate a numeric value of the relationship
between multiple variables, which allowed for the research questions to be analyzed and
answered. Both quasi-experimental and causal-comparative designs were not chosen as
each does not fit the sampling and variable analysis that correlational analysis provides to
the design structure, which seeks to measure relationships and not effect. A descriptive
15
design was not chosen as it does not test for relationships between variables. An
experimental design was not chosen as this study seeks to test relationships and is not
controlling for experimental groups or manipulating the predictor variables. A target
population of K-12 teachers in a Southwestern U.S. public school district who have been
evaluated as high performing via their performance evaluations was selected and
provided the survey sample for this study.
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation variables were identified within the sample via
the Work Preference Inventory, which has been endorsed by Amabile, Hill, Hennessy,
and Tighe (1994) as an effective measurement of motivational tendencies. Jugovic,
Marusic, Ivanec, and Vidovic (2012) advocated for the use of a quantitative methodology
and correlational design as an effective means of measuring intrinsic and extrinsic
motivating factors of teachers. The teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership and its
influence on teacher motivation was measured via the use of the Leadership Behavior
Survey by Bulach, Boothe, and Picket (2006). Onjoro, Arogo, and Embeywa (2015)
utilized quantitative methods that measured variables of teachers’ perceptions of leaders
and the subsequent impact of those perceptions on the teachers levels of motivation. Data
were collected via the survey instruments that produced a quantified numeric value,
identifying the level and significance of relationship between the predictor variables and
the criterion variable. Correlational measurements of the relationship between teachers’
perceptions of leaders and their influence on teacher motivation allowed for a
measurement of a large amount of predictor variables and determine the levels of
significance of multiple factors. The teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership
characteristics of human relationship, trust/decision making, instructional leadership,

16
conflict, and control was gleaned from the LBS survey data to determine the relationship
between teacher motivation and perceptions of principal’s leadership.
The target population for this study consisted of teachers who had been measured
and evaluated as high performing on their annual teaching evaluation. The sample for this
study was 1342 teachers that have been identified as high performing by the district’s
teacher evaluation instrument in a Southwestern U.S. public school district. A minimum
sample of 84 is required for significance at a power rate of .80, alpha of .05, and
correlational effect of .30 on a two tailed test according to G Power data analysis
(Appendix B). Data were collected through two survey instruments via an electronic
Survey Monkey questionnaire that was sent to the target population of high performing
teachers. The two instruments utilized in this study are the Worker Preference Survey by
(Amabile et al., 1994), which measured intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and the
Leadership Behavior Survey by (Bulach et al., 2006), which measured teachers’
perceptions of principal’s leadership. Teacher performance was defined by the district
teacher evaluation instrument, which provided the sample of high performing teachers
who were the units of observation in this study. High performing teachers are selected
based on the summative scores collected from the district evaluation instrument from the
performance domains, student learning objectives, self-assessments and reflections,
professional expectations, and classroom data. The quantified number generated from the
performance evaluations rubric places the teachers into the overarching categories
between 1.0 and 4.0. High performing teacher inherent to this study are the teachers
whose cumulate performance scores were between 3.5 and 4.0. The data collected were
17
used to examine the relationships between the predictor variables and the criterion
variable and answer the research questions in this study.
A quantitative correlational design was selected for this study as it provided the
essential level of structure and analysis needed to produce a numeric quantifiable value
that measures the level and significance of the relationships between the predictor
variables and the criterion variable. Correlational analysis provided the requisite levels of
analysis to answer the research questions and address the purpose of the study, which is
to measure the degree of relationship between the intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of principal’s leadership on teacher performance in
a K-12 Southwestern U.S. public school district that have been designated as high
performing through the evaluation process at their schools.
Definition of Terms
The following is an overview of the terms as defined in this study.
Autonomy. An individual’s feeling of control and development of their actions
own ability to act and react in their environments (Van den Berghe et al., 2014).
Competency. An individual’s feeling of efficacy to perform their responsibilities
(Van den Berghe et al., 2014).
Extrinsic motivation. The manifested behavior or action is derived from an
external source (Cerasoli et al., 2014).
High performing teachers. Teachers who have scored at the top level of
performance on their teacher evaluations as reviewed by site administration.
Intrinsic motivation. The manifested behavior or action is derived from an
internal source (Cerasoli et al., 2014).

18
Job satisfaction. An individual’s sense of enjoyment for their occupation (Konig
& Rothland, 2012).
Motivation. The behavioral incentive to engage in an action or activity (Balyer &
Ozcan, 2014).
Principal leadership. Characteristics and behaviors demonstrated by principals in
school settings of high performing teachers (Radinger, 2014).
Relatedness. An individual’s feeling of connection and engagement with others
(Van den Berghe et al., 2014).
Teacher. An educator who is able to teach according to the certification standards
applicable to their local setting and circumstance and the state of Arizona for grades K-12
(Mertler, 2016).
Teacher efficacy. A teacher’s sense of competency and ability to effectively
perform their responsibilities (Firestone, 2014).
Teacher performance. The outcome of the assessment and evaluation processes
of a teachers’ delivery of instruction, student achievement results, and overall job
requirements (Mertler, 2016).
Assumptions, Limitations, Delimitations
Assumptions are parts of a study that are out of a researchers’ control but
necessary to keep the study relevant (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). There are two
assumptions in this study. The first assumption was that teachers accurately self-report
their motivational tendencies as asked by the Worker Preference Inventory (Amabile et
al., 1994) and principal leadership perceptions in the Leadership Behavior Survey
(Bulach et al., 2006). The second assumption was that teachers who were identified as
19
high performing for the sample had been adequately reviewed by their administrators and
reliability of ratings were accurate.
Limitations are potential weaknesses in a research study that are out of a
researcher’s control (Muijs, 2010). There are two limitations in this study. The first
limitation to this study are that norms and demographics of the participants may not be
generalizable to other populations. The second limitation was perceptions of the study of
K-12 public school teachers may be limited based on current K-12 school perspectives.
Delimitations are aspects of a study that are in a researcher’s control and are the
distinctive points that define and limit the boundaries of a study (Johnson & Christensen,
2014). There are three delimitations in this study. The first delimitation in this study was
only one geographic area that is inclusive of a particular set of inherent demographic
factors unique to the area were used in this study. The second delimitation was the use of
cross-sectional data of teacher motivation factors that may be subject to change overtime.
The third delimitation in this study was the sample of only high performing teachers,
which limits generalizations to other teacher populations.
Summary and Organization of the Remainder of the Study
The continued focus on student and school achievement standards continues to
influence the motivational factors that affect teachers. Mertler (2016) acknowledged the
influence of intrinsic factors effecting teacher motivation, jobs satisfaction, and retention
and advocated for a continued examination of these modern educational realities.
Cerasoli et al. (2014) called for an increased focus on identifying the key intrinsic and
extrinsic motivational factors and combination of factors that drive high performing
teachers. Onjoro et al. (2015) recognized the intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors
20
impacting teachers and endorsed plans to continue to address and potentially mitigate the
detrimental effects that impacts teachers and positively affects teacher recruitment,
retention, training, and turnover.
Chapter 1 included a background of the problem and the gaps in research
surrounding teacher motivation and the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation, and teacher’s perceptions of principal’s leadership. Chapter 1 outlines the
study and describes the constructs utilized to frame the study and integrate it into the
extant research that has been conducted surrounding teacher motivation. Further
examinations of teacher motivation may provide the educational community with a
deeper understanding of the significant intrinsic and extrinsic factors that affect their
teachers (Cerasoli et al., 2014).
Chapter 2 included a review of the literature surrounding teacher motivation, job
satisfaction, and job performance from a variety of sources. Chapter 2 also includes a
review of recent research and scholarly works of the key themes present in the literature
within the past five years. Themes that are pronounced throughout the literature
surrounding teacher motivation include teacher efficacy, teacher job satisfaction and
performance, extrinsic factors effect on teacher motivation, teacher motivation and its
effect on student motivation, performance pay and incentives, and the influence of
principal leadership on teacher motivation. The themes present in the review of literature
are aligned with and affiliated with the research questions and problem statement that
serve as the foundation of this study.
Chapter 3 includes how the research, results, and analysis were accrued from the
sample in this proposed study. A quantitative methodology with a correlational design

21
was utilized to gather data from the sample group in order to test the hypothesis of effects
of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of principal’s
leadership on teacher performance, as demonstrated by high performing teachers.
Descriptive and correlational analysis data were generated from the survey data to answer
the research questions and test the hypothesis established in the study. Results and
recommendations for further research were articulated to contribute toward the
accumulation of knowledge surrounding the motivation of teachers and display further
opportunities to advance knowledge in the field of education. The anticipated timeline for
the dissemination and return of the high performing teacher survey took two to three
weeks. The survey results were analyzed using SPSS to develop Chapter 4 and took
approximately two weeks to complete. Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 were written in the
following three to four weeks. The anticipated timeline for the overall review and
approval of the dissertation was seven to nine weeks to meet all institutional
requirements. The anticipated completion date for the research and dissertation is August
of 2018.
22
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction to the Chapter and Background to the Problem
of principal’s leadership on teacher performance. Chapter 2 provided a review of the
prominent themes surrounding teacher motivation and teachers perceptions of leadership
demonstrated by principals of high performing teachers. A review of the theoretical
framework and its association with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is additionally
presented in this chapter. Prominent themes have been gleaned from the resent literature
including teacher motivation and job performance, teacher efficacy, teacher job
satisfaction and job performance, effects of external factors on teacher motivation,
teacher motivation and student motivation, performance pay and incentives, and
influence of principal leadership on teacher motivation.
Gun (2014) recognized the multiple dimensions and complexities inherent to
teaching and advocated for continuous practices of assessment, evaluation, and
professional develop to engage and grow teachers. Coggins and Diffenbaugh (2013)
acknowledged the necessity of possessing motivated teachers to affect their levels of
performance, retention, efficacy, and job satisfaction. Mintrop and Ordenes (2017)
confirmed the need for the presence of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to engage
teachers effectively. The motivation of teachers is a significant influencer of the
motivation of the students and must be an omnipresent force within the school system
(Konig & Rothland, 2012). Hasan and Hynds (2014) asserted the unknown elements of
23
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in practicing teachers and called for a deeper
examination of the motivational factors that affect high performing teachers.
This literature review is founded in Self-Determination Theory (SDT) by Ryan
and Deci (2000). The theoretical lens of SDT examines the motivation of individuals both
intrinsically and extrinsically, with a focus on internal motivational needs of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness (Van den Berghe et al., 2014). Teachers are motivated by
varying internal and external factors, which can change over the course of their careers
(Balyer & Ozcan, 2014). Educational institutions need to comprehensively understand the
motivating factors that drive their teacher and work to provide the requisite supports
essential to maximize their motivational proclivities, which results in high performance
environments and results (Gillet et al., 2013). As a deeper understanding of the intrinsic
and extrinsic manifests, educational institutions are able to maximize their growth and
development within their faculties via a continuous focus on engaging and promoting the
requisite factors that positively affect teachers (Leibowitz, van Schalkwyk, Ruiters,
Farmer, & Adendorff, 2012). Coggins and Diffenbaugh (2013) confirmed the rapid
attrition of teachers leaving the profession, where close to 50% of the teachers leave the
profession within the first three to five years. The continuous churn of teachers effects the
quality of education being delivered in schools and must be addressed to curtail the rapid
turnover of high performing teachers (Coggins & Diffenbaugh, 2013).
Teacher shortages and rapid turnover have illuminated the need for a deeper
examination of the causes of this pervasive problem, which has become more pronounced
on the world stage. Jugovic et al. (2012) called for additional studies to develop further
understanding of teacher motivation, as it effects recruitment, attrition, retention, and

24
going shortages. Educational institutions exist for teaching and learning, which
necessitates a perpetual focus on the cadre of teachers that make up a school (Jugovic et
al., 2012). Hardre and Hennessy (2013) confirmed the significance of teacher motivation
as it influences schools by driving performance, as well as its reciprocal effect of
motivating students. Gillet et al. (2013) recognized the necessity of a greater emphasis on
teacher motivation by focusing on promoting self-determination elements that bolster a
teacher’s intrinsic sense of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Rocchi et al. (2013)
acknowledged the influence of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors on teacher motivation
and called for a continual emphasis on their perpetuation and development.
Libraries, databases, and search terms. Grand Canyon University and its
available library resources were used to research and acquire the information for this
study via its multiple platforms of journal data bases. ProQuest, Google Scholar, and
EBSCO were utilized to glean information for the topic. Word searches of teacher
motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, high performing teachers, job satisfaction,
teacher efficacy, self-determination theory, and leadership motivation where used in the
researching processes of obtaining pertinent articles and references. This chapter
described the theoretical foundation for this study, examined previous research on teacher
motivation and job performance, teacher efficacy, teacher job satisfaction and
performance, effects of external factors on teacher motivation, teacher motivation and
student motivation, performance pay and incentives, influence of leadership on teacher
motivation, as well as methodology, instrumentation, and chapter summary.

25
Identification of the Gap
High performing and motivated teachers are essential to the academic vitality and
substantive development of students as they progress through their school systems.
Remijan (2014) recognized the necessity of a competent, motivated, and high performing
teacher to facilitate learning, where both the teachers and the students are motivated and
engaged. Cerasoli et al. (2014) acknowledged the need for a deeper and continuous
examination of the effect of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on teachers as they execute
their educational responsibilities. Student achievement and performance is affected by the
motivation of the teachers, as the interplay between teacher motivation and student
motivation is connected to the ultimate performance of both groups (Jerotich, 2015).
Irwandi (2014) endorsed the need for the continual study of teacher motivation as an
essential strategy to promote student learning and academic achievement, increase
teacher moral, job satisfaction, and retention in the profession. Wildman (2015) identified
a need for a continuous study of teacher motivation, job satisfaction, and teacher
retention to illuminate the requisite conditions needed for academic success. A motivated
and high performing teacher is crucial to the success of the students in their classrooms.
Konig and Rothland (2012) acknowledged a shortage of information regarding intrinsic
and extrinsic motivational factors of teachers and recommended further research to
identify the intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors that bring them to the profession,
retain them in the profession, or drive them out of the profession.
As demands on student and school achievement continue to be raised, it is
incumbent on schools, and school principals, to maintain a cadre of high performing
teachers to attain the expected levels of academic success. Konig and Rothland (2012)
26
asserted the necessity of having highly motivated teachers who are motivated to be
successful both intrinsically and extrinsically. Irwandi (2014) recognized a dearth of
research regarding the motivation of teachers and recommended further research to
identify the motivational proclivities of high performing teachers to further understand
what drives the top performers. With a greater understanding of the precipitating and
extant factors that drive teachers to the highest levels of performance, schools can be
staffed with motivated teachers and environments can be created that perpetuate the
factors that inspire and motivate high performing teachers. Jerotich (2015) acknowledged
the connection between motivated teachers and their positive impact on student
motivation and academic achievement. School environments that are generated to
promote teacher motivation are a responsibility of school principals and must be a
continual focus to inspire teachers via intrinsic and extrinsic means. Sun and Leithwood
(2012) recognized the need for further study on how school principals must be adept at
inspiring and motivating the teachers at their schools.
Prompts for additional research and understanding of teacher motivation are
ubiquitous in the recent literature, as the educational community has been impacted by
high levels of attrition on a multinational level. Howes and Goodman-Delahunty (2015)
affirmed the necessity of maintaining positive motivation among teachers, as the costs
associated with recent high turnover rates attributed to demotivated teachers, has become
a global problem. Wildman (2015) recognized the importance of further research on
teacher motivation as an essential strategy to address reasons for demotivation, loss of job
satisfaction, and retention of teachers in the profession. Konig and Rothland (2012)
acknowledged the need for additional studies of teacher motivation to address the high
27
levels of teacher turnover and shortages in many geographic areas throughout the world.
Additional studies of teacher motivation will further identify the salient variables that are
manifested throughout the careers of teachers and illuminate the intrinsic and extrinsic
factors that promote retention and longevity, and provide strategies to counteract the
recent shortages (Konig & Rothland, 2012).
Mertler (2016) confirmed the current challenges faced within the K-12
educational setting for principals to staff their schools with high performing teachers,
who remain motivated and satisfied with their jobs in their chosen profession. As teachers
become dissatisfied and demotivated by the factors that affect them as teachers, the
attrition and retention rates of teachers rises and effects the educational delivery and
environment of the students. Coggins and Diffenbaugh (2013) conferred the need for a
concerted focus on developing and further researching the requisite factors that retain
teachers in the profession, increase their motivation, and bolster their ability to be high
performing. Jerotich (2015) posited that motivated teachers perform better in all
educational aspects and challenged school leaders to focus on the motivational
requirements of their teachers, while remaining diligent in their essential responsibility to
create the overarching environments that extrinsically and intrinsically motivate their
teachers. Mertler (2016) affirmed the paucity of research regarding teacher motivation
and acknowledged the necessity of a deeper understanding of the intrinsic and extrinsic
factors affecting teachers, to further elucidate their levels performance, job satisfaction,
influence of leadership on motivation, and retention in the profession.

28
Theoretical Foundations and/or Conceptual Framework
Self-Determination Theory was utilized as the theoretical framework to study the
effect of motivation on teacher performance and the effect of perceptions of principal
leadership on teacher motivation. The variables in this study examined the predictor
variables of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of
principal’s leadership on the criterion variable of teacher performance. Li et al. (2015)
acknowledged the effectiveness of self-determination theory as a framework to examine
the levels and types of motivation demonstrated by teachers. The key intrinsic and
extrinsic factors and combinations of factors that drive teacher motivation are unknown
and when known will provide a greater understanding of what makes effective teachers
perform. Reiss (2012) advocated for SDT as effective form of analysis to identify and
measure the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that are present in human behavior and
subsequently aggregate together to affect motivational tendencies. Ryan and Deci’s
(2000) Self-Determination Theory provided a foundational analysis that examined the
effect of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors and their influence on human
behavior. SDT theoretical framework illuminates the influence of autonomous and
controlled motivation of individuals via intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, as they pursue
the inherent need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Yousaf, Yang, and Sanders (2015) confirmed the existence of intrinsic, as well as
extrinsic factors that influence professionals and acknowledged the individual differences
that are present from one individual to the next. Intrinsic motivations are driven by and
defined by the internal drive to attain or achieve. Extrinsic motivations are externally
driven and affect the motivations of an individual’s behavior or actions from outside
29
factors. The effect of principal’s leadership influences the culture and climate of the
educational environment, which in turn can effect teachers’ motivation both intrinsically
and extrinsically and contribute to their sense of job satisfaction (Chen, Ployhart,
Thomas, Anderson, & Bliese, 2011). Van den Berg, Bakker, and Ten Cate (2013)
confirmed the effectiveness of SDT approaches based on their understanding of the
inherent psychological desire to satisfy basic needs. Organizations must be cognizant of
the psychological needs of their members to effectively promote and provide the proper
motivational factors that generate motivation, job satisfaction, and worker performance
(Van den Berg et al., 2013; Han & Yin, 2016). Li et al. (2015) advocated for SDT as a
framework to determine the effect of controlled and autonomous motivation, as teachers
are influenced by intrinsic loci and extrinsic factors. SDT analyzes the effect of extrinsic
factors as they are experienced by the teacher and further examines how those
experiences are internalized and subsequently effect their intrinsic senses of autonomy,
relatedness, and competence (Li et al., 2015). SDT provides the requisite framework to
examine and illuminate the predictor variables in this study of intrinsic motivation,
extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of principal’s leadership on the criterion
variable of teacher performance, as the culminating influence of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation affect individual teachers and their subsequent feelings of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness.
Butler (2012) recognized the dynamic settings teachers operate in their respective
environments, as well as the individual differences that are present from one teacher to
another. Yousaf et al. (2015) recommended the use of SDT to create understanding of
how each individual is motivated, as well as the differences of motivational affect over
30
the course of time. Teacher’s motivation fluctuates on a continuum from autonomous,
which is significantly intrinsic, to controlled, which is primarily extrinsic (Yousaf et al.,
2015). Butler (2012) valued SDT and its ability to examine levels of motivational
influence, where environments and stimuli can be implemented to promote the growth of
autonomous motivation within teachers. Toussi and Ghanizadeh (2012) acknowledged
the effectiveness of intrinsically motivated teachers and encouraged the proliferation of
extrinsic factors that will enhance teacher’s feelings of autonomy and internal control.
Teachers who demonstrate autonomous motivation feel empowered and in control of
their settings and outcomes and are operating on their own volition (Wyatt, 2013). Ryan
and Deci (2000) confirmed the fundamental need for autonomy, competence, and
relatedness as individuals are motivated through autonomous and controlled motivation.
SDT is essential to the illumination and measurement of the variables for this study on
teacher motivation, as it affects their senses of intrinsic value, job satisfaction,
effectiveness, and retention in the profession.
Leibowitz et al. (2012) endorsed SDT and its ability to utilize reflective practices
and its contributions toward the perpetuation of intrinsic affirmations of teachers. SDT
promotes the growth of competence and efficacy, as well as the manifestation of
relatedness produced within an educational culture and community reflective of
collaboration, cooperation, and connectivity (Leibowitz et al., 2012). Kim and Cho
(2014) confirmed the effectiveness of SDT and endorsed its ability to promote and
measure competency, which is connected to teachers perceptions of self-efficacy. SDT
concepts advocate for environmental settings where efficacy and competence is bolstered
through continuous growth and development, where teacher feel there are continually
31
developing and are capable of performing their responsibilities at the highest levels (Van
den Berghe et al., 2014). Wilkesmann and Schmid (2014) endorsed the utilization of SDT
as a framework to examine the intrinsic sense of relatedness felt by teachers, which is a
key part of their intrinsic need for levels of connectedness and relatedness with their
surrounding environments and educational community. Feelings of job satisfaction,
motivational influences, as well as principal leadership’s effect on culture and climate,
coalesce to create the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations of high performing teachers
examined in this study.
Van den Berghe et al. (2014) affirmed the need for an understanding of intrinsic
motivations of teachers via SDT to generate the requisite motivational factors that
promote their levels of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which positively
contribute toward student motivation and achievement. Self-Determination Theory
examines the motivational factors that propel individuals and provides an effective
framework for this study on teacher motivation, as the inherent human desires described
by Ryan and Deci (2000) of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are sought by
teachers. SDT provides the requisite framework to examine the motivational variables of
teachers’ intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and perceptions of principal’s
leadership, as they effect teacher performance of the high performing teachers in this
study. RQ1 and RQ2 are supported within the framework of SDT, as both questions seek
to examine the relationship between intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and high
performance in teaching by high performing K-12 teachers. The theoretical foundation of
SDT creates the necessary framework and provides the requisite lens to look at high
performing teachers’ inherent desire for autonomy, competence, and relatedness as they
32
are affected by intrinsic and extrinsic factors, which are articulated in the examination of
relationships in RQ1 and RQ2. RQ3 is additionally supported within the framework of
SDT as the question seeks to examine the relationship of teachers’ perceptions of
principal leadership and teacher performance by high performing K-12 teachers.
Perceptions of principal leadership has been recognized as an intrinsic and extrinsic
motivator and contributes to a teachers feelings of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness (Van den Berg et al., 2013). The relationship of teachers’ perceptions of
principal’s leadership were measured in RQ3 to determine the relationship of teachers’
perceptions of principal leadership and teacher performance by high performing K-12
teachers. As a support to SDT utilized for this study, Charlotte Danielson’s framework of
teaching served as the overarching framework that the district evaluation instrument is
founded in to identify high performing teachers. Sartain, Stoelinga, and Brown (2011)
recognized the Danielson Framework as a valid and reliable measurement of teacher
performance. The district evaluation instrument and the computed results from the
previous year’s teacher evaluations provided the means to identify the high performing
teachers in this study and serves as a secondary resource.
Review of the Literature
Studies on teacher motivation and job performance. The examination of the
literature illuminated the prominent themes throughout previous studies regarding the
motivating factors that affect teacher’s motivation, efficacy, job satisfaction, and
performance. Yousaf et al. (2015) acknowledged the connections present between teacher
motivation and their subsequent job performance. There is a cumulative effect of internal
and external factors that drives the motivation of teachers (Hasan & Hynds, 2014; Asgari,
33
Rad, & Chinaveh, 2017). Rai and Srivastava (2013) recognized the contributions of both
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation regarding teachers and recommended that both areas be
addressed to maximize the effectiveness of the teacher. Firestone (2014) confirmed the
necessity of an effective teacher in the classroom, as quality teachers are the ones who
enhance student learning and drive school performance. Both intrinsic and extrinsic
factors influence the performance of the teacher and must be a continual focus within the
educational environment (Firestone, 2014). In an effort to continually develop their
teachers, school principals must be cognizant of the influence of intrinsic motivations, as
defined by Self-Determination Theory and the accumulating effect of extrinsic forces on
their intrinsic motivation (Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013).
Teacher efficacy. Teacher efficacy is a prominent theme throughout the literature
regarding teacher motivation. The levels and feelings of efficacy are important to this
study of teacher motivation, as efficacy is a key contributor to both the intrinsic and
extrinsic motivations of teachers. Van den Berghe et al. (2014) acknowledged the
importance of efficacy in the motivation of teachers and the effects it has on their job
satisfaction and performance. With a better understanding of teacher efficacy, strategies
can be implemented to better locate, develop, and retain efficacious teachers who can
contribute towards the highest levels of student achievement (Cerasoli et al., 2014;
Thompson & McIntyre, 2013).
Teacher’s performance is significantly affected by the teacher’s feelings of
efficacy, which are closely connected with their intrinsic sense of autonomy and
competence. Visser-Wijnveen et al. (2012) conferred the significant influence of
motivation on the functional performance of teachers and acknowledged the effect of

34
self-efficacy on teacher motivation. A pronounced feeling of self-efficacy influences
motivation by raising teacher’s intrinsic levels of competency and autonomy, leading to a
confident and capable instructor (Kim & Cho, 2014). With strong feelings of self-
efficacy, teachers are able to stimulate their internal motivational drives, which will
positively affect their performance and job satisfaction. Toussi and Ghanizadeh (2012)
advocated for the continual promotion of efficacy as a means to continually grow the
sense of competency, which will positively affect teacher performance. The modern
educational environment necessitates the perpetual development of intrinsic interest,
mastery orientation, and teacher self-efficacy (Toussi & Ghanizadeh, 2012). Arifin
(2014) confirmed the need for intrinsic motivation to increase teacher motivation,
performance, and job satisfaction.
Teaching is a multidimensional and challenging profession, requiring the
continual development of a teacher’s skill sets. Butler (2012) endorsed the continuous
development of teachers’ internal loci and advocated for a sustained commitment to
developing teachers’ sense of self-efficacy, which propels the teacher to higher levels of
self-control and perceived ability to be effective. Malouff, Reid, Wilkes, and Emmerton
(2015) affirmed the importance of efficacy on teacher performance and advocated for the
development of efficacy through continuous self-reflection and collaborative practices
with colleagues. Improved levels of self-efficacy were recognized by Abdullah and Rubin
(2013) in its ability to affect teacher motivation positively and ultimately affect levels of
student motivation. The performance levels of teachers are influenced by the motivation
and achievement of their students, which amplifies the need for an intrinsically motivated
teacher possessing strong levels of self-efficacy (Abdullah & Rubin, 2013).

