Contemporary Educational Psychology 42 (2015) 159–171

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Contemporary Educational Psychology

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / c e d p s y c h

Teacher interests, mastery goals, and self-efficacy as predictors of

instructional practices and student motivation
Ulrich Schiefele *, Ellen Schaffner
Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: This study addressed the role of elementary school teachers’ motivation as predictors of instructional
Available online 29 June 2015 practices and student motivation. The sample comprised 110 teacher–class pairs (1731 students). The
results showed that teachers’ didactic interest and self-efficacy predicted teacher reports of instruc-
Keywords: tional practices. In contrast, student reports of instruction were significantly associated with teachers’
Teacher motivation educational interest and mastery goals. Moreover, student motivation was only related with student reports
Student motivation
but not teacher reports of instructional practices. In particular, mastery-oriented practices contributed
Interest
strongly to student motivation. Teacher educational interest predicted mastery-oriented practices and
Mastery goals
Self-efficacy also showed a significant direct relation to student motivation.
Instructional practices © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
There is a growing interest of educational researchers in teacher
motivation and its role in teaching behavior and stress or burnout
(Butler, 2007; Fernet, Senécal, Guay, Marsh, & Dowson, 2008; Kunter
et al., 2008; Pelletier, Séguin-Lévesque, & Legault, 2002; Retelsdorf,
Butler, Streblow, & Schiefele, 2010; Watt & Richardson, 2008).
Whereas past research has mainly focused on teacher self-efficacy
beliefs (e.g., Klassen, Usher, & Bong, 2010; see overviews by Klassen,
Tze, Betts, & Gordon, 2011; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy,
1998), recent efforts to conceptualize dimensions of teacher mo-
tivation include goal orientations (Butler, 2007) and intrinsic or self-
determined motivation (Pelletier et al., 2002). In our own previous
work (Schiefele, Streblow, & Retelsdorf, 2013), we have proposed
teacher interests as potentially relevant determinants of teacher well-
being and instructional practices. The present study is aimed at
extending that work by taking teacher mastery goals as an addi-
tional predictor into account, by assessing instructional practices
not only by teacher ratings but also by student ratings, and by in-
cluding students’ self-reported motivation as an outcome variable.
It was assumed that teacher interests and mastery goals predict
teachers’ instructional practices (as perceived by teachers or stu-
dents) that in turn contribute to students’ motivation. Because of
its demonstrated importance, teacher self-efficacy was included in
The authors wish to thank Lilian Streblow, Andrea Maczay, Julia Bonin, and
Katharina Biermann for their contributions to the collection of data and the devel-
opment of instruments.
* Corresponding author. Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam,
Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24–25, DE-14476 Potsdam, Germany. Fax: +49 (0)331 977 2091.
E-mail address: ulrich.schiefele@uni-potsdam.de (U. Schiefele).
these analyses in order to enable a more rigorous test of the pre-
dictive contributions of teacher interests and mastery goals.
In the following, we briefly review previous findings related to
teachers’ interests, goal orientations, and self-efficacy. The focus of
this review is on the empirical evidence relating these constructs
to teachers’ instructional practices and student motivation.
1.1. Teacher interests
In accordance with recent theories of interest (cf. Hidi &
Renninger, 2006; Hidi, Renninger, & Krapp, 2004; Krapp, 2005, 2007;
Renninger & Hidi, 2011; Schiefele, 2009), teacher interests are con-
ceptualized as individual interests that refer to relatively permanent
attractions to certain topics or domains (e.g., school subjects, spe-
cific knowledge fields). These attractions are defined as intrinsic
valence beliefs which denote cognitively represented relations
between a domain (e.g., physics) and both feeling- and value-
related attributes (e.g., excitement, relevance for one’s self; cf. Hidi
& Renninger, 2006; Krapp, 2007; Schiefele, 2009). Accordingly, in-
dividual interest involves perceptions of positive feelings and
personal importance being attached to a given domain.
Schiefele et al. (2013) proposed three dimensions of teacher in-
terest: subject, didactic, and educational interest. Subject interest is
understood as the interest in the subject matter taught (e.g.,
mathematics).1 Didactic interest refers to a teacher’s interest in teach-
ing methods. This includes, for example, a preference for literature
on didactics or placing strong personal value on the issue of
1
For a similar concept, see Kunter, Frenzel, Nagy, Baumert, and Pekrun’s (2011)
definition of “subject enthusiasm”.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.06.005
0361-476X/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
160 U. Schiefele, E. Schaffner/Contemporary Educational Psychology 42 (2015) 159–171
effective teaching methods. Educational interest pertains to the in-
terest in the educational or pedagogical aspect of the teaching
profession. This aspect concerns the appropriate pedagogical han-
dling of students in general and problem students in particular.
Whereas didactics or teaching methods focus on students’ learn-
ing of subject matter knowledge, educational or pedagogical activities
of the teacher are mostly directed at students’ development of ef-
ficient work habits, social competencies, and moral values (Van Veen,
Sleegers, Bergen, & Klaassen, 2001).
The differentiation into three dimensions of teacher interest is
similar to the components of professional knowledge distin-
guished in the literature (e.g., Krauss et al., 2008; Phelps & Schilling,
2004; Shulman, 1986, 1987). Most notably, Shulman (1987) em-
phasized two components of teacher knowledge: content knowledge
(domain-specific subject matter knowledge) and pedagogical content
knowledge (the knowledge needed for teaching a specific subject
and to make it comprehensible to others). These two dimensions
seemingly correspond to subject interest and to didactic interest.
In addition, Shulman’s (1987) categories of general pedagogical knowl-
edge (which refers to principles and strategies of classroom
management and organization) and knowledge of educational ends,
