See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264827039

Teachers' engagement in professional learning:

Exploring motivational profiles

Article in Learning and Individual Differences · December 2014

Impact Factor: 1.62 · DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.08.001

CITATIONS READS

2 96

5 authors, including:

Joost Jansen in de Wal Brok den Pj

Open Universiteit Nederland Technische Universiteit Eindhoven
2 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS 289 PUBLICATIONS 1,629 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rob L Martens Antoine Van den beemt

Open Universiteit Nederland Technische Universiteit Eindhoven
72 PUBLICATIONS 1,817 CITATIONS 23 PUBLICATIONS 61 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Joost Jansen in de Wal
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 13 July 2016
 Learning and Individual Differences 36 (2014) 27–36

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

Teachers' engagement in professional learning: Exploring

motivational profiles
Joost Jansen in de Wal a,⁎, Perry J. den Brok b, Janneke G. Hooijer a, Rob L. Martens a, Antoine van den Beemt a
a
Welten Institute: Research Centre for Learning, Teaching and Technology, Open University, P.O. Box 2960, 6401 DL Heerlen, The Netherlands
b
Eindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven University, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study investigated to what extent secondary school teachers are motivated to work on their professional
Received 26 January 2014 learning. To this end, profiles of motivational dimensions from self-determination theory were explored in a sam-
Received in revised form 17 June 2014 ple of 2360 teachers by means of latent profile analysis. The motivational dimensions included external regula-
Accepted 4 August 2014
tion, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and intrinsic motivation. Additionally, the study investigated
Available online xxxx
to what extent teachers' profile membership was related to their autonomy, competence, and relatedness satis-
Keywords:
faction, and engagement in professional development. Four profiles were distinguished in the sample and were
Teacher professional development labelled ‘extremely autonomous’, ‘moderately motivated’, ‘highly autonomous’, and ‘externally regulated’. Profile
Teacher professional learning membership could be predicted by autonomy satisfaction and relatedness satisfaction, but not by competence
Motivation satisfaction. Moreover, teachers having profiles that had higher manifestations of identified regulation and intrin-
Profiles sic motivation engaged more in professional development activities. Results show the application of self-
Self-determination theory determination theory in the field of teacher learning and provide insight into what may be done to motivate
Latent profile analysis teachers for professional learning.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Society today requires professionals to constantly adapt their knowl-
edge and skills to the ever-changing environment they act in. This also
holds for the professionals that work in school environments as teachers.
Teachers are expected to deal with changing pupil populations,
expanding knowledge fields, new responsibilities, and higher social ex-
pectations of schools (OECD, 2005). According to Guskey (2002,
p. 381) “policy makers increasingly recognize that schools can be no
better than the teachers and administrators who work within them”.
To ensure an effort towards the best possible education for their stu-
dents, teachers are thus required to invest time in continuous profes-
sional learning. We define teacher professional learning (TPL) in
accordance with Hoyle and John (1995) as the process by which teachers
acquire the knowledge, skills, and values that will improve the service
they provide to their students.
TPL inevitably involves teachers being engaged in learning activities,
both formal and informal. Learning activities are considered formal
when they involve prescribed learning frameworks, organized events,
teacher presence, the award of credit, or an external specification of out-
comes (Eraut, 2000). Informal learning is typically not highly structured
and the control of the learning lies with the learner. This study focuses
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 6 21 11 24 34.
E-mail address: Joost.JansenindeWal@ou.nl (J. Jansen in de Wal).
on deliberative informal learning (i.e. learning for which time is specif-
ically set aside), even though much informal learning is unintentional or
implicit (Eraut, 2000; Tynjälä, 2008). Informal learning has been shown
to affect teachers' knowledge, beliefs, and (intentions for) practices
(Bakkenes, Vermunt, & Wubbels, 2010).
Kwakman (2003) found that teachers do not always make full use of
the possibilities for learning provided by their environment. She sug-
gested that this finding could be explained by schools not fulfilling the
required conditions that stimulate teachers to engage in TPL. Another
possibly related explanation is that teachers are not motivated enough
or experience a non-optimal type of motivation to ensure continuous
TPL (cf. Gagné & Deci, 2005). However, empirical evidence for these ex-
planations is lacking.
In this study, therefore, the relationship between teachers' percep-
tions of their environment, their motivation, and their engagement in
TPL is investigated. Specifically, we take the widely employed self-
determination theory as a theoretical starting point to investigate to
what extent secondary school teachers are motivated to engage in TPL.
To explore the quality and strength of teachers' motivation, we seek to
identify profiles of the motivational dimensions of self-determination
theory that teachers have in relation to TPL. These profiles are then relat-
ed to the three basic psychological needs that, according to self-
determination theory, need to be fulfilled by the environment to ensure
high quality motivation. Finally, the motivational profiles are related to
teachers' engagement in TPL.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.08.001
1041-6080/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
28 J. Jansen in de Wal et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 36 (2014) 27–36