35
Teachers who demonstrate efficacy are a manifestation of Ryan and Deci’s (2000)
Self-Determination Theory core components of competence, autonomy, and relatedness.
Vansteenkiste and Ryan (2013) identified an infections tendency of a motivated and
effective teacher toward the performance and environments of their classrooms. Teachers
who project a sense of efficacy and intrinsic motivation toward their students, also
generate senses of efficacy and motivation in the students in their classrooms. High
performing teachers are able to promote the growth and development of their own sense
of autonomy, relatedness, and competence, as well as simultaneously developing this in
their students (Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). Visser-Wijnveen et al. (2012)
acknowledged the contagious effect of a motivated teacher on the motivation of their
students. Massari (2014) recommended a continuous focus on the development of
efficacy as it reciprocates between the teacher and students and leads to an engaging
classroom and positive outcomes. A positive sense of self-efficacy is essential to the
teachers’ sense of competency and will positively affect their performance and job
satisfaction (Bakar, Mohamed, Suhid, & Hamzah, 2014).
Teachers are a valuable asset to society and toward a country’s future growth and
development. Global education systems are driven by their country’s teachers, which
provides for the continuation and progression of their nations norms and ideals. Nadim,
Chaudhry, Kalyar, and Riaz (2012) recognized teaching as one of the world’s most
important professions based on its significant influence on the world’s young people.
Even with an understanding of the importance and value of teachers, shortages continue
to grow throughout the world. Nadim et al. (2012) called for additional study of the
motivating factors that influence teachers to enter and stay in the profession. Wilkesmann
36
and Schmid (2014) advocated for the increased focus on teacher motivation and the
development of teacher efficacy to continually develop and promote intrinsic motivation
associated with feelings of competence. Teachers must feel levels of competence and
efficacy in performing their responsibilities, which will subsequently affect their
motivation and commitment (Tsutsumi, 2014).
Educators who possess a strong sense of self-efficacy generate a continuous
feeling of capability in effectively performing their teaching responsibilities. Cerasoli et
al. (2014) confirmed the highest levels of instructional delivery and overall teacher
performance are manifested when teachers possess self-efficacy and are motivated by a
strong and affirming intrinsic drive. Top performers perpetually develop their repositories
of intrinsic motivation in the areas of competency, autonomy, and relatedness. With a
strong sense and feeling of intrinsic motivation, teachers are able to perform at the
highest performance levels and maintain a strong internal loci that perpetuates their
capacity (Lin & Onwuegbuzie, 2014). Van den Berghe et al. (2014) recommended a
focused and continuous process to nurture and promote efficacy of teachers throughout
their careers. Intrinsic motivations provide the strongest of energies that can be utilized to
maximize educational quality and outcomes (Thompson, Haesler, Anderson, & Barnard,
2014). An intrinsically motivated teacher demonstrates levels of efficacy that are crucial
to success in the classroom (Van den Berg et al., 2013).
Teachers who demonstrate positive levels of self-efficacy transfer their senses of
effectiveness to their classrooms and the students in their purview. Visser-Wijnveen et al.
(2012) acknowledged the importance of an efficacious teacher to promote the highest
levels of teaching and learning in contemporary schools. Highly engaged and effective
37
classrooms are generated via the combination of teacher efficacy and motivation, which
combine to drive performance and create an engaging educational setting (Visser-
Wijnveen et al., 2012). Vansteenkiste and Ryan (2013) endorsed the continuous focus
and development of efficacy and motivation in generating a teacher’s internal
psychological need to grow and demonstrate competency. Teachers possess internal
psychological needs that need to be continually enhanced throughout their careers, and
when properly stimulated, promote intrinsic motivations, feelings of efficacy, and
successful outcomes (Janssen, Kreijns, Bastiaens, Stijnen, & Vermeulen, 2013). Kim and
Cho (2014) endorsed the necessity of efficacious teachers to maintain levels of
autonomous motivation, which promote the teachers ability to continually develop
mastery skills and lead to feelings of competence and promote longevity. Coggins and
Diffenbaugh (2013) recognized the essential need for teacher efficacy development, as it
is a key piece of the individuals overarching psychological need to seek autonomy,
competence, and relatedness. Motivated teachers possess a symbiotic blend of intrinsic
factors that combine to positively affect their levels of performance and own senses of
efficacy, mastery, and autonomy (Coggins & Diffenbaugh, 2013).
Efficacious teachers are developed and enhanced via their own feelings of
efficacy, which are influenced by their work experiences, surrounding cultures, and
academic outcomes in the classroom. Evans (2014) recognized the importance of
continuously developing teachers to enhance and promote levels of efficacy, which
translate into improved motivation and performance in the classroom. Aritonang (2014)
endorsed pervasive practices of professional development to help teachers continually
grow and satisfy their intrinsic psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and
38
relatedness. Leibowitz et al. (2012) advocated for the perpetual professional development
of teachers, where self-determination needs are continuously bolstered and teachers
operate in environments that have both structure and agency. Massari (2014)
acknowledged the positive effects of professional development as it leads to the teacher’s
intrinsic feelings of competence and mastery, which promotes efficacy and high
performance. Teachers must be continually stimulated via professional development
practices, as a means to continuously grow their internal loci of intrinsic motivation
(Toussi & Ghanizadeh, 2012). Aritonang (2014) endorsed professional development
approaches for teachers and believed it was the key motivator to engage teachers and
significantly contribute toward their longevity and effectiveness. Progressive and
successful educational environments place a premium on continually developing their
teachers. Evans (2014) acknowledged the essential contribution of professional
development on teachers’ intrinsic senses of autonomy, competence, and relatedness,
when professional learning environments are created and founded in reflective and
collaborative practices.
Teacher job satisfaction and performance. The necessity of educational
institutions retaining teachers who exhibit positive levels of job satisfaction is a
pronounced theme, throughout the literature surrounding teacher motivation. Nadim et al.
(2012) confirmed the need to maintain a cadre of teachers who are committed to their
crafts and display high levels of motivation and job satisfaction, which generally relate to
positive academic performance. Key intrinsic and extrinsic factors lead to high levels of
motivation and contributes toward job satisfaction and high levels of performance were
measured in this study. Teachers who are feel positive levels of job satisfaction are
39
effective performers whom educational institutions have the best opportunity to retain in
the profession (Osakwe, 2014; Laschke & Blomeke, 2016).
Teachers who are highly motivated are generally effective and are usually a
school systems top performers (Zeid, Assadi, & Murad, 2017). Murtedjo and
Suharningsih (2016) acknowledged the necessity of a highly motivated teacher to attain
the highest performance standards. Highly motivated teachers are committed to their
craft, students, and schools, and possess high levels of job satisfaction (Liu &
Onwuegbuzie, 2014). Bakar et al. (2014) recognized the connection between motivation,
commitment, job satisfaction, and performance. Motivational forces will influence
teachers intrinsically and extrinsically, and either contributing to or take away levels of
autonomy, relatedness, and competence reflective of Self-Determination Theory.
Teachers are influenced and affected by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors in their
positions as teachers (Nawaz & Yasin, 2015). Massari (2014) advocated for continuous
professional development practices and self-reflection to maintain motivation, which
affect job satisfaction and performance. Liu and Onwuegbuzie (2014) acknowledged the
presence of intrinsic and extrinsic factors in the educational environment and the
accumulative effect they create on teachers and education systems.
Both intrinsic and extrinsic factors influence the motivations of teachers and have
an effect on their job satisfaction, performance, and longevity in the profession. Hasan
and Hynds (2014) affirmed the importance of motivation on teacher job satisfaction and
advocated for progressive strategies to maintain the highest levels of teacher motivation
in the classroom. Butler (2012) acknowledged the significance of intrinsic motivation and
its personal internal elements, but also recognized the effect of extrinsic factors. Schools
40
and school principals must be aware of the cumulative effects of extrinsic motivation, as
it influences teacher job satisfaction and performance. Irwandi (2014) expressed the need
for the perpetuation of motivating factors to maintain and bolster teacher job satisfaction,
which ultimately affect teacher performance, student outcomes, and commitment to the
profession. Teachers who are highly motivated demonstrate higher levels of job
satisfaction, which significantly effects their performance and commitment to the
profession (Mertler, 2016; Delgado, 2017).
Educators who lose their sense of motivation often become demotivated, which
ultimately effects their levels of job satisfaction, intrinsic loci, performance, and retention
in the teaching profession. Kim and Cho (2014) recommended a continuous focus on
teacher motivational tendencies and outside factors that affect their sense of autonomy,
relatedness, and competence. Abdullah and Rubin (2013) recognized the inherent
pressures to perform via student achievement results and the necessity of continuous
innovation. Extrinsic factors such as grading mechanism and school ratings are a form of
extrinsic motivation that can effect a teacher’s internal motivation and lead to
dissatisfaction with their jobs and careers (Mertler, 2016). Visser-Wijnveem et al. (2012)
acknowledged the inevitable influences of external elements on teachers motivation and
recommended a concentrated focus on enhancing teachers intrinsic motivations, which
provides the most sustainable and renewable form of motivation. Teachers who are
demotivated and not satisfied at their jobs will perform inadequately and often will leave
the profession causing incessant turnover (Abdullah & Rubin, 2013).
In order to maintain the requisite workforce needed to effectively staff teaching
positions within schools, a perpetual focus on teacher motivation and job satisfaction
41
must exist (Mertler, 2016). Teachers encounter feelings of dissatisfaction during phases
of their teacher careers that affects their motivation to teach and their commitment to
staying in the profession. Mertler (2016) affirmed the effect of demotivation on teachers,
as it was determined that 25% of teachers were not satisfied with their jobs and 45% were
considering leaving the profession. Kim and Cho (2104) confirmed the frequent presence
of dissatisfaction and demotivation in teachers and recommended the mitigation of
extrinsic factors, as to not negatively affect the teacher’s internal senses of efficacy and
autonomy. Nadim et al. (2012) advocated for an institutional and organizational focus on
the motivating factors that affect teachers. Motivated teachers are typically satisfied with
their jobs, are committed, and are the top performers in their respective schools (Nadim et
al., 2012). Educational institutions must maintain a vigilant review of teacher motivation
and seek to keep their teachers performing effectively via the appropriate levels of
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Cerasoli et al., 2014).
Motivation and job satisfaction must be at the forefront in the educational
environment. Lack of job satisfaction becomes detrimental on multiple levels and
dimensions, as it affects student learning, teacher turnover, culture, and climate
(Aritonang, 2014; Tentama & Pranungsari, 2016). Satisfied workers effectively perform
their responsibilities and positively affect the settings they are in and the people they
serve (Arifin, 2014). Van den Berghe et al. (2014) recognized the combination of
intrinsic and extrinsic influences on the motivation and ultimate job satisfaction of
teachers. Teachers must be continually developed through professional development
strategies, which seek to raise individual teacher’s internal foci of autonomy,
competency, and relatedness (Van den Berghe et al., 2014). Extrinsic factors affect
42
feelings of job satisfaction, which must be accounted for and mitigated as to not diminish
the teacher’s inherent intrinsic senses (Yousaf et al., 2015). Educational environments
must maintain a dogged focus on building capacity in their teachers by emphasizing their
psychological needs of self-determination and intrinsic motivations of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness (Firestone, 2014). Satisfied teachers are motivated, perform
consistently, project a contagious energy, and generate enthusiasm in their classroom,
while maintaining a commitment toward remaining in the profession (Tsutsumi, 2014).
High performing teachers and high performing educational environments display
high levels of motivation, job satisfaction, and performance. Iwu, Gwija, Benedict, and
Tengeh (2013) recommended a continuous focus and pursuit of teachers who are highly
motivated and satisfied with their jobs and careers. Teachers who exhibit job satisfaction
and positive motivation are influenced by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors in their work
environments (Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2012). Jerotich (2015) recommended generative
practices and the creation of environments that perpetuates the nexus between job
satisfaction, motivation, and performance. Remijan (2014) recognized the necessity of
understanding the significant effect of external factors on teacher motivation and job
satisfaction. Arifin (2014) acknowledged the importance of maintaining and bolstering
levels of motivation of teachers throughout their careers in education. Intrinsic motivation
are constantly influenced by the external environments and experiences garnered by
teachers in their execution of their professional responsibilities. Ashiedu and Scott-Ladd
(2012) confirmed the potential of demotivation and job dissatisfaction from a
combination of extrinsic factors, which can disrupt a teacher’s internal sense of
autonomy, competence, and relatedness. As a teacher’s feelings of motivation begin to

43
wane, levels of job satisfaction and performance begin to be negatively affected and the
teacher may become at risk of negative performance and professional attrition (Osakwe,
2014).
Educational institutions must be continually gaging and monitoring their teachers’
levels of motivation and job satisfaction. Liu and Onwuegbuzie (2014) acknowledged the
significant responsibility of the educational community in understanding the factors that
contribute toward teacher’s senses of motivation and job satisfaction, while working to
eliminate the detrimental influences and propagate the positive influences. Nadim et al.
(2012) recognized the presence of factors that can emerge and promote feelings of
demotivation and job dissatisfaction as teachers’ progress throughout their careers. Bakar
et al. (2014) endorsed practices that promote and protect a teacher’s intrinsic motivation,
while simultaneously producing environments that mitigate the negative extrinsic factors
that emerge for contemporary teachers.
High turnover rates are often byproducts of teachers who become dissatisfied and
demotivated as a result of their professional experiences (Coggins & Diffenbaugh, 2013).
Osakwe (2014) affirmed the modern realities of high rates of teacher attrition and the
necessity of the educational community in focusing on maintaining environments
conducive toward effecting teacher motivation and feelings of job satisfaction positively.
Jerotich (2015) endorsed strategies that focus on motivating teachers throughout their
careers as an effective means to promote job satisfaction and retention. Teachers are
motivated by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors throughout their careers, making it
incumbent on educational institutions to perpetually address the inherent factors that will
emerge and impact their teachers (Liu & Onwuegbuzie, 2014). Motivated teachers, who
44
are satisfied with their jobs, are generally the top performers who tend to stay in the
profession and continually grow and develop (Coggins & Diffenbaugh, 2013). Teachers
that are motivated and satisfied with their jobs, produce residual effects on their own
performance, as well as the capabilities of their students (Jerotich, 2015).
Effect of extrinsic factors on teacher motivation. The perpetual and incessant
impact of extrinsic factors on teacher motivation and their cumulative effect on teacher’s
levels of job satisfaction is a pervasive theme throughout the literature. The influence of
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of high performing teachers were examined in this
study to analyze the influence extrinsic factors have on the motivation, job satisfaction,
attrition, and performance of teachers. Vansteenkiste and Ryan (2013) recognized the
collective effect that extrinsic factors have on teachers, which can lead to diminished
levels of self-determination and negatively impact job satisfaction and performance. A
better understanding of the effects of extrinsic environmental factors on teacher’s
motivation will generate additional understanding to address problems concerning
teacher recruitment, attrition, and retention (Mertler, 2016).
Many teachers choose to enter the teaching profession driven by multiple intrinsic
motivational factors including altruism, sense of service, and a calling to develop young
people (Ashiedu & Scott-Ladd, 2012). Wilkesmann and Schmid (2014) recognized the
significant influence of teachers choosing education as a profession and the strong
presence of intrinsic motivation at the beginning of their careers. Tsutsumi (2014)
acknowledged a continuous crescendo of extrinsic factors that impact teachers as they
begin and progress through their careers. Kunter et al. (2013) confirmed the continuous
interplay that occurs between intrinsic and extrinsic factors in the motivation, job
45
satisfaction, and performance of teachers. Wilkesmann and Schmid (2014) recognized the
effect of the work environment, assessments, evaluations, student achievement standards,
salary, promotion, and extra duties on a teachers intrinsic loci. Outside extrinsic factors
affect all teachers, which can be internalized and accepted as positive, or can demotivate
and negatively impact motivation and performance (Kunter et al., 2013). Educational
institutions must be aware of the impact of both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation and
strive to mitigate the negatives, while promoting the best combinations of intrinsic and
extrinsic factors to keep the motivation of their teachers strong and positive (Rai &
Srivastava, 2013).
Extrinsic factors such as environment, culture, and climate significantly affect a
teachers senses of motivation, job satisfaction, and ability to perform. Vansteenkiste and
Ryan (2013) confirmed the cumulative influence of extrinsic factors on teachers’ sense of
self-determination. Teachers must effectively function in the environments they are
working in and balance the potential negative effects of the environment on their internal
senses of intrinsic motivations. Jacobsen, Hvitved, and Andersen (2014) recognized the
internal battle to maintain the strongest feelings of intrinsic foci of autonomy, relatedness,
and competency, when teachers are bombarded with extrinsic factors that may
compromise intrinsic motivation. Feelings of autonomy and competency can be effected
by extrinsic factors such as mandates, incessant testing, assessment, and evaluations
(Mertler, 2016). The intrinsic sense of relatedness can also be damaged by toxic or
dysfunctional environments where teachers do not feel professionally supported and
connected with their colleagues, school community, and school leadership (Aritonang,
2014). Firestone (2014) acknowledged the significant effect of extrinsic motivations,

46
which can be either positive or negative, on teachers’ motivation, job satisfaction,
efficacy, and performance.
Of the multiple extrinsic factors that influence teacher motivation, organizational
culture and climate continuously emerge as prominent factors that impact teacher
motivation. Arifin (2014) affirmed the significant influence of culture on teachers’
motivation, relatedness, and job satisfaction. The surrounding environmental factors in
the school setting, as well as society aggregate to affect teachers in the performance of
their professional responsibilities. Firestone (2014) recognized the potential detrimental
factors that can occur via environmental influences and advocated for a perpetual focus
on the existing cultural and climate influences present in the educational setting. Extrinsic
factors will be present, but through examination and awareness, extrinsic factors can be
internalized and converted to intrinsic motivation via an acceptance and understanding by
the teacher (Aritonang, 2014). Toussi and Ghanizadeh (2012) advocated for a balance
between autonomous and controlled motivation, as a means of balancing the multitude of
extrinsic factors that will impact levels of intrinsic control. Teachers must not lose their
feelings of autonomy, or a significant portion to their intrinsic motivation will become
minimized or extinguished (Cerasoli et al., 2014).
Teachers and school systems are not impervious to their external environments
and must be strategic in their interplay with extrinsic factors, as not to compromise the
motivational drive of their teachers. Damij, Levenajic, Skrt, and Suklan (2015) confirmed
the effects of external factors as they become extrinsic motivation, which can be good,
bad, positive, or negative for the individuals involved. Toussi and Ghanizadeh (2012)
acknowledged the necessity of preserving and developing individual teacher’s intrinsic

47
motivation as a means to deter or minimize negative effects brought on by the external
environment. Teachers must maintain their intrinsic senses of autonomy, competency,
and relatedness. Outside factors will challenge teacher’s intrinsic feelings and
motivations to teach. Teachers must be supported in ways that maintain their intrinsic
motivations and preserve the feelings of efficacy, autonomy, and relatedness (Hasan &
Hynds, 2014). Cerasoli et al. (2014) confirmed the effect of both extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation on teacher performance. Both intrinsic and extrinsic factors can be helpful and
are inevitable to the overall motivation of the teacher, but they must be in proportions that
are accepted by the individual teacher (Nadim et al., 2012).
Schools and school leaders must continually monitor the extant environments that
their teaching staffs are functioning in to promote the right blend of extrinsic and intrinsic
motivational elements (Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2012). The external environment
significantly affects teacher motivation, job satisfaction, and job performance (Iwu et al.,
2013). Tleuzhanova and Madenyatova (2014) confirmed the effects of extrinsic factors
on teacher motivation and retention. School principals must be perpetually engaged in the
assessment of the extrinsic factors that affect their teachers, as well as be cognizant of the
individual differences and proclivities possessed by each teacher (Bakar et al., 2014).
Osakwe (2014) advocated for school principals to facilitate environments that are least
constricting and conflicting with the individual teacher’s internal intrinsic values.
Principals must protect their teachers from extrinsic influences that are detrimental to
their motivation, while continuously perpetuating the presence and manifestation of their
senses of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Visser-Wijnveem et al., 2012).
Teachers must maintain their sense of professional competency by being able to shape
48
and create their desired outcomes, continue to professionally develop, and connect with
their organizational members and stakeholders (Abdullah & Rubin, 2013).
Teachers are continuously influenced by the environments that they work in, as
well as the aggregation of surrounding extrinsic factors that influence their intrinsic levels
of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Wilkesmann and Schmid (2014)
acknowledged the continuous interplay of extrinsic factors and intrinsic factors, as they
both effect the behavior and performance of educators. Ashiedu and Scott-Ladd (2012)
acknowledged the prevalence of intrinsic motivation for the selection of teaching as a
profession and the pronounced presence of intrinsic motivation in the early stages of their
teaching careers. As time elapses in their teaching careers, the potential for extrinsic
factors compromising or mitigating intrinsic desires becomes a significant factor that
influences their motivation, job satisfaction, and retention in the profession (Jacobsen et
al., 2013). Wilkesmann and Schmid (2014) warned of the potential damage of incessant
extrinsic factors that work against and may negate portions of the teacher’s natural
intrinsic drive. Although teachers come into the profession primarily intrinsically
motivated, over time the extrinsic influences that occur on the job can negatively impact
them and generate a crowding effect that extinguishes or diminishes intrinsic motivation.
Range, Duncan, and Hvidston (2013) called on the educational community to
understand and plan for the inevitable impact that the external environment will create for
educators. Modern educational leaders must be cognizant of the environmental factors
that well effect their teachers and proactively work to protect the teacher’s innate intrinsic
senses of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Irwandi, 2014). Environmental factors
will continually manifest and be an omnipresent reality that must be continuously

49
evaluated and assessed for their effect on teachers. Radinger (2014) recognized the
pervasive effect of environmental factors and advocated for proactive approaches that
seek to deal with their effect via constructive and progressive approaches. The existence
and prevalence of extrinsic factors are a perpetual reality, but steps can be taken to create
environments equipped to support and develop teachers throughout the various phases of
their professional careers. Educational leaders must create environments conducive to
managing the positive and negative effects of extrinsic motivators on their teachers and
seek to build professional cultures where teachers feel supported (Vansteenkiste & Ryan,
2013). Extrinsic influences are a perpetual reality for all educators, whose impact must be
accounted for in order to constructively manage their impact, while maintaining a strong
feeling of intrinsic autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Vansteenkiste & Ryan,
2013).
School cultures and climates have a significant impact on teachers and their
motivation, job satisfaction, and performance. Firestone (2014) endorsed the
development of school communities that support and reinforce their teachers and create
professional communities that provide collegiality, positive cultures, feedback, and
reflective practices. Jacobsen et al. (2013) advocated for both intrinsic and extrinsic
awareness within the educational setting to maintain positive and constructive approaches
in dealing with its effect and to preserve the highest levels of motivation. The
environment provided by the school setting is crucial to the continual development of the
teachers, as well as providing a form of protection and a filter from external stimuli that
may become damaging to their intrinsic loci. Wilkesmann and Schmid (2014)
recommended a perpetual commitment to building school environments that serve to

50
meet the psychological needs of their teachers. Organizations that promote an
organizational culture supportive of teaching and learning, by focusing on their internal
environment, culture, and climate, will be positively affecting the inherent psychological
needs of autonomy, relatedness, and competence (Wilkesmann & Schmid, 2014).
Vansteenkiste and Ryan (2013) acknowledged the effect of extrinsic factors on teachers’
attainment of physiological needs and endorsed the use of supportive frameworks to
manage the influence of extrinsic factors on teacher motivation.
Teacher motivation and student motivation. A ubiquitous focus on the
connection between a motivated teacher and a motivated student is maintained in the
literature. High performing teachers who are designated as such by their performance
evaluations that are connected to student and school achievement results were identified
in this study. Tsutsumi (2014) acknowledged the common connection that exists between
highly motivated teachers and the infectious ability they have to motivate their students.
Current standards and grading requirements of academic accountability for schools and
teachers necessitates high levels of motivation of both teachers and students (Jerotich,
2015). A deeper understanding of motivation will positively affect the performance levels
of the educators, pupils, and institutions (Hardre & Hennessy, 2013).
The motivation of teachers is significantly important to the performance and
success of a school or district and has an infectious element that is transmitted to their
students. Van den Berghe et al. (2014) affirmed the necessity of a motivated teacher who
exhibits the core aspects of self-determination theory. Educators who demonstrate
competency, autonomy, and relatedness are displaying intrinsic motivational behaviors
that are essential to the performance and motivation of their students (Van den Berghe et
51
al., 2014; Maulana, Helms-Lorenz, Irnidayanti, & Van de Grift, 2016). Onjoro et al.
(2015) recognized the contagious elements of motivated teachers, as they are able to
inspire and motivate their students through modeling and demonstrations of commitment,
dedication, and desire. Motivated teachers are essential to the processes of imprinting and
nurturing the preferred motivations, attitudes, and behaviors required for their students to
be successful and attain desired academic successes (Onjoro et al., 2015; Roy &
Sengupta, 2016). Jerotich (2015) emphasized the necessity of maintaining a faculty of
motivated and effective teachers who will be able to develop motivated students equipped
to attain successful academic outcomes. Motivated teachers serve as role models that
stimulate the students own senses of motivation via intrinsic and extrinsic engagement.
Teachers who are able to balance the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
effectively are able to transfer their positive levels of motivation, job satisfaction, and
efficacy into the classroom, making for an engaging and invigorating academic
experience. Viseu, Neves de Jesus, Rus, and Canavarro (2016) acknowledged the
significant importance of motivated teachers in the classroom and advocated for a
continuous development of this interrelated experience. Abdullah and Rubin (2013)
recognized the current pressures schools and teachers have in attaining the highest levels
of student achievement as a result of heightened mandates for student performance.
Abdullah and Rubin (2013) confirmed the need for high levels of teacher motivation as it
strongly correlates with the advancement of positive student outcomes. The dynamic
created by a motivated teacher, when interacting with their students, becomes an
infectious exchange that translates to motivation of the students and provides a stimulus
for their academic achievement (Hardre & Hennessy, 2013). Remijan (2014) conferred
52
the necessity of motivated teachers who are able to affirm, engage, and transfer their
motivation onto their students. Motivated teachers are essential in generating successful
student outcomes and are additionally instrumental in creating the classroom
environments where motivational exchanges are pervasive between the teacher and the
students.
Performance pay and incentives. The educational community has embarked on
attempts to influence teacher’s motivation by providing economic incentives for
educators when established performance outcomes are attained. The literature cites many
examples of attempts to utilize economic theory principles to affect the motivation and
performance of educators. Performance pay strategies are important to this study as
outside financial rewards are examined to determine their effects on teacher’s motivation
both extrinsically and intrinsically. Yuan et al. (2013) acknowledged the mixed results of
previous attempts at performance pay and incentives, which may produce conflicting and
potentially negative effects on professional educators. The effectiveness of performance
pay on teacher motivation is not universal, but necessitates a further examination for
potential effects on teachers’ motivation, jobs satisfaction, retention, and performance.
Teachers are impacted by both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in their
respective roles as educators. Yuan et al. (2013) confirmed the presence of intrinsic
factors and extrinsic factors affecting teacher performance and examined the influence of
performance pay and incentives on teacher motivation and effectiveness. Adhi et al.
(2013) acknowledged the necessity of performance standards to assess and reinforce
teacher job performance. Goodman and Turner (2013) recognized a paucity of empirical
studies examining the effect of performance pay or financial incentives on the attainment
53
of desired outcomes. Within the context of the available empirical studies on teacher
motivation and financial incentives, the results of the effectiveness of performance pay
have been mixed and have displayed varying results (Goodman & Turner, 2013). Yuan et
al. (2013) affirmed the presence of varied results regarding the effectiveness of teacher
pay on teacher motivation. Teachers are frequently judged and evaluated based on the
achievement of their students. Gumilar (2013) acknowledged the modern reality of
teacher performance evaluations driven by student and school achievement results, which
affects teachers both intrinsically and extrinsically in terms of motivational elements.
Performance pay strategies have not been proven to be universally effective and
are subject to situational contexts, implementation problems, and equity of judgements
between varying teaching populations. Yuan et al. (2013) called for a continuous study
on the implementation of financial incentives for educators, but additionally recognized
the inherent challenges of creating a one size fits all program. Goodman and Turner
(2013) recognized that successful performance pay approaches are most effective when
worker outputs are clearly understood and the effort and productivity measurements are
clearly aligned. Yuan et al. (2013) acknowledged the possibility of negative effects
brought on by incentive programs, as they can increase internal competition, decrease
collegiality, lower collaboration, incite plagiarism, and become incessantly focused on
outcomes and produce a loss of pedagogic focus. Goodman and Turner (2013) questioned
the use of an economic theory or principle in the compensation of teachers via
performance pay metrics. The applicability of performance pay as an extrinsic motivator
can be in conflict with the teachers own intrinsic values and may decrease motivation and
job satisfaction (Yuan et al., 2013). Performance pay programs have not proven to be a
54
panacea for increased teacher motivation or student motivation, and has generally
afflicted the participants with increased feelings of stress and ambiguity (Goodman &
Turner, 2013; Yuan et al., 2013).
Educational environments must be rife with motivation, commitment, and
efficacy in order to facilitate the requisite environments that drive achievement and
positive performance. Radinger (2014) confirmed the necessity of a motivational
environment where there is an intense focus on teaching and learning, which is affirmed
by the appraisal processes within the system. Goodman and Turner (2013) acknowledged
the need for performance evaluation to support and reinforce the actions of the teachers.
Yuan et al. (2013) confirmed the inherent challenges with the application of student
achievement as the barometer for teacher’s performance pay and recommended a holistic
evaluation that promotes more intrinsic rewards. The measurement of student outcomes
creates inherent difficulties in finding the appropriate assessment strategies between
teachers and often will create ambiguity, angst, and can act as a demotivator for teachers.
Finding the appropriate schemes to appraise a diverse group of educators, while attaching
incentives and performance pay has been proven challenging and difficult in the
contemporary educational setting (Goodman & Turner, 2013).
Attempts to motivate teachers through performance pay and incentives has proven
to be difficult to implement effectively and often creates conflict between intrinsic
motivations as teachers pursue extrinsic outcomes. Jacobsen et al. (2013) recognized the
potential for the crowding out effect of intrinsic motivation that can occur as teachers
become enamored with the attainment of incentives generated via extrinsic rewards. The
pursuit of extrinsic performance goals can negatively impact and be in direct conflict
55
with the teacher’s senses of competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Jacobsen et al.,
2013). Firestone (2014) confirmed the potential for averse outcomes as extrinsic rewards
can negatively impact motivation by decreasing collegiality, collaboration, climate, and
culture, as a result of increased competition between teachers. Wilkesmann and Schmid
(2014) asserted the need for continuous assessments of the effectiveness of performance
pay and a commitment toward vigilance of the negative ramifications that may emerge.
Remijan (2014) posited that incentives may not be the best approach to motivate teachers
and recognized the potential for negative effects that may be detrimental to the teacher
and school system. Wilkesmann and Schmid (2014) acknowledged that teachers are
primarily intrinsically motivated and warned of the possibility that incentives can
jeopardize the individual’s intrinsic senses of autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Influence of principal leadership on teacher motivation. The examination of
leadership and its influence on teacher motivation is pertinent to this study on intrinsic
and extrinsic motivational factors that impact teacher performance. The effect of
principal leadership on teacher motivation, job satisfaction, and commitment are
prevalent themes present within the body of literature. Purcek (2014) acknowledged the
significant influence of principal’s leadership on the motivation of the teachers in their
schools. Principals are essential to the shaping of the environments that teachers work in,
which will effect teachers both extrinsically and intrinsically (Van den Berghe et al.,
2014; Adegbesan, 2013). School principals are additionally significant influencers of the
levels of self-determination possessed by the teachers in their schools. The effect of
teachers’ perceptions of principal’s leadership and their influence on teacher motivation
may illuminate factors that contribute to a better understanding of the principal’s roles in
56
locating, developing, and retaining high performing teachers, were examined in this
study.
Teacher’s motivation is affected by their senses of self-efficacy, competence, and
connection to their communities, as well as the quality and availability of the principal
leadership that surrounds them. McLeskey and Waldron (2015) acknowledged the
significance of effective leaders and leadership strategies to develop teachers and
significantly affect their levels of motivation. Howes and Goodman-Delahunty (2015)
espoused the critical importance of principals in fostering and creating the requisite
environments, cultures, and climates needed to motivate their teachers both intrinsically
and extrinsically. The modern school environment makes it incumbent on the principals
of the schools to persistently monitor the motivational factors that are influencing their
teachers. Principals and school administrators are charged with creating effective cultures
and environments, where extrinsic rewards are positive, constructive, and attention is
continuously directed toward the increased development of intrinsic factors of autonomy,
relatedness, and competency (Jerotich, 2015). The motivation of the teaching staff is the
primary responsibility of the school leadership team. Leadership must focus on internal
and external factors affecting their teachers, as well as understand the individual
differences between their teachers (Onjoro et al., 2015; Bachri Thalib, 2016).
A motivated teacher will demonstrate effective approaches in the delivery of
teaching and learning and be a significant influence on the students they serve. Adhi et al.
(2013) posited the primary responsibility of school principals is to positively affect
teacher motivation and provide transformational leadership, which shapes and transforms
their schools into environments where highly motivated teachers are the norm. Principals
57
impact their schools by affecting the motivation of their teachers, which in turn, will help
motivate the students, leading to successful outcomes and a dynamic school setting
(Jerotich, 2015). School cultures characteristic of high teacher and student motivation are
infections and dynamic environments where learning, growth, and development are both
prevalent and prominent (Gumilar, 2013). As principals continually work to build
effective cultures of teaching and learning in their schools, they must remain cognizant of
the motivation levels of their teachers and commit to maintaining the highest levels of
value congruence between the teachers, school culture, and administration. Cultures in
schools must be viewed as symbiotic elements that affect levels of teacher motivation,
teacher’s sense of self-efficacy, relatedness of teachers to other organizational members
within the extant culture, and feelings of autonomy (Janssen et al., 2013; Sayed &
McDonald, 2017).
School principals must remain diligent in their responsibilities to monitor and
adjust the climate and cultures at their schools to maintain an evolving and progressive
environment, where their teachers and students can be successful. The modern
environment is characteristic of rapid and incessant change, which effects school
environments. Evans (2014) acknowledged the necessity of continuous transformational
strategies to properly adapt to shifts in the environment and maintain effective motivation
of teaching staffs. Jugovic et al. (2012) recognized the natural changes of motivation that
occur for teachers over time and as situational context vary. Effective educational leaders
are able to monitor the external environment and its effect on their schools and make the
necessary adjustments to maintain school cultures conducive for teaching and learning
(Liu & Onwuegbuzie, 2014). Teacher motivation and levels of job satisfaction are
58
continually moving and transforming over time and create a challenge for principals in
maintaining the requisite levels needed for high performance and successful academic
outcomes (Osakwe, 2014). The National Policy Board of Educational Administration
(NPBEA, 2015) acknowledged the essential responsibility of principals in providing a
professional school environment where culture, conditions, collegiality, and professional
learning are at the forefront of their operational philosophies. Principals must provide a
holistic approach to leadership to create the proper school environments for teaching,
learning, and student achievement (NPBEA, 2015).
Teachers become increasingly motivated and develop stronger senses of self-
determination by working for transformational leaders who are able to empower, inspire,
and equip them via intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors. Effective principals are
able to continuously transform and innovate their school environments, making them
conducive for dynamic learning through the perpetual focus on teacher motivation
(Evans, 2014). Purcek (2014) emphasized the importance of school leaders in developing
and inspiring their teachers to the highest levels of performance via strategies to provide
extrinsic motivations, which shapes the environment the teacher works in, as well as
continuously taps into their intrinsic locus of control and motivation. Principals must take
on many varying roles to inspire and motivate their teachers through intrinsic and
extrinsic blends of stimuli. Purcek (2014) endorsed the use of transformational leadership
approaches to solicit the most productive responses of teachers and further recommended
that teachers act as coaches and mentors for their teaching staffs. Successful school
principals are able to find the right blend of intrinsic and extrinsic factors that motivate
59
their teachers to the highest levels of engagement, outcomes, and performance over time
and through different circumstances (Teo, Ursavas, & Bahcekapili, 2012).
Perpetually changing environmental conditions, as well as the continuous
development of new standards, student achievement outcomes, and school performance
goals, necessitates leaders who can continuously transform their schools. Irwandi (2014)
confirmed the need for continual transformation and change in the contemporary school
environment to effectively adapt and evolve to shifting conditions. Gumilar (2013)
emphasized the need for educational leaders who are continuously monitoring the effect
of extrinsic factors influencing their teachers, as well as the levels of intrinsic motivation
present in their teachers. School principals are essential in facilitating the
transformational items needed to attain required performance standards, while at the same
time maintaining the levels of motivation and job satisfaction of their teachers
(McLeskey & Waldron, 2015). Van den Berghe et al. (2014) acknowledged the inherent
pressures on teachers to achieve student and school performance standards and advocated
for a continual focus on developing teacher’s feelings of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness. School principals must equip their teachers and organizational cultures with
the ability to continually develop and evolve, by perpetually focusing on the continuous
development of intrinsic motivations (Van den Berghe et al., 2014). Adhi et al. (2013)
recognized the inevitable impact of extrinsic factors on teacher’s senses of intrinsic
motivation and called on principals to identify the proper blend of extrinsic and intrinsic
influences, as they combine to affect schools and their personnel.
Transformational leaders are able to continually evaluate the external
environment and make internal adjustments to remain viable in times of incessant