1.1. Teachers' motivation for TPL Often, the combination of intrinsic motivation and identified regulation
is designated autonomous motivation, and external and introjected reg-
Few studies have investigated teachers' motivation for their own ulation are synthesized as controlled motivation (Vansteenkiste,
learning (Vermunt & Endedijk, 2011). An indication that motivation Sierens, Soenens, Luyckx, & Lens, 2009).
for TPL may be problematic in some secondary school teachers is pro- As noted by Vansteenkiste et al. (2009), autonomous motivation is
vided in a small scale study by Van Eekelen, Vermunt, and Boshuizen associated with a host of positive outcomes such as psychological
(2006), who have found a group of teachers that are unwilling to learn. well-being, persistence, and deep learning. Controlled motivation, on
Several reasons for teachers' (non)engagement in professional learn- the other hand, has been related to more negative outcomes such as su-
ing have been identified in studies of teacher learning in contexts of perficial cognitive processing, less determination, and lower achieve-
educational reform. For example, teachers who do not feel ownership ment. Furthermore, Deci and Ryan (2000) note that the more the
or go through a process of sense-making with regard to an educational regulation of behaviour is integrated with the self, the better it will be
innovation, will be less engaged in learning activities that lead to maintained over time and the higher resulting commitment and perfor-
implementing that innovation (Ketelaar, Koopman, Den Brok, Beijaard, mance will be.
& Boshuizen, 2013). Fullan (2007) and Lieberman and Pointer Mace In SDT, the extent to which a teacher experiences the different di-
(2008) emphasize the importance of teachers perceiving innovations mensions of motivation depends on the fulfilment of three basic psycho-
as meaningful in this respect. The difference between the present logical needs by the teacher's environment. These needs comprise the
study and this research is that we investigate professional learning that need for autonomy (i.e., perceiving that one is the origin of one's own
does not follow from top-down implemented innovations. Furthermore, behaviour), the need for competence (i.e., feeling effective in on-going
the research discussed above does not explicitly conceptualize motiva- interactions with the social environment and experiencing opportunities
tion as such. to exercise and express capacities), and the need for relatedness
Studies that do focus on teachers' motivation mainly investigate the (i.e., feeling connected to others, caring for and being cared for by
broad domain of motivation for teaching, of which TPL is only a part those others, and having a sense of belongingness both with other indi-
(see Watt & Richardson, 2008). On the other hand, research is published viduals and with one's community) (Ryan & Deci, 2002). As displayed in
on teachers' motivation for specific TPL activities, rather than on TPL as a Fig. 1, when fulfilment of these needs is low, external regulation is expe-
whole. Lam, Cheng, and Choy (2010), for example, investigated teachers' rienced. When the environment pits autonomy and relatedness against
motivation to persist in project based learning. Even though teachers' each other, so that the possibility of feeling related depends on giving
motivation for the profession and specific TPL activities probably reflect up autonomy (e.g., when a teacher is only accepted by colleagues
some of their motivation for TPL as a whole, its empirical investigation when he does as they require), introjected regulation is the result.
remains scarce. When feelings of autonomy and relatedness are harmoniously achieved
this will lead to identified regulation (Koestner & Losier, 2002). For in-
1.2. Self-determination theory trinsic motivation the need for relatedness plays a less central role, and
the need for competence is more important. In addition, intrinsic moti-
The theoretical starting point of this study is self-determination vation can only be achieved when a learning activity is experienced by
theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2002). Deci and Ryan (2000) define teachers as interesting, novel, or mildly challenging (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
motivation as the initiation of, and persistence in behaviour in order
to attain a desired outcome or goal. Motivation is approached as a mul-
1.3. A profile approach to motivation
tidimensional construct, which implies that individuals may have mul-
tiple reasons for engaging in behaviour. In the case of TPL, a teacher may
The primary difference between SDT and other theories of motiva-
collaborate with colleagues to improve his lessons because of the enjoy-
tion is the focus on the relative strength of different types of motivation,
ment he experiences in relation to that collaboration. This would be an
rather than on the total amount of motivation (Gagné & Deci, 2005).
example of intrinsic motivation, the display of behaviour because of the
Several studies have found that individuals may experience multiple
inherent satisfaction of the behaviour itself. In contrast, extrinsic motiva-
types of motivation for a certain behavioural domain. As such, teachers
tion is the display of behaviour to attain some separable outcome.
can be assumed to have motivational profiles in relation to TPL. These
Teachers may have both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for profes-
profiles are characteristics of individual teachers and may vary in the
sional learning. As such, the choice for SDT as a theoretical framework
degree to which each dimension of motivation is manifested.
is in line with Van Eekelen, Boshuizen, and Vermunt (2005), who
state that “our teachers' learning experiences are never completely
self- or externally regulated” (p. 464).
Extrinsic motivation is subdivided into three types of regulation that
vary as a function of how much a reason for engaging in behaviour is
integrated with the self (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Consider a teacher who
enrols in a course because of the consequential increase in salary or be-
cause instructed to do so by the supervisor. These reasons for following
the course are totally external from the self. Therefore, this is designated
external regulation. If the same teacher started the course because to do
otherwise would give rise to feelings of shame or guilt in relation to col-
leagues, the reason for engagement would already be closer to the self
(i.e., more self-determined), but not yet fully integrated with it because
of the important part other teachers play in the individual teacher's
activation. These reasons for engagement are labelled introjected regula-
tion. Another example of introjected regulation is acting out of competi-
tion. Finally, teachers may engage in TPL because they consciously value
it as a behavioural goal or accept it as personally important, for example
in relation to their career. This type of regulation is termed identified reg-
ulation. Again, this type of regulation is more self-determined than the
previous (Rigby, Deci, Patrick, & Ryan, 1992; Ryan & Deci, 2002). Fig. 1. Hypothesized relations between basic needs and dimensions of motivation in SDT.
 J. Jansen in de Wal et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 36 (2014) 27–36
Matsumoto and Takenaka (2004), and Ntoumanis (2002) investigat-
ed motivational profiles in relation to physical exercise, Moran,
Diefendorff, Kim, and Liu (2012) studied work motivation, and
Vansteenkiste et al. (2009) focused on motivational profiles for student
learning. Three to five profiles were discerned in all studies. All studies
found a profile in which intrinsic motivation and identified regulation
(i.e., autonomous motivation) were high and introjected and external
regulation (i.e., controlled motivation) were low(er). This profile was
labelled ‘self-determined motivation’ (Matsumoto & Takenaka, 2004;
Moran et al., 2012; Ntoumanis, 2002) or ‘high quality motivation’
(Vansteenkiste et al., 2009). Moreover, all studies found a profile with
higher manifestations of controlled motivation compared to autono-
mous motivation. This profile was labelled, for example, ‘nonself-deter-
mined motivation’ (Matsumoto & Takenaka, 2004). Finally, three
studies found a profile in which values of motivational dimensions
were moderate, and consequently labelled it ‘moderate motivation’
(Matsumoto & Takenaka, 2004; Moran et al., 2012; Ntoumanis, 2002).
In line with earlier self-determination theory research, these studies
found that profiles high on intrinsic motivation and identified regula-
tion had high levels of favourable outcomes whereas profiles high on
external and introjected regulation did not. As such, teachers would ide-
ally have a motivational profile in which external and introjected regu-
lation are relatively low and identified regulation and intrinsic
motivation are relatively high.
Investigating profiles of motivational dimensions is theoretically in-
teresting because it may uncover subgroups of individuals that are not
represented by whole-sample characteristics such as means. From an
applied perspective the identification of motivational profiles will be
of use when designing interventions to increase teachers' motivation
for TPL, as it will allow for better tailoring towards specific groups of
teachers (cf. Vansteenkiste et al., 2009). The same line of reasoning is
followed by Rickards, Den Brok, and Fisher (2005) who state that reflec-
tion on teachers' behaviour may be enhanced if information regarding
that behaviour is presented in various ways. One of these ways is the
use of profiles “which are powerful tools for reflection because they
can be used to conceptualize complex and interrelated information,
(…) because they can summarize information into (smaller) chunks
that are easier to comprehend, and because they can stimulate associa-
tions with the teachers' own knowledge if they are accompanied with
powerful labels” (p. 268).
1.4. Motivation and professional learning behaviour
As noted above, motivation is the initiation of and persistence in be-
haviour in order to attain a desired outcome or goal (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
According to this definition, being motivated is irrefutably related to in-
tentional behaviour. Since TPL inevitably involves learning, this study
will focus only on teachers' deliberative learning activities that contrib-
ute to their professional learning (for a further discussion of intention-
ality of learning activities see Eraut, 2000). Research has identified
specific activities that fit this conceptualization of TPL. Evers, Kreijns,
and Van der Heijden (submitted for publication), building on the work
of Kwakman (2003), distinguished between reading, work-related
training, experimenting, reflecting, and collaborating with colleagues.
This qualification is in line with other research on teachers' learning ac-
tivities that also distinguished between individual versus collaborative
activities, formal and informal activities, and receptive and constructive
activities (Bakkenes et al., 2010; Hoekstra, Korthagen, Brekelmans,
Beijaard, & Imants, 2009; Lohman & Woolf, 2001; Vermunt &
Endedijk, 2011).
1.5. Research questions
In this study, we adopt a profile approach to motivation to investi-
gate to what extent secondary school teachers are motivated for TPL.
This has led us to apply a person-centred analytical approach. Person-
29
centred analyses aim at identifying unobserved subgroups of individ-
uals who are similar with respect to certain indicator variables
(Muthén & Muthén, 2000). In our case, these variables are the different
dimensions of motivation in self-determination theory. We then inves-
tigated whether the discerned subgroups with distinguishable motiva-
tion profiles differ with respect to antecedents (basic psychological
needs) or outcome variables (TPL engagement). In sum, this study
seeks to answer the following research questions:
To what extent are secondary school teachers motivated for profes-
sional learning?
a. What qualitatively different profiles of motivational dimensions can
be distinguished among teachers in relation to TPL?
b. To what extent is teachers' profile membership related to their basic
psychological need satisfaction?
c. To what extent do teachers that have different motivational profiles
for TPL differ in their TPL engagement?
Based on previous research we expect around four profiles to be
present in our data. These profiles may be similar in nature to those
found in earlier research (see Section 1.3). However, because of the dif-
ferent population, behavioural domain, and analysis techniques in the
current study, the exact nature of these profiles is difficult to predict.
Theoretically, it would be surprising, however, if we were to find a mo-
tivational profile in which one type of motivation is high, and closely re-
lated motivations are low. For example, we do not expect the
occurrence of high introjected regulation and low external regulation
and identified regulation in one profile. Second, we expect that teachers
experiencing high autonomy and competence will be more intrinsically
motivated, teachers with high autonomy and relatedness will display
more identified regulation, teachers with low autonomy and high relat-
edness will show more introjected regulation, and teachers with low
autonomy and low relatedness will be more externally regulated
(Koestner & Losier, 2002). Finally, we expect that teachers in profiles
with more autonomous motivation relative to controlled motivation
will show more engagement in TPL behaviour than teachers in other
profiles (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Vansteenkiste et al., 2009).
2. Methods
2.1. Sample and procedure
The sample for this study was achieved from a representative
database1 of 23,426 Dutch secondary school teachers, who were
sent an e-mail with a request to participate. In this e-mail teachers
were notified that their information would be treated confidentially
and that they could enter a lottery for an incentive worth around €
500 upon completion of the digital questionnaire. Questionnaires
were completed by 2360 teachers (10.03%) from 99 schools. This sam-
ple size is adequate for the analytical purposes of this study
(e.g., Kline, 2011, p. 12). Although the non-response necessitates con-
clusions about the population at large to be drawn tentatively, the
findings and analysis may resonate with teacher profiles in similar cir-
cumstances and be enlightening for both educational practice and
research.
Table 1 shows that the mean age is higher and the percentage of
male teachers is lower in the achieved sample than in the population.
Teachers of a wide array of subjects were represented in the sample.
These included languages (e.g., English), art, music, sports, humanities
(e.g., history), science subjects (e.g., mathematics), and practical sub-
jects (e.g., car mechanics). Finally, teachers from all types of secondary
education in the Dutch school system participated in the study. These
types roughly translate to special education, practical education, pre-
1
This database was provided by Onderwijs Innovatie Groep [Education Innovation
Group]. OIG supports organizations in the Dutch educational market with research and
solutions.
30 J. Jansen in de Wal et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 36 (2014) 27–36

Table 1
Descriptive statistics of the achieved sample compared to population parameters.
Population
Mean age 45.4
Males 57.2%
1st level qualification 40.8%
2nd level qualification 45.2%
No qualification 8.8%
Note: Population parameters were derived from the Dutch database of educational labour
market information (http://www.stamos.nl). The percentages of teacher qualifications in
the population do not add up to 100% because the database also categorizes teachers that
teach in secondary education with a licence for primary education.
vocational secondary education, senior general secondary education,
and pre-university education. Students taught in these types of educa-
tion generally range from 12 to 18 years of age. Table 1 also shows an
overrepresentation of teachers with a teaching qualification of the sec-
ond and first level. The Dutch teaching qualification of the second
level permits teaching pre-vocational secondary education and the
first three years of senior general secondary education and pre-
university education. The teaching qualification of the first level allows
teachers to teach all years and all types of secondary education.
Teachers without a qualification are underrepresented.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Engagement in TPL
Self-reported engagement in TPL was the first topic in the question-
naire. Through this ordering we sought to establish respondents' under-
standing of what was meant by TPL (i.e., the different activities that it
comprises in this study) before they filled out consecutive measures,
all of which referred back to TPL. Engagement in TPL was measured by
means of the TPD@Work scale (Evers et al., submitted for publication).
This questionnaire measures how often teachers engage in learning at
work by asking them how often they perform certain learning activities.
Specifically, these activities are reading (i.e., ‘studying subject matter lit-
erature’), work-related training (i.e., ‘participating in a course that cen-
tres around subject matter pedagogy’), experimenting (i.e., ‘testing
alternative teaching materials in class’), reflecting (i.e., ‘adapting my
teaching methods in response to pupils' reactions’), collaborating with
colleagues to improve the lesson (i.e., ‘preparing lessons with col-
leagues’), and collaborating with colleagues to improve school develop-
ment (i.e., ‘thinking about the design and method of pupil guidance
with colleagues’). Items were measured on a Likert-type answering
scale ranging from 1 ‘almost never’ to 4 ‘often’. Reliability and factorial
validity of the scale were established by Evers et al. (submitted for
publication). We replicated these results by means of a reliability anal-
Sample ysis and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Standardized factor load-
49.45
ings ranged between .51 and .81. As is displayed in Table 2, Cronbach's
53.8% alphas for all subscales and fit indices for the factor model were
47.0% satisfactory.
50.6%
2.4%
2.2.2. Motivation for TPL
Teachers' motivation for TPL was measured using the Academic Self-
Regulation Scale (Vansteenkiste et al., 2009). This scale was adapted for
the purpose of the present study. To this end, the original sentence ‘Why
are you studying in general? I'm studying …’ preceding each item was
replaced by ‘I work on my professional development …’. In addition,
the scale was translated into Dutch. A back translation by a native
English-speaking colleague resulted in a few minor adjustments.
The questionnaire consists of 16 items measuring external regula-
tion, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and intrinsic motiva-
tion. Each construct was measured by means of four items, all rated
on a Likert-type answering scale ranging from 1 ‘completely not appli-
cable to me’ to 5 ‘completely applicable to me’. Items were presented
randomly to avoid measurement effects. CFA and reliability analysis
were performed to assess the construct validity and reliability of the
scale. Two items – ‘because I'm supposed to do so’ (external regulation)
and ‘because I want others to think I'm smart’ (introjected regulation) –
were excluded from further analyses because of their relatively low
standardized factor loadings, which resulted in fit-indices that did not
reach acceptable levels. The low factor loading of the first item could
be explained by the fact that ‘being supposed to’ can refer to reasons to-
tally external from the self, but also to self-relevant feelings such as
shame or guilt (introjected regulation). The low factor loading of the
second item can be explained by the fact that teachers are not con-
cerned with what others think of them, because of the individualistic
nature of the teaching job. The factor model without these two items
is reported in Table 2, as are reliability measures. Cronbach's alphas
and fit indices indicate good reliability and construct validity of the
questionnaire. Standardized factor loadings ranged between .44 and .92.
2.2.3. Basic psychological need satisfaction
The extent to which the teachers' environment satisfies their basic
psychological needs in relation to their learning was measured using
the Basic Psychological Needs Scale (M. Vansteenkiste, personal com-
munication, September 2012). This questionnaire was developed as a
cross-culturally valid measurement of basic psychological needs. It con-
sists of 24 items measuring autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Each construct was measured using eight items, four positively stated

Table 2
Reliability analyses and confirmatory factor analyses of all scales in this study.