60
change. Gumilar (2013) confirmed the competencies inherent to transformational leaders
and endorsed their capabilities in leading organizations and people forward in situations
that will call for adaptations, evolutions, and transformations. School principals must be
cognizant of effects of change on the teachers within their systems. Transformational
leaders demonstrate the ability to evolve and develop their schools and personnel without
compromising motivation, job satisfaction, and performance (Adhi et al., 2013;
Eliophotou-Menon & Ioannou, 2016). Firestone (2014) endorsed transformational
leadership and its ability to mitigate many of the extrinsic factors that may negatively
impact teacher motivation, by providing school environments that are supportive,
collegial, and continually focus on intrinsic development of the teacher’s intrinsic senses
of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Transformational environments perpetuate
and bolster teachers’ intrinsic motivations by creating an overall feeling of
empowerment, engagement, and efficacy, which generates positive motivation, job
satisfaction, and performance (Adhi et al., 2013). Irwandi (2014) asserted there is no one
universal way to transform people and schools. School principals must facilitate the paths
required to continually move their schools forward and perpetually focus on the
development of their teachers to maintain the requisite motivation required to attain
desired outcomes (Gumilar, 2013; Hauserman & Stick, 2013). The National Association
of Secondary School Principals (NASSP, 2010) acknowledged the fundamental
responsibility of principals to continuously enhance and maintain organizational vitality
in order to optimize organizational abilities.
Effective school principals understand the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic factors
as they affect the motivation and performance of their teachers. Radinger (2014)
61
acknowledged the significant responsibilities of school principals on the performance of
their teachers. Principals are able to affect their teachers in multiple ways, which
ultimately affect their levels of intrinsic motivations of efficacy and autonomy. Teacher
motivation is influenced in the school setting by multiple environmental factors that
impact their feelings of autonomy, relatedness, and competency. Evans (2014) endorsed
multiple strategies in the motivation of teachers and recommended a robust
implementation of professional development opportunities to promote growth and
development. Professional development generates advanced levels of competency,
autonomy, and relatedness, which will perpetuate feelings of intrinsic motivation
associated with the Self-Determination Theories espoused by Ryan and Deci (2000).
Principals must structure their professional development plans to focus on developing the
internal intrinsic motivation of their teachers (Janssen et al., 2013). When properly
designed, professional development programs will stimulate a strong sense of motivation,
efficacy, job satisfaction, and performance capability (Range et al., 2013).
Professional development practices are essential to the growth and development
of teachers and are considered a critical function of school principals (NASSP, 2010).
McLeskey and Waldron (2015) confirmed the need for effective leadership in the schools
to guide, coach, and inspire the personnel in a manner that develops people and enhances
their motivation and job satisfaction. Janssen et al. (2013) recommended the pervasive
use of professional development approaches to grow teacher’s competencies and
additionally serve as a two way communication dialogue between teachers and principals.
Professional development strategies affect teacher’s senses of self-determination and will
raise their feelings of autonomy via active engagement and their sense of competence via
62
continuous skill development (Evans, 2014). Teachers’ intrinsic need for relatedness is
also impacted through professional development practices where fellow educators
connect and collaborate in a collegial community (Van den Berghe et al., 2014). Janssen
et al. (2013) acknowledged teachers’ inherent need to feel supported and engaged in their
development as professionals. Professional development serves as a mechanism to
promote the teachers intrinsic desires for autonomy, competence, and relatedness and
should be pervasive within the systems and culture of the school setting (Van den Berghe
et al., 2014).
Principals must continuously look at ways to develop their teaching staffs and
build the requisite capacities of teaching and learning essential for successful academic
outcomes. Howes and Goodman-Delahunty (2015) acknowledged the significant
necessity of professional development to equip teachers with the requisite skills that will
promote their own abilities to succeed. School principals must focus on the development
of their teachers to improve their abilities to perform their professional responsibilities
and negate feelings of demotivation and job dissatisfaction (McLeskey & Waldron,
2015). Teachers who lose their sense of motivation and feelings of competency,
autonomy, and relatedness are susceptible to symptoms of burnout and may be inclined to
leave the profession (Janssen et al., 2013). Howes and Goodman-Delahunty (2015)
endorsed pervasive practices of professional development to curb the loss of teachers
throughout their years of teaching and especially during the first five years where 33% of
the teachers leave the profession in their first three years and 46% leave by their fifth
year. School principals bear the responsibility of working to motivate their teachers and
63
must employ consistent and effective professional development practices that engages
their teachers both intrinsically and extrinsically (Onjoro et al., 2015).
School principals have the responsibility of creating cultures and environments
where motivation and high performance can be achieved and remains sustainable for both
teachers and students. The NPBEA (2015) confirmed the essential role of school
principals creating professional environments where teachers feel supported and
empowered through continuous development approaches that generate their professional
capacities. Jugovic et al. (2012) affirmed the importance of an overarching understanding
of the motivation of teachers, as a means to retain, attract, and recruit the most effective
professionals. Howes and Goodman-Delahunty (2015) confirmed the necessity of an
intense focus on the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that positively motivate teachers and
the requirement that principals focus on those variables as a means to find and develop
the right people to realize educational objectives. Damij et al. (2015) acknowledged the
multiple intrinsic and extrinsic factors that affect motivation and charged organizations to
evaluate and identify the essential factors that motivate their organizational members.
Principals must be capable of understanding an individual’s motivational proclivities in
order to recruit and retain a quality workforce (Damij et al., 2015). School principals are
second only to teachers in their impact on student learning and are instrumental in
empowering the teachers, establishing the culture, and building the relationship needed
for continuous learning and academic achievement (Radinger, 2014; Liu, 2015).
Methodology
Both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies were present in the
review of literature, but the primary methodology used to analyze teacher motivation
64
were quantitative designs. Mertler (2016) recognized the effectiveness of a quantitative
design in measuring multiple variables of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors on
teacher performance, retention, and levels of efficacy. Adhi et al. (2013) endorsed
applications of quantitative methodologies and their ability to measure and quantify the
relationships between multiple variables and the ability of quantitative studies to include
a large sample to measure.
Based on the prevalence of quantitative studies in the review of literature, the
selection of a quantitative methodology serves as an appropriate selection in this study,
which examined the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that influence teacher performance by
high performing teachers. Arifin (2014) utilized a quantitative approach to examine the
variables of competence, motivation, organizational culture, and job satisfaction on
teacher performance. Balyer and Ozcan (2014) used a quantitative methodology to
examine students reasons for choosing teaching as a profession and were able to survey a
large number of participants in order to get a broad and deep sample. Quantitative
methods allow for a large sample from which the researcher can glean specific items
from a large number of participants. Abdullah and Rubin (2013) utilized a quantitative
method as a means to test the relationship between the predictor variables and the
criterion variable of teacher performance.
In order to remain aligned with the research questions that hypothesize the
of principal leadership and teacher performance by high performing teachers, a
quantitative methodology must be utilized to address the research questions. Li et al.
(2015) used a quantitative methodology to examine the relationship between autonomous

65
motivation, controlled motivation, value congruence, and work engagement of teachers.
Mertler (2016) utilized a quantitative method to examine the relationship between teacher
motivation, job satisfaction, and retention of teachers in K-12 public education in the
state of Arizona. The predominate research methodology prevalent throughout the review
of literature confirms the appropriateness of a quantitative methodology for this study,
which is examining the relationship of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and
teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership on teacher performance by high performing
teachers.
Instrumentation
The Work Preferences Inventory by Amabile et al. (1994) and the Leadership
Behavior Survey by Bulach et al. (2006) was utilized in this study. The Work Preference
Inventory identifies intrinsic and extrinsic motivational proclivities of individuals in the
workplace. The Work Preference Inventory system recommended by Amabile et al.
(1994) served as an effective measurement of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and was
disseminated to the sample group via an electronic survey. The Leadership Behavior
Survey examines the perceptions of teachers of principal’s behavior and leadership
characteristics. Boothe et al. (2006) recommended the Leadership Behavior Survey as an
effective means to garner perceptions and assumptions of the principals’ behavior from
the perspectives of their teachers. The surveys chosen for this study have been utilized by
previous researchers in the areas of teacher motivation and educational leadership and
provided an effective measurement of the variables examined in this study.
Work Preference Survey. Amabile et al. (1994) designed the Work Preference
Inventory Survey (WPI) instrument as a tool to be utilized for research on intrinsic,

66
extrinsic, and general motivation of people. This instrument possesses the ability to
differentiate between the motivational tendencies demonstrated by humans and is able to
separate out intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors displayed by individuals
(Amabile et al., 1994). Stuhlfaut (2010) recommended the use of the WPI to examine the
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors present in human behavior and acknowledged
the multiple usage reference present in the literature. Robinson et al. (2014) recognized
the capability of the WPI to produce a clearer understanding of the elements that
encourage worker commitment and job satisfaction. The WPI instrument has 30 items
divided between two domains of 15 intrinsic items and 15 extrinsic items, which measure
an individual’s natural motivational proclivities (Robinson et al., 2014). The WPI served
as an effective mechanism to assess both intrinsic and extrinsic tendencies at work (Bassi
& Fave, 2012).
Amabile et al. (1994) affirmed the reliability of the WPI as an assessment tool
which can measure both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Janus (2014)
confirmed the validity of the WPI and further recommended it as an effective instrument
to measure the motivation of professionals. Achakul and Yolles (2013) confirmed the
reliability of the WPI and utilized it as an instrument to assess the intrinsic and extrinsic
motivational orientations of professional workers. Amabile et al. (1994) acknowledged
the capability of the WPI and recommended it as an effective instrument to evaluate an
individual’s levels of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, as well as produce an appraisal of
the blending that occurs between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in individuals. The
WPI is capable of dividing individual into four motivation types of intrinsically
motivated, extrinsically motivated, dually motivated, and unmotivated (Amabile et al.,

67
1994). Loo (2001) recognized the potential blending of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
in individuals and suggested the possibility of a synergistic relationship between the two
orientations. Loo (2001) further acknowledged the WPI as an effective instrument to
describe and understand worker motivation in the field of education.
Leadership Behavior Survey. The Leadership Behavior Survey (LBS)
instrument was developed by Bulach et al. (2006) to measure the positive and negative
behaviors of principals as perceived by the school staffs. This instrument contains
measurements of 49 positive and negative behaviors in the areas of human relations,
trust/decision making, instructional leadership, control, and conflict (Bulach et al., 2006).
The LBS instrument has been tested and approved as reliable and has demonstrated
adequate construct validity in assessing the behaviors of principals (Bulach et al., 2006).
Bulach et al. (2006) endorsed the use of the LBS and deemed it an effective method to
measure a principal’s leadership behaviors, as well as evaluate the climate and culture of
a school, and display the aggregated impact generated on student achievement results.
The LBS provides researchers with an instrument that measures the behaviors of
principals when they are operating in the supervisory capacities with their staffs (Bulach
et al., 2006). The LBS instrument provides an illumination of the effect of particular
leadership styles as they impact the educational environment and teacher morale (Bulach
et al., 2006). The LBS was peer-reviewed and endorsed by the National Council of the
Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as an erudite contribution to the field
of educational administration (Bulach et al., 2006).
Teacher Evaluation Instrument. The instrument used to determine high
performing teachers was within the district teacher evaluation system, which was founded
68
in the instructional teaching framework from Charlotte Danielson. Sartain et al. (2011)
endorsed the reliability and validity of the Danielson model through their instrument
testing in the Chicago Public Schools. The teacher evaluation instrument identifies four
main components of professional practice that includes the domains of planning and
preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities.
Teachers are evaluated over the course of an academic year by their site administrators on
a 4 point scale system that is comprised of the ratings of unsatisfactory, developing,
proficient, and excelling in each of the domains. An aggregate score was generated via
the teacher evaluation instrument that classifies them as unsatisfactory, developing,
proficient, or excelling. For the purpose of this study, teachers who are determined as
excelling per the district evaluation process from the previous academic year, were the
high performing group surveyed for this study.
Summary
The salient literature surrounding the topic of intrinsic and extrinsic motivating
factors of teachers was illuminated in this literature review. Cerasoli et al. (2014)
acknowledged the need for further examination of the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that
influence teachers. Mertler (2016) recognized the influence of motivation on teachers’
performance, attrition, and retention and called for further analysis of the factors that will
bolster the profession. Teacher motivation, job satisfaction, and self-efficacy are key
ingredients in the precipitating factors that influence educators and their ability to instruct
their students effectively and attain desired academic outcomes (Konig & Rothland,
2012).
69
Ryan and Deci’s (2000) Self-Determination Theory provided the overarching lens
that the literature review was constructed. Li et al. (2015) recognized the effectiveness of
SDT in the examination of intrinsic factors of autonomy, competency, and relatedness,
and their effect on intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Gillet et al. (2013) advocated for the use
of SDT as a framework for studying motivation and recognized its ability to examine the
various forms of motivation that impacts the behavior and desires of humans. SDT
effectively identifies the aggregate impact of extrinsic factors, as they ultimately merge
and are accepted or rejected through the process of internalization (Rocchi et al., 2013).
Van den Berghe et al. (2014) recognized the effectiveness of self-determination theory in
examining both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and supported its usage in examining
the motivational factors of teachers. Rocchi et al. (2013) supported the use of self-
determination frameworks to further illuminate the interplay of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivational factors that are continuously impacting the motivation of teachers. Reiss
(2012) acknowledged the necessity of utilizing SDT principles to understand the inherent
psychological needs of intrinsic motivation, which are internally ego driven, as well as
the influences of extrinsic factors on human behavior, feelings of motivation, and levels
of satisfaction. The literature supports SDT as an effective and readily used theoretical
framework to study the motivation of teachers.
Further research on teacher motivation will additionally elucidate the important
attributes that comprise a highly motivated and successful teacher. Hasan and Hynds
(2014) recognized the need for deeper understanding of the key elements that are
characteristic of an effective teacher and called for a review to identify and continuously
develop those key characteristics. Both intrinsic and extrinsic factors influence teacher
70
performance and when properly combined, form a common list of key attributes that will
develop teacher efficacy, motivation, and job satisfaction (Wildman, 2015). Howes and
Goodman-Delahunty (2015) advocated for an understanding of the factors that influence
teacher motivation, so those factors can be perpetuated and advance the ability of teacher
performance, as well as retention in the profession. The educational community will
benefit via a greater understanding of teacher motivation, through a commitment to
continued research of the internal and external factors that drive high performing
teachers. Chapter 3 in this study delineates the methodology selected to further examine
the research questions generated within this study.

71
Chapter 3: Methodology
Introduction
evaluation process at their schools. Remijan (2014) recognized the need for further
understanding of teacher motivation, which impacts performance and subsequent
achievement results of schools and students. Cerasoli et al. (2014) acknowledged the
necessity of advancements in the understanding of the essential factors that affect high
performing teachers. The motivation of the teacher effects the motivation of the students
and will subsequently effect the levels of student motivation through their interactions in
the classroom (Sun & Leithwood, 2012).
Chapter 3 includes the problem statement, the research questions and hypotheses,
a description of the methodology and design, the problem and research questions, the
population and sample of the study, data collection procedures, valid reasoning to support
the limitations in this study, and ethical aspects considered in conducting this study.
Chapter 3 ends with a summary of the chapter.
Statement of the Problem
teacher performance. Wildman (2015) affirmed the necessity of a motivated teacher to
affect student and school achievement. Cerasoli et al. (2014) acknowledged the unknown
72
intrinsic and extrinsic factors that combine to effect teacher motivation and impact
academic performance in the contemporary educational setting. Teachers are increasingly
evaluated based on their students test scores and levels of performance as compared to
various state and national standards. Mertler (2016) recognized the influence of
motivation on teacher efficacy, job satisfaction, and the cumulative impact of
measurements and standards of student achievement on the motivation of teachers. Sun
and Leithwood (2012) acknowledged the necessity of school leaders being cognizant of
the motivational factors that drive and inspire their teachers, which affect their levels of
instruction and student achievement and contribute toward their established standards of
academic accountability. Current educational environments demand greater
accountability and performance of teachers. This study seeks to further illuminate the
necessity of a deeper understanding of the influences of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of principal’s leadership on teacher performance.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The following questions and hypotheses provided the basis of the research for this
study:

73
The research questions were constructed from the examination of extant literature
in the areas of teacher motivation and teachers’ perceptions of principal’s leadership. The
predictor variables in this study are intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation, as
measured by a four point Likert scale in the Worker Preference Survey and teachers’
perceptions of principal’s leadership, as measured by a five point Likert scale in the
Leadership Behavior Survey. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations were
measured on a four point Likert scale via the 30 questions in the Work Preference
Instrument that indicates how true a statement is of teacher motivation tendencies. The
scale is comprised of the responses of N=never or almost never true of you, S=sometimes
true of you, O=often true of you, and A=always or almost always true of you. Mean
scores were generated through the respondents’ answers in the WPI of the 15 intrinsic
74
and 15 extrinsic questions and provided the requisite scale of measurement needed to
answer RQ1 and RQ2 in this study. Intrinsic factors are defined as internal motivational
elements that affect an individual’s behavior and extrinsic factors are defined as
motivational elements that influence an individual externally.
Teachers’ perceptions of principal’s leadership are measured to illuminate
principal leadership proclivities and their influence on teacher performance, as well as
elucidate the desirable leadership attributes sought by high performing teachers of their
principals. Teachers’ perceptions of principal’s leadership were measured via the 48
questions in the Leadership Behavior Survey using a five point Likert scale that indicates
a respondents closest description of principal leadership in the areas of human relations,
trust/decision-making, instructional leadership, conflict, and control. The scale is
comprised of the responses of A=never, B=seldom, C=sometimes, D=often, and
E=always and generates a mean score scale measurement of principal leadership
perceptions needed to answer RQ3 in this study.
The criterion variable in this study is teacher performance, as measured by the
District Teacher Evaluation System Instrument. Teacher performance is defined by the
aggregate scores on the District Teacher Evaluation System Instrument, which measures
teacher performance on a four point Likert scale in the areas of professional practice
inclusive of planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and
professional responsibilities. The numeric value generated by the District Teacher
Evaluation System Instrument aggregates the four point Likert scale domain scores and
generates the quantitative numeric value that establishes the category of teachers
designated as high performing. Pearson correlational analysis was used to measure levels
75
of relationship between the predictor variables and the criterion variable. A linear
correlation value was generated via Pearson analysis between each predictor variable and
the criterion variable, producing a value between +1 and -1, which was used to test the
research hypotheses.
An electronic Survey Monkey questionnaire was sent to the target population of
high performing teachers, which produced the sample for this study. Ordinal data were
generated via the Likert scale responses from the survey instruments, which generated the
numeric quantitative data required to address the research questions and test the
hypotheses in the study. Continuous data were generated by calculating the means of the
respondents’ Likert scale responses, which created an aggregate numerical value score
that was used to test the hypotheses.
Research Methodology
This study utilized a quantitative methodology to measure the levels of
relationships between intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions
of principal’s leadership on teacher performance. The unit of analysis in this study was
high performing teachers who were identified based on their teacher performance
reflected in the teacher evaluations. A significant portion of the literature reviewed in this
study is represented by quantitative approaches, where researchers have identified and
examined the motivational tendencies of teachers. Correlational analysis was used to
measure the strength of relationships between the predictor variables and the criterion
variable that are posed by the research questions and to test the hypotheses of the
influences of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teacher’s perceptions of
principal’s leadership on teacher performance. Johnson and Christensen (2014)

76
acknowledged the effectiveness of quantitative methodologies to quantify and measure
the relationships between multiple variables. The research questions in this study
warrants the use of a quantitative design to answer the research questions that are seeking
to measure the relationship between multiple variables.
The research instruments utilized in this study generated a quantified numeric
value of the predictor variables for the study, which required a quantitative correlational
analysis to determine the level of linear correlational between the predictor variables and
the criterion variable based on the accumulated values. The quantified numeric value
generated by the Pearson analysis measured for linear correlation between the values of
+1 and -1 to test for levels of relationship between variables, thus requiring the use of a
quantitative methodology. Adhi et al. (2013) utilized a quantitative methodology to
measure the relationships between multiple variables and their individual effect on
teachers’ performance. This study was designed to test the relationships of motivation
from a large sample of teachers in order to illuminate the primary factors that influence
their motivation both intrinsically and extrinsically. Muijs (2010) endorsed the use of
quantitative methodologies over qualitative methodologies, when studies are designed to
address hypotheses that determine relationships between multiple variables.
Quantitative approaches of teacher motivational tendencies provides a broad
representation of multiple variables that further elucidates the combinations of
motivational factors, which can be gleaned from large sample groups (Cerasoli et al.,
2014; Mertler, 2016). Abdullah and Rubin (2013) utilized a quantitative design to test the
predictor variables of teacher’s attitudes, work motivation, and perceptions of
organizational culture on their performance as educators. A quantitative study with a

77
correlational design was used by Li et al. (2015) to measure multiple motivational
variables and their relationships with work engagement of teachers. Quantitative studies
are pervasive throughout the literature surrounding measurements of and relationships
between motivating factors that impact teachers and their performance. This study of
intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of principal’s
leadership on teacher performance requires a quantitative design to generate the requisite
numeric value measurements of the predictor variables with the criterion variable,
creating a measurable relationship between each variable. Quantitative methods are
required for this study to identify a broad composition of intrinsic and extrinsic variables,
as well as the variable of teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership, which illuminates
the diverse groupings of factors that influence teacher motivation and subsequent
performance from a broad sample. A quantitative study aligns with and answers the
research questions and hypotheses set forward in this study and provides a design
construct that can be replicated in other population samples.
This study examined a large sample population and measured specific variables,
as qualitative methodology focuses on a much smaller sample. Qualitative methods do
not measure the relationship between variables defined in the research questions. In this
study, the researcher used statistical calculations to determine the results. Since
quantitative methodology involves statistical calculations while qualitative research does
not involve statistical analysis, qualitative methodology was not appropriate for this
study.
78
Research Design
A quantitative correlational design was used in this study of teacher motivation to
examine and measure multiple predictor variables and measure their strength of
relationship with the criterion variable. Adhi et al. (2013) utilized a correlational design
to examine the multiple predictor variables of organizational culture, transformational
leadership, and work motivation, as they affect the criterion variable of teacher
performance. Muijs (2010) acknowledged the effectiveness of correlational designs in
measuring the relationship of multiple variables, as well as producing a numeric value of
the relationship between variables. Correlational analysis was selected for this study to
measure the criterion variables of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teachers’
perceptions of principal’s leadership with the criterion variable of teacher performance to
measure the relationship between the variables. Electronic surveys were disseminated to
the target population creating ordinal-categorical data via the survey instruments, which
generated quantified numeric values from the respondents with the predictor variables of
leadership with the criterion variable of teacher performance. The unit of analysis in this
study was high performing teachers who were identified based on their teacher
performance reflected in the teacher evaluations. A correlational design was required to
statistically measure and analyze the linear correlation between the predictor variables
and the criterion variable and determine the level of significance of the relationships
between the variables posed in the research questions.
Variables of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were identified within the sample
via the Work Preference Inventory, which has been endorsed by Amabile et al. (1994) as
79
an effective measurement of motivational tendencies. The WPI has 30 items divided into
two domains of 15 intrinsic and 15 extrinsic motivational tendencies and measured the
variables and relationship of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in RQ1 and RQ2.
Teacher’s perceptions of principal’s leadership was measured by the Leadership Behavior
Survey by Bulach et al. (2006), which has been endorsed as an effective instrument to
determine and measure teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership. The LBS measures
the principal leadership perceptions of teachers on 48 positive and negative behaviors in
the areas of human relations, trust/decision making, instructional leadership, control, and
conflict and measured the variable and relationship of principal’s leadership perceptions
in RQ3. High performing teachers are identified by their levels of performance on the
district teacher evaluation system and are the unit of analysis in this study. Jugovic et al.
(2012) advocated for the use of a quantitative methodology and correlational design as an
effective means of measuring intrinsic and extrinsic motivating factors of teachers.
Onjoro et al. (2015) utilized a correlational design to measure teachers’ perceptions of
leaders and the resulting influence of their perceptions on their levels of motivation. The
design used in this study allowed for a measurement of teachers’ intrinsic and extrinsic
motivational tendencies and their relationship significance, as well as provided a
correlational value of their perceptions of principal’s leadership on teachers’ levels of
motivation, job satisfaction, and performance.
Other quantitative research designs were rejected for this study because of their
inability to fully measure and examine the relationship between intrinsic motivation,
extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership perceptions on
teacher performance. Both quasi-experimental and causal-comparative designs were not

80
chosen as each does not fit the sampling and variable analysis that correlational analysis
provides to the design structure, which seeks to measure relationships and not effect. A
descriptive design was not chosen as it does not test for relationships between variables.
An experimental design was not chosen as this study seeks to test relationships and is not
controlling for experimental groups or manipulating the predictor variables. Pearson
correlational design was selected over other quantitative and qualitative designs because
of the necessity of measuring the levels of relationships of the predictor variables of
leadership with the criterion variable of teacher performance, as articulated in the
research questions. Correlational analysis was an effective measurement of the level of
relationship between variables, as posed by the research questions in this study.
Population and Sample Selection
The target population for this study consisted of high performing teachers in a K-
12 Southwestern U.S. public school district in Arizona whose teaching performance had
been measured and evaluated as high performing on their annual teaching evaluation. The
population of interest for this study consisted of the teachers in the state of Arizona who
have been identified as high performing teachers based on their students’ academic
achievement and their levels of teaching performance. High performing teachers who
responded to the survey request comprised the sample for this study. A request to
participate was distributed to the target population of high performing teachers identified
by the district research department via their annual performance evaluations.
Convenience sampling was used to survey the estimated population of 1342 high
performing teachers, as indicated by the district research department. G Power statistical

81
analysis required a sample of 84 for significance at a power rate of .80, alpha of .05, and
correlational effect of .30 on a two tailed test (copy in Appendix B). The researcher did
attain the required sample of 84 participants or more for the required level of
significance, as the target population was 1342 high performing teachers and was within
the range of 5-10% of the expected return rate on a questionnaire without incentives. If
return rates were not as expected, the researcher would continue to resend the email for
participation until the valid number is met by expanding the time frame. There was no
anticipation of attrition as this study did not have repeated measures where respondents
may quit participating. This study required participants to engage only once to complete
an online questionnaire, which did not lead to attrition of participants.
Permission from the district superintendent (Appendix E) was attained and was
further endorsed by the governing board upon completion of IRB. Participants were
selected from the data provided by the District Office Research Department and were
sent the questionnaire in an electronic format. The District Office Research Department
sent out an email on behalf of the researcher to the identified population verifying
governing board approval for the study to be conducted within the school district. An
email was sent by the researcher to the target population that included an introductory
letter with a request to participate, an informed consent form with an electronic approval
in the Survey Monkey survey, as well as the direct link to the survey. The findings from
this study generated a further understanding of teacher motivational tendencies and
provided another sample from a unique geographic area, which contributed to the
existing domestic and international studies present in the literature. Site authorization was
be provided by the district superintendent and governing board. All data remains known
82
only to the researcher and teacher participation was voluntary. Participants were chosen
from the teachers who responded with their informed consent to the researcher's inquiry
to participate in the research study and were the sample of high performing teachers in
this study.
Instrumentation
For the purpose of this study, data were collected utilizing the Worker Preference
Inventory Survey (WPI) by Amabile et al. (1994) to identify the intrinsic and extrinsic
variables that drive high performing teachers. Data were additionally collected by using
the Leadership Behavior Survey (LBS) by Bulach et al. (2006) to measure teachers’
perceptions of their principal’s behavior and its effect on teachers. Amabile et al. (1994)
recommended the WPI as an effective instrument to identify the motivating factors that
influence workers and their performance. Bulach et al. (2006) recommended the LBS as
an effective instrument to examine the perceptions of teachers toward principal’s
behaviors and leadership characteristics. Permission to use the instruments was granted
by both authors as demonstrated in Appendix C.
Work Preference Survey. The Work Preference Survey (WPI) was designed by
Amabile et al. (1994) to measure the intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientation of
individuals. The survey contains two primary scales of measurement of 15 intrinsic
motivation questions and 15 extrinsic motivation questions, as well as four secondary
scales that measure intrinsic measurements of enjoyment and challenge and extrinsic
measurements of outward and compensation. The 30 questions inclusive of the WPI are
answered using a Likert scale with four possible answers that demonstrate individual
tendencies. Convergent validity was demonstrated by Amabile et al. (1994) when the
83
instrument was compared with Ryan and Deci’s instrument measuring intrinsic
motivation and the Myers Briggs Type Inventory measuring extrinsic motivation. R
values for validity showed a range from .32 to .38 for extrinsic motivation and .53 for
intrinsic motivation, as well as reliability measurements of .82 for intrinsic and .76 for
extrinsic motivation, through the analysis of Amabile et al. (1994). The work preference
survey is a highly used instrument within the body of extant literature and provides for a
delineation of both intrinsic and extrinsic tendencies present within each person.
Stuhlfaut (2010) acknowledged the effectiveness of the WPI in assessing both intrinsic
and extrinsic proclivities and recommended its usage to determine motivational factors
manifested by individuals. Achakul and Yolles (2013) endorsed the use of the WPI as an
effective instrument to assess the contributing factors of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
in professional workers. Loo (2001) recognized the efficacy of the WPI in measuring
intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors and the effect of the interplay between the two
elements on human behavior. Loo (2001) recommended the use of the WPI as a means to
further understand motivational orientations of professional within the field of education.
The WPI assess the levels of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation by generating a mean
score from the respondents’ answers on the 4 point Likert scale of the 15 questions that
are measurements of intrinsic motivation and the 15 questions that are measurements of
extrinsic motivation. The scale of measurement created via the WPI of high performing
teacher motivation provided the requisite data needed to answer RQ1 and RQ2 in this
study.
Leadership Behavior Survey. The Leadership Behavior (LBS) was designed by
Bulach et al. (2006) as a mechanism to analyze the positive and negative behaviors of
84
principals through the perceptive lenses of their school workers. The measurement has
been utilized pervasively by previous researchers in the examination of leader’s
behaviors and their effect on the school personnel, climate, and culture. The LBS is
comprised of 48 questions that measure a principal’s leadership characteristics in the
areas of human relations, trust/decision making, instructional leadership, conflict, and
control. The instrument contains a five point Likert scale to assess the level of manifested
behavior of the principal, as perceived by their teachers. The LBS measurement was
calculated by scoring the average of the mean scores of the respondents within the
subdivisions of leadership survey. The LBS has been deemed reliable and valid in
evaluating the behaviors exhibited by school principals (Bulach et al., 2006). Bulach et
al. (2006) endorsed the use of the LBS instrument to measure the relationship of principal
leadership perceptions on teacher morale, as well as their overall effect on the educational
environment and subsequent student achievement results. Construct validity has been
established based on the correlations of multiple studies using the instrument and the
initial instrument analysis of Bulach et al. (2006), where an overall mean score of 3.67
and an average standard deviation of 1.11 was determined throughout the five leadership
domains from over 1000 respondents over multiple years. The LBS provides researchers
with a reliable and valid instrument to measure the behavioral manifestations of school
leaders and their overall influence on their schools, which has been peer reviewed and
endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (Bulach et
al., 2006). The LBS Survey has been deemed reliable by Bulach et al. (2006) with a
Cronbach’s alpha of .95 through multiple testing iterations and has been recognized as
valid with a +.95 correlation when evaluated with similar surveys of school climate. The
85
LBS assesses teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership by generating a mean score
from the respondents answers on the 5 point Likert scale of the 48 questions that address
human relations, trust/decision-making, instructional leadership, conflict, and control.
The scale of measurement created via the LBS of high performing teachers’ perceptions
of principal leadership provided the requisite data needed to answer RQ3 in this study.
Teacher Evaluation Instrument. The district teacher evaluation system that was
used to assess teacher performance and identify the population of high performing
teachers is based on the teacher evaluation system founded by Charlotte Danielson.
Sartain et al. (2011) endorsed the use of the Danielson Framework as an effective
measurement of teacher performance in an examination of instruction in the Chicago
Public Schools. The district teacher evaluation system used to identify high performing
teachers via their performance evaluations has been supported by the tests of the
instructional reliability and validity conducted by Sartain et al. (2011). Reliability testing
produced a rating of .98 and the consistent correlational rating of value added measures
and classroom observation demonstrated the validity of the framework as a measure of
teacher practice (Sartain et al., 2011). The teacher evaluation instrument identifies four
main components of professional practice that include the domains of planning and
preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities.
Teachers are evaluated over the course of an academic year by their site administrators on
a 4 point scale system that is comprised of the ratings of unsatisfactory, developing,
proficient, and excelling in each of the domains. An aggregate score is generated via the
scoring of the four domains within the teacher evaluation instrument and will classify
them as unsatisfactory, developing, proficient, or excelling. The comprehensive score

86
created via the district teacher evaluation system creates the scale measurement that is the
criterion variable of teacher performance and identifies the high performing teachers,
who were the target population to be surveyed in this study.
Validity
The validity of the instruments used for this study were essential to draw valid
conclusions from the data gleaned and address the research questions and hypotheses
inherent to this study on teacher motivation. This study utilized two instruments to
answer the research questions regarding teacher motivation and teachers’ perceptions of
principal’s leadership on teacher motivation and performance. The instruments used for
this study were the Work Preference Survey by Amabile et al. (1994) and the Leadership
Behavior Survey by Bulach et al. (2006). Amabile et al. (1994) and Bulach et al. (2006)
endorsed the validity of their instruments and both are pervasive throughout the literature
and have been frequently utilized by previous research in the areas of motivational
orientation of professional workers and perceptions of leaders’ behavior within
professional contexts.
The Worker Preference Inventory used for this study was validated by Amabile et
al. (1994) as an effective instrument to measure the variables that influence human
motivation. Amabile et al. (1994) recognized the validity of the instrument for
quantitative research studies with correlational designs. The WPI was tested for
convergent validity by Amabile et al. (1994) via comparisons to Ryan and Deci’s
instrument measuring intrinsic motivation and the Myers Briggs Type Inventory
measuring extrinsic motivation. R values showed a range from .32 to .38 for extrinsic
motivation and .53 for intrinsic motivation through the analysis of Amabile et al (1994).
87
Analysis conducted by Amabile et al. (1994) confirmed the validity of the instrument in
measuring both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational tendencies present within individuals.
The WPI was endorsed by Bassi and Fave (2012) as an effective and valid instrument to
assess both intrinsic and extrinsic proclivities of professionals in the workplace. The
validity of the WPI, in assessing both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in
professional workers, has been affirmed by Janus (2014). Amabile et al. (1994)
recognized the validity of the WPI in measuring an individual’s intrinsic, extrinsic, dually
motivated, and unmotivated tendencies.
The Leadership Behavior Survey has been confirmed as a valid instrument by
Bulach et al. (2006) to measure both the positive and negative behaviors exhibited by
principals. The LBS survey has been used frequently by previous researchers in studies
evaluating the influence of school leader’s behavior as observed and perceived by their
teachers. Bulach et al. (2006) demonstrated the validity of the LBS instrument with a
+.95 correlation, as it was evaluated with similar surveys of school climate. The data
derived from the LBS survey will validate the study as its construct validity has been
established. The LBS has demonstrated the ability to effectively measure behaviors of
principals, as the data produced manifested a mean score of 3.67 and an average standard
deviation of 1.11 throughout the five leadership domains based on the responses of 1000
respondents over multiple years. The measurements generated by the LBS are able to
validly measure the behaviors exhibited by principals in the areas of human relations,
trust/decision making, instructional leadership, control, and conflict (Bulach et al., 2006).
Permission was granted by both instruments authors to use their surveys and is referenced
in Appendix C.
88
The Teacher Evaluation Instrument used to garner data in this study has been
supported by Sartain et al. (2011), as analysis on the validity of the Danielson Framework
was conducted within the Chicago Public Schools. Sartain et al. (2011) tested the
framework for validity through measurements between the value-added measure and the
classroom observation measure, which produced a consistent correlation and
demonstrated the framework as a valid measure of teacher performance, as defined in
Appendix D. The aggregate data produced form the previous year of district teacher
evaluations were the source of data to assess teacher performance and identify the target
population of high performing teachers surveyed in this study.
Reliability
The reliability of the instruments utilized for this study were essential to
accurately measure the variables inherent to this study among the various participants
who were sampled and surveyed. The selection of the instruments was founded in their
consistent abilities to be reliable, as they have been utilized by researchers in multiple
studies over time. This study used the Work Preferences Inventory by Amabile et al.
(1994) to measure intrinsic and extrinsic motivations of teachers and the Leadership
Behavior Survey by Bulach et al. (2006) to measure the perceptions of teachers of the
leadership characteristics demonstrated by their principals. Both instruments have been
extensively utilized by previous researchers and have been deemed reliable by the
original authors Bulach et al. (2006) and Amabile et al. (1994).
The Work Preference Inventory has been utilized in numerous quantitative studies
with correlational designs that measure human motivation. The WPI can be used to
reproduce similar results from multiple studies and has been determined to be a reliable
89
instrument (Amabile et al., 1994). Robinson et al. (2014) endorsed the WPI as a
consistent mechanism to illuminate the factors that influence worker commitment and job
satisfaction. Amabile et al. (1994) acknowledged the reliability of the WPI, which
produced a Cronbach’s alpha measurement of .82 for intrinsic motivation and .76 for
extrinsic motivation. The initial testing conducted by Amabile et al. (1994) confirmed the
reliability of the instrument to repeatedly measure both intrinsic and extrinsic
motivational proclivities. The WPI serves as a reliable measurement of both the intrinsic
and extrinsic orientations of individuals, as well as the blending effect that occurs and
combines to affect human motivation and behavior. Loo (2001) recognized the utility of
the WPI and its ability to be repeatedly used as an instrument to measure and understand
the motivation of workers within the field of education.
The Leadership Behavior Survey has been utilized by multiple researchers and
was designed by Bulach et al. (2006) to measure the positive and negative behaviors
exhibited by principals, as observed by their teaching staffs. Bulach et al. (2006) tested
the instrument and its five domains and deemed the instrument reliable with a Cronbach’s
alpha of .95 through multiple testing iterations. The LBS has consistently provided an
elucidation of the effect of various leadership approaches on their workers in the school,
as well as the effect of the leader’s behavior on the school’s climate and culture (Bulach
et al., 2006). The National Council of the Professors of Educational Administration has
recognized the LBS as an effective and reliable measurement of leader behavior and
endorsed it as an efficacious mechanism for replication in the field of education (Bulach
et al., 2006).
90
The Teacher Evaluation Instrument is based on the teacher evaluation framework
of Charlotte Danielson. Sartain et al. (2011) tested the reliability of the teacher evaluation
in the Chicago Public School system to determine the reliability of the Danielson
Framework. Sartain et al. (2011) deemed the framework reliable via testing and analysis
for reliability, which was determined to be at .98. The aggregate data produced from the
previous year of district teacher evaluations were the source of data to identify the
population of high performing teachers who were surveyed in this study.
Data Collection and Management
The data for this study was collected via the Work Preference Survey and the
Leader Behavior Survey via a Survey Monkey online delivery, after the proposal was
granted approval from Grand Canyon University IRB and dissertation committee chair.
The use of an electronic survey was granted by the district superintendent in Appendix E
and was distributed to K-12 teachers in a Southwestern U.S. public school district
utilizing a target population of teachers who have been recognized as highly performing
via their teacher evaluations. The opportunity to participate and informed consent to
participate in the study was disseminated by the researcher to the target population, once
the list of high performing teachers had been shared by the District Research Department.
The initial email sent to the target population included an introductory letter with a
request to participate, an informed consent form with an electronic approval in the Survey
Monkey, as well as the direct link to the survey. The information collected from the
participants was examined and analyzed for the study. The survey was sent only to the
target population of K-12 teachers that were recognized as high performing on their
evaluations.
91
This study utilized a survey of the target population of district teachers that was
estimated at 1342 high performing teachers. G Power analysis verified the requirement of
84 respondents for a valid sample with the established parameters of .30 for correlational
effect, an alpha of .05, and power of .80 in a two tailed test via statistical analysis.
Permission for this study, utilizing district personnel, was secured from the
superintendent and research department and went to the Governing Board for a formal
vote after IRB approval. Teachers were sent an electronic letter via email regarding the
study, which explained the purpose of the study and asked for their participation and
informed consent as identified in Appendix F. Teachers who chose to participate in the
study confirmed their informed consent electronically within the Survey Monkey survey,
as identified in Appendix G, which states the purpose of the study, their protection as
participants, and consent to participate. Participants were protected under all policies
defined by IRB, as well as district and institutional policies that ensure the confidentiality
of all participants. Participating teachers’ names remained confidential and all
participants were protected with the highest of ethical standards as established by the
National Research Act and Belmont Report.
Participants who provide informed consent were given a survey web link to a list
of 78 Likert scale questions, which were gleaned from the WPI and the LBS instruments.
The survey questionnaire took each participant approximately 10-15 minutes to complete.
The data accumulated from the respondents in the Survey Monkey survey were
transferred over to a flash drive and stored there throughout the data analysis period. The
data accrued from the respondents’ answers was inputted and analyzed in SPSS to create
numeric values of the predictor variables, which was used to answer the research
92
questions and test the hypotheses. The data were saved onto the researcher’s flash drive
throughout the data analysis processes, where the data were analyzed via the study design
to answer the research questions and hypotheses. Once the statistically valid sample was
attained, the Survey Monkey link was closed and the data within Survey Monkey were
deleted once all data had been transferred to the researcher’s flash drive. The raw data
and the data analysis files remain secured and in the possession of the researcher for the
mandated three year period. Upon the ending of the three year time period, the data will
be deleted from the researcher’s flash drive and the flash drive will be destroyed.
Data Analysis Procedures
The following questions and hypothesis provided the basis of the research for this
study, which sought to measure the degree of relationship between intrinsic motivation,
extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of principal’s leadership on teacher
performance in a K-12 Southwestern U.S. public school district of teachers that have
been designated as high performing through the evaluation process at their schools. The
research questions and hypotheses in this study are stated below.

93
The research questions and hypotheses in this correlational study were examined,
tested, and answered via the data analysis procedures in the following sections, beginning
with the data preparation and cleaning to be conducted.
Data preparation and cleaning. Data were gleaned from the survey responses in
Survey Monkey and downloaded onto the researcher’s flash drive. The continuous data
generated from the survey respondents provided the sample for this study, which required
84 respondents based on G Power analysis as illustrated in Appendix B. The continuous
data generated by the respondents in the sample was uploaded into the SPSS software
analysis program, which provided the levels of analysis required to answer the research
questions and test the hypotheses in this study regarding the relationships between
leadership on teacher performance. Scatterplot tests were conducted in SPSS to check for
linear relationships, significant outliers, and any missing values between the predictor
94
variables and the criterion variable. The predictor variables in this study were intrinsic
motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of principal’s leadership. The
criterion variable in this study was teacher performance.
Descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics were used to display data themes and
categories within the data set. The data generated from the respondents’ survey results
from the WPI and LBS instruments were inputted into the SPSS system and provided the
requisite data set needed to answer the research questions and test the hypotheses in the
study. The aggregated data gleaned from the Survey Monkey responses provided the
continuous data required to examine the values of the mean, standard deviation,
skewness, kurtosis, and the sample size for each variable in the data set. The data were
displayed in charts and graphs illustrating the descriptive data of the predictor variables
of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of principal’s
leadership with the criterion variable of teacher performance.
The Likert scale within the LBS and WPI instruments provided the scale of
measurement to determine the numeric value of each predictor variable, which were
individually paired with the criterion variable to measure the significance of their
relationship. The variable pairings in this study were intrinsic motivation and teacher
performance, extrinsic motivation and teacher performance, and teachers’ perceptions of
principal leadership and teacher performance to determine the level of relationship
between them. High performing teachers were identified by their aggregate scores on
their District Teacher Evaluation System Instrument, which measures teacher
performance on a four point Likert scale in the areas of professional practice inclusive of
planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and professional

95
responsibilities. Intrinsic motivation was defined as internal motivational elements that
affect an individual’s behavior and extrinsic motivation is defined as motivational
elements that influence an individual externally. Teacher performance was defined by the
outcome of the assessment and evaluation processes of a teachers’ delivery of instruction,
student achievement results, and overall job requirements. Teachers’ perceptions of
principal leadership was defined as the perceived positive and negative behaviors
exhibited by principals as observed by high performing teachers.
Inferential statistics. Inferential statistics were used to answer the research
questions posed in this study, by use of the SPSS Software System and utilization of
Pearson correlational analysis to measure the correlation levels of the relationships
between the predictor variables of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and
teacher’s perceptions of principal leadership with the criterion variable of teacher
performance. Cohen’s (1992) effect sizes of small at .10, medium at .30, and large at .50
were used to measure the significance of the relationship between the variables. For this
study, a medium effect size of .30 was used to determine a significant relationship
between the predictor variables and the criterion variable. Continuous data were
generated via the survey results from the sample, producing a numeric value of the
aggregate means of the respondents’ answers, which served as the quantified
measurement of the predictor variables of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and
principal’s leadership perceptions.
Pearson correlational analysis was used in the research study to measure
relationships and levels of significance between the predictor variables and the criterion
variable, although correlations are not used to establish cause and effect relationships
96
(Muijs, 2010). Pearson correlational analysis measured the direction of the relationship,
which can be positive or negative, as well as strength of the relationship between
variables as measured from +1 to -1 (Muijs, 2010). The assumptions of parametric
correlations, that the variables being measured were continuous, there were linear
relationships between the variables, no significant outliers, and the variables were
approximately normally distributed (Muijs, 2010) were established by screening the data
before analysis for the research questions. SPSS v 25 software was used to generate
scatterplots to test for assumptions of linear relationship and for significant outliers, as
well as a test for assumptions of bivariate normality using parametric inferential
statistical tests for the each of the variable pairings. Cronbach’s alpha reliability tests
were conducted and summated scales adjusted to include data that were acceptably
reliable. Demographic and perceptual variables were not distinguished by gender and all
the data were analyzed together to answer the research questions.
The data accrued via the Work Preference Survey and the Leadership Behavior
Survey were analyzed to answer the research questions and test the hypotheses regarding
the relationships of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions
of principal leadership with teacher performance. The null hypotheses were that there
were no significant correlations between performance, motivation, and leadership.
Statistical significance was set at alpha = .05. For any correlations that emerged with
probability levels that were less than .05, the corresponding null hypothesis was rejected.
The target sample amount for a valid sample was supported by a G*power analysis,
which called for a minimum sample of 84 respondents in order to achieve 80% power if
97
the effect of motivation and leadership was low to medium in strength. Results computed
in SPSS is displayed in charts and graphs in Chapter 4.
Ethical Considerations
The researcher engaging in this study did not anticipate any ethical issues in its
execution and completion of this study. Although the researcher was gathering data from
the school district of current employment, all data remained confidential and participation
was voluntary. Informed consent (Appendix G) was attained from all the participants
regarding the purpose of the study, as well as a description provided of their protection of
confidentiality as participants in the study via an email with the informed consent form
attached to the Survey Monkey survey, which could be electronically approved by those
who chose to participate in the study. Participants for the research sample were selected
from a target population of K-12 teachers who have been evaluated as high performing
by their site administrator responsible for their performance evaluation. The data
collected were only be seen by the Director of Research for the district, as well as the
researcher conducting this study. Once the study was completed, the data accrued will be
held by the researcher in a secure location on the researcher’s flash drive. No one will
have access to the raw data over the required three year period.
Upon the end of the mandatory three year time period to maintain the raw data,
the researcher will delete all the data, which will be stored only on the researchers flash
drive and be exclusively in possession of the researcher throughout the study. The data
will be deleted from the flash drive it is stored in and the researcher will inform the
district that the time period for storing of data has expired and confirm its deletion with
the district officials. The procedures surrounding the dissemination and receiving of
98
surveys was handled by the researcher and the District Research Department.
Participation in this study was strictly voluntary for K-12 teachers who were identified as
highly performing. Participants who had questions of the researchers were able to contact
the researcher at any time during the process via email or phone number, which was
embedded within the informed consent form. Study participants were able to opt out of
the study at any time upon request to the researcher, or could choose not to respond to the
initial email, thus not agreeing to participate. Respondents interested in the study were
given an informed consent form to sign explaining the study and were required to
electronically sign and verify their understanding of the study and their individual
consent to participate.
The researcher did not anticipate significant amounts of survey fatigue as the
survey was comprised of small amount of introductory information to be read and
electronically verified and 78 questions to be answered on a Likert scale. The entire
process for the respondents took only 10-15 minutes to complete, which minimized
survey fatigue of participants and facilitated completion of the surveys by those who
consented to participate. The survey respondents who participated in this study remained
anonymous throughout the data collection process and results generated remain
confidential. This study followed all practices as delineated by IRB and the standards
defined within the Belmont Report (National Commission, 1978) of respect for persons,
beneficence, and justice. The researcher demonstrated respect for persons by maintaining
the autonomy, confidentiality, and informed consent of participants, while treating them
with courtesy, respect, and without any form of deception. Beneficence was demonstrated
in this study as no harm was done to any study participants. There were no individual
99
risks to the study participants and the study results will be beneficial to the larger
educational community. Justice was demonstrated in the study. Fair, reasonable, and non-
exploitive procedures in the research process were established throughout this study. All
ethical standards and practices, as prescribed by the Belmont report and IRB, were
utilized by the researcher in this study of teacher performance.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations and delimitations must be considered regarding this study. The
sample was considered a limitation, as it came from one metropolitan school district, in
one specific region of the United States, which has some of its own unique norms and
demographics that may not be generalizable to other populations. An additional limitation
is the study did not include private school or charter school teachers who would add more
diverse perspectives to the study, which may or may not reflect similar results as
generated from the K-12 public school teacher sample. The use of a quantitative
methodology may be a limitation, as it does not display the depth and richness of
qualitative methods. Applications of this study across various geographic areas, diverse
demographics, additional states, and countries will further illuminate the effect of the
variables defined in this study on high performing teachers from other areas.
A delimitation to this study was the selection of one geographic area that is
inclusive of a particular set of inherent demographic factors unique to the area. An
additional delimitation was the use of cross-sectional data of teacher motivation that
may be subject to change overtime. Longitudinal data may reflect potential
motivational shifts that occur over the professional careers of teachers. The
questionnaires used to measure the variables could be vague in some of the areas
100
related to the research questions. The researcher used the attributes and beliefs that are
defined by the questionnaires regarding the individual variables manifested of intrinsic
motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teacher’s perceptions of principal’s leadership
from the surveys and matched the applicable measurements to the research questions.
Another delimitation to this study was the sample of only high performing teachers,
which limits generalizations to other teacher populations.
Summary
Chapter 3 included an overview of the quantitative methodology used and the
correlational design utilized to perform the research for this study. The researcher sought
to address the gap identified by Wildman (2015) and Mertler (2016) in further examining
the motivational factors that influence teachers and lead to effective performance, as well
as job satisfaction. Irwandi (2014) called for additional research to identify and
perpetuate the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations of effective teachers. Mertler (2016)
recommended the use of quantitative designs to glean the salient variables and correlate
their relationships with each other. This examination of teacher motivation seeks to glean
the prominent motivational factors present in high performing teachers and measure the
strengths of their relationships.
This study utilized the Work Preference Survey by Amabile et al. (1994) and the
Leadership Behavior Survey by Bulach et al. (2006) to examine the relationships between
intrinsic motivational, extrinsic motivational, and teacher’s perceptions of principal
leadership on teacher performance. The WPS and LBS have been both been deemed valid
and reliable in their respective areas and will be the instruments used in this study of
teacher motivation. The research inclusive of this study examined the relationship
101
between motivational factors that affect teacher performance. Cerasoli et al. (2014)
recommended further research be conducted to determine the relationships between and
influence of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation of teachers within the education
community. Purcek (2014) acknowledged the significant importance of effective school
principals in generating both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for their teachers, as well
as facilitating a positive and affirming environmental and culture.
The results and relationships determined through the study of teacher motivation
were examined and displayed in Chapter 4. The variables of intrinsic motivation,
extrinsic motivation, and teacher’s perceptions of principal’s leadership were measured,
delineated, and discussed in Chapter 4. Correlational values between the predictor
variables and the criterion variable were calculated via Pearson analysis using SPSS
software. The accumulated data in Chapter 4 were used to test the relationships between
the variables from the sample and assess their levels of significance with each other.
Chapter 4 provides the accumulation of data accrued and demonstrate the descriptive data
analysis of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of
principal’s leadership on teacher performance. Chapter 4 presents the results of the
correlation analysis of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teachers’
perceptions of principal’s leadership on teacher performance.

102
Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results
Introduction
of principal’s leadership on teacher performance. The relationship between motivating
factors that drive teachers’ performance has been a pervasive source of examination by
numerous previous researchers (Purcek, 2014; Adegbesan, 2013; Cerasoli et al., 2014;
Han & Yin, 2016). Participants were teachers in a K-12 public school district in the
Southwestern region of the United States who scored 3.5+ on the district’s 4.0-scaled
faculty evaluation rubrics. Motivation was examined in two ways, intrinsic motivation
and extrinsic motivation, using a Likert scaled survey responses to generate ratio-scaled
motivation summated scales for both types of motivation utilizing the Worker Preference
Survey by Amabile et al. (1994). Leadership was defined as teachers’ perceptions of their
school principal’s leadership style and Likert scaled survey responses were also used to
generate a ratio-scaled leadership summated scales utilizing the Leadership Behavior
Survey by Bulach et al. (2006). The research methodology was a quantitative
correlational approach where formalized research questions and hypotheses were
proposed. Data were generated via the Worker Preference Inventory survey and the
Leadership Behavior Survey instrument to generate quantifiable numeric values that were
used to measure the predictor variables of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and
perceptions of principal’s leadership. Individual predictor variable data were tested for
correlational significance with the criterion variable of teacher performance. The criterion
variable of teacher performance was defined by the district research instrument, where
103
each teacher was given a cumulative numeric value based on their assessments. The
following research questions and hypotheses were used to guide this research study:
This chapter provides a written narrative, as well as descriptive tables and figures
to illustrate how the data were collected, analyzed, and displayed. This chapter is divided
into six sections. The first section lists the research questions. The second section
104
explains steps taken in pre-analysis data screening and handling. The third section
presents descriptive findings. The fourth section briefly describes data analysis
procedures. The fifth section presents the results by research question. The sixth and final
section is a summary.
Descriptive Findings
Table 1 shows that the sample for this study was comprised of an approximately
even split between high school teachers and K-8 elementary school teachers. The ranges
of years of experience included 11 teachers with 0-5 years of experience, 24 with 6-10
years of experience, 25 with 11-15 years of experience, 35 with 16-20 years of
experience, and 60 with 21+ years of teaching experiences. The education level of
respondents had 45 with a bachelor’s degree, 101 with a master’s degree, and 9 with
specialist or doctorate degrees.
Table 1.
Teacher Demographics
Teaching Experiences (Years) Number of Teachers
0-5 Years 11
6-10 Years 24
11-25 Years 25
16-20 Years 35
21+ Years 60
Teaching Assignment
High School 82
Elementary (K-8) 73
Educational Level
Bachelor’s Degree 45
Master’s Degree 101
Doctorate or Specialist 9
A total of 166 teachers responded to the survey, but 11 did not complete a
majority of the survey questions and were eliminated from the sample. The effective final
105
sample size for this study was 155 teachers who were high performing, based on their
most recent performance evaluation, n = 115 females and n = 40 males who responded.
Power analysis was conducted using the G*Power website (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, &
Buchner, 2007), which determined the required sample size of 84 based on a significance
level of alpha =.05, power of .80, and effect size of .3 (Appendix B). The analysis to test
the hypotheses was correlational, treating high performing teachers as the unit of
analysis. Total scores and subscales were calculated via the data generated in the survey
responses from the LBS survey instrument by Bulach et al. (2006) and the WPI survey
instrument by Amabile et al. (1994). Negatively stated items were reverse scored within
the SPSS software system, which generated the data set for analysis and testing.
Descriptive statistics of statistical measures were generated to display data generated by
both survey instruments.
Data screening. All data were initially screened for entry errors and missing data
points. Likert-scaled responses were screened for normality, linearity, homoscedasticity,
and outliers to determine if they could be treated as continuous data (Hair, Black, Babin,
Anderson, & Tatham, 2010). Screening procedures are described in Appendix I. The data
did not show any substantial or systematic departures from statistical normality, were
treated as continuous data, and examined with parametric inferential statistical tests.
Meeting Pearson assumptions. The data met the Pearson product-moment
correlation assumptions. Each bivariate correlation was based on two matched data points
from each respondent in this study. The level of measurement for data to be correlated
with Pearson correlations must be interval or ratio-scaled; the data met this assumption
because teacher performance was rated on a numeric 4.0 point scale, and motivation and
106
leadership were measured as summated scales that were ratio-scaled. The data did not
contain outliers (see boxplots in App. I). Linearity was established through scatter plots,
shown in Appendix I. Statistical significance was set at alpha = .050. Percentages were
rounded off to whole numbers and may not add up to precisely 100%. Data were
analyzed with SPSS v 25, which is dedicated statistical software.
Derivation of summated scales. After screening, summated scales were
generated for motivation and leadership. A summated scale yields a single empirical
measure for each respondent that represents multiple aspects of a construct in one
variable (Hair et al., 2010). Deriving a single measure from several related aspects
decreases original measurement error and correspondingly increases data reliability and
validity (Hair et al., 2010). Summated scales further increase parsimony because they
reduce the overall number of variables to be examined. Summated scales allowed for
examination of potential predictors of high performing teacher behavior at the suitable
level of complexity and accuracy.
A summated scale produces a numeric score for each respondent that is either the
sum or the mean of the numeric values of the survey statements associated with each
construct (Hair et al., 2010). In the current study, the mean was used instead of the
overall sum of the numeric values of the responses to keep the summated scales on the
same scale as the Likert response arrays used on the surveys for ease of interpretation.
Because each summated scale score was a mean, its range of possible values had the
same numeric range as the Likert-scaled used to measure responses.
Reliability checks with Cronbach’s Alpha. The internal consistency or
reliability of conceptually-similar survey statements used in the current study was

107
evaluated with Cronbach’s alpha statistics (Gliner, Morgan, & Leech, 2000). Cronbach’s
alpha is used when (1) a survey includes a number of conceptually-related statements; (2)
conceptually-related statements presented a Likert-scaled array of responses, Likert-like
array of responses, or dichotomously-scored statements; and (3) the survey was only
administrated once. Cronbach’s alpha is a commonly employed test of internal
consistency for Likert-scaled data that views each statement within each set of
conceptually-related statements as a retest of another statement in the set. In essence, the
Cronbach’s formula generates all possible test-retest pairs of correlations and then
provides the mean as the reliability index alpha (of note, the Cronbach’s alpha statistic is
not synonymous with the significance level for hypothesis testing, which is also called
alpha). The value of Cronbach’s alpha statistics only ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values
reflect greater reliability. Indices of .70 or higher reflect an adequately reliable database.
Study Demographics and Descriptive Statistics for the Variables of Interest
Descriptive findings were generated of the teachers’ demographic characteristics
with descriptive statistics and the main variables of interest. It is therefore divided into
two sections. The first section, Sample Profile, establishes the number of subjects by
gender, teaching position, and educational level. It shows the modal participant was a
female elementary school teacher with a master’s degree and over 20 years of teaching
experience. The second section, Descriptive Statistics for the Variables of Interest,
describes each of the variables in this study in detail.
Sample profile. There was a 3-to-1 ratio of women to men, n = 115 female
teachers, 74%; n = 40 male teachers, 26% in this study. Table 1 listed the distribution of
teachers by experience, teaching position, and educational level.

108
Descriptive statistics for the variables of interest. This section provides an
explanation of the surveys and variables of interest. Each survey is presented in its own
subsection. Each first describes the survey and derived variable(s) used to address the
research questions. This is followed by descriptive statistics for the variables of interest.
The aim of this study was to identify factors that may contribute to excellent teaching
performance among K-12 teachers. Respondents in the current study were high-
performing teachers; their performance scores (described below) were the criterion
variable. The three predictor variables in this study were intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of their principal’s leadership style. Each measure
is briefly described below.
District Teacher Evaluation System Instrument. The criterion variable in this
study was teacher performance. It was measured by the District Teacher Evaluation
System Instrument. The instrument was used to measure teacher performance in four
areas (professional practice inclusive of planning and preparation, classroom
environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities) on a 4-point Likert scale.
Teacher performance was scored as the aggregate mean score. In the current study, only
high performing teachers participated; they were defined as teachers with mean scores of
3.5 or greater on the District Teacher Evaluation System Instrument.
Figure 1 shows the frequency distribution of the high performance scores, and
shows that although the 3.5 – 4.0 range was truncated, there were numerous scores of
various values in between these upper and lower limits.