Reliability analysis Confirmatory factor analysis

α χ2(df), p CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR

ASRS External regulation .80 986.417(71), p b .001 .953 .939 .077 .047
Introjected regulation .72
Identified regulation .86
Intrinsic motivation .93
BNS Autonomy .83 1072.57(183), p b .001 .957 .936 .048 .040
Competence .80
Relatedness .85
TPD@Work Reading .72 1164.40(174), p b .001 .933 .919 .049 .036
Work related training .75
Experimenting .81
Reflecting .67
Collaborating: Lesson .67
Collaborating: School .77

Note: ASRS = Academic Self-Regulation Scale; BNS = basic psychological need satisfaction; CFI = comparative fit.
Index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root.
Mean residual. For acceptable model fit CFI and TLI should be N.90, RMSEA should be b.08, and SRMR should be b.05.
 J. Jansen in de Wal et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 36 (2014) 27–36
and four negatively stated. Items were scored on a Likert-type answer-
ing scale ranging from 1 ‘completely not applicable to me’ to 5
‘completely applicable to me’. For the purpose of the study each item
measuring autonomy and competence was preceded by the sentence
‘With respect to my professional development …’. The items measuring
relatedness were adapted so that they would be applicable to the pur-
pose of this study. For example, the original item ‘I feel the relationships
I have are just superficial’ was changed to ‘I feel the relationships I have
with people who are involved in my professional development are just
superficial’. Items were presented randomly to avoid measurement ef-
fects. We performed a CFA that accounted for method effects of nega-
tively stated items by allowing the error variances of these items to
covary. We also performed a reliability analysis. Results of both analyses
are displayed in Table 2 and show reliability and construct validity of the
questionnaire. Standardized factor loadings for this questionnaire
ranged between −.27 and .88.
Finally, the questionnaire contained a single yes/no question asking
the participants whether they would be willing to participate in future
studies. Analysing this variable in relation to the measures of motivation
enabled us to draw tentative conclusions about a possible bias in this
study's sample with regard to motivation for TPL.
2.3. Analysis
In order to answer the research questions in this study, a Latent Pro-
file Analysis (LPA) was performed on scale variables of the measures in
Mplus 6 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010). For a comprehensive conceptual
discussion and application of LPA the reader is referred to Pastor,
Barron, Miller, and Davis (2007) and Marsh, Lüdtke, Trautwein, and
Morin (2009). A more rigorous substantive discussion is provided by
Magidson and Vermunt (2002), Vermunt and Magidson (2002), and
by McLachlan and Peel (2000).
LPA is a person-centred analysis technique akin to, but with multiple
advantages over, cluster analysis (Magidson & Vermunt, 2002; Pastor
et al., 2007). As such, the goal of LPA is to identify subgroups of individ-
uals that have a similar pattern of responses (profiles) regarding key
variables (indicators). The indicators, in our case, are the different
dimensions of motivation. The LPA model estimates means and (co)var-
iances of indicators, the proportion of the total sample that can be rep-
resented by each given profile, and the posterior probability of each case
belonging to a certain profile. A theoretical model is specified a priori
and then the fit of that model to the data is evaluated. The profiles
that result from the LPA are represented in the model as a latent
Fig. 2. Latent profile analysis of self-determination theory motivational dimensions. For
clarity of the model, all error terms are omitted from the figure.
31
categorical variable (C) that can take values of K = 1 to K = n. Model
A in Fig. 2 represents the model that is tested in the current study.
In this study, we have chosen a model in which indicator means and
variances within profiles are estimated freely (see Pastor et al., 2007 for
a detailed discussion of possible parameterizations). Indicator covari-
ances are also estimated but constrained to be equal across profiles.
This constraint is applied because there is a theoretically assumed un-
derlying structure among the dimensions of motivation. This structure
implies that a dimension of motivation has a strong positive relation
with dimensions that are conceptually close to it and weaker or nega-
tive relations with more distant dimensions (Ryan & Grolnick, 1987, p
892). For example, external regulation is positively related with
introjected regulation, but has a zero or negative correlation with iden-
tified regulation and intrinsic motivation.
2.3.1. Determining the number and shape of profiles
To determine the number of profiles in the data, a sequence of
models was tested starting with one profile (K = 1) and ending with
the number of profiles that is reasonable to expect based on theory
and previous findings. Informed by previous cluster analytical studies
of self-determination theory, which have found three to five clusters
of motivational dimensions (Matsumoto & Takenaka, 2004; Moran
et al., 2012; Ntoumanis, 2002; Vansteenkiste et al., 2009), in this study
models were estimated up to K = 5.
Subsequently, the profiles in each of the solutions were evaluated in
consideration of theory, sample size, and uniqueness. The fit of the
models was evaluated by means of several fit indices. These indices in-
cluded the Aikaike Information Criterion (AIC; Aikaike, 1974), the
Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC; Schwarz, 1978) and the Sample-
size adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion (SBIC; Sclove, 1987). For
these indices smaller values mean better fit of the model to the data. Fi-
nally, we adhered to two additional criteria for model selection sug-
gested by Pastor et al. (2007), namely the Lo–Mendell–Rubin
likelihood ratio test (LMRT) and the entropy statistic. The LMRT is a sig-
nificance test of the null-hypothesis that there is no increase in model fit
between models with K −1 and K profiles. The entropy statistic is based
on the posterior probabilities of cases belonging to profiles and indicates
the classification utility of a model. For this statistic higher values repre-
sent more accurate (or certainty of) classification of cases into profiles.
For the entropy statistic, no cut-off value has been set in the literature.
2.3.2. Investigating the relation between profiles, antecedent variables, and
outcome variables
To investigate the relation between profile membership and basic
need satisfaction, the variables measuring the three basic needs and
an interaction term between autonomy and relatedness were added
to the final LPA model as covariates. This model is displayed as Model
B in Fig. 2. The paths between the covariates and the latent categorical
variable represent a multinomial logistic regression (Marsh et al.,
2009). As such, in the final LPA model with all covariates, the probabil-
ities of teachers having a certain combination of motivational dimen-
sions (i.e., a profile) are estimated, given their pattern of responses
about basic need satisfaction.
Several models with covariates were tested following the procedure
of sequential logistic regression (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, p. 454). First
autonomy was added as a predictor of having a certain profile, next re-
latedness, then the interaction between autonomy and relatedness, and
finally competence. The reason for this was that autonomy is theoreti-
cally the most important predictor of all dimensions of motivation, re-
latedness is important for external, introjected, and identified
regulation, and competence only predicts intrinsic motivation (see
Fig. 1; Koestner & Losier, 2002). The best model was chosen based on
AIC, BIC, and SBIC fit indices, and χ2-tests of the −2 log likelihood differ-
ence between consecutive models.
When considering the inclusion of covariates in LPA models, Lubke
and Muthén (2005) note that the assigned class membership of a
32 J. Jansen in de Wal et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 36 (2014) 27–36