109
Figure 1. Frequency distribution of teacher performance scores among high-performing

teachers.
Descriptive statistics for teaching performance data are listed on Table 1 for the
overall data set. The narrow numeric limits of 3.5 - 4.0 indicate that participation records
met the “high performing” criteria. Means fell in about the middle of the 3.5 - 4.0
possible range as reflected in Table 2. The range itself was half a point, as expected.
Minimum and maximum statistics also reflected the numeric limits of 3.5 - 4.0 range.
Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics for Teacher Performance

Teacher Performance Overall
Mean (SE) 3.72 (.01)
95% CI for Mean LB 3.69
UB 3.74
5% Trimmed M 3.71
Median 3.69
Variance 0.02
Std. Deviation 0.14
Minimum 3.50
Maximum 4.00
Range 0.50
IQR 0.24
110
Skewness 0.32
Kurtosis -1.00
Note. 95% CI for Mean = 95% Confidence Interval for Mean. LB = lower bound of the confidence interval.
UB = upper bound of the confidence interval. IQR = interquartile range.
Worker Preference Survey (Motivation). Motivation was one of the potential
predictors of high performance among teachers in this study. Motivation was measured
with the Worker Preference Survey, which consists of 30 statements. Fifteen statements
measure the primary scale of intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic factors were defined as
internal sources of influence that affect an individual’s behavior (e.g., a personal goal to
be an excellent instructor that drives the teacher to strive to continuously improve).
Intrinsic motivation was comprised of enjoyment (measured with 10 statements, e.g., “No
matter what the outcome of a project, I am satisfied if I feel I gained a new experience.”)
and challenge (measured with 5 statements, e.g., “I enjoy tackling problems that are
completely new to me.”).
The other 15 statements measure the primary scale of extrinsic motivation.
Extrinsic factors were defined as sources of influence that emanate from without (e.g., the
extent to which a teacher was influenced by coworkers’ opinions). Extrinsic motivation
was comprised of outward influences (measured with 10 statements from the participants,
e.g., “I’m concerned about how other people are going to react to my ideas.”) and
compensation (measured with 5 statements, e.g., “I am keenly aware of the income goals
I have for myself.”).
Responses to the Worker Preference Survey (motivation) are based on a 4-pt
Likert scale of how often (frequency) the survey statement is true (1 = never or almost
never true, 2 = sometimes true, 3 = often true, 4 = always true). After reverse-scoring the
negatively-worded statements, summated scores were generated as the mean of all of the
111
numeric values of responses to related items. That is, intrinsic motivation was measured
with 15 items; the Intrinsic Motivation Summated Score (SS) was calculated as a
participant’s mean response to those 15 items.
Intrinsic motivation descriptive statistics. For Intrinsic Motivation, Cronbach’s
alpha data was .812 and is shown on Table 3, as well as descriptive statistics which are
shown in Table 3.
Table 3.
Reliability Statistics for Intrinsic Motivation

Measure Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
Intrinsic Motivation .812 15
The mean for Intrinsic Motivation (M = 2.98; see Table 4) translated into a frequency of
“often true,” based on the Likert-scale descriptions used on the survey. Note the narrow
confidence interval around this mean. The minimum mean score for overall intrinsic
motivation (min = 2, see Table 4) translated into “sometimes true” and the maximum
mean score translated into “always true.”

112
Table 4.
Descriptive Statistics for Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation Summated Scales

Motivation Intrinsic Extrinsic
Translation of the Mean Often True Sometimes True
Mean (SE) 2.98 (.03) 2.16 (.03)
95% CI for Mean LB 2.92 2.09
UB 3.04 2.23
5% Trimmed M 2.99 2.16
Median 3.06 2.16
Variance 0.15 0.20
Std. Deviation 0.39 0.44
Minimum 2.00 1.17
Maximum 3.80 3.83
Range 1.80 2.67
IQR 0.60 0.67
Skewness -0.21 0.29
Kurtosis -0.46 0.26
UB = upper bound of the confidence interval. IQR = interquartile range. *Comp = Compensation.
Extrinsic motivation descriptive statistics. Table 4 also shows the descriptive
statistics for the Extrinsic Motivation SS, which was initially generated as the mean of all
corresponding 15 survey statements. These data had an unacceptable level of internal
consistency, as shown on Table 5. Cronbach’s alpha ranges from 0 to 1: indices of .70 or
higher reflect adequately reliable data (Gliner et al., 2000). Similarly, the summated
scales of the subscales that comprised extrinsic motivation also showed inadequate
internal consistency, also shown on Table 5.
Table 5.
Reliability Statistics for Extrinsic Motivation

Extrinsic Motivation SS .578 15
Outward Subscale .523 10
Compensation .534 5
Extrinsic Motivation SS2 .700 6
113
To try and identify specific survey items that may have contributed to inadequate
internal consistency (i.e., Cronbach’s alpha statistics under the criterion of .70; Warner,
2013) for Extrinsic Motivation, the correlations between the Extrinsic Motivation SS and
its constituent elements on the two subscales scales were generated and examined.
The correlations between the Extrinsic Motivation SS and the 10 survey
statements that measured the Outward SS are listed in Table 6. The top row of Table 6
shows all of the correlations between the Extrinsic Motivation SS and individual outward
statements were statistically significant. However, only four correlations had values in
the range of .47-.50 (statements 21, 24, 25, and 29; shown in bold on Table 6). As per
Hair et al. (2010), the correlation between a summated scale and a constituent element
must be r = .50 or more in order to assume that the item makes an adequate and
reasonable contribution to the summated score.

114
Table 6.
Pearson Correlation Matrix of Extrinsic Motivation SS and Outward Survey Items, N =

155 Participants
Outward SS Statements by Survey Number
1 2 6 12 15 18 21 24 25 29
* ** ** ** ** ** ** **
EM SS r .17 .30 .43 .23 .35 .39 .51 .47 .48 .48**
**
p (2-tailed) .034 .000 .000 .004 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155
1. r .02 .01 -.01 .03 -.07 .02 .10 -.23** .15
p (2-tailed) .765 .979 .909 .662 .377 .719 .178 .003 .063
N 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155
**
2 r -.04 .04 .14 -.08 .44 .01 -.02 .09
p (2-tailed) .598 .545 .070 .289 .000 .828 .772 .249
N 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155
**
6 r .08 .14 .28 .06 .25** .10 .17*
p (2-tailed) .275 .072 .000 .450 .002 .189 .029
N 155 155 155 155 155 155 155
12 r .01 .10 -.03 .01 .03 -.01
p (2-tailed) .957 .194 .626 .914 .662 .877
N 155 155 155 155 155 155
* **
15 r .16 .24 .30** -.02 .30**
p (2-tailed) .041 .002 .000 .716 .000
N 155 155 155 155 155
18 r .14 .28** .28** .31**
p (2-tailed) .073 .000 .000 .000
N 155 155 155 155
21 r .18* .20* .11
p (2-tailed) .022 .012 .149
N 155 155 155
24 r .23** .48**
p (2-tailed) .003 .000
N 155 155
25 r .17*
p (2-tailed) .036
N 155
Note. EM SS = Extrinsic Motivation Summated Scale. *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-
tailed). **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The correlations between the Extrinsic Motivation SS and the individual survey
statements used to create the Compensation SS are included in Table 7. All of the
correlations between the Extrinsic Motivation SS and its individual statements were
statistically significant, but only two statements, 16 and 19, were close to meeting or met
115
Hair et al.’s (2010) criterion of a minimum of r = .50 for a correlation between a
summated scores and individual statements used to create it (these are also bolded on
Table 7).
Table 7.
Pearson Correlation Matrix of Extrinsic Motivation SS and Compensation Survey Items,

N = 155 Participants
Compensation SS Statements by Survey Number
4 10 16 19 22
Extrinsic r .29 .38 .45 .52 .36
Motivation SS p (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 155 155 155 155 155
4 r .45 .15 .15 .01
p (2-tailed) .000 .052 .052 .879
N 155 155 155 155
10 r .21** .10 -.03
p (2-tailed) .006 .204 .658
N 155 155 155
16 r .19 .38
p (2-tailed) .014 .000
N 155 155
19 r .21
p (2-tailed) .007
N 155
The solution to low correlations between individual survey statements and a
summated scale is to recalculate the summated scale without statements that reflect low
correlations (Hair et al., 2010). Therefore, a second extrinsic motivation summated scale,
Extrinsic Motivation SS2, was generated from the six survey statements that correlated
with the original Extrinsic Motivation SS at r = .45 or greater (items 16, 19, 21, 24, 25,
and 29). These data revealed adequate internal consistency, as shown in Table 5. The
correlations between the Extrinsic Motivation SS2 and the six statements that comprised
it ranged r = .47 - .65, meeting Hair et al.’s criterion for correlations between a summated
scale and the items used to generate it.

116
Descriptive statistics for Extrinsic Motivation SS2 are listed on Table 4.
Translated into the categorical descriptions on the response array, the mean indicated that
high performing teachers were “sometimes” motivated by extrinsic influences.
Leadership Behavior Survey. Teachers’ perceptions of their principal’s
leadership style were measured with 48 statements on the Leadership Behavior Survey
(LBS). Responses were chosen from a 5-point Likert scale that reflects how frequently a
principal shows the behavior listed in the survey statement (1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 =
sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = always). Table 8 shows that the data were adequately reliable.
Table 8.
Reliability Statistics for Leadership

Leadership .971 48
Leadership was comprised of five subscales: human relations, trust/decision-
making, instructional leadership, conflict, and control. An example of behavior referring
to human relations is, “My principal provides positive reinforcement.” An example of
behavior referring to trust and decision making is, “My principal corrects me privately
instead of in front of others.” An example of behavior referring to instructional leadership
is, “My principal is knowledgeable about the curriculum.” An example of behavior
referring to conflict is, “My principal supports me as a person even if I am wrong.”
Finally, an example of behavior referring to control is, “My principal delegates
responsibilities.” Summated scales were generated by calculating the mean of the
numeric values of responses to associated statements. The descriptive statistics for the
leadership variable, listed on Table 9, indicated that, overall, principals “often” showed
the behaviors listed on the leadership survey.

117
Table 9.
Descriptive Statistics for Leadership Summated Scales

Leadership
Translated Mean Often
Mean (SE) 4.10 (0.04)
95% CI for Mean LB 4.00
UB 4.20
5% Trimmed M 4.15
Median 4.25
Variance 0.38
Std. Deviation 0.62
Minimum 1.88
Maximum 4.92
Range 3.04
IQR 0.83
Skewness -1.13
Kurtosis 1.09
UB = upper bound of the confidence interval. IQR = interquartile range. IL = Instructional Leadership SS.
Data Analysis Procedures
Survey data were collected by Survey Monkey, downloaded in the form of an
Excel spreadsheet, and imported into an SPSS data file. Several items in the LBS and
WPI had to be reverse-coded so that responses to items consistently reflected positive
perceptions as higher values. Pearson correlations were run for all three research
questions. The assumptions of Pearson correlational data analysis (Muijs, 2010) were
met. That is, the variables were continuous, formed linear relationships, did not have any
outliers, and were approximately normally distributed (Appendix I).
A priori G*Power Analysis for statistical tests indicated a sample size of 84 was
required. The final sample was 155, which met the requirements for requisite sample
needed. The power analysis called for a correlation with a bivariate normal model, a Type
1 error of .05, a .30 medium effect size, a two tailed test and a power of .80, as identified
in Appendix B. Overall scores for intrinsic and extrinsic teacher motivation were
computed from the responses to the WPI survey. Subscales were created from the WPI
118
identifying the motivational subscales of enjoyment, challenge, outward, and
compensation from the primary scales of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. An aggregate
score was generated from the LBS survey data for teachers’ perceptions of their school
principal’s leadership.
Correlations were zero-order Pearson product-moment correlations in which the
effects of other associated variables were not taken into account. They were interpreted
categorically following Cohen (1988: small effect r = .10; medium effect r = .30; large
effect r = .50). It is generally recommended that sample sizes be at least N = 100 when
correlations are used, partly to have adequate statistical power and partly to minimize the
effect of extreme outliers (Warner, 2013). The database in the current study met this
criterion. Each research question specifically asked about relationships between two
variables; relationships were measured as bivariate correlations. Hypotheses were posed
that corresponded to each research question. They are listed in the Results Section below,
which, presents the results for each research question.
Results
Research Question 1 Results.
RQ1 was, Is there a relationship between intrinsic motivation and teacher
performance by high performing K-12 teachers? The question was addressed with a
Pearson correlational analysis. The hypotheses were:
H01: There is no significant correlation between intrinsic motivation and teacher
Ha1: There is a significant correlation between intrinsic motivation and teacher

119
A Pearson product-moment correlation was conducted between intrinsic
motivation and teacher performance. The results of the correlation showed that there was
not a statistically significant correlation r(153) = .11, p = .171, and the results failed to
reject the null hypothesis. The correlation between teacher performance and intrinsic
motivation was small and statistically non-significant. The results of the analysis failed to
reject the null hypothesis.
Table 10.
Pearson Correlation Matrix of Associations between Teacher Performance, Motivation

and Leadership, N = 155 Teachers
Intrinsic Extrinsic
Motivation Motivation Leadership
SS SS 2 SS
Teacher Performance r .11 -.06 .02
P (2-tailed) .171 .467 .830
N 155 155 155
2
r .0121 .0036 .0004
Post Hoc Power* .28 .11 .06
Intrinsic Motivation r -.15 -.04
SS P (2-tailed) .055 .638
N 155 155
Extrinsic Motivation r .11
SS 2 P (2-tailed) .193
N 155
Leadership SS r 1
P (2-tailed)
N 155
Note. Post hoc power analysis was calculated with G*Power 3.1.9.2, with alpha .05, N = 155, and effect
size from coefficients of determination.
The association between teacher performance and intrinsic motivation is
illustrated as a scatter plot on Figure 2. The super-imposed line of best fit is close to
horizontal.
The answer to RQ1 was no. There was not a statistically significant relationship
between intrinsic motivation and teacher performance by high performing K-12 teachers.
120
Figure 2. Scatter plot of the association between intrinsic motivation and teacher
performance.
RQ2 was, Is there a relationship between extrinsic motivation and teacher
performance by high performing K-12 teachers? The hypotheses were:
H02: There is no significant correlation between extrinsic motivation and teacher
Ha2: There is a significant correlation between extrinsic motivation and teacher
A Pearson product-moment correlation was conducted between extrinsic
motivation and teacher performance. The results of the correlation showed that there was
not a statistically significant correlation r(153) = .-06, p = .467, and the results failed to
reject the null hypothesis. Table 10 showed the correlation between teacher performance
and extrinsic motivation was small and statistically non-significant. The results of the
analysis failed to reject the null hypothesis. The scatter plot of the relationship on Figure
3 shows the super-imposed line of best fit was close to horizontal.

121
Figure 3. Scatter plot of the association between extrinsic motivation and teacher
performance.
The answer to RQ2 was no, there was not a statistically significant relationship
RQ3 was, Is there a relationship between perceptions of a principal’s leadership
and teacher performance by high performing K-12 teachers?
H03: There is no significant correlation between perceptions of a principal’s
Ha3: There is a significant correlation between perceptions of a principal’s
A Pearson product-moment correlation was conducted between perceptions of
principal’s leadership and teacher performance. The results of the correlation showed that
there was not a statistically significant correlation r(153) = .02, p = .830, and the results
failed to reject the null hypothesis. Table 10 shows that the correlation between teacher
performance and leadership was also small and statistically non-significant. The results of
122
the analysis failed to reject the null hypothesis. The scatter plot of the relationship on
Figure 4 shows the super-imposed line of best fit was virtually horizontal. The answer to
RQ3 was no. There was not a statistically significant relationship between perceptions of
principal’s leadership and teacher performance by high performing K-12 teachers.
Figure 4. Scatter plot of the association between leadership and teacher performance.
Summary
The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to understand associations
between notably high performing teachers, their sources of personal motivation, and their
perceptions of their principal’s leadership. Participants were teachers in a K-12 public
school district in the southwestern United States who scored 3.5+ on the district’s 4.0
faculty evaluation rubrics. Motivation was examined as intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
motivation. Leadership was defined as teachers’ perceptions of their school principal’s
leadership style. The data were screened for normality; no substantial departures were
found. Summated scales were generated and internal consistency checked with
Cronbach’s alpha statistics.

123
There were four main variables of interest. The first variable was teacher
performance, measured with a District Teacher Evaluation System Instrument on a 4-
point Likert scale. In the current study, only high performing teachers participated,
defined as teachers with mean scores of 3.5 – 4.0. The second and third variables were
intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation, measured with the Worker Preference
Survey. For intrinsic motivation, internal consistency was adequate and correlations with
secondary scales were direct and strong. However, for extrinsic motivation, internal
consistency was inadequate when all survey items were included and correlations with
secondary scales were small. Inspection of correlations between Extrinsic Motivation SS
scores and individual survey statements identified six statements that were adequately
correlated to be included in an overall summated scale. The Extrinsic Motivation SS2
was re-calculated with these items only; internal consistency was adequate. High
performing teachers reported that behavior reflecting intrinsic motivation was “often
true” of them whereas behavior reflecting extrinsic motivation was only “sometimes
true” of them. The fourth variable was principals’ leadership style, measured with the
Leadership Behavior Survey. Descriptive statistics indicated that, overall, principals
“often” showed the behaviors listed on the leadership survey. Leadership data were
adequately internal consistent, and correlations between the overall leadership scale and
its subscales were direct and strong.
The research questions were addressed with correlations between the main
variables of interest and teachers’ performance score. The answer to RQ1 (Is there a
relationship between intrinsic motivation and teacher performance by high performing K-
12 teachers) was there was not a statistically significant correlation between intrinsic
124
motivation and teacher performance by high performing K-12 teachers. The answer to
RQ2 (Is there a relationship between extrinsic motivation and teacher performance by
high performing K-12 teachers?) was there was not a statistically significant correlation
The answer to RQ3 (Is there a relationship between perceptions of a principal’s
leadership and teacher performance by high performing K-12 teachers?) was there was
not a statistically significant correlation between intrinsic motivation and teacher
performance by high performing K-12 teachers. A limitation was that respondents were
high-performing teachers and high performance was measured on a narrow scale
compared to the motivation and leadership scales to which it was compared. This scaler
difference may have precluded significant correlations.
The results, in light of the extant literature on teacher motivation and leadership
style, are explained in Chapter 5.

125
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Introduction and Summary of Study
evaluation process at their schools. Howes and Goodman-Delahunty (2015) recognized
the necessity of understanding the motivational factors that influence teachers both
intrinsically and extrinsically. The contributing factors that influence the motivation of
teachers is significantly important to the general health, well-being, and vitality of
contemporary educational systems (Viseu et al., 2016). Motivated teachers positively
influence the educational environment they are members of and serve as catalysts for
high performance within their educational settings (Murtedjo & Suharningsih, 2016).
This study contributes to the examination of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation,
and perceptions of principal’s leadership that influence teacher performance from a
sample of teachers who have been designated as high performing.
teacher performance. This study was designed to further examine these relationships and
further elucidate their levels of influence on a target population of 1342 high performing
teachers in a K-12 Southwestern U.S. public school district.
The following research questions and hypotheses provided the basis of the
research for this study:

126
Data were analyzed in Research Question 1 and 2 to determine if there was a
relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and teacher performance.
Additionally, data were analyzed in Research Question 3 to determine if there was a
relationship between teacher’s perceptions of principal’s leadership and teacher
performance. The results of the data analysis established a correlational value between
127
the predictor variables and the criterion variable, which were used to answer each
individual research question and test the corresponding hypothesis. Data were collected
via the Worker Preference Inventory Survey (WPI) by Amabile et al. (1994) to identify
the intrinsic and extrinsic variables that drive high performing teachers. Data were
additionally collected via the Leadership Behavior Survey (LBS) by Bulach et al. (2006)
to measure teachers’ perceptions of principal’s leadership and its influence on high
performing teachers.
This chapter provides a comprehensive summary of this study on how intrinsic
motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of principal’s leadership
influences teacher performance. The remainder of this chapter presents a summary of the
results obtained, as well as implications and future recommendations. The results
presented in this study will contribute toward a growing body of knowledge surrounding
the motivational proclivities of contemporary teachers. With a greater understanding of
the importance of maintaining a vibrant and motivated teacher workforce, educational
systems can generate higher academic outcomes, lower teacher turnover, and promote
higher levels of student learning.
Summary of Findings and Conclusion
The data generated in this study did not produce significant correlations for each
of the three hypothesis. The data generated confirms that each predictor variable
individually does not significantly correlate to criterion variable of teacher performance.
Data within this study on teacher motivation are inconsistent with some of the previous
research surrounding teacher motivation, as influenced by intrinsic factors, extrinsic
factors, and perceptions of principal’s leadership. Previous researchers have examined

128
various aspects of teacher motivation and teacher performance (Mertler, 2016; Cerosoli et
al., 2014; Van den Berghe et al., 2014; Yousaf et al., 2015). There are examples of
researchers finding relationships and associations between the variables of intrinsic
motivation, extrinsic motivation, perceptions of principal’s leadership with teacher
motivation and or performance (Wilkesmann & Schmid, 2014; Firestone, 2014; Chen et
al., 2011; Damij et al., 2015; Mertler, 2016; Purcek, 2014). Previous researchers have
focused on the examination of these variables in multiple, diverse, and global populations
(Cerasoli et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2011; Yousaf et al., 2015; Van den Berghe et al.,
2014). This specific study was unique within the context of the extant research because of
the specific pairing of the three predictor variables of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation, and perceptions of principal’s leadership with the criterion variable of teacher
performance, which came from a sample of only high performing teachers. This study of
high performing teachers did not show a specific and significant correlation between their
performance and each specific predictor variable of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation, and perceptions of principal’s leadership.
Hypothesis 1. Research Question 1 was “Is there a relationship between intrinsic
motivation and teacher performance by high performing K-12 teachers?” Hypothesis 1
“There is no significant correlation between intrinsic motivation and teacher performance
by high performing K-12 teachers” was not supported as the correlation between teacher
performance and intrinsic motivation was r(153) = .11 and p = 171, which is a small and
not statistically significant. The results of this analysis failed to reject the null hypothesis.
The results generated are not consistent with previous researchers who have identified the
significance of intrinsic motivation as an antecedent to teacher performance. Cerasoli et

129
al. (2014) recognized the influence of intrinsic motivation on performance and confirmed
its fundamental importance for teachers throughout their teaching careers. Irwandi (2014)
further validated the necessity of intrinsic motivation to bolster teacher performance,
retention, and job satisfaction. The research findings in this study do not demonstrate a
significant and exclusive relationship of intrinsic motivation and teacher performance. A
plausible explanation to the results of hypothesis 1 could be attributed to the possibility
that high performing teachers are motivated by a multitude of factors that are not
exclusive to intrinsic proclivities. Teachers are motivated by a cumulative effect of
intrinsic and extrinsic factors that are subject to change from individual to individual,
vary based on context, and evolve over time (Hasan & Hynds, 2014). Based on the
analysis surrounding hypothesis 1, it can be postulated that high performing teachers are
motivated by a multitude of factors that are unique to each individual and not specific to
an exclusive relationship with intrinsic motivation.
Hypothesis 2. Research Question 2 was “there a relationship between extrinsic
motivation and teacher performance by high performing K-12 teachers?” Hypothesis 2
“There is no significant correlation between extrinsic motivation and teacher performance
by high performing K-12 teachers” was not supported as the correlation between teacher
performance and extrinsic motivation was r(153) = -.06 and p = .467, which is small and
statistically significant. The results of this analysis failed to reject the null hypothesis.
The results generated in this study are not consistent with previous researchers who have
demonstrated the significance of extrinsic motivation on the performance of teachers.
Vansteenkiste and Ryan (2013) acknowledged the collective effect that extrinsic factors
have on teacher motivation. Kunter et al. (2013) confirmed the perpetual influence of
130
extrinsic factors on practicing teachers and the cumulative impact that is generated on
teachers’ performance and motivation. The research findings in this study do not
demonstrate a significant and exclusive relationship between extrinsic motivation and
teacher performance. A possible explanation to the results of high performing teachers
not having an exclusive relationship with extrinsic motivation in this study is that high
performing teachers are perpetually influenced by a broad array of motivational factors.
Rai and Srivastava (2013) recognized the combined influence of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation, as well as the absence of one specific motivational tendency influencing
teachers’ motivation. Van den Berghe et al. (2014) acknowledged the omnipresent
influence of autonomous and controlled motivation that coalesce to influence teachers
both intrinsically and extrinsically, within the framework of Self-Determination Theory.
Based on the analysis within this study on teacher performance and motivation in
hypothesis 2, it can be speculated that the high performing teachers in this study are not
exclusively motivated extrinsically. They are most likely motivated by a blending and
interplay of multiple intrinsic and extrinsic factors that are subject to change over time,
within varied context, and are unique to each individual.
Hypothesis 3. Research Question 3 was “Is there a relationship between
perceptions of a principal’s leadership and teacher performance by high performing K-12
teachers?” Hypothesis 3 “There is no significant correlation between perceptions of a
principal’s leadership and teacher performance by high performing K-12 teachers” was
not supported as the correlation between teacher performance and perceptions of
principal’s leadership was r(153) = .02 and p = .830, which is a small and not statistically
significant. The results of this analysis failed to reject the null hypothesis. The results
131
generated in this study are not consistent with previous researchers who have
demonstrated the significance of perceptions of principal’s leadership on the performance
of teachers.
Purcek (2014) confirmed the significant influence of principal’s leadership on the
motivation of the teachers in their schools. Principals are instrumental in the shaping of
the teaching and learning environments that their teachers work in, which will have a
cumulative effect on the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations of their teachers (Van den
Berghe et al., 2014). Purcek (2014) acknowledged the influence and necessity of
principal’s leadership in developing and inspiring their teachers to the highest levels of
performance. The research findings in this study do not demonstrate a significant and
exclusive relationship between perceptions of principal’s leadership and teacher
performance. It can be postulated that the sample of high performing teachers in this
study are not exclusively motivated and or influenced by their perceptions of their
Onjoro et al. (2015) recognized the influence of principal’s leadership on the
motivation and performance of the teachers at their respective schools both intrinsically
and extrinsically, as well as the interplay between the two motivational proclivities and
the individual differences that are ubiquitous between teachers. The results of the analysis
of hypothesis 3 show that the high performing teachers in this study are not specifically
and exclusively motivated by their perceptions of their principal’s leadership. It can be
speculated that the high performing teachers in this study are influenced by a blend of
principal leadership factors that are specific and unique to each individual, which are
132
additionally influenced by their individual internalizations of autonomous and controlled
motivation within the framework of Self-Determination Theory.
Conclusion
Overall, this study confirmed that the predictor variables were not significantly
correlated, as each predictor variables of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and
perceptions of principal’s leadership were independently paired with the criterion
variable of teacher performance. This quantitative correlational study was generated to
further explore the relationship between the myriad of variables that influence teacher
performance within a group of teachers identified as high performing. A further
understanding of the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that affect teachers’ motivation, in
addition to the influence of principal’s leadership, could lead to greater levels of teacher
efficacy, job satisfaction, recruitment, retention, and performance. Although this study
did not provide statistically significant correlations between the variables, the
overarching framework of Self-determination Theory by Ryan and Deci (2000) provided
this study with the appropriate lens for the examination of the multiple variables of
interest inherent to this specific study. Self-determination Theory framework supported
this study specifically, as it seeks to examine the influence and interplay of both
autonomous and controlled motivation, which are the intrinsic and extrinsic influences
that teachers internalize as they seek to attain the inherent needs of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness. The comprehensive elements of Self-determination Theory
provided an effective theoretical lens to examine the motivational proclivities of the high
performing teachers inherent to this study on teacher motivation This study of the salient
variables affecting teacher motivation and perceptions of principal’s leadership provides

133
for a greater understanding of the extant factors that influences the performance of high
performing teachers.
Implications
It was expected that the research conducted in this study would produce a
significant correlational value between the predictor variables and the criterion variable.
There were no significant statistical correlation generated via the three hypotheses
inherent to this study. Implications of this study on the field of education will be further
discussed in this section.
Theoretical implications. The theoretical framework of this study was Self-
Determination Theory by Ryan and Deci (2000). This study utilized SDT to examine the
influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, as well as perceptions of principal’s
leadership on teacher performance, as teachers strive for the fundamental need for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Although the results of the analysis failed to
reject the null hypotheses in this study, SDT provided the appropriate lens to examine the
variables within this study and served as an effective framework to construct the research
questions to formulate the analysis. The design of this study lends itself to the utilization
of SDT as an appropriate construct to analyze the symbiotic interplay of intrinsic and
extrinsic factors that influence each individual’s senses of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness. SDT was appropriate and effective for this study of high performing
teachers, as it is founded on the examination of the continuous interplay and influence of
autonomous motivation and controlled motivation, as well as the internalization
processes affiliated with the interplay of both motivational influences. Teachers are
perpetually influenced by autonomous, or intrinsic motivation, as well as controlled, or

134
extrinsic motivation, as they engage in their professional responsibilities as teachers.
High performing teachers are subject to the omnipresent influences of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivational factors, which will be interpreted, analyzed, and internalized, while
continuously affecting their individual senses of autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Although the results generated in this study of high performing teachers did not produce
statistically significant correlations between the predictor variables and the criterion
variables, SDT should be further utilized in future studies surrounding teacher motivation
and performance. SDT framework, as used in this study on teacher motivation,
illuminated the complexities of attempting to understand teacher motivation and
performance and systematically put a group of teachers into specific and exclusive
representative categories. SDT should be further utilized in researchers surrounding the
motivational proclivities of high performing teachers and affiliated professionals.
Maulana et al. (2016) confirmed the utility of SDT as an effective lens which to examine
the relationships between teachers and their senses of motivation.
Practical implications. The diversity of variables that influence high performing
teacher’s motivation, which will collectively merge to influence teacher performance is
illuminated in this study. Although this study did not find a statistically significant
correlations between intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and perceptions of
principal’s leadership individually with teacher performance, the data generated further
illuminates the complexities of identifying the specific motivational orientations of high
performing teachers. Based on the results of this study on high performing teachers, there
does not appear to be a definitive preponderance of one particular motivational
orientation that is exclusive to this sample of high performing teachers. Presumably, each
135
high performing teacher has their own unique set of motivational orientations that are
blend of multiple components, which are specific to them, may change in different
contexts, and over time.
Based on the results generated in this study, high performing teachers may be
influenced both intrinsically and extrinsically, as they perform their teaching
responsibilities. It is imperative for the contemporary educational community to
understand the continuous interplay of intrinsic and extrinsic factors that affect high
performing teachers’ motivation, job satisfaction, and performance (Kunter et al., 2013).
There may not be an exact recipe to generate a high performing teacher, but it would
behoove contemporary educational leaders to seek to identify what factors affect each
individual teacher who is high performing and provide the appropriate strategies to
enhance their specific motivation orientations related to their performance. This study
and the subsequent statistical results poses the possibility the motivation of teachers is a
multi-dimensional and complex myriad of internal and external factors, which are an
interplay and blending of multiple internal and external influences that vary between
individuals and are subject to change over time and within different contexts.
Chen et al. (2011) identified the combination of intrinsic and extrinsic effects of
principal’s leadership on teacher’s motivation and performance. The interplay of both
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation has been supported by Rai and Srivastava (2013) and
acknowledged as an antecedent to teacher performance. Van den Berghe et al. (2014)
recognized the perpetual combination and interplay of intrinsic and extrinsic influences
on teacher motivation, which may make a relationship non-existent or minimal if intrinsic

136
and extrinsic variables are separated and analyzed independently with teacher
performance.
Future implications. The relationship between intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation, and perceptions of principal’s leadership on teacher performance of high
performing teachers was examined in this study. No statistical correlation was found as
each predictor variable was separated and relationship was measured independently with
the criterion variable. The results are not unexpected as the literature review and
examination of previous research indicated a perpetual and unavoidable interplay
between all the variables as they affect teacher motivation and teacher performance. It
may be speculated that a relationship cannot be found by independently separating each
variable for comparison. Each individual high performing teacher, and possibly all
teachers in general, may have their own unique motivational orientation that is comprised
of a combination of multiple predictor variables that may be different between
individuals and which will vary over time and in different contexts. There may not be a
specific and unilateral motivational tendency or grouping of motivational orientations
that are exhibited by high performing teachers. Future research regarding the interplay of
intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and the influence that principal leadership have
both intrinsically and extrinsically on teacher motivation and performance will be
beneficial in developing a deeper understanding of the motivational forces that drive high
performing teachers. Additionally, the utilization of different instruments to measure the
variables of interest may lead to different results. A qualitative examination of teacher
motivation may also be a preferred method to study the motivational tendencies of
teachers.
137
Strengths and weaknesses of the study. This study had strength in the sample
size of 155 respondents that were utilized for the data analysis, which was in excess of
the minimum of 84 respondents required according to G power analysis. The study
sample exhibited strength in its diversity of composition that produced a broad sample of
high performing practicing K-12 educators who collectively generated a comprehensive
data set for the data analysis. The range of the sample participants of high performing
teachers brought strength to the study, as the sample of high performing teachers were
from a variety of grade levels and teaching disciplines throughout K-12 education. The
use of multiple reliable and valid instruments were a strength in this study, as the
instruments used for this research study have been utilized in similar studies that have
analyzed and measured intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and perceptions of
An inherent weakness of this study was the sampling strategy from the same
school district that the researcher currently is employed in as a district administrator. The
current district administrative position of the researcher may have led to skewed answers
by the participants, as a result of the teachers and researcher being in the same school
district. Answers from teachers in a district with no familiarity or connections with the
researcher may have produced different results. The narrow scale produced in the teacher
performance data may preclude the ability to correlate with other variables and is
considered a significant weakness in this study. The potential subjectivity of multiple
administrators evaluating the high performing teachers in the sample was also considered
a weakness. The use of multiple administrators in the evaluation process may create
interrater reliability effects, which may skew the teacher performance data used in this
138
study. An additional weakness of this study is the lack of diversity of teachers from all
categories of teacher performance. A lack of examination and comparison of all groups of
teachers, from the comprehensive performance categories and rankings, produces a
narrow focus of practicing teachers.
Recommendations
Recommendations generated from this study are representative of the identified
gaps in the literature surrounding the paucity of research on teacher motivation,
perceptions of principal’s leadership, and teacher performance, as connected with the
resulting research inherent to this study. The significance of this study, as well as the
potential scientific advances generated by the study was to continue to add to the current
body of knowledge surrounding teacher motivational tendencies and to promote a great
understanding of the multitude of internal and external factors that affect high performing
teachers. SDT served as the theoretical framework which provided the lens of
examination and analysis to make recommendations regarding teacher motivation and
performance. This section discusses the recommendations for future research that can be
pursued by future researchers based of the results generated in this study. Additional
recommendations are also articulated regarding recommendations for future practice as
related to teacher motivation and teacher performance within the field of education.
Recommendations for future research. Further research on the topic of teacher
motivation is an important pursuit for future search on teacher performance, job
satisfaction, retention and recruitment to the profession, efficacy of its members, and
incessant personnel turnover (Mertler, 2016). Additional studies on the multiple intrinsic
and extrinsic factors that influence teachers will promote opportunities to appropriately
139
and effectively structure environments that positively influence teacher’s motivation
(Cerasoli et al., 2014). One recommendation for future research would be to complete
this study again with the use of different instruments to measure intrinsic motivation,
extrinsic motivation, and principal’s leadership in another quantitative methodology.
Another recommendation would be to utilize a different measurement of teacher
performance that has a deeper and broader data capacity, which will allow for the
possibility of stronger correlations. Additional research should be conducted to examine
the effects of principal’s leadership as it effects teachers’ motional orientations both
intrinsically and extrinsically.
It is also recommended that longitudinal studies of teachers motivation be
conducted to generate understanding of the various motivations that ebb and flow for
teachers as they progress through the various stages of their career. Additional research
should also be conducted with qualitative methodologies to further examine and measure
the prominent motivational themes that would emerge from a sample of high performing
teachers. The deep and rich analysis created via qualitative analysis would illuminate the
topic in greater detail. Future research should be conducted from all teacher performance
categories, not just high performing teachers. An analysis and examination of
relationships between all teachers’ motivational orientations will provide a broader
illumination and understanding of the motivational proclivities of all teachers.
This study addressed the gap surrounding the paucity of research regarding
teacher motivation orientations and determine if there were correlations between
motivation and performance, as well perceptions of principal leadership and performance
within the theoretical framework of Self-Determination Theory by Ryan and Deci (2000).
140
Future research is required to continue to address the existing gap in the research
surrounding teacher motivation and performance.
Recommendations for future practice. This study contributes the pursuit of and
generation of knowledge surrounding the motivational factors that influence teachers in
their educational settings and influence their levels of performance. The study does not
provide evidence that identifies that there is a single influential statistical correlation of
intrinsic motivation and teacher performance, or extrinsic motivation and teacher
performance, or perceptions of principal leadership and teacher performance. However,
the results of this study suggest the possibility it is not just one variable that influences
teacher performance, but a continual shifting combination of many factors that change
over time and in certain contexts and also vary from one individual to another.
It is recommended that educational leaders, as well as practicing teachers,
examine the results of this study to form a deeper understanding of the prominent
motivational factors presented and the results inherent to this study on teacher motivation
and teacher performance. It is incumbent on educational leaders to understand the salient
variables that influence their teachers, which appear to be complex, multi-dimensional,
perpetual shifting, and situational. Konig and Rothland (2012) identified a need for a
deeper understanding of the motivations of teachers to better identify, develop, retain,
and equip the future teachers coming into the profession.
It is also recommended that current practitioners continue to study and form a
deeper understanding of the significant influence that perceptions of principal’s
leadership contributes to their teachers intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Principal’s
leadership is a driving force in the success of high performing teachers, students, and the
141
institutions those leaders serve (Mertler, 2016). Future practice initiatives must be
cognizant of the varying degrees of motivational orientations that are omnipresent within
the teacher workforce and structure environments that are conducive to collective and
individual success. Loo (2001) recognized the potential blending of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations in individuals, where they are dually motivated and will require an
understanding of both orientations in order to create a synergy between the two
orientations. Future practice will require a holistic approach to teacher motivation as it
affects teacher performance.
The results from this study on teacher motivation demonstrate that teacher
motivation is complex, often uniquely individual, sometimes situational, and primarily
specific to each individual, which cannot be easily categorized into one specific
orientation tendency to attain high performance. The results of this study illuminate the
necessity of a continuous perpetuation of multiple and pervasive motivational strategies
and discernments to generate environments that are broadly motivational, as well as
specific to each teacher. The research surrounding teacher motivation, as well as current
practitioner implementations, must continue to examine the myriad of factors that
motivate teachers generally and specifically to attain the highest levels of educational
performance.
142
References
Abdullah, T., & Rubin, B. (2013). The relationship between teacher professional
attitudes, work motivation, along with organizational culture towards teacher
performance. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(4), 571.
Achakul, C., & Yolles, M. (2013). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in
personality:Assessing knowledge profiling and the work preference inventory in a
Thai population. Organizational Transformation and Social Change, 10(3),
196-217.
Adegbesan, S. O. (2013). Effect of principals’ leadership style on teachers’ attitude
towork in Ogun State Secondary Schools, Nigeria. Turkish Online Journal of
Distance Education, 14(1), 14-28.
Adhi, S., Hardienata, S., & Sunaryo, W. (2013). The effect of organizational culture,
transformational leadership, and work motivation toward teacher performance.
Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(4), 537-539.
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessy, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work
preference inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 950-967.
Arifin, H. M. (2014). The influence of competence, motivation, and organizationalculture
to high school teacher job satisfaction and performance. International Education
Studies, 8(1), 38-45.
Aritonang, M. (2014). Motivation and confidence of Indonesian teachers to use Englishas
a medium of instruction. Teflin Journal, 25(2), 147-167.

143
Asgari, Z., Rad, F. M., & Chinaveh, M. (2017). The predictive power of self-determined
job motivation components in explaining job satisfaction and willingness to stay
with job among female elementary school teachers in Shiraz. Indian Journal of
Health and Wellbeing, 8(2), 173-176.
Ashiedu, J. A., & Scott-Ladd, B. D. (2012). Understanding teacher attraction andattention
drivers: Addressing teacher shortages. Australian Journal of TeacherEducation,
37(11), 45-52.
Bachri Thalib, S. (2016). The effect of school supervisors’ competence and school
principals’ competence on work motivation and performance of junior high
school teacher in Maros Regency, Indonesia. International Journal of
Environmental and Science Education, 11(15), 7310-7317.
Bakar, A., Mohamed, S., Suhid, A., & Hamzah, R. (2014). So you want to be a teacher:
What are your reasons? International Education Studies, 7(11), 155-161.
Balyer, A., & Ozcan, K. (2014). Choosing teaching profession as a career:
Studentsreasons. International Education Studies, 7(5), 104-115.
Bassi, M., & Fave, A. D. (2012). Optimal experience among teachers: New insights into
the work paradox. The Journal of Psychology, 146(5), 533-557.
Bulach, C., Boothe, D., & Pickett, W. (2006). Analyzing the leadership behavior ofschool
principals. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 1(1), 1-
13.
Butler, R. (2012). Striving to connect: Extending an achievement goal approach to
teacher motivation to include relational goals for teaching. Journal ofEducational
Psychology, 104(3), 726-742.

144
Carifio, J., & Perla, R. J. (2007). Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions,
Persistent myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert
responseFormats and their antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 106-116.
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 140(4), 980-1008.
Chen, G., Ployhart, R. E., Thomas, H., Anderson, N., & Bliese, P. D. (2011). The power
of momentum: a new model of dynamic relationship between job
satisfactionchange and turnover intentions. Academy of Management Journal,
54(1), 159-181.
Coggins, C., & Diffenbaugh, P. K. (2013). Teachers with drive. Educational
Leadership,71(2), 42-45.
Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. W. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
Damij, N., Levenajic, Z., Skrt, V. R., & Suklan, J. (2015). What motivates us to work?
Intricate web of factors beyond money and prestige. Plos One, 10(7), e0132641.
Delgado, G. T. (2017). Intrinsic motivation and flow condition on the music teachers’
performance. Research in Pedagogy, 7(1), 145-157.
Eliophotou-Menon, M., & Ioannou, A. (2016). The link between transformational
leadership and teachers’ job satisfaction, commitment, motivation to learn, and
trust in the leader. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 20(3), 12-22.

145
Evans, L. (2014). Leadership for professional development and learning: Enhancing
ourunderstanding of how teachers develop. Cambridge Journal of Education,
44(2), 179-198.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible
statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical
sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
Firestone, W. A. (2014). Teacher evaluation policy and conflicting theories ofmotivation.
Education Researcher, 43(2), 100-112.
Ghasemi, A., & Zahediasl, S. (2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis. International
Journal of Endocrinology Metabolism, 10(2), 486-489.
Gillet, N., Vallerand, R. J., Lafreniere, M. K., & Bureau, J. S. (2013). The mediating
roleof positive and negative affect in the situational motivation-
performancerelationship. Motivation and Emotion, 37(3), 465-479.
Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A., & Leech, N. L. (2000). Research methods in applied
settings: An integrated approach to design and analysis. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Goodman, S. F., & Turner, L. J. (2013). The design of teacher incentive pay
andeducational outcomes: Evidence from the New York City bonus program.
Journal of Labor Economics, 31(2), 409-420.
Gumilar, N. (2013). The relationship between organizational culture, leadership,
andworker motivation towards the performance of educationists. Indian Journal
of Health and Wellbeing, 4(1), 110-112.

146
Gun, B. (2014). Making sense of experienced teachers’ interactive decisions:Implications
for expertise in teaching. International Journal of Instruction, 7(1), 75-90.
Hair Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). SEM:
An introduction Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (pp. 629-686).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Han, J., & Yin, H. (2016). Teacher motivation: Definition, research development and
implications for teachers. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1217819.
Hardre, P., & Hennessy, M. (2013). What they think, what they know, what they do:
Rural secondary teachers’ motivational beliefs and strategies. Learning
Environments Research, 16(3), 411-436.
Hasan, A. R., & Hynds, A. (2014). Cultural influence on teacher motivation – A county
study of Maldives. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 4(1),
19-30.
Hauserman, C. P., & Stick, S. L. (2013). The leadership teachers want from principals:
Transformational. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(3), 184-203.
Howes, L. M., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2015). Teachers’ career decisions:
Perspectives on choosing teaching careers, and on staying or leaving. Issues in
Educational Research, 25(1), 18-35.
Irwandi, I. (2014, November). Balancing between head and heart: A strategy of character
education iN ELT. In International Conference on Languages and Arts (pp. 261-
266).
147
Iwu, C. G., Gwija, S. A., Benedict, H. O., & Tengeh, R. K. (2013). Teacher job
satisfaction and learner performance in South Africa. Journal of Economics and
Behavioral Studies, 5(12), 838-850.
Jacobsen, C. B., Hvitved, J., & Andersen, L. B. (2014). Command and motivations:How
the perception of external interventions relates to intrinsic motivation and public
service motivation. Public Administration, 92(4), 790-806.
Janssen, S., Kreijns, K., Bastiaens, T. J., Stijnen, S., & Vermeulen, M. (2013). Teachers’
beliefs about using a professional development plan. International Journal of
Training & Development, 17(4), 260-278.
Janus, K. (2014). The effect of professional culture on intrinsic motivation among
physicians in an academic medical center. Journal of Healthcare Management,
59(4), 287-303.
Jerotich, K. R. (2015). The effect of the level of motivation of Kiswahili teachers on
performance of students in secondary schools in Elgeyo Marakwet County, Keiyo
Sub-County, Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(29), 1-6.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Jugovic, I., Marusic, I., Ivanec, T. P., & Vidovic, V. V. (2012). Motivation and
personality of preservice teachers in Croatia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 42(3), 271-287.
Kim, H., & Cho, Y. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ motivation, sense of teaching efficacy,
and expectation of reality shock. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,
42(1), 67-81.
148
Konig, J., & Rothland, M. (2012). Motivations for choosing teaching as a career: Effects
on general pedagogical knowledge during initial teacher education. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 289-315.
Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013).
Professional competence of teachers: Effects of instructional quality and student
development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 805-820.
Laschke, C., & Blomeke, S. (2016). Measurement of job motivation in TEDS-M: Testing
for invariance across countries and cultures. Large-Scale Assessments in
Education, 4(1), 1-17.
Leibowitz, B., van Schalkwyk, S., Ruiters, J., Farmer, J., & Adendorff, H. (2012). It’s
been a wonderful life: Accounts of the interplay between structure and agency by
good university teachers. Higher Education, 63(3), 353-365.
Li, M., Wang, Z., You, X., & Gao, J. (2015). Value congruence and teachers’ work
engagement: The mediating role of autonomous and controlled motivation.
Personality and Individual Differences, 80(3), 113-122.
Liu, P. (2015). Motivating teachers’ commitment to change through transformational
leadership in Chinese urban upper secondary schools. Journal of Educational
Administration, 53(6), 735-754.
Liu, S., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2014). Teachers’ motivation for entering the teaching
profession and their job satisfaction: A cross-cultural comparison of China and
other countries. Learning Environments Research, 17(1), 75-94.

149
Loo, R. (2001). Motivation orientations toward work: An evaluation of the work
preference inventory (student form). Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling
and Development, 33(4), 222-233.
Malouff, J. M., Reid, J., Wilkes, J., & Emmerton, A. J. (2015). Using the results of
teaching evaluations to improve teaching: A case study of a new systematic
process. College Teaching, 63(1), 3-7.
Massari, G. (2014). Motivation for teaching career of students from early childhood
education and primary school pedagogy. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 7(4), 1-6.
Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., Irnidayanti, Y., & van de Grift. W. (2016).
Autonomous motivation in the Indonesian classroom: Relationship with teacher
support through the lens of self-determination theory. The Asia-Pacific
Education Researcher, 25(3), 441-451.
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2015). Effective leadership makes schools truly
inclusive. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(5), 68-73.
Mertler, C. A. (2016). Should I stay or should I go? Understanding teacher motivation,
job satisfaction, and perceptions of retention among Arizona teachers.
International Research in Higher Education, 1(2), 34-46.
Mintrop, R., & Ordenes, M. (2017). Teacher work motivation in the era of extrinsic
incentives: Performance goals and pro-social commitments in the service of
equity. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(44), 1-43.
Muijs D. (2010). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
150
Murtedjo, M., & Suharningsih, S. (2016). Contribution to cultural organization, working
motivation and job satisfaction on the performance of primary school teacher.
International Journal of Higher Education, 5(4), 86-95.
NASSP. (2010). National Association of Secondary School Principals. ABD.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (1978).
The Belmont Report. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing
Office.
Nadim, M., Chaudhry, M. S., Kalyar, M. N., & Riaz, T. (2012). Effects of motivational
factors on teachers' job satisfaction: A study on public sector degree colleges of
Punjab, Pakistan. The Journal of Commerce, 4(4), 25.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA). (2015). Professional
Standards for Educational Leaders 2015. Reston, VA: Author.
Nawaz, N., & Yasin, H. (2015). Determinants of motivation in teachers: A study of
private secondary schools chain networks in Bahawalpur. Journal of Education
and Practice, 6(4), 55-59.
Onjoro, V., Arogo, R. B., & Embeywa, H. E. (2015). Leadership motivation and
mentoring can improve efficiency of a classroom teacher and workers in
institutions. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(15), 1-14.
Osakwe, R. N. (2014). Factors affecting motivation and job satisfaction of academic staff
of universities in South Geopolitical Zone of Nigeria. International Education
Studies, 7(7), 43-51.

151
Purcek, K. I. (2014). Coaching and coaching in education. Journal of Education and
Future, 2(6), 1-14.
Radinger, T. (2014). School leader appraisal – a tool to strengthen school leaders’
pedagogical leadership and skills for teacher management. European Journal of
Education, 49(3), 378-394.
Rai, A. K., & Srivastava, M. (2013). Exploring dependent relationship of teachers’
motivation on quality of teaching. ASBM Journal of Management, 6(2), 1-10.
Range, B., Duncan, H., & Hvidston, D. (2013). How faculty supervise and mentor pre-
service teachers: Implications for principal supervision of novice teachers.
International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 8(2), 43
-58.
Reiss, S. (2012). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Teaching of Psychology, 39(2),
152-163.
Remijan, K. W. (2014). Improving teacher motivation in secondary schools with hybrid
positions. American Secondary Education, 42(3), 20-38.
Robinson, G. B., Switzer, G. E., Cohen, E. D., Primack, B. A., Kapoor, W. N., Seltzer,
D. L., & Rubio, D. M. (2014). Shortening the Work Preference Inventory for use
with physician scientists: WPI-10. CTS: Clinical & Translational Science, 7(4),
324-328.
Rocchi, M. A., Pelletier, L. G., & Couture, A. L. (2013). Determinants of coach
motivation and autonomy supportive coaching behaviors. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 14(6), 852-861.

152
Roy, D., & Sengupta, P. R. (2016). An empirical study of the influence of the personal
and social factors on the motivation of school teachers. Journal of Organization
and Human Behavior, 5(3), 29-36.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions
and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Sartain, L., Stoelinga, S. R., & Brown, E. R. (2011). Rethinking teacher evaluation in
Chicago lessons learned from classroom observations, principal-teacher
conferences, and district implementation. Consortium on Chicago
School Research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Sayed, Y., & McDonald, Z. (2017). Motivation to become a foundation phase teacher in
South Africa. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 7(1), 1-9.
Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2012). Teachers’ withdrawal behaviors: Integrating theory and
findings. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(3), 307-326.
Stuhlfaut, M. W. (2010). Evaluation the Work Preference Inventory and its
measurement of motivation in creating advertising professionals. Journal of
Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 32(1), 81-93.
Sun, J., & Leithwood, K. (2012). Transformational school leadership effects on student
achievement. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 11(4), 418-451.
Tentama, F., & Pranungsari, D. (2016). The roles of teachers’ work motivation and
teachers’ job satisfaction in the organizational commitment in extraordinary
schools. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education,
5(1), 39-45.
153
Teo, T., Ursavas, O. F., & Bahcekapili, E. (2012). An assessment of pre-service teachers’
technology acceptance in Turkey: A structural equation modeling approach. Asia-
Pacific Education Researcher, 21(1), 191-202.
Thompson, J., Haesler, E., Anderson, K., & Barnard, A. (2014). What motivates general
practitioners to teach. Clinical Teacher, 11(2), 124-130.
Thompson, M. M., & McIntyre, E. (2013). Prospective teachers’ goal orientation: An
examination of different teachers’ typologies with respect to motivations and
beliefs about teaching. Teacher Development, 17(4), 409-430.
Tleuzhanova, G. K., & Madenyatova, A. M. (2014). The professional competence of
teachers: Which skills and knowledge contribute to a teacher’s effectiveness?
Education and Science without Borders, 5(9), 146-148.
Toussi, M. T., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2012). A study of EFL teachers’ locus of control and
self-regulation and the moderating role of self-efficacy. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 2(11), 2326-2371.
Tsutsumi, R. (2014). Exploring Japanese university EFL teacher motivation. Journal of
Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 121-143.
Van den Berg, B. A., Bakker, A. B., & Ten Cate, T. J. (2013). Key factors in work
engagement and job motivation of teaching faculty at a university medical center.
Perspectives on Medical Education, 2(5-6), 264-275.
Van den Berghe, L., Soenens, B., Aelterman, N., Cardon, G., Tallir, I. B., & Haerens, L.
(2014). Within-person profiles of teachers’ motivation to teach: Associations with
need satisfaction at work, need-supportive teaching, and burnout. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 15(4), 407-417.

154
Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability:
Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle.
Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23(3), 263-280.
Viseu, J., Neves de Jesus, S., Rus, C., & Canavarro, J. M. (2016). Teacher motivation,
work satisfaction, and positive psychological capital: A literature review.
Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 14(2), 439
-461.
Visser-Wijnveen, G., Stes, A., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). Development and validation
of a questionnaire measuring teachers’ motivations for teaching in higher
education. Higher Education, 64(3), 421-436.
Walker, W. (2005). The strengths and weaknesses of research designs involving
quantitative measures. Journal of Research in Nursing, 10(5), 571-582.
Warner, R. M. (2013). Moderation: Tests for interaction in multiple regression. Applied
Statistics From Bivariate Through Multivariate Techniques, 2, 611-644.
Wildman, R. H. (2015). A phenomenological study of high school teacher’s motivation as
Related to teacher performance management (Order No. 3687894). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social
Sciences Collection. (1669916298).
Wilkesmann, U., & Schmid, C. J. (2014). Intrinsic and internalized modes of teaching
motivation. Evidence – Based HRM, 2(1), 6-27.
Wyatt, M. (2013). Motivating teachers in the developing world: Insights from research
with English language teachers in Oman. International Review of Education,
59(2), 217-242.
155
Yousaf, A., Yang, H., & Sanders, K. (2015). Effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
on task and contextual performance of Pakistani professionals: The mediating role
of commitment to foci. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(2), 133-150.
Yuan, K., Le, V., McCaffrey, D. F., Marsh, J. A., Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., &
Springer, M. G. (2013). Incentive pay programs do not affect teacher motivation
or reported practices: Results from three randomized studies. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(1), 3-15.
Zeid, H. A., Assadi, N., & Murad, T. (2017). The effect of junior high school teachers’
motivation and willingness to change on the diversity of their teaching methods.
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(12), 1160-1170.

156
Appendix A.
District Teacher Evaluation Instrument
EVALUATION OVERVIEW PLAN

Probationary Teacher
Teacher Responsibility Administrator Responsibility
First Semester
Complete Self-Assessment; due by August A minimum of 2 classroom observations
25th A minimum of 1 scheduled observation (see
Goals - Develop Student Learning Objectives; definition of scheduled observation)
due by September 29th Mid-Year Review (see definition of Mid-Year
Mid-Year Check Point due to Evaluator at Review)
least two days prior to meeting for Mid-year
Review
All items are to be completed prior to December 1st

Second Semester
Complete reflection for Student Learning A minimum of 2 classroom observations
Objectives; due no later than May 18th A minimum of 1 scheduled observation (see
Complete Data Component; date to be definition of scheduled observation)
announced Summative Evaluation
All teacher evaluations and supporting documentation is due in Human Resources by

May 27, 2018.
Continuing Teacher
Complete Self-Assessment; due by August A minimum of 70 minutes of observation
25th A minimum of 2 observations – MUST be at
Goals – Develop Student Learning least 60 days apart
Objectives; due by September 29th A minimum of 1 scheduled observation (see
Mid-Year Check Point due to Evaluator at definition of scheduled observation)
least two days prior to meeting for Mid-year A Mid-Year Conference to collect evidence
Conference on Domains 1 and 4 and Learning Goal –
Complete reflection for Student Learning must be held on or before February 1st; see
th
Objective; due no later than May 18 definition of Mid-Year Conference
Complete Data Component; date to be Summative evaluation
announced
All teacher evaluations and supporting documentation is due in Human Resources by

May 27, 2018.
157
Teacher Evaluation System

Definition of Terms
Assessment – This assessment refers to the assessments used in Student Learning

Objectives. The qualitative measures student progress toward and/or attainment of the
SLO. A minimum of two assessments, one of which is formative and is used by the
teacher to modify instruction during the Instructional Period. Assessment items are
aligned to the SLO and appropriate for a wide range of learners. The summative
assessment encompasses enough evidence to make an accurate judgment about
attainment of the SLO learning goal(s).
Baseline Data – This is the starting data point for a Student Learning Objective. This
must include analysis of at least three sources of data, including pre-assessment data, to
determine current academic levels of Student Population and describe at least three data
sources that will be used to establish the starting point for measuring student learning
progress towards the Student Learning Objective.. These data will determine students’
placement in performance groups at the beginning of the term.
Continuing Teacher – A teacher who has been an employee with the school district for
the major portion of three consecutive years and has not scored in the Ineffective
performance classification in the Peoria Unified Teacher Evaluation System for the
current year.
Components – The more granular responsibilities of a teacher within Domains 1-4. An

example is 2a. Creating an environment of respect and rapport.
Danielson Framework – Refers to Charlotte Danielson’s work A Framework for

Teaching. The Domains within the DistrictTeacher Evaluation System are based on the
2007 version of Mrs. Danielson’s work.
Domains 1 -4 – The broader responsibilities of a teacher as described in the Danielson

Framework. They include: Planning and Preparation, Classroom Environment,
Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities.
Group A Teacher – A teacher who has two or more valid and reliable individual data
pieces.
Group B Teacher – A teacher who does not have two or more valid and reliable
individual data pieces.
Inadequacy of Classroom Performance – The written notification to a certified

employee that performance is below expectations and will be placed on an improvement
plan.
Individual Data – Data that can be directly attributed to an individual teacher. An

example would be 3rd grade AzMERIT.
158
Instructional Period - Length of time allocated for a unit or course, sufficient to allow
for student opportunities to learn the prescribed Standards. Instructional Period may not
be less than the duration of one Curricular Framework.
Instructional Strategies – Research-based instructional strategies, specific to the

subject area, that are planned to help all students make progress toward the learning goal.
Learning Content – The national standards that are used to anchor the Student Learning
Objective if no state standards are available for a given content area.
Learning Goal – This is the foundation of the Student Learning Objective. The academic
goal students will meet by the end of the instructional period. The goal should clearly
state what the students will know, understand and be able to do by the end of the
Instructional Period. The learning goal focuses as closely to the individual student as
possible, allowing for variations based on the current achievement levels of individuals
or groups of students. The learning goal identifies the number or percentage of students
at each performance level who are expected to achieve the learning goal, as well as the
performance levels of those students.
Mid-Year Conference – The conference between the evaluator and the teacher to
discuss the artifacts or other evidence that may be applied to the Domains and
components. The teacher and evaluator will also conference about the teacher’s progress
on the Learning Goal for the Student Learning Objective. This conference is for
evaluators to meet with continuing teachers to collect evidence on Domains 1 and 4. The
teacher will complete the Mid-Year Check Point and submit it to the evaluator two days
prior to the conference.
Mid-Year Review – The review summarizes the evidence collected from observations
that have been performed in the first semester and applied it to the Domains and
Components as well as the Professional Expectations. Documentation is presented to the
teacher in a conference. The teacher and evaluator will also conference about the
teacher’s progress on the Learning Goal for the Student Learning Objective. The review
is used primarily for probationary teachers and is to be completed prior to December 1st.
The teacher will complete the Mid-Year Check Point and submit it to the evaluator two
days prior to the conference.
Performance Classification – The levels are assigned to the overall evaluation score for
a teacher that includes: self-assessment, the Student Learning Objective reflection on the
SLO, Domains 1-4, Professional Expectations, and the Student Achievement Data
component. These levels align to ADE’s State Adopted Framework and are required by
law. The levels are Ineffective, Developing, Effective, and Highly Effective.
Performance Evaluation Data Application – The web-based application that houses the
Teacher Evaluation System. This system was designed and is maintained by the District
IMT department.
159
Performance Level – The levels assigned as Unsatisfactory, Developing, Proficient, and

Excelling within each component in Domains 1-4.
Probationary Teacher – A teacher who has not been employed with the school district
for the major portion of three consecutive years. This may also be a teacher who was
continuing but has scored in the Ineffective performance classification in the Teacher
Evaluation System.
Professional Practices – Combines the following pieces in the Teacher Evaluation

System: Self-Assessment, Student Learning Goals, reflection on the SLO, Domains 1-4,
and Professional Expectations.
PUSD Data Performance Share Point Site – A site on the district portal that has FAQ’s
and resources to help support the district data component.
Rationale - A brief narrative of how the Student Learning Objective was constructed.
The rationale must include implications for future learning.
Scheduled Observation – There is a pre- and a post-conference with each scheduled

observation. At the pre-conference, the evaluator and the teacher will agree upon the
length of the lesson that is to be observed in order for the evaluator to see a continuous
and uninterrupted lesson.
Schoolwide Data - Data that cannot be directly attributed to an individual teacher. An

example would be the AZ Learns School Label.
State Standard – The Arizona College and Career Ready Standards to which the Student
Learning Objective is aligned.
Student Learning Objective – A specific learning goal with specific measures of

student learning used to track progress toward that goal.
Student Population - All Full Academic Year students (FAY) on the teacher’s roster for
one course/class/subject/section are included in the SLO. The SLO may include smaller
populations of tiered groups of FAY students.
Summative Evaluation – Combines the scores of all the pieces of the Peoria Teacher
Evaluation System into one final score. Those pieces include: Self-Assessment, Student
Learning Objective,reflections for the SLO, Domains 1-4, Professional Expectations, and
the Student Achievement Data component.
160
Teacher Self-Assessment and Goals - 2017-2018

Name: Assignment:
School/Site: Date:
Signature:
The Self-Assessment is due to your evaluator no later than August 25, 2017.
The goals are due to your evaluator no later than September 29, 2017.
One part of a thorough evaluation is a reflection on one’s own performance as a teacher. This
self-evaluation is designed to help you think about your strengths and areas for improvement so you can
make the best decisions to help students be successful, both academically and socially.
Consider your teaching practice, and for each component of professional practice, determine the
level of performance that best reflects your own assessment. Circle or highlight the appropriate
descriptors; the performance levels you select will serve as your personal assessment of current practice.
Think about possible artifacts that may serve as evidence of your performance in each Domain. This list is
not exhaustive and is offered to examples of evidence a teacher may wish to include in evaluating his/her
performance.
Lesson, unit plans Behavior plans Student recognition strategies