participant is model dependent and not an innate quality of the partic- Table 4
ipant, meaning that the inclusion of covariates can alter the classifica- Results of the latent profile analyses with one to five profile solutions.

tion of teachers into profiles. In addition, the inclusion of covariates K AIC BIC SBIC LMRT Entropy Smallest profile
may alter the shape of profiles altogether. Marsh et al. (2009) strongly 1 19,262.33 19,341.98 19,297.50 * 1 100%
suggest that variables should only be included as covariates to the 2 18,822.50 18,953.35 18,880.28 b.001 0.58 31.09%
model if there is a strong theoretical assumption that the causal order- 3a 18,205.15 18,381.52 18,283.03 b.001 0.70 16.36%
ing is from the covariates to the latent groups. In this study, this is the 4b 17,673.51 17,901.09 17,774.00 b.001 0.81 5.90%
5b 17,477.72 17,756.50 17,600.82 b.001 0.75 5.68%
case with basic psychological need satisfaction. The causal effects of
a
the satisfaction of competence, autonomy, and relatedness on the differ- In this solution, the variance of extrinsic motivation was fixed to 0.01 in one profile to
ent motivational dimensions have been established in many previous reach convergence of the model.
b
In these solutions, the variance of intrinsic motivation was fixed to 0.01 in one profile
studies (Ryan & Deci, 2002). The relation between motivation and TPL to reach convergence of the model. See Pastor et al. (2007, p. 27) for a discussion of this
engagement, however, has not yet been demonstrated in empirical issue.
research. When there is no strong assumption about causality of covar-
iates, or the shape of profiles is altered as a consequence of adding
covariates to the model, it is recommended that variables are included 3.2. Motivational profiles for teacher professional learning
in the analysis as auxiliary variables (Marsh et al., 2009). Auxiliary var-
iables are variables that are not included in the model, but for which The results of the latent profile analyses are displayed in Table 4. The
equality of means is tested across latent profiles (Muthén & Muthén, fit indices and LMRT, all favour the five-profile solution. However, the
2010, p. 497). It will therefore first be investigated whether including entropy statistic is higher for the K = 4 than the K = 5 solution. In ad-
the basic psychological needs in the model alters the shape of the pro- dition, upon inspection of the profiles in the K = 5 solution, two profiles
files. If this is the case they will be analysed as auxiliary variables. The showed similarity in terms of indicator means and variances. No inter-
different TPL activities will only be analysed as auxiliary variables. pretable distinction could be made between these two profiles based
on these outcomes. Therefore the four-profile solution was considered
to be the most valid model. A graphical representation of the means in
3. Results this solution is presented in Fig. 3a. Variances of the dimensions of mo-
tivation in the four different profiles are presented in Table 5. In the first
3.1. Relations between constructs profile the means of identified regulation and intrinsic motivation are
extremely high, external regulation is low, and introjected regulation
Table 3 shows the univariate correlations between all constructs in- is medium. In addition, the variance of intrinsic motivation in this pro-
vestigated in this study. These results provide preliminary insight into file had to be constrained to be greater than zero (in our case 0.01) in
the hypothesized relations between variables. Shown relations between order to reach convergence of the model. This indicates that all teachers
motivational dimensions are in line with theory. External regulation is in this profile have the most extreme score on intrinsic motivation.
positively related to introjected regulation and negatively to identified Teachers in this profile almost exclusively learn because they find it im-
regulation and intrinsic motivation. Introjected regulation is positively portant and enjoyable. Therefore, teachers in this profile are designated
related to identified regulation and intrinsic motivation, and there is a ‘extremely autonomous’. In the second profile, identified regulation and
strong positive association between identified regulation and intrinsic intrinsic motivation are medium–high, whereas external and
motivation. Moreover, the relation between the three basic needs and introjected regulation are medium–low. Teachers in this profile are la-
external regulation is negative, and becomes more positive towards belled ‘moderately motivated’. In the third profile, identified regulation
the intrinsic end of the continuum. Finally, external regulation has a and intrinsic motivation are high, external regulation is low, and
zero or negative correlation with all types of TPL engagement, whereas introjected regulation is medium. This profile is labelled ‘highly autono-
for the other motivational dimensions this association is positive. We mous’. Finally, the fourth profile is characterized by medium–low to low
found a similar pattern of associations between the motivational di- means of all motivational dimensions. Notably, in this profile external
mensions and willingness to participate in future studies. regulation is relatively high, which means teachers in this profile are

Table 3
Relations between basic psychological needs, motivational dimensions, and TPL engagement.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

1. Autonomy 3.68(.68)
2. Competence .42⁎⁎⁎ 4.09(.53)
3. Relatedness .43⁎⁎⁎ .28⁎⁎⁎ 3.88(.67)
4. External regulation −.46⁎⁎⁎ −.16⁎⁎⁎ −.18⁎⁎⁎ 2.07(.89)
5. Introjected regulation −.01 −.10⁎⁎⁎ .08⁎⁎⁎ .15⁎⁎⁎ 2.39(.99)
6. Identified regulation .51⁎⁎⁎ .26⁎⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎⁎ −.24⁎⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎⁎ 4.02(.79)
7. Intrinsic motivation .56⁎⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎⁎ −.28⁎⁎⁎ .26⁎⁎⁎ .85⁎⁎⁎ 3.88(.89)
8. Reading .26⁎⁎⁎ .11⁎⁎⁎ .12⁎⁎⁎ −.11⁎⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎⁎ .42⁎⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎⁎ 2.67(.67)
9. Work related training .17⁎⁎⁎ .09⁎⁎⁎ .16⁎⁎⁎ −.05⁎ .10⁎⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎⁎ .43⁎⁎⁎ 2.02(.71)
10. Experimenting .23⁎⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎⁎ .14⁎⁎⁎ −.08⁎⁎⁎ .12⁎⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎⁎ .37⁎⁎⁎ .41⁎⁎⁎ .36⁎⁎⁎ 2.32(.60)
11. Reflecting .20⁎⁎⁎ .17⁎⁎⁎ .17⁎⁎⁎ −.04 .15⁎⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎⁎ 2.37(.54)
12. Collaborating lesson .18⁎⁎⁎ .13⁎⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎⁎ −.01 .13⁎⁎⁎ .28⁎⁎⁎ .26⁎⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎⁎ .25⁎⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎⁎ .42⁎⁎⁎ 2.34(.61)
13. Collaborating school .22⁎⁎⁎ .16⁎⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎⁎ −.05⁎ .17⁎⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎⁎ .29⁎⁎⁎ .28⁎⁎⁎ .37⁎⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎⁎ 2.58(.65)
14. Willing to participate in .14⁎⁎⁎ .06⁎⁎ .06⁎ −.05⁎ .03 .17⁎⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎⁎ .13⁎⁎⁎ .10⁎⁎⁎ .14⁎⁎⁎ .13⁎⁎⁎ .07⁎⁎ .09⁎⁎⁎
future studies