Task analyses Communication logs Teacher Leadership
Parent surveys Report cards Evidence of high
expectations for every
Newsletters P. D. logs student, every day
Self-assessments Grade books Effective, ongoing
communication with
Class schedules Reading logs students, parents,
Discipline plans Rubrics administrators, community
Seating charts Feedback on papers Journals members
Student interest inventories Student surveys
Miscellaneous artifacts Student contracts
Attendance records Student profiles
Contributions to school, district Quizzes and tests
Self-reflection Videos of student performance
Resources for teaching and learning Teacher website
Daily interactions with colleagues, students, Student needs documentation
parents, support staff, community Use of data
Previous professional growth plans Substitute folders
Examples of student feedback Evidence of modifications/accommodations
Collaboration with colleagues, special area teachers Student projects
161
Teacher Self-Assessment – 2017 -2018

Use the rubric to analyze your performance in each of the Four Domains. Write a brief summary
of your self-assessment of performance in each Domain, and determine which areas on which to focus in
order to strengthen your skills and professional practices.
Self-Assessment of Practice
U = Unsatisfactory D= Developing P = Proficient E = Excelling

Domain 1: Planning and Preparation U D P E
1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy
1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
1c: Setting Instructional Outcomes
1d: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
1e: Designing Coherent Instruction
1f: Designing Student Assessments
Overall Rating for Domain 1: Planning and Preparation U D P E

Summary of Rating for Domain 1:
Domain 2: Classroom Environment

U D P E
2a: Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport
2b: Establishing a Culture for Learning
2c: Managing Classroom Procedures
2d: Managing Student Behavior
2e: Organizing Physical Space
Overall Rating for Domain 2: Classroom U D P E

Environment
Domain 3: Instruction U D P E
3a: Communicating with Students
3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques

162
3c: Engaging Students in Rigorous Learning
3d: Using Assessment in Instruction
3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness to

Diverse Student Needs
Overall Rating for Domain 3: Instruction U D P E
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities U D P E
4a: Reflecting on Teaching
4b: Maintaining Accurate Records
4c: Communicating with Families
4d: Participating in a Professional Community
4e: Growing and Developing Professionally
4f: Showing Professionalism
Overall Rating for Domain 4: Professional

U D P E
Responsibilities
Summary of Rating for Domain 4

163
Student Learning Objective 2017-2018
Teacher School
Subject Evaluator
Student Population: Describe the student population to be addressed in the SLO.
State Standard(s) What is being taught? Cite the standard verbatim.
Instructional Period: When will the instructional period begin and end?
Assessment: What pre and post assessments will be used to measure this goal? What
formative assessment will be used to assess student progress toward achieving the
SLO?
Baseline Data: What data sources will be used to establish the starting point for
measuring student learning progress toward the SLO Learning Goal?
Learning Goal: What will the students know, understand and be able to do by the end
of the instructional period?
Instructional Strategies:
Which instructional strategies will be used to enhance student achievement of the
Student Learning Objective?
Rationale: Explain how this learning content, the assessment, and the target were
chosen. Include implications for future teaching.
* Please use the SLO Quality Assessment Criteria Rubric and refer to Model SLO
when formulating the Student Learning Objective to ensure this portion of the
Professional Development Plan includes the required components.
164
District Student Roster
Teacher Course/Subject/Class/Grade School

Evaluator
Student Last First Name Pre-Assessment Target Post-
Name Assessment
165
SLO Quality Assessment Criteria 2017-2018
Purpose of this Rubric: This rubric is for use by teachers, school administrators and district
administration to evaluate the components of Student Learning Objectives (SLOs), and to identify
needed improvements to ensure the SLO is of acceptable quality before it is used to set student learning
goals and be included in a teacher evaluation rating system.
Component Acceptable Needs Improvement Insufficient
:
Student • Course/class/subj • Course/class/subj • Course/class/subj
Population: ect/section is identified ect/section is identified ect/section may not be
All Full • All FAY students • All FAY students identified
Academic in the teacher’s course in the teacher’s course • Class roster is not
Year students are addressed; includes are addressed; may included
(FAY) on the roster include class roster • No differentiation
teacher’s roster • Some • Some is evident
for one course differentiation for differentiation for
/class/subject/s smaller populations is smaller populations
ection are evident: whole group, may be evident
included in the tiered and/or individual
SLO. SLO
may include
smaller
populations of
tiered groups
of FAY
students.
State Standard • Standard is • Standard is • Standard is cited

/Learning aligned to CCRS and aligned to CCRS and loosely and/or is not
Content: cited verbatim cited verbatim aligned to CCRS or
SLO is aligned • SLO • SLO national standards.
to College and encompasses the most encompasses too little • SLO focus is too
Career important learning for of the important narrow.
Readiness the content/class/course learning for the content • SLO is not
Standards; if • Aligns to district • SLO may not aligned to district or
no state and school priorities align to district and/or school priorities
standards are school priorities
in place for the
content area,
national
standards may
be used.
Instructional • Begins following • Begins following • No evidence of

Period: baseline data analysis baseline data analysis baseline data analysis
Length of time • Indicates a clear • Indicates a start prior to start of
allocated for a start and end date and end date instructional period
unit or course, • Allows for sufficient • May not allow for • No start and end
sufficient to student opportunities to sufficient student date
allow for learn opportunities to learn • Insufficient
student student opportunities to
opportunities learn.
to learn the
prescribed
Standards.
166
Instructional
Period may not
be less than the
duration of one
Curricular
Framework.
Assessment: • Formative • Formative • Formative
Qualitatively assessment is directly assessment may not be assessment is not
measures aligned to summative directly aligned to directly aligned to
student • If assessment(s) summative summative or is not
progress are teacher created, • If assessment is provided
toward and/or hard copies of the teacher created, hard • Teacher created
attainment of formative assessment, copies of formative pre and post
the SLO. A as well as the Pre and assessment, as well as assessments are not
minimum of post assessments, are pre and post provided and/or
two provided assessments are identical
assessments, • Pre and post provided. • Assessments fail
one of which is assessments are • Pre and post to show alignment to
formative and identical and show assessments are Standards/content/SLO
is used by the alignment to identical but may fail to • A majority of
teacher to Standards/content/SLO show alignment to items are not aligned to
modify • A majority of Standards/content/SLO the priority, content, or
instruction items are aligned to the • A majority of skills standards
during the priority, content, or items are aligned to the • Items do not
Instructional skills standards and priority, content, or represent significant
Period. represent significant skills standards measurable learning
Assessment measurable learning • Items may not • A rubric, scoring
items are necessary to attain the represent significant guide and/or answer
aligned to the learning goal measurable learning key is not included
SLO and • A rubric, scoring necessary to attain the and/or used to
appropriate for guide and/or answer learning goal minimize subjectivity
a wide range key is included and • A rubric, scoring
of learners. used to minimize guide and/or answer
The subjectivity key may not be
summative included and/or used to
assessment minimize subjectivity
encompasses
enough
evidence to
make an
accurate
judgment
about
attainment of
the SLO
learning
goal(s).
Baseline Data: • Student • Student • Student
Analysis of at Population roster on Population roster is Population roster is not
least three district approved form included, but district included
sources of is included approved form is not • Baseline trends
data, including • Baseline trends used are not identified
pre-assessment are identified • Baseline trends • No other sources
data, to • 2 additional are identified of data have been used
determine sources of data are • One additional to inform the teacher’s
current provided and served to source of data is instructional decision-
167
academic inform the teacher’s provided and served to making around the
levels of instructional decision- inform the teacher’s SLO.
Student making around the SLO instructional decision-
Population. making around the
Describe at SLO.
least three data
sources that
will be used to
establish the
starting point
for measuring
student
learning
progress
towards the
SLO Learning
Goal. These
data will
determine
students’
placement in
performance
groups at the
beginning of
the
Instructional
Period.
Learning Goal: • Goal or goals • Goal or goals • Goal or goals do
The foundation target 100% of the may not target 100% of not target 100% of the
of the Student teacher’s students the teacher’s students teacher’s students
Learning • Aligned with • Aligned with • Are not aligned
Objective is district, school, and district, school, and with district, school,
the academic grade level grade level and grade level
goal students expectations expectations expectations
will meet by • Specific and • Specific and • Are not specific
the end of the measurable measurable and/or measurable
instructional • Relevant • Relevant • May not be
period. • Are equally • Are not equally relevant
Goal clearly challenging, rigorous, challenging, rigorous, • Show no
states what the and realistic for ALL and realistic for ALL evidence of
students will students, including for students, including for differentiation
know, special populations special populations • Are not be
understand and • Can be • Show no attainable within the
be able to do differentiated for whole evidence of instructional period
by the end of group, small groups, or differentiation
the individual students • May not be
instructional
• Are attainable attainable within the
period.
within the instructional instructional period
Learning Goal period
focuses as
closely to the
individual
student as
possible,
allowing for
variations
168
based on the
current
achievement
levels of
individuals or
groups of
students.
Learning goal
identifies the
number or
percentage of
students at
each
performance
level who are
expected to
achieve the
Learning Goal,
as well as the
performance
levels of those
students.
Rationale: • Describes the • Describes the • Describes the
A brief process for selecting the process for selecting the process for selecting
narrative of learning content learning content the learning content
• Identifies baseline • Identifies baseline
how the SLO • Has not
was trends and explains how trends but fails to explain
pre-assessment data how data influenced
examined baseline data
constructed. and cannot explain how
influenced learning goal learning goal setting
Rationale must setting process process data influenced
include • Explains how • Other sources of learning goal setting
implications other sources of student student data are not used process
for future data influenced learning to inform instructional • Cannot identify
learning. goal setting process decision-making the evidence that will
• Explains how the • May explain how be used to determine
was chosen goal was chosen student success
• Identifies the • May fail to
evidence that will be used identify the evidence that
to determine student will be used to determine
success student success
Instructional • Represent 3-5 best • Represent fewer • No best practices
Strategies: practices in the subject than 3 best practices in the are identified or best
Research- area subject area practices are not specific
based • Are aligned to the • Are aligned to the to the subject area
learning goal learning goal
instructional • Are not aligned to
• Address diverse • May not address the
strategies, the learning goal
learners’ needs in needs of diverse learners
specific to the achieving the learning in achieving the learning • The diverse needs
subject area, goal. goal of learners are not
that are • Reflect how the • May not reflect addressed
planned to help teacher will monitor how the teacher will • Do not reflect
all students student progress or lack of monitor student progress how the teacher will
make progress progress on an ongoing or lack of progress on an monitor student progress
toward the basis ongoing basis
or lack of progress
learning goal.
169
Midyear Check Point

Teacher School
Subject/Course Evaluator
Please respond to the following questions and submit to your evaluator at least two days
prior to your Midyear Review or Conference. Additional documentation may be attached
as appropriate.
1. Rubric Self-Check: How would you describe student progress in achievement of the
SLO in your class at this point? How did you determine this rating?
Overall SLO Quality Rating: Achievement of expected Student Learning

Objective
4 3 2 1
Students have Students have met the Some students have not Students did not meet
surpassed the teacher’s teacher’s expectations of fully met the teacher’s the teacher’s
expectations of growth growth detailed in the expectations for growth expectations of growth
detailed in the SLO. SLO. Evidence indicates detailed in the SLO; detailed in the SLO;
Evidence indicates significant student evidence indicates some evidence indicates
exceptional student learning gain has student learning gain. little student learning
learning gain across occurred, including for 60-74% of students are gain in SLO. Fewer
SLO, including special special populations; 75- on target to meet the than 60% of students
populations; 90-100% 89% of students are on learning goal. are on target to meet
of students are on target to meet the the learning goal.
target to meet the learning goal.
learning goal.
Rating Rubric for teachers with 4 or fewer students

Overall SLO Quality Rating: Achievement of expected Student Learning Objective
4 3 2 1
Based on individual Based on individual Based on individual Based on individual
growth outcomes, all growth outcomes, all growth outcomes, some growth outcomes, no
students are on target students are on target to students are on target to students are on target
to meet expected meet expected learning meet expected learning to meet expected
learning goals; some goals. goals. learning goals.
students are exceeding
the learning goals.
2. Describe the progress your students have made toward the SLO. What evidence serves
to quantify the progress your students have made?
3. Identify any components of the SLO process with which your students or you are
struggling. What might you do differently to address those areas? In which components
are you experiencing success? Explain.
170
4. Has anything changed significantly (student population, course assignment, schedule,

etc.) that may impact the achievement of the SLO? Explain.
5. Identify supports or resources that would support your efforts to help your students
achieve the SLO.
Teacher Signature ____________________________Date:___________________________
Evaluator Signature ________________________Date:______________________________

171
End of Year Reflection
Teacher School
Subject/Course Evaluator
Please respond to the following questions and submit to your evaluator at least two days
prior to your End of Year Conference. Additional documentation may be attached as
appropriate.
1. Did you meet your Student Learning Objective? Explain. Did some students
exceed the objective? To what do you attribute their growth? Do some students
still need support in reaching the SLO? What will you do to ensure they also
meet the SLO?
2. If your students did not meet the Student Learning Objective, what is some other
evidence that indicates your students have made some academic progress toward
achieving the SLO?
3. Describe the key successes/challenges with respect to the processes embedded in

the SLO process.
4. Reflect on the instructional approaches/strategies you used to help your students

achieve the SLO. What worked well? What adjustments did you make to your
instructional approach(es)?
5. In the context of the SLO process as a whole, how did the process impact your
students? How did the process impact your instructional decision-making?
172
Rating Rubric for teachers with 5 or more students

Objective
4 3 2 1
Students have Students have met Some students have Students did not
surpassed the the teacher’s not fully met the meet the teacher’s
teacher’s expectations of teacher’s expectations of
expectations of growth detailed in expectations for growth detailed in
growth detailed in the SLO. Evidence growth detailed in the SLO; evidence
the SLO. Evidence indicates significant the SLO; evidence indicates little
indicates student learning indicates some student learning
exceptional gain has occurred, student learning gain in SLO.
student learning including for special gain. 60-74% of Fewer than 60%
gain across SLO, populations; 75- students met the of students met the
including special 89% of students met learning goal. learning goal.
populations; 90- the learning goal.
100% of students
met the learning
goal.
Rating Rubric for teachers with 4 or fewer students
Objective
4 3 2 1
Based on Based on individual Based on individual Based on
individual growth growth outcomes, all growth outcomes, individual growth
outcomes, all students met some students met outcomes, no
students met expected learning expected learning students met
expected learning goals. goals. expected learning
goals; some goals.
students exceeded
the learning goals.
Please attach student roster with post-assessment data. Include a Statement of
Implications for future teaching that is based on the data.
Teacher Signature ___________________________________Date_____________________
_____
Evaluator Signature __________________________________Date________________
173
Classroom Teacher Observation/Data Collection Form

Teacher Name: Grade/Subject/Dept.
School: Observer Name:
Observation Date: Time In: Time Out:
Walk Through/Scheduled
Components of Professional Practice

Observed: The skill was observed or evidence was seen by the observer.
Discussion Pts.
Not Observed
Not Observed: The skill was not observed and little to no evidence was
seen by the observer
Observed
Discussion Points: These are indicators that the observer may want to
discuss further or seek clarification on in a post observation conference.
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
1a. Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy
1b. Demonstrating knowledge of students
1c. Setting instructional outcomes
1d. Demonstrating knowledge of resources
1e. Designing coherent instruction
1f. Designing student assessment
Domain 2: Classroom Environment

2a. Creating an environment of respect and rapport
2b. Establishing a culture for learning
2c. Managing classroom procedures
2d. Managing student behavior
2e. Organizing physical space

174
Discussion Pts.
Observed: The skill was observed or evidence was seen by the observer.
Not Observed
Not Observed: The skill was not observed and little to no evidence was seen by the
Observed
observer
Discussion Points: These are indicators that the observer may want to discuss further
or seek clarification on in a post observation conference.
Domain 3: Instruction
3a. Communicating with students
3b. Using questions and discussion techniques
3c. Engaging students in rigorous learning
3d. Using assessment in instruction
3e. Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness to diverse student needs
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities

4a. Reflecting on teaching
4b. Maintaining accurate records
4c. Communicating with families
4d. Participating in a professional community
4e. Growth and developing professionally
4f. Demonstrating professionalism
Notes/Comments/Reflections
Observer Signature Date

Teacher Signature Date
175
Classroom Teacher Evaluation Instrument 2017-2018
Teacher Evaluator
School Grade/Subject/Dept. Date
Observation Dates: __________, __________, __________, __________, __________, _
District Strategic Goals

Student Learning - Student Learning is the overriding focus of everything we do. It involves high standards,
supported by a meaningful curriculum. The standards and curriculum are well integrated into our daily work – at
the classroom, school, District and community levels. Student Learning also involves continuous efforts to ensure
learning for all students. This involves innovative practice that serves all students and strives toward the highest
standard of excellence in education. The Student Learning area helps actualize the District Values – Integrity is at
the core of all our actions, and equity embraces the needs of each individual within our community.
Data-Driven Decision Making - Data-Driven Decision Making identifies the extent to which our school system
is effectively using information and data. This area prompts us to examine how we use multiple sources of data to
improve instructional practice and to continuously examine relationships between our work efforts, the outcomes
they are achieving, and the improvement strategies we are using. The continuous use of data is seen as central to
accomplishing our mission to improve performance for each student in the district. Data-Driven Decision Making
helps actualize the PUSD Value - Achievement is the personal growth of every student, every day.
Capacity Development - The Capacity Development area addresses both organizational and human resource
development. It requires continuous innovation to improve organizational structures and procedures throughout
the system to improve learning for each student. Further, this area encompasses the development of all staff in the
full range of human resource development, including recruitment, selection, continuing skill development and
performance evaluation. Capacity Development helps actualize the District Values – People are the District’s
most valuable resource, and respect of personal differences creates a culture of dignity and compassion.
Community Connectedness - Community Connectedness emphasizes strong and ongoing partnership
connections with our internal and external communities. We see the community as a valuable resource for real
world learning. Equally important, this area values the community's understanding and use of assessment results
as imperative to ongoing improvement in student learning. Community Connectedness helps actualize the District
Value - Outreach creates a partnership with the community.
Components of Professional Practice
1. Planning and Preparation: The teacher designs 2. Classroom Environment: The teacher creates
and plans instruction that develops students’ abilities to and maintains a learning climate that supports
meet current Arizona Academic Standards and the the development of students’ abilities to meet
district’s assessment plan. current Arizona Academic Standards.
• Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy • Creating an environment of respect and
• Demonstrating knowledge of students rapport
• Setting instructional outcomes • Establishing a culture for learning
• Demonstrating knowledge of resources • Managing classroom procedures
• Designing coherent instruction • Managing student behavior
• Designing student assessment • Organizing physical space
4. Professional Responsibilities: The teacher strives to 3. Instruction: The teacher implements and
implement the Peoria Unified School District Vision manages instruction that develops students’
and philosophy of education. abilities to meet current Arizona Academic
Standards
• Reflecting on professional practices • Communicating with students
• Maintaining accurate records • Using questioning and discussion techniques
• Communicating with families • Engaging students in rigorous learning
• Participating in a professional community • Using assessment in instruction
• Growing and developing professionally • Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness
• Demonstrating professionalism to diverse student needs
176
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation

Effective teachers plan and prepare for lessons using their extensive knowledge of the content area, the core/managed
curriculum and their students, including students’ prior experience with this content and their possible misconceptions.
Instructional outcomes are clearly related to the major concepts of the content area and are consistent with the curriculum
design. These outcomes are clear to students and classroom visitors (including parents). Learning activities require all
students to think, problem-solve, inquire, defend conjectures and opinions and be accountable to the learning community.
Effective teachers work to engage all students in lessons and use formative assessment to scaffold and provide
differentiated instruction. Measures of student learning align with the curriculum and core concepts in the discipline, and
students can demonstrate their understanding in more than one way.
Component 1a. Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy

Unsatisfactory Developing Proficient Excelling
Teacher’s plans and Teacher’s plans and Teacher’s plans and Teacher’s plans and practice
practice display little practice reflect some practice reflect sufficient reflect extensive knowledge
knowledge of the content awareness of the knowledge of the content, of the content and of the
or the Arizona State important concepts in the Arizona State structure of the discipline,
Academic Standards, the discipline and in the Academic Standards, the Arizona State Academic
prerequisite relationships Arizona State Academic district exit outcomes, and Standards, and district exit
between different aspects Standards, prerequisite prerequisite relations outcomes. Teacher actively
of the content, or of the relations between them between important builds on knowledge of
instructional practices and of the instructional concepts and of the prerequisites and corrects
specific to that discipline; practices specific to that instructional practices misconceptions when
OR, there is little or no discipline; instructional specific to that discipline; describing instruction or
evidence of lesson plans may be missing instructional plans have no seeking causes for student
planning. The teacher one or more critical serious omissions, misunderstanding;
does not keep up-to-date elements of lesson including aligned instructional plans include
in areas of specialization. design (aligned objectives, activities, and critical elements of lesson
objective, activities, and assessments that enable design, including clear
assessments) that most students to meet the objectives aligned to
impedes students from specific learning Arizona academic
achieving the lesson objectives. For the most standards; aligned learning
objective. The teacher part, the teacher keeps up- activities and assessments
keeps somewhat up-to- to-date in areas of clearly enable all or almost
date in areas of specialization. all students to meet the
specialization. specific learning objectives.
The teacher keeps up-to-
date in areas of
specialization.
Evidence
Component 1b. Demonstrating knowledge of students
Teacher demonstrates Teacher indicates the Teacher actively seeks Teacher actively seeks
little or no knowledge of importance of knowledge of students’ knowledge of students’
students’ backgrounds, understanding students’ backgrounds, cultures, backgrounds, cultures,
cultures, skills, language backgrounds, cultures, skills, language skills, language proficiency,
proficiency, interests, and skills, language proficiency, interests, and interests, and special needs
special needs, and does proficiency, interests, special needs, and attains from a variety of sources,
not seek such and special needs, and this knowledge for groups and attains this knowledge
understanding. attains this knowledge of students. The teacher for individual students. The
The teacher demonstrates for the class as a whole. demonstrates sufficient teacher demonstrates a
no understanding of The teacher knowledge of disabilities depth of knowledge of
disabilities or other demonstrates little and other special needs of disabilities and other special
special needs of students knowledge of disabilities most students, as well as needs of all students, as well
or their educational and other special needs their educational as their educational
implications in learning. of students, as well as implications in learning. implications in learning.
their educational
implications in learning.
Evidence
177
Component 1c. Setting instructional outcomes

Instructional outcomes are Instructional outcomes are Instructional outcomes are Instructional outcomes are
absent or unclear and are not somewhat clear and are clear and aligned to precise and explicit and are
aligned to Arizona’s loosely aligned to Arizona’s academic aligned to Arizona’s academic
academic standards or district Arizona’s academic standards and/or district standards and district exit
exit outcomes and are standards and/or district exit outcomes, and are outcomes, and are stated as goals
unsuitable for students, exit outcomes, and are of stated as goals reflecting that can be assessed, reflecting
represent trivial or low-level moderate rigor and are high-level learning and rigorous learning and curriculum
learning, or are stated only as suitable for some students, curriculum standards. standards. Learning objectives
activities. Objectives or but consist of a Learning objectives are at are at the appropriate grade level
activities do not permit viable combination of activities the appropriate grade level and level of difficulty.
methods of assessment. and goals, some of which and difficulty. Objectives Objectives are suitable for all
permit viable methods of are suitable for most students in the class, represent
assessment. Learning students in the class, different types of content,
objectives are not at the represent different types of factual and conceptual
correct grade level or level content, factual and understanding, and multiple
of difficulty. Objectives conceptual understanding, dispositions such as reasoning
may reflect more than one and are capable of skills, social or communication
type of content, but teacher assessment. The outcomes skills, and listening to others’
makes no attempt at reflect opportunities for perspectives.
coordination or content coordination with Outcomes reflect evidence of
integration. colleagues or content coordination with colleagues and
integration. content integration, and take into
account the needs of individual
students.
Evidence
Component 1d. Demonstrating knowledge of resources
Teacher demonstrates little or Teacher demonstrates some Teacher is fully aware of Teacher seeks out tangible and
no familiarity with resources familiarity with resources the tangible and intangible intangible resources in and
to enhance own knowledge, available through the resources available through beyond the school or district in
to use in teaching, or for school or district to the school or district to professional organizations, on
students who need them. enhance own knowledge, enhance own knowledge, to the Internet, and in the
Teacher does not seek such to use in teaching, or for use in teaching, and for community to enhance own
knowledge. The teacher or students who need them. students who need them; knowledge, to use in teaching,
students do not use available Teacher does not seek to teacher uses available and for students who need them;
resources, use them extend such knowledge. resources in ways that teacher facilitates grade level
inappropriately, or use the The teacher uses available enhance instruction, to gain appropriate student use of
resources in ways that do not resources, but in ways that and maintain student available resources to deepen
enhance instruction or may not fully enhance attention, access prior understanding, develop
facilitate learning; examples instruction or facilitate knowledge, engage expertise, and use knowledge in
include video games or learning, for example, word students in learning, deepen real-world authentic
movies that are not aligned to processing, or games that cognition, provide applications, simulate real-world
learning objectives, surfing assess knowledge retrieval, feedback, and increase experience, solve authentic
the Internet without a clear videos, and using a Smart motivation and retention. problems, promote student
focus, entertaining or Board as a screen. inquiry, or create original
rewarding students, or for products.
non-educational and/or
personal purposes.
Evidence
178
Component 1e. Designing coherent instruction

The series of learning The series of learning Teacher coordinates Teacher coordinates
experiences are poorly aligned experiences demonstrates knowledge of content, knowledge of content, of
with the instructional partial alignment with of students, and of students, and of resources,
outcomes and do not represent instructional outcomes, resources, to design a to design a series of
a coherent structure. They are some of which are likely series of learning learning experiences
suitable for only some to engage students in experiences aligned to aligned to instructional
students. There are frequent significant learning. The instructional and and district outcomes,
gaps in the implementation of lesson or unit has a district outcomes and differentiated where
district approved curriculum recognizable structure suitable to groups of appropriate to make them
scope and sequence. and reflects partial students. The lesson or suitable to all students and
knowledge of students unit has a clear likely to engage them in
and resources. There are structure and is likely significant learning. The
some gaps in the to engage students in lesson or unit’s structure is
implementation of significant learning. clear and allows for
district approved There are no serious different pathways
curriculum scope and gaps in the according to student
sequence. implementation of needs. District approved
district approved curriculum scope and
curriculum scope and sequence are implemented
sequence. with complete fidelity.
Evidence
Component 1f. Designing student assessment

Teacher’s plan for assessing Teacher’s plan for Teacher’s plan for Teacher’s plan for student
student learning contains no student assessment is student assessment is assessment is fully aligned
clear criteria or standards, is partially aligned with the aligned with the with the instructional
poorly aligned with the instructional outcomes, instructional outcomes, outcomes, with clear
instructional outcomes, or is without clear criteria, and using clear criteria, and criteria and standards that
inappropriate to many inappropriate for at least is appropriate to the show evidence of student
students. The results of some students. Teacher needs of students. contribution to their
assessment have minimal intends to use assessment Teacher intends to use development. Assessment
impact on the design of future results to plan for future assessment results to methodologies may have
instruction. Assessments may instruction for the class plan for future been adapted for
not be present or are not as a whole. The teacher instruction for groups individuals, and the
clearly aligned to measure may design assessments of students. Teacher teacher intends to use
student progress in meeting that are not aligned to designs a variety of assessment results to plan
objectives aligned to learning objectives, and formative formal and informal future instruction for
outcomes. assessments only provide assessments as frequent individual students.
information as to whether checks for Teacher designs a variety
some students have met understanding to guide of formal and informal
the learning outcomes. instruction and provide assessments, formative
feedback to students; and summative, to
the teacher is able to frequently check for
determine whether understanding and provide
students have met the specific, timely feedback
learning outcomes. to students; students have
opportunities to engage in
self-assessment, goal
setting, and progress
tracking.
Evidence
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Comments/Recommendations

179
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment

Effective teachers organize their classrooms so that all students can learn. They maximize instructional time and foster respectful
interactions among and between teachers and students with sensitivity to students' cultures, race and levels of development. Students
themselves make a substantive contribution to the effective functioning of the class through self-management of their own learning and
maintaining a consistent focus on rigorous learning for all students by supporting the learning of others. Processes and tools for students'
independent learning are visible/available to students (charts, rubrics, etc.). Artifacts that demonstrate student growth over time are
displayed/available.
Component 2a. Creating an environment of respect and rapport

Classroom interactions, Classroom interactions, Classroom interactions Classroom interactions
both between the teacher both between the teacher between the teacher and between the teacher and
and students and among and students and among students and among individual students are
students, are negative, students, are generally students are polite and highly respectful,
inappropriate, or appropriate and free from respectful, reflecting reflecting genuine warmth
insensitive to students’ conflict but may be general warmth and and caring and sensitivity
cultural backgrounds and characterized by caring, and are appropriate to students’ cultures and
are characterized by occasional displays of to the cultural and levels of development.
sarcasm, put-downs, or insensitivity or lack of developmental differences Students themselves
conflict. responsiveness to cultural among groups of students. ensure high levels of
or developmental civility among members of
differences among the class.
students.
Evidence
Component 2b. Establishing a culture for learning

The classroom The teacher’s attempt to The classroom culture is High levels of student
environment conveys a create a culture for characterized by high energy and teacher passion
negative culture for learning is partially expectations for most for the subject create a
learning, characterized by successful, with little students and genuine culture for learning in
low teacher commitment teacher commitment to the commitment to the subject which everyone shares a
to the subject, low subject, modest by both teacher and belief in the importance of
expectations for student expectations for student students, with students the subject and all students
achievement, and little or achievement, and little demonstrating pride in hold themselves to high
no student pride in work. student pride in work. their work. standards of performance
Both teacher and students – for example, by
appear to be only “going initiating improvements to
through the motions.” their work.
Evidence
180
Component 2c. Managing classroom procedures

Much instructional time is Some instructional time Little instructional time is Students contribute to the
lost because of inefficient is lost because lost because of classroom seamless operation of
classroom routines and classroom routines and routines and procedures for classroom routines and
procedures for transitions, procedures for transitions, handling of procedures for transitions,
handling of supplies, and transitions, handling of supplies, and performance handling of supplies, and
performance of non- supplies, and of non-instructional duties, performance of non-
instructional duties. performance of non- which occur smoothly. instructional duties.
instructional duties are
only partially effective.
Evidence
Component 2d. Managing student behavior

There is no evidence that It appears that the Standards of conduct Standards of conduct are
standards of conduct have teacher has made an appear to be clear to clear, with evidence of
been established and little effort to establish students, and the teacher student participation in
or no teacher monitoring standards of conduct for monitors student behavior setting them. The teacher’s
of student behavior. students. The teacher against those standards. monitoring of student
Response to student tries, with uneven The teacher’s response to behavior is subtle and
misbehavior is repressive results, to monitor student misbehavior is preventive, and the
or disrespectful of student student behavior and appropriate and respects the teacher’s response to
dignity. respond to student students’ dignity. student misbehavior is
misbehavior. sensitive to individual
student needs. Students take
an active role in monitoring
the standards of behavior
Evidence
Component 2e. Organizing physical space

The physical environment The classroom is safe, The classroom is safe, and The classroom is safe, and
is unsafe, or some students and essential learning is learning is accessible to all the physical environment
don’t have access to accessible to most students; the teacher ensures the learning of all
learning. Alignment students; the teacher’s ensures that the physical students, including those
between the physical use of physical arrangement is appropriate with special needs. Students
arrangement and the resources, including to the learning activities. contribute to the use or
lesson activities is poor. computer technology, is The teacher makes adaptation of the physical
moderately effective. effective use of physical environment to advance
The teacher may attempt resources, including learning. Technology is
to modify the physical computer technology. used skillfully, as
arrangement to suit appropriate to the lesson.
learning activities, with
partial success.
Evidence
Domain 2: Classroom Environment Comments/Recommendations

181
Domain 3: Instruction
All students are highly engaged in learning and make significant contributions to the success of the class through
participation in equitable discussions, active involvement in their learning and the learning of others. Students and
teachers work in ways that demonstrate their belief that rigorous instruction and hard work will result in greater
academic achievement. Teacher feedback is specific to learning goals and rubrics and offers concrete ideas for
improvement. As a result, students understand their progress in learning the content and can explain the goals and what
they need to do in order to improve. Academic progress is articulated and celebrated in the learning community and
with families. Effective teachers recognize their responsibility for student learning in all circumstances and demonstrate
significant student growth over time towards individual achievement goals, including academic, behavioral, and/or
social objectives.
Component 3a. Communicating with students

Expectations for learning, Expectations for Expectations for learning, Expectations for learning,
directions and procedures, learning, directions and directions and procedures, directions and procedures,
and explanations of procedures, and and explanations of and explanations of content
content are unclear or explanations of content content are clear to are clear to students. The
confusing to students. The are clarified after initial students. teacher’s oral and written
teacher’s use of language confusion; the teacher’s Communications are communication is clear and
contains errors or is use of language is appropriate for students’ expressive, appropriate for
inappropriate for students’ correct but may not be cultures and levels of students’ cultures and levels
cultures or levels of completely appropriate development. Most of development, and
development. Students for students’ cultures or students can articulate anticipates possible student
cannot articulate lesson levels of development. lesson objectives and why misconceptions. Almost all
objectives or why they are Some students are able they are important to students can say or show
important to learn. to articulate lesson learn. Teacher model lesson objectives accurately
Teacher modeling is not objectives or why they includes the skills and and demonstrates a personal
used when necessary and are important to learn. labels the criteria for the connection to their
appropriate Teacher modeling is correct performance importance. When a lesson is
present, but ineffective. expected of students. teacher led, teacher models
the skill and labels specific
criteria for the correct
performance expected of
students.
Evidence
182
Component 3b. Using questioning and discussion techniques

The teacher’s questions Some of the teacher’s Most of the teacher’s Questions reflect high
are low-level or questions elicit a thoughtful questions elicit a expectations and are
inappropriate, eliciting response, but most are low- thoughtful response, and culturally and
limited student level, posed in rapid the teacher allows developmentally
participation and succession with little wait sufficient time for appropriate. Students
recitation rather than time. The teacher’s students to answer. All formulate many of the
discussion. Students do attempts to engage all students participate in the high-level questions and
not interact with the students in the discussion discussion, with the ensure that conditions are
content, other students, or are only partially teacher stepping aside right for students to have
with the teacher. successful. Students when appropriate. the opportunity to be
demonstrate limited Student interaction with heard. Students
interaction among other students is evident. continuously interact with
themselves or with the the content, other students,
teacher. and the teacher.
Evidence
Component 3c. Engaging students in rigorous learning

Students are not Students are sometimes Students are Students are highly
intellectually engaged in intellectually engaged intellectually engaged intellectually engaged
learning; activities and in learning; activities throughout the lesson in throughout the lesson in
assignments, materials, and assignments, significant learning; significant learning, and make
and groupings of students materials, and activities and meaningful contributions to
are inappropriate to the groupings of students assignments, materials, the activities, student
instructional outcomes, or are partially appropriate and groupings of groupings, and materials. All
students’ cultures or to the instructional students are fully students are engaged in work
levels of understanding, outcomes, or students’ appropriate to the of a high level of rigor.
resulting in little cultures or levels of instructional outcomes, Teacher provides
intellectual engagement or understanding, resulting and students’ cultures opportunities that require
rigor. Teacher fails to in moderate intellectual and levels of complex analyses and new
provide opportunities that engagement and little understanding. Most thinking to deepen
challenge students beyond rigor. Teacher provides students are engaged in understanding of previous
the knowledge retrieval opportunities that work of a high level of knowledge, OR teacher
level; there is no evidence require students to rigor. Teacher provides requires students to complete
of the construction of new comprehend new opportunities that require authentic, complex real-world
meaning, deepening information, but students to develop tasks in which they construct
understanding, students are not automaticity in skills that meaning through problem
improvement in skills, or required to demonstrate are necessary for solving, decision-making,
application of previously their understanding in subsequent, higher level formulating and testing
learned knowledge. words or non- learning, OR hypotheses, conducting
There is no evidence of linguistically; there is comprehend basic inquiries, and/or developing
transfer of learning no evidence of the meaning of new and designing original
beyond knowledge construction of new information and products; there is evidence of
acquisition in the meaning, deepening demonstrate deepening understanding and
individual content area or understanding, understanding verbally higher levels of expertise and
classroom and no improvement in skills, or non-linguistically, OR transfer or learning; activities
application to authentic, application of examine new knowledge are mostly at the analysis and
real-world tasks. The previously learned in fine detail and as a knowledge utilization levels.
teacher is not knowledge, or transfer result, form new Teacher acts as facilitator and
participating in the of learning to authentic, conclusions, often leads students in experiential,
learning tasks of the real-world tasks. The through the completion inductive, hands-on learning.
students. Students are not teacher sometimes of authentic, complex, Students are provided
given opportunities for participates in the real-world tasks; rigorous, appropriate, aligned
guided and/or learning tasks of activities are primarily at opportunities for guided and
independent practice OR students. Students are the analysis and independent practice.
the practice provided is provided opportunities comprehension levels.
183
not aligned. for guided and Teacher often acts as

independent practice, facilitator and leads
but the practice may not students in experiential,
be aligned. inductive, hands-on
learning. Students are
provided appropriate,
aligned opportunities for
guided and independent
practice.
Evidence
Component 3d. Using assessment in instruction

Assessment is not used in Assessment is Teacher uses a variety of Teacher uses a variety of
instruction, either through sometimes used in assessments to gauge assessments to gauge student
monitoring of progress by instruction, through student achievement of achievement and promote the
the teacher or students, or some monitoring of learning objectives and learning of instructional
through feedback to progress of learning by guide instruction; teacher outcomes; assessment is used
students. Students are the teacher and/or provides timely, quality in a sophisticated manner
unaware of the students. Feedback to feedback to students; throughout the instruction;
assessment criteria used students is uneven, and teacher is able to students are involved in
to evaluate their work students are aware of determine where most establishing the assessment
only some of the students are throughout criteria. Self-assessment by
assessment criteria used the learning in meeting students and monitoring of
to evaluate their work. the instructional progress by both students and
outcomes. the teacher is required; teacher
gives timely, quality feedback
to all students from a variety
of sources. Students track
individual progress and set
personal goals.
Evidence
Component 3e. Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness to diverse student needs

Teacher fails to adjust the Teacher attempts to Teacher frequently Teacher seizes opportunities to
instruction plan, even modify the lesson when seizes opportunities to enhance learning, building on
when a change would needed and to respond enhance learning, spontaneous events or student
improve the lesson or to student questions building on student questions, needs, and/or
build upon students’ with moderate success. questions, needs, and/or interests. Teacher ensures the
questions or interests. Teacher promotes the interests. Teacher success of all students, using an
Teacher brushes aside successful learning of promotes the successful extensive repertoire of
student questions; when most students, but has learning of all students, differentiated instructional
students experience only a limited repertoire making adjustments as plans, strategies, resources and
difficulty, the teacher of strategies to draw needed to instruction materials, and making
blames the students or upon to meet the diverse plans, strategies, adjustments as necessary to
their home environment. needs of learners. The resources, and meet the diverse needs of all
There is no evidence that teacher sometimes materials. The teacher learners. The teacher
the teacher uses methods demonstrates the use of sometimes implements implements tiered interventions
or varies instructional classroom strategies and interventions. Most of as appropriate. The teacher
strategies, resources, or teaching techniques the time, the teacher demonstrates exclusively or
materials to meet the specific to the content demonstrates the use of almost exclusively the use of
needs of learners; there is area that are backed by research-based classroom strategies and
184
no evidence of research and/or best classroom strategies and teaching techniques specific to
intervention. The teacher practices. Few teaching techniques the content area that are backed
seldom or never adjustments to specific to the content by research and/or best
demonstrates the use of instructional plans, area that are backed by practices.
classroom strategies and strategies, resources, research and/or best
teaching techniques and materials are made practices.
specific to the content to meet the needs of
area that are backed by learners; there is little or
research and/or best no evidence of
practices. intervention.
Evidence
Domain 3: Instruction Comments/Recommendations

185
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities

Effective teachers have high ethical standards and a deep sense of professionalism. They utilize integrated systems for
using student learning data, record keeping and communicating with families clearly, timely and with cultural sensitivity.
They assume leadership roles in both school and district projects, and engage in a wide-range of professional development
activities. Reflection on their own practice results in ideas for improvement that are shared across the learning community
and improve the practice of all. These are teachers who are committed to fostering a community of effortful learning that
reflects the highest standards for teaching and student learning in ways that are respectful and responsive to the needs
and backgrounds of all learners.
Component 4a. Reflecting on professional practices

The teacher does not The teacher provides a The teacher provides an The teacher’s reflection on the
accurately assess the partially accurate and accurate and objective professional practices is
effectiveness of the objective description of description of the thoughtful and accurate, citing
professional practices and the professional professional practices, specific evidence. The teacher
has no ideas about how practices but does not citing specific evidence. draws on an extensive
the lesson could be cite specific evidence. The teacher makes repertoire to suggest alternative
improved. The teacher makes only some specific strategies and predicts the
general suggestions as suggestions as to how likely success of each.
to how the lesson might the lesson might be
be improved. improved.
Evidence
Component 4b. Maintaining accurate records

The teacher’s systems for The teacher’s systems The teacher’s systems The teacher’s systems for
maintaining both for maintaining both for maintaining both maintaining both instructional
instructional and non- instructional and non- instructional and non- and non-instructional records
instructional records are instructional records are instructional records are are accurate, efficient, and
either nonexistent or in rudimentary and only accurate, efficient, and effective, and students
disarray, resulting in partially successful. effective. Teacher contribute to its maintenance.
errors and confusion. Privacy and maintains privacy of Teacher maintains privacy of
Teacher does not keep confidentiality of student records and student records and
student records private student records is performance; respects performance; respects
and confidential. sometimes disregarded. confidentiality. confidentiality.
Evidence
186
Component 4c. Communicating with Families

The teacher’s The teacher adheres to The teacher communicates The teacher’s
communication with school procedures for frequently with families communication with families
families about the communicating with and successfully engages is frequent and sensitive to
instructional program or families and makes them in the instructional cultural traditions; students
about individual students modest attempts to program. Information to participate in the
is sporadic or culturally engage families in the families about individual communication. The teacher
inappropriate. The teacher instructional program. students is conveyed in a successfully engages families
makes no attempt to But communications are culturally appropriate in the instructional program,
engage families in the not always appropriate manner. as appropriate.
instructional program. to the cultures of those
families.
Evidence
Component 4d. Participating in a professional community

The teacher avoids The teacher becomes The teacher participates The teacher makes a
participating in a involved in the actively in the professional substantial contribution to
professional community professional community community and in school the professional community
or in school and district and in school and and district events and and to school and district
events and projects; district events and projects, and maintains events and projects, and
relationships with projects, and maintains positive and productive assumes a leadership role
colleagues are negative or positive and productive relationships with among the faculty.
self-serving. relationships with colleagues.
colleagues.
Evidence:
187
Component 4e. Growing and developing professionally

The teacher does not The teacher participates in The teacher seeks out The teacher actively
participate in professional professional development opportunities for pursues professional
development activities and activities that are professional development development opportunities
makes no effort to share convenient or are required, based on an individual and initiates activities to
knowledge with and makes limited assessment of need and contribute to the
colleagues. The teacher is contributions to the actively shares expertise profession. In addition, the
resistant to feedback from profession. The teacher with others. The teacher teacher seeks and
supervisors or colleagues. accepts, with some welcomes feedback from incorporates feedback
reluctance, feedback from supervisors and from supervisors and
supervisors and colleagues. colleagues.
colleagues.
Evidence:
Component 4f. Demonstrating professionalism

The teacher has little sense The teacher is honest and The teacher displays a The teacher is proactive
of ethics and well intentioned in serving high level of ethics and and assumes a leadership
professionalism and students and contributing professionalism in role in making sure that
contributes to practices to decisions in the school, dealings with both school practices and
that are self-serving or but the teacher’s attempts students and colleagues procedures ensure that all
harmful to students. The to serve students are and complies fully and students, particularly those
teacher fails to comply limited. The teacher voluntarily with school traditionally underserved,
with school and district complies minimally with and district regulations. are honored in the school.
regulations and time lines. school and district The teacher makes a The teacher displays the
regulations, doing just contribution to a culture of highest standards of
enough to get by. continuous improvement ethical conduct and takes a
in district initiatives. leadership role in seeing
that colleagues comply
with school and district
regulations. The teacher
challenges negative
attitudes/practices, and
encourages a culture of
continuous improvement.
Evidence:
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities Comments/Recommendations

188
PROFESSIONAL EXPECTATIONS: The following professional expectations are a

minimum for all teachers. Failure to consistently meet these expectations shall result in
administrative action.
PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTORS YES NO COMMENTS
1. The teacher attends, participates, and arrives on time

for required meetings.
2. The teacher works and communicates effectively and
professionally with parents, community members,
staff, and administration.
3. The teacher upholds and enforces school rules,
administrative regulations, and board policies and
procedures.
4. The teacher creates and maintains positive and
appropriate relationships with students and staff
members.
5. The teacher complies with state and federal special
education and SEI laws, rules, and regulations.
6. The teacher consistently meets deadlines set forth by
the school and district.
7. The teacher consistently adheres to assigned work
hours and maintains good attendance. If no, please
attach documentation.
8. The teacher complies with laws and professional
responsibilities related to student, parent, and teacher
rights.
9. The teacher complies with federal, state, and PUSD
policies and procedures for test administration, data
collection, and data stewardship.
10. The teacher maintains professional mannerisms and
appearance.
189
Evaluation Summary
Evaluator’s Reflections:
Area(s) of Strength:
Recommendations for Improvement:
Signature of Evaluator Date

I have seen this and discussed this evaluation. (a) I accept this assessment in its entirety.
(b) I wish to attach additional information.
Teacher’s Signature Date

190
Appendix B.
G Power Data for the Study

191
Appendix C.
Copy of Instruments and Permissions Letters to Use the Instruments
From: Clete Bulach <cbulach@comcast.net>

You have my permission to use the Supervisor behavior survey for your
dissertation. I can also provide scoring and data analysis if your
university
does not provide that service. You may change the items on the
demographic page, but not the number of items. If you would like I
can give you some feedback on your purpose page and your hypotheses.
I've also attached the letter, report, and graph. You can use them to
report
your data if you wish.
Dr. Clete Bulach

Thank you and have a great day!
7256 Confederate Lane
Villa Rica, GA 30180
770 214 8318 (land line)
770 605 8724 (cell)
www.westga.edu/~cbulach
A SURVEY OF
SUPERVISORY BEHAVIORS
Part I--Demographics
Directions: Respond to each item by filling in the blank on the computer scan
sheet which most accurately describes you.
1. Location of Position
A. elementary school B. middle school C. high school
D. vocational/technical E. other
2. Level of Preparation
A. Bachelor's Degree
B. Master's Degree
C. Specialist's Degree
192
D. Doctorate Degree
E. Other
3. Total Years of Teaching Experience
A. 0-5
B. 6 - 10
C. 11 - 15
D. 16 - 20
E. 21+
4. Gender
A. female B. male
Copyright c 2000
Part II--Survey items
Directions: Use the scale below to respond to each item by filling in the blank on
the computer scan sheet for the response which comes closest to describing how often
you see your principal exhibit this behavior.
A B C D E
NEVER SELDOM SOMETIMES OFTEN
ALWAYS
5. My principal displays a lack of trust.

6. My principal demonstrates a caring attitude.
7. My principal provides positive reinforcement.
8. My principal interacts with staff.
9. My principal remains distant.
10. My principal calls me by name.
193
11. My principal delegates responsibilities.

12. My principal compliments me.
13. My principal uses coercion to motivate me.
14. My principal does not listen.
15. My principal uses eye contact.
16. My principal provides feedback regarding my teaching.
17. My principal corrects me in front of others instead of privately.
18. My principal models good communication skills.
19. My principal is able to keep a confidence.
20. My principal gossips about other teachers or administrators.
21. My principal shows favoritism to some teachers.
22. My principal has double standards.
23. My principal has not supported me when parents were involved.
24. My principal demonstrates a lack of vision.
25. My principal is knowledgeable about the curriculum.
26. My principal is knowledgeable about instructional strategies.
A B C D E
NEVER SELDOM SOMETIMES OFTEN
ALWAYS
27. My principal is partial to influential parents.

28. My principal supports me as a person even if I am wrong.
29. My principal is afraid to question his/her superiors.
30. My principal shrugs off or devalues a problem or concern.
31. My principal “passes the buck” rather than dealing with a situation.
32. My principal remembers what it is like to be a teacher.
33. My principal frequently interrupts my teaching.
34. My principal assigns too much paperwork.
35. My principal tells teachers to make do with what they have.
36. My principal assigns duty during planning period.
37. My principal “nitpicks” on evaluations.
194
38. My principal expects paperwork to be done “yesterday” with no notice.

39. My principal overemphasizes control.
40. My principal involves me in decisions.
41. My principal uses the words “I” and “my” too frequently.
42. My principal is rigid and inflexible.
43. My principal applies procedures consistently.
44. My principal holds people accountable.
45. My principal fails to follow up.
46. My principal has rules but does not always enforce them.
47. My principal makes “snap judgments.”
48. My principal listens to both sides of the story before making a decision.
49. My principal implements the latest fads without thorough knowledge
50. My principal bases evaluations on a short observation.
51. My principal evaluates situations carefully before taking action.
52. My principal makes decisions as “knee jerk” reactions to an incident.
From: Barros, Amelia <abarros@hbs.edu>
Hello Mike,
I am responding on behalf of Professor Amabile, as her assistant. Thank you for your interest in
Professor Amabile’s research. I have attached the Work Preference Inventory and its Scoring Guide,
along with a corrected copy of the original JPSP article that reported the psychometrics of the WPI; there
were two serious typos in one of the tables. Professor Amabile grants you permission to use it in your
research.
Best,
Amelia T. Barros
Harvard Business School
Faculty Support Specialist , Entrepreneurial Management Unit
Rock Center 120C | abarros@hbs.edu | 617.384.7807
#________________
195
Work Preference Inventory
Working Adult Version
Teresa M. Amabile, Ph.D.
Please rate each item in terms of how true it is of you. Please circle one and only
one letter for each question according to the following scale:
N = Never or almost never true of you

S = Sometimes true of you
O = Often true of you
A = Always or almost always true of you
N S O A 1. I am not that concerned about what other people think of my

work.
N S O A 2. I prefer having someone set clear goals for me in my work.
N S O A 3. The more difficult the problem, the more in enjoy trying to
solve it.
N S O A 4. I am keenly aware of the income goals I have for myself.
N S O A 5. I want my work to provide me with opportunities for
increasing my knowledge and
N S O A 6. To me, success means doing better than other people.
N S O A 7. I prefer to figure things out for myself.
N S O A 8. No matter what the outcome of a project, I am satisfied if I
feel I gained a new experience.
N S O A 9. I enjoy relatively simple, straightforward tasks.
N S O A 10. I am keenly aware of the promotion goals I have for myself.
N S O A 11. Curiosity is the driving force behind much of what I do.
N S O A 12. I’m less concerned with what work I do than what I get for it.
N S O A 13. I enjoy tackling problems that are completely new to me.
N S O A 14. I prefer work I know I can do well over work that stretches my
abilities.
N S O A 15. I’m concerned about how other people are going to react to my
ideas.
N S O A 16. I seldom think about salary and promotions.
N S O A 17. I’m more comfortable when I can set my own goals.
N S O A 18. I believe that there is no point in doing a good job if nobody
else knows about it.
N S O A 19. I am strongly motivated by the money I can earn.
N S O A 20. It is important for me to be able to do what I most enjoy.
N S O A 21. I prefer working on projects with clearly specified procedures.
196
N S O A 22. As long as I can do what I enjoy, I’m not that concerned about
exactly what I’m paid.
N S O A 23. I enjoy doing work that is so absorbing that I forget about
everything else.
N S O A 24. I am strongly motivated by recognition I can earn from other
people.
N S O A 25. I have to feel that I’m earning something for what I do.
N S O A 26. I enjoy trying to solve complex problems.
N S O A 27. It is important for me to have an outlet for self-expression.
N S O A 28. I want to find out how good I really can be at my work.
N S O A 29. I want other people to find out how good I really can be at my
work.
N S O A 30. What matters most to me is enjoying what I do.
Please also complete the following. This information is essential for our
statistical records.
Name: __________________________________ Age:__________

Sex:________________
Occupation: _____________________________
# Years in occupation:_____________________
Highest educational degree: _________________________

Today’s date:_____________________
c 1985, Teresa M. Amabile
#____________________
197
Appendix D.
Danielson Framework Validity (Sartain et al., 2011)

198
Appendix E.
Site Authorization Letter
Site authorization letter is on file at Grand Canyon University.

199
Appendix F.
Introductory Letter of Research Study to Teachers
Hello Teachers:
I am currently a doctoral student at Grand Canyon University and am pursuing a

degree in Organizational Leadership with an emphasis in Organizational Development. I
am conducting a research study to explore the relationship between intrinsic motivation,
extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of principal’s leadership on teacher
performance.
I am sending an invitation to participate to K-12 teachers who have been

identified as excelling based on their last year’s teacher evaluations. Attached to this
email is a Confidentiality Statement and Informed Consent, as well as a link to the
electronic Survey Monkey Survey. Your participation in this study is voluntary.
Thanks for your consideration in participating in this study and congratulations on

being identified as a highly performing teacher. If you have any questions concerning the
research study, please contact me at 623-512-2169 or by email at
msivertson@my.gcu.edu.
Thanks,
Michael Sivertson
Doctor of Organizational Leadership Student
Grand Canyon University
200
Appendix G.
Informed Consent
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
Research Study: The Relationship between Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation,

and Teachers’ Perceptions of Principal’s Leadership on Teacher Performance
The purposes of this form are to you, as a prospective research study participant,
information that may affect your decision as to whether or not to participate in this
research and to record the consent of those who agree to be involved in the study. The
research is being conducted as a component of a doctoral dissertation at Grand Canyon
University and the principal investigator is Michael Sivertson. If you have any questions
prior to or after your participation in the study, I can be reached at 623-512-2169.
The purpose of this study is to measure the degree of relationships between intrinsic
teacher performance. If you chose to be a part of this study, you will be asked to
complete a survey regarding your perceptions of principal’s leadership and your
motivational orientations. Your participation is voluntary and all information will be
confidential and destroyed at the completion of the study. If you say yes, you will be part
of the study of 1342 high performing teachers from your school district.
There are no known risks from taking part in this study, but in any research, there is some
possibility that you may be subject to risks that have not yet been identified. The
possible/main benefits of your participation in the research would be a contribution to the
further understanding of motivational tendencies of high performing teachers, as well as
further understanding of teachers’ perceptions of principal’s leadership on teacher
performance. If the researcher finds new information during the study that would
reasonably change your decision about participating, then that information will be
provided to you.
All information obtained in this study is strictly confidential. The results of this research
study may be used in reports, presentation, and publications, but the researcher will not
identify you. In order to maintain confidentiality of your records, Michael Sivertson will
be the sole researcher and will maintain the anonymity of participants throughout the
study. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. It is okay for you to say no.
Even if you say yes now, you are free to say no later, and withdraw from the study at any
time. Participation is voluntary and will have no bearing on your teaching positions.
There is no payment or cost to participate in this study.
Any questions you may have concerning the research study or your participation in the
study, before or after your consent, well by answered by Michael Sivertson by email at
msivertson@my.gcu.edu, and by telephone at 623-512-2169. If you have questions about
your rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if you feel you have been placed at
201
risk, you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board,
through the college of Doctoral Studies at IRB@gcu.edu; or by phone at 602-639-7804.
This form explains the nature, demands, benefits and any risk of the project. By signing
this form you agree knowingly to assume any risks involved. Remember, your
participation is voluntary. You may choose not to participate or to withdraw your
consent and discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefit. In
signing this consent form, you are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies.
If you chose to participate in this study please click on the attached link below, which
will take you to the survey and informed consent verification. I thank you in advance for
your time and participation.
Survey Monkey Link

202
Appendix H.
IRB Approval Letter

203
Appendix I.
Data Screening
Normality assumptions were checked by visual comparison of central tendencies;
stem-and-leaf plots; histograms; range of skew and kurtosis statistics (within ±2.0;
Warner, 2013); data points falling along the normal curve normal on Q-Q plots (which
indicates the absence of outliers and presence of homoscedasticity), boxplots, and
scatterplots. This appendix shows reliability statistics and illustrates the data as boxplots,
histograms with normal curves, and scatter plots as evidence of the tests of normality.
These tests indicated that the data did not show substantial deviations for normality. With
sufficiently large samples (N > 40), violations of normality assumptions should not create
unreliable results with parametric tests (Ghasemi & Zahediasl, 2012). Moreover, with
very large samples (N = 100+), the central limit theorem indicates that the shape of the
data’s distribution can be ignored because the sampling distribution tends to be normal
regardless of the distributional shape of the data (Ghasemi & Zahediasl, 2012). Finally,
Shapiro-Wilks normality tests are recommended for small samples (N < 50; Ghasemi &
Zahediasl, 2012) and were not run in the current study because the database was three
times as large.
Internal consistency was also checked. Reliability statistics were generated from
conceptually-related items on the variables of interest. They are listed on Table A1.
Cronbach’s alpha statistics were available for intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation,
and leadership but not for teacher performance because the original raw data were not
available. Reasons for the low Cronbach’s alpha for Extrinsic Motivation SS and
204
derivation of Extrinsic Motivation SS2 to correct for the original low Cronbach’s alpha
value are explained in chapter 4 in text associated with Tables 5-7.
Table A1.
Reliability Statistics from Cronbach’s Alpha Statistics
Reliability Statistics
Intrinsic Motivation SS .812 15
Extrinsic Motivation SS .578 15
Extrinsic Motivation SS2 .700 6
Leadership .971 48
This section shows the boxplots of the four main variables of interest. From left:
teacher performance, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, leadership. The boxplots
on Figure A1 illustrate the distribution of the data points. For teacher performance, the
boxplot shows that the median was 3.69, the minimum value was 3.50, and the maximum
value was 4.00, as per the original criteria chosen to represent high performance. The
median fall in the middle of the IQR box; there are no outliers. This was suggestive of
acceptable normality. For intrinsic motivation, the boxplot shows that the median was
3.07, the minimum value was 2.00, and the maximum value was 3.80; there are no
outliers and the median fall approximately in the middle of the IQR box. This was
suggestive of acceptable normality. For extrinsic motivation, the boxplot shows that the
median was 2.00, the minimum value was 1.25, and the maximum value was 4.00; there
are no outliers and the median fell approximately in the middle of the IQR box. For
extrinsic motivation, the boxplot shows that the median was 2.00, the minimum value
was 1.25, and the maximum value was 4.00; there are no outliers. The median was pulled
upward by higher valued data points (e.g., max = 4) but otherwise the boxplot was
balanced around the median. This was suggestive of acceptable normality. For leadership,
205
the boxplot shows that the median was 4.25, the minimum value was 1.88, and the
maximum value was 4.92; there are no outliers. The median fell approximately in the
middle of the IQR box. This was suggestive of acceptable normality.
Figure A1. Boxplots for normality screening.
This section shows the histograms with superimposed normal curves used to
establish the normal distribution of the variables. The placement of the normal curve over
the frequency distribution were suggestive of acceptable normality.

206
Figure A2. Frequency distribution for normality screening for teacher performance.
Figure A3. Frequency distribution for normality screening for intrinsic motivation.
207
Figure A4. Frequency distribution for normality screening for extrinsic motivation.
Figure A5. Frequency distribution for normality screening for leadership.

208
This section shows scatter plots with superimposed lines of best fit generated to
establish linearity in bivariate associations. Straight (uncurved) lines of best fit indicate
that the variables meet the linearity assumption.
Figure A2. Association between intrinsic motivation and teacher performance.
Figure A3. Association between extrinsic motivation and teacher performance.

209
Figure A4. Association between leadership and teacher performance.

The Relationship Between Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, and Teachers' Perceptions of Principal's Leadership On Teacher Performance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Relationship Between Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, and Teachers' Perceptions of Principal's Leadership On Teacher Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Relationship between Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, and Teachers’

Perceptions of Principal’s Leadership on Teacher Performance

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Grand Canyon University

November 21, 2018

All rights reserved.

The Relationship between Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, and Teachers’

Perceptions of Principal’s Leadership on Teacher Performance

I verify that my dissertation represents original research, is not falsified or plagiarized,

investigation by GCU Institutional Review Board (IRB).

relationship between intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions

of principal’s leadership on teacher performance in a K-12 Southwestern U.S. public

quantitative correlational study were founded in the theoretical framework of Self-

Determination Theory to measure the relationships between teachers’ intrinsic

motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of principal’s leadership on

between intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and teachers’ perceptions of

.830, between teachers perceptions of principal leadership and teacher performance.

associated variables independently, this study illuminates the uniqueness of motivation to

particular motivational factor, or recipe, that motivates high performing teachers.

Keywords: Teacher motivation, teacher performance, principal leadership,

intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation

appreciated, and necessary to complete this journey.

Your contributions to my completion of this program are significant, greatly appreciated,

my department for the continuous support and encouragement.

List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xiii

List of Figures .................................................................................................................. xiv

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study....................................................................................1

Background of the Study ...............................................................................................2

Problem Statement .........................................................................................................4

Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................6

Research Questions ........................................................................................................7

Advancing Scientific Knowledge and Significance of the Study ................................10

Rationale for Methodology ..........................................................................................12

Nature of the Research Design for the Study...............................................................14

Assumptions, Limitations, Delimitations ....................................................................18

Summary and Organization of the Remainder of the Study ........................................19

Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................22

Introduction to the Chapter and Background to the Problem ......................................22

Libraries, databases, and search terms ...................................................................24

Identification of the Gap ..............................................................................................25

Theoretical Foundations and/or Conceptual Framework .............................................28

Review of the Literature ..............................................................................................32

Studies on teacher motivation and job performance ..............................................32

Teacher efficacy .....................................................................................................33

Teacher job satisfaction and performance .............................................................38

Effect of extrinsic factors on teacher motivation ...................................................44

Teacher motivation and student motivation...........................................................50

Performance pay and incentives ............................................................................52

Influence of principal leadership on teacher motivation........................................55

Work Preference Survey ........................................................................................65

Leadership Behavior Survey ..................................................................................67

Teacher Evaluation Instrument ..............................................................................67

Chapter 3: Methodology ....................................................................................................71

Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................71

Research Questions and Hypotheses ...........................................................................72

Research Methodology ................................................................................................75

Population and Sample Selection.................................................................................80

Work Preference Survey ........................................................................................82

Leadership Behavior Survey ..................................................................................83

Teacher Evaluation Instrument ..............................................................................85

Data Collection and Management ................................................................................90

Data Analysis Procedures ............................................................................................92