Note. Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) are presented on the diagonal.
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.
 J. Jansen in de Wal et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 36 (2014) 27–36 33

Fig. 3. Indicator means in the profiles resulting from the four-profile solution with (3a) and without covariates (3b).

mostly engaged in professional learning because of reasons that lie out- the ‘moderately motivated’ and ‘high autonomous’ profiles. The interac-
side themselves. This profile is designated ‘externally regulated’. tion between autonomy and relatedness is a marginally significant neg-
ative predictor for these profiles. This shows that the extent to which
3.3. Relations between profile membership and basic need satisfaction and teachers perceive their basic needs satisfied is related to having a certain
engagement in learning motivational profile.
Table 8 displays the means of TPL activity engagement, and back-
Fit indices and difference-tests of the model without covariates and ground variables for the different profiles. Since the sample size in this
the models to which covariates are added sequentially are presented in study causes most differences to be significant, only nonsignificant
Table 6. All models with covariates are an improvement in relation to mean differences are indicated. In general, the results show that the ‘ex-
the LPA model without covariates. Adding autonomy, relatedness, and tremely autonomous’ profile is most engaged in all TPL activities,
their interaction significantly improves the model. Adding competence, followed by teachers from the ‘highly autonomous’ profile, then the
however, does not cause a significant improvement of fit. Therefore, in ‘moderately motivated’ teachers, and finally, the ‘externally regulated’
the final model that will be analysed only autonomy, relatedness, and teachers.
their interaction are included as covariates. The profile solution of this
final model is presented in Fig. 3b. This figure illustrates that 17% of 4. Discussion
the teachers are classified into the extremely autonomous profile, 48%
into the moderately motivated profile, 22% into the highly autonomous This study investigated what distinct profiles of motivational dimen-
profile, and 13% into the externally regulated profile. The configuration sions Dutch secondary school teachers have in relation to TPL. To this
of motivational dimensions hardly changes as a consequence of adding end, a latent profile analysis was performed on the data and four profiles
the covariates to the model. Therefore, we do not need to consider basic were distinguished. These profiles were labelled ‘extremely autono-
psychological needs as auxiliary variables. mous’, ‘moderately motivated’, ‘highly autonomous’, and ‘externally
Table 7 shows the results of the multinomial logistic regression of regulated’.
the four profiles on autonomy, relatedness, and the interaction between Teachers having the extremely autonomous motivational profile are
them. We selected the ‘externally regulated’ profile as the reference cat- characterized by very high intrinsic motivation and identified regula-
egory, since it was considered interesting to see the contrasts between tion relative to their introjected and external regulation. As such, these
that and the other profiles. When contrasting the probability of teachers teachers engage in professional learning first and foremost because
being classified into ‘externally regulated’ versus the other profiles, au- they find it enjoyable, interesting, value it personally, and see it as im-
tonomy satisfaction is a significant positive predictor for all contrasts. portant to their goals. Theoretically, this combination of motivational di-
Relatedness is a significant positive predictor for teachers belonging to mensions is highly desirable in teachers because their intrinsic
motivation ensures active and constant engagement in short-term,
fun, and interesting TPL activities. At the same time, because of their
Table 5 identified regulation, these teachers will sustain engagement in TPL ac-
Variances of motivational dimensions in the different profiles.
tivities that are not necessarily enjoyable (Koestner & Losier, 2002). The
Profile Motivational dimension Variance foregoing also holds for teachers who have the highly autonomous pro-
Extremely autonomous External regulation 0.51 file, although the positive effects of this profile will be somewhat less
Introjected regulation 1.23
Identified regulation 0.54
Intrinsic motivation 0.01 Table 6
Moderately motivated External regulation 0.84 Fit of consecutive models with covariates predicting teachers' profile membership.
Introjected regulation 0.72
−2 log AIC BIC SBIC
Identified regulation 0.21
likelihood
Intrinsic motivation 0.30
Highly autonomous External regulation 0.58 No covariates 17,593.51a 17,673.51 17,901.09 17,774.00
Introjected regulation 0.96 Aut 16,186.22a, b 16,272.22 16,515.58 16,378.97
Identified regulation 0.15 Aut + rel 15,598.50b, c 15,690.50 15,949.17 15,803.02
Intrinsic motivation 0.19 Aut + rel + aut × rel 15,519.03c 15,617.03 15,892.55 15,736.87
Externally regulated External regulation 1.73 Aut + rel + aut × rel + com 15,515.74 15,619.74 15,912.12 15,746.91
Introjected regulation 0.34
Note. −2 log likelihood values sharing superscripts indicate that the more complicated
Identified regulation 0.25
model is a significant improvement of fit compared to the model preceding it (p b .001).
Intrinsic motivation 0.24
For all χ2-difference tests df = 3.
34 J. Jansen in de Wal et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 36 (2014) 27–36

Table 7 highly unfavourable. 13% of the teachers in our sample could be classi-
Multinomial logistic regression analysis of profile membership as a function of basic psy- fied into the externally regulated profile. This indicates that a consider-
chological need satisfaction.
able group of teachers has a non-optimal motivation for TPL, both in
B Wald-test Odds ratio strength and quality.
‘Extremely autonomous’ The respective favourable and unfavourable nature of the motiva-
(Constant) −14.18 tional profiles is also shown in the results regarding the TPL engagement
Autonomy 3.63 2.580⁎⁎ 37.56 of teachers in different profiles. Teachers having the extremely autono-
Relatedness −0.41 −0.396 0.66
mous, highly autonomous, and moderately motivated profile consis-
Autonomy × Relatedness 0.19 0.578 1.21
tently report higher engagement in TPL than the externally regulated
‘Moderately motivated’ profile. In more absolute terms teachers in the latter profile score con-
(Constant) −12.34
siderably lower than the scale-midpoint of 2.5 across the range of learn-
Autonomy 3.72 3.060⁎⁎ 41.26
Relatedness 2.26 2.363⁎ 9.58 ing activities. As such, an effort towards motivating these teachers for
Autonomy × Relatedness −0.56 −1.713† 0.57 TPL is recommended.
Based on this study's results, strategies to improve the externally
‘Highly autonomous’
(Constant) −24.57 regulated teachers' motivation towards a more favourable profile
Autonomy 6.62 5.33⁎⁎⁎ 749.95 should include enhancing the basic need satisfaction of teachers in
Relatedness 2.58 2.38⁎ 16.19 this group. Autonomy, relatedness and their interaction proved to be
Autonomy × Relatedness −0.63 −1.91† 0.53 predictive for teachers' profile membership. As expected, high per-
†
p b .09. ceived autonomy increased the odds of being classified into a profile
⁎ p b .05. with high(er) manifestations of intrinsic motivation and identified reg-
⁎⁎ p b .01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.
ulation compared to the externally regulated profile. High perceived re-
latedness only increased the odds of being classified into the moderately
motivated and highly autonomous profile. No significant change in odds
prominent. At first glance, the extremely autonomous and highly auton- of being classified into the extremely autonomous profile resulted from
omous profiles seem similar to each other. However, inspection of the an increase in relatedness. This may be explained by the fact that, in the
basic needs that predict profile membership indicates that the models extremely autonomous motivational profile, intrinsic motivation is very
do differ. For the extremely autonomous profile only autonomy satisfac- prominent and relatedness is only a distant determinant of intrinsic mo-
tion is related to membership, whereas for the highly autonomous pro- tivation (Koestner & Losier, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
file both autonomy and relatedness are predictive. This is in line with Schools and school leaders could make specific changes to the work
the assumption of SDT that high intrinsic motivation results from high environments of teachers in order to enhance basic need satisfaction
feelings of autonomy, whereas identified regulation results from the (Gorozidis & Papaioannou, 2014). Feelings of autonomy can be en-
harmonious achievement of autonomy and relatedness. In our final hanced by allowing flexibility in teachers' daily timetables, for example
model, 17% of the teachers could be classified into the extremely auton- by having a system for substitute teachers. This gives teachers the free-
omous profile and 22% into the highly autonomous profile. dom to choose when to undertake TPL activities such as visiting other
The moderately motivated teachers, who comprise 48% of the sam- teachers' lessons. In addition, teachers need to be given the opportunity
ple, have medium–high intrinsic motivation and identified regulation, to arrange the TPL activities they undertake according to their own
and medium–low introjected and external regulation. These teachers needs and goals. This freedom of choice will not only enhance feelings
are not as motivated for TPL as their colleagues having the extremely of autonomy, but possibly satisfies the need for competence as well.
autonomous and highly autonomous profiles. However, the autono- That is, showing faith in teachers to take responsibility for their own
mous forms of motivation are still slightly dominant, which indicates learning may serve as positive feedback to them, and positive feedback
that this motivational profile is still generally favourable. Finally, has been shown to contribute to feelings of competence (Ryan & Deci,
teachers having the externally regulated profile are the least motivated 2002; Vallerand & Reid, 1984). This is in line with the recent finding
for TPL. The involvement in TPL that these teachers do display is largely that autonomy and competence are synergistic in their relationship
fed by the incentives of others. Theory states that this will lead them to with intrinsic motivation (Dysvik, Kuvaas, & Gagné, 2013). Feelings of
be less engaged in TPL activities, both in frequency and intensity. In rel- relatedness among teachers could be enhanced by creating school envi-
ative and absolute terms, this motivational profile can be considered ronments that allow physical proximity and many opportunities for in-
formal social encounters. A lack of physical proximity to colleagues
work areas has been found to inhibit teachers' motivation for informal
Table 8 learning (Lohman, 2006). Factors contributing to physical proximity of
Means of TPL engagement and background variables within different profiles. teachers and opportunities for social encounters are, again, smart
Extremely Moderately Highly Externally time-tabling, but also creating meeting spaces for teachers that are in
autonomous motivated autonomous regulated the same departments (Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas,
Reading 3.07 2.64 2.80 2.23 2006). The environmental changes proposed here all refer to conditions
Work related 2.28 2.02 2.12 1.67 of the broader concept of school culture (i.e., the operation of adminis-
training trative and organizational structures). School culture already has been
Experimenting 2.61 2.30 2.42 1.96
shown to influence teachers' engagement in (informal) teacher profes-
Reflecting 2.62 2.34 2.43 2.10
Collaborating: 2.60 2.33a 2.39a 2.10
sional learning (Avalos, 2011).
lesson The finding that perceived competence did not significantly add to
Collaborating: 2.88 2.57a 2.65a 2.23 the prediction of having a certain motivational profile was not anticipat-
school ed beforehand. The importance of autonomy for all dimensions of moti-
Age 49.55a, c 48.74b, c 49.45a, b 51.79
vation, and the importance of relatedness for the extrinsic motivations,
Gender 1.55 1.40 1.47 1.32
(1 = male) led to the expectation that these basic needs would be the most influen-
Lessons taught 16.13a 17.57 16.74a 18.48 tial predictors of profile membership. However, considering the fact
per week that in one of the motivational profiles identified intrinsic motivation
Note. TPL = teacher professional learning. Means sharing superscripts do not differ signif- was extremely high, finding no effect on competence satisfaction was
icantly. All other mean differences are significant at p b .05. surprising. Furthermore, this finding is not in line with previous
 J. Jansen in de Wal et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 36 (2014) 27–36
research relating motivational profiles to basic need satisfaction (Moran
et al., 2012). This research found a difference in competence satisfaction
between profiles high and low in autonomous motivation. However,
in the study by Moran et al. (2012), the influence of the three basic
needs on profile membership was not investigated simultaneously
in one model. A possible explanation for the current results, therefore,
is that there is no unique variance in profile membership left to be ex-
plained by competence satisfaction because of its correlation with
both autonomy and relatedness (Dysvik et al., 2013). It might also
mean that for domains as broad as TPL, competence satisfaction is
less important for teachers' full spectrum of motivation. This is not
to say that for very specific TPL behaviour that is initiated and
sustained by only one type of motivation (e.g., intrinsic motivation)
competence is not important either. Further (qualitative) research is
needed to investigate the effects of interrelations of basic needs on
profiles of SDT dimensions.
4.1. Limitations
Other issues that demand further investigation result from the
limitations of this study. First of all, an even more detailed picture of
the nature of teachers' motivation for TPL would be achieved if mea-
sures of motivation were taken for all separate TPL activities. Although
a strength of the current research is that motivation for TPL as a whole
is investigated, it would be interesting to compare teachers' motivation
for the different specific TPL activities within one sample. Practical con-
straints, however, limited this study to measure motivation for TPL in a
more global way.
A second limitation of this study is the response rate of 10.03%.
Because of this, we have to be tentative in concluding that this study's
sample is representative of the population in terms of motivation for
TPL. To shed some light on this issue, we investigated the relations
between motivational dimensions for TPL and willingness to participate
in future studies. Results show that it is likely that our sample contains
an overrepresentation of teachers who have a favourable motivational
profile for TPL. This could mean that the actual proportion of teachers
that have an unfavourable motivational profile for TPL in the population
may be even larger than the 13% we found in this study. If this is the
case, the practical implications for schools discussed above become
even more important.
Finally, since the data in this study is correlational, making causal
inferences about relations is not justified. Theory strongly specifies a
causal relationship between basic need satisfaction and motivation,
and such a relationship has also been shown in experimental research
(Ryan & Deci, 2002). However, it cannot be unequivocally concluded
from the current study that teachers' engagement in TPL follows from
having a certain motivational profile. Further research taking an exper-
imental approach is needed to justify such a conclusion.
4.2. Concluding remarks
Notwithstanding the limitations mentioned above, this study has
shown that teachers experience multiple dimensions of motivation for
engaging in professional learning activities. Many teachers have a
relatively favourable motivational profile. However, for a substantial
proportion of teachers in the current sample, the specific combination
of motivational dimensions is non-optimal. This becomes especially ap-
parent when engagement in TPL activities is compared across motiva-
tional profiles. Furthermore, having a specific motivational profile is
related to teachers' basic psychological need satisfaction. Based on
previous research demonstrating a causal relationship between basic
need satisfaction and motivation, this calls for interventions that will
make school environments more supportive of teachers' basic psycho-
logical needs.
35
References
Aikaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, 19, 716–723.
Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education
over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10–20, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.tate.2010.08.007.
Bakkenes, I., Vermunt, J.D., & Wubbels, T. (2010). Teacher learning in the context of edu-
cational innovation: Learning activities and learning outcomes of experienced
teachers. Learning and Instruction, 20, 533–548, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2009.09.001.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination theory of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.
Dysvik, A., Kuvaas, B., & Gagné, M. (2013). An investigation of the unique, synergistic and bal-
anced relationships between basic psychological needs and intrinsic motivation. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 43(5), 1050–1064, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12068.
Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 113–136.
Evers, A. T., Kreijns, K., & Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (2014n). The design and validation of an
instrument to measure teachers' professional development at work. (submitted for
publication).
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.322.
Gorozidis, G., & Papaioannou, A. G. (2014). Teachers' motivation to participate in training
and to implement innovations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, 1–11, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.12.001.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, 8, 381–391, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512.
Hoekstra, A., Korthagen, F., Brekelmans, M., Beijaard, D., & Imants, J. (2009). Experienced
teachers' informal workplace learning and perceptions of workplace conditions.
Journal of Workplace Learning, 21, 276–298.
Hoyle, E., & John, P. D. (1995). Professional knowledge and professional practice. London,
UK: Cassel.
Ketelaar, E., Koopman, M., Den Brok, P. J., Beijaard, D., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2013). Teachers'
learning experiences in relation to their ownership, sense-making and agency.
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1–24, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13540602.0213.848523 (ahead-of-print).
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. London, UK: The
Guilford Press.
Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (2002). Distinguishing three ways of being internally motivat-
ed: A closer look at introjection, identification, and intrinsic motivation. In E. L. Deci, &
R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 101–121). Rochester,
NY: The University of Rochester Press.
Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers' participation in professional learning
activities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 149–170, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0742-051X(02)00101-4.
Lam, S., Cheng, R. W., & Choy, H. C. (2010). School support and teacher motivation to im-
plement project-based learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 487–497, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.07.003.
Lieberman, A., & Pointer Mace, D. H. (2008). Teacher learning: The key to educational re-
form. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 226–234, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0022487108317020.
Lohman, M. C. (2006). Factors influencing teachers' engagement in informal learning ac-
tivities. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18(3), 141–156, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
13665620610654577.
Lohman, M. C., & Woolf, N. H. (2001). Self-initiated learning activities of experienced pub-
lic school teachers: Methods, sources, and relevant organizational influences.
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 7, 59–74, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
135406000020029873.
Lubke, G., & Muthén, B. O. (2005). Performance of factor mixture models as a function of
model size, covariate effects, and class-specific parameters. Structural Equation
Modelling, 14, 24–47.
Magidson, J., & Vermunt, J. K. (2002). Latent class models for clustering: A comparison
with k-means. Canadian Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 37–44.
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Morin, A. J. S. (2009). Classical latent profile
analysis of academic self-concept dimensions: Synergy of person- and variable-
centered approaches to theoretical models of self-concept. Structural Equation
Modelling, 16, 191–225, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705510902751010.
Matsumoto, H., & Takenaka, K. (2004). Motivational profiles and stages of exercise behav-
ior change. International Journal of Sport and Health Science, 2, 89–96.
McLachlan, G., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Moran, C. M., Diefendorff, J. M., Kim, T., & Liu, Z. (2012). A profile approach to self-
determination theory motivations at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81,
354–363, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.09.002.
Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (2000). Integrating person-centered and variable-centered
analyses: Growth mixture modelling with latent trajectory classes. Alcoholism:
Clinical and Experimental Research, 24, 882–891.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1999). Mplus user's guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Ntoumanis, N. (2002). Motivational clusters in a sample of British physical education
classes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 3, 177–194.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005). Teachers matter:
Attracting, developing, and retaining effective teachers. Paris, France: OECD.
36 J. Jansen in de Wal et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 36 (2014) 27–36
Pastor, D. A., Barron, K. E., Miller, B. J., & Davis, S. L. (2007). A latent profile analysis of col-
lege students' achievement goal orientation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
32, 8–47, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.10.003.
Rickards, T., Den Brok, P., & Fisher, D. (2005). The Australian science teacher: A typology
of teacher–student interpersonal behaviour in Australian science classes. Learning
Environments Research, 8, 267–287, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10984-005-1567-4.
Rigby, C. S., Deci, E. L., Patrick, B. C., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Beyond the intrinsic–extrinsic
dichotomy: Self-determination in motivation and learning. Motivation and Emotion,
16, 165–185.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An
organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of
self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester
Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental
and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52, 890–898.
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136.
Sclove, L. S. (1987). Application of model selection criteria to some problems in multivar-
iate analysis. Psychometrika, 52, 333–343.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning
communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4),
221–258, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research
Review, 3, 130–154, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.12.001.
Vallerand, R. J., & Reid, G. (1984). On the causal effects of perceived competence on intrin-
sic motivation: A test of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6,
94–102.
Van Eekelen, I. M., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Vermunt, J.D. (2005). Self-regulation in higher
education teacher learning. Higher Education, 50, 447–471, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/s10734-004-6362-0.
Van Eekelen, I. M., Vermunt, J.D., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2006). Exploring teachers' will to
learn. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(4), 408–423, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2005.12.001.
Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., & Lens, W. (2009). Motivational
profiles from a self-determination perspective: The quality of motivation matters.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 671–688, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015083.
Vermunt, J.D., & Endedijk, M.D. (2011). Patterns in teacher learning in different phases of
the professional career. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 294–302, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.019.
Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2002). Latent class cluster analysis. In J. A. Hagenaars, & A. L.
McCutcheon (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89–106). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2008). Motivation for teaching [Special issue].
Learning and Instruction, 18(5).