purposes, and values are related to the concept of educational in-
terest because both forms of knowledge refer to issues of educating
students (cf. Schiefele et al., 2013).
Schiefele et al. (2013) provided evidence for the validity of their
interest concept by means of confirmatory factor analysis, by ana-
lyzing differences in interest between teachers from different school
tracks, and by examining the contributions of the dimensions of in-
terest to the prediction of teacher reports of burnout symptoms,
quality of experience in class, and instructional practices. For
example, the authors found that elementary school teachers ex-
hibited higher educational interest than secondary school teachers.
This was to be expected because educational aspects of teaching
are more dominant in elementary teachers’ training and their daily
school work (e.g., Brookhart & Freeman, 1992). Moreover, didactic
and educational interest contributed to lower levels of burnout,
whereas subject and educational interest were the main predic-
tors of teachers’ positive experience in class. More importantly,
didactic and educational interest significantly predicted teacher
reports of mastery-oriented practices (e.g., recognizing students’ in-
dividual progress), even when controlling for teacher self-efficacy.
In addition, didactic interest was significantly associated with
cognitively activating practices (e.g., providing challenging and stimu-
lating tasks), whereas subject interest did not contribute significantly
to instructional practices.
The reported contributions of didactic interest to instructional
practices were explained by the assumption that interest in teach-
ing methods enhances the motivation to learn more about efficient
instructional practices and, thus, increases the use of mastery-
oriented and cognitively activating practices (Schiefele et al., 2013).
Educational interest, however, involves a focus on the pedagogical
handling of students and their individual development. This focus
probably facilitates mastery-oriented practices because these are
beneficial for students’ competence perceptions and motivation
(Givens Rolland, 2012). In contrast, cognitively activating prac-
tices are more closely associated with students’ cognitive learning
processes (Kunter et al., 2013) and therefore may depend less
strongly on educational interest.
In contrast to Schiefele et al. (2013), Long and Woolfolk Hoy
(2006) demonstrated a substantive relation between teachers’ subject
interest and their instructional effectiveness (e.g., competence,
clarity). However, the measures of both teachers’ interest and in-
structional effectiveness were based on student ratings. In line with
Schiefele et al., Kunter et al. (2008) found that teachers’ self-
reported subject enthusiasm did not predict teachers’ and students’
ratings of various instructional practices (monitoring, social support,
and cognitive activation). Only a significant association between
subject enthusiasm and teacher-rated cognitively activating prac-
tices was observed.
1.2. Teacher mastery goals
Butler (2007) was among the first to apply achievement goal
theory as a framework for conceptualizing teachers’ motivation for
teaching (see also Papaioannou & Christodoulidis, 2007). She argued
that the classroom constitutes an achievement arena not only for
students but also for teachers. Accordingly, teachers strive to succeed
at their job but may differ in the ways they define success and, thus,
in their achievement goals for teaching. In accordance with goal
theory referring to students, Butler distinguished between teach-
ers’ mastery goals, ability-approach, ability-avoidance, and work-
avoidance goals (cf. Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Grant & Dweck,
2003; Nicholls, 1989; Urdan & Maehr, 1995). All forms of goal ori-
entations are theorized to be cognitively represented beliefs (e.g.,
“I strive to attain better grades than my classmates”; Elliot, 2005).
Mastery-oriented teachers seek to improve their professional com-
petence. They evaluate their competence relative to task demands
or prior outcomes and are likely to show a preference for chal-
lenge. Teachers with ability-approach goals strive to demonstrate
superior teaching ability, whereas teachers with ability-avoidance
goals are focused on avoiding the demonstration of inferior teach-
ing ability. Finally, work-avoidance goals reflect strivings to reduce
work load and effort. Work-avoidant teachers feel successful when
they get through the day with little effort.
In the present study, we focused on teachers’ mastery goals
because they have been found to be significantly related to adap-
tive instructional practices. For example, Butler and Shibaz (2008)
reported that teachers with higher levels of mastery goals were per-
ceived by their students as providing stronger support of question-
asking and help-seeking, whereas other goal orientations showed
either nonsignificant or negative effects on teacher support.
Retelsdorf et al. (2010) confirmed the hypothesis that teachers with
stronger mastery goals, who are themselves oriented to learn and
acquire competence, are more likely to use mastery-oriented and
cognitively activating practices (see also Shim, Cho, & Cassady, 2013).
Again, other goal orientations did not positively predict adaptive in-
structional behavior.
Previous research on achievement goals also suggests a sub-
stantial relationship between classroom-level goal structures
established by the teacher and students’ personal goal orienta-
tions (e.g., Urdan, 2010; Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006). Usually,
classroom goal structures have been assessed by means of stu-
dents’ perceptions of teachers’ practices that either reflect an
emphasis on mastery goals (i.e., promoting learning and under-
standing) or on performance goals (i.e., promoting social comparison
and competition). There is ample evidence that mastery goal struc-
tures in the classroom predict students’ mastery goals, whereas
performance goal structures predict students’ performance (or
ability) goals (Meece, Anderman, & Anderman, 2006; Urdan, 2010;
Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006). Moreover, mastery goal structures con-
tribute positively to students’ competence beliefs, motivational
engagement (e.g., effort), strategy use, and academic achievement
(Givens Rolland, 2012; Urdan, 2010; Wolters, 2004). In contrast, per-
formance goal structures do not or negatively (depending on the
grade level) contribute to these outcome measures (see also Meece
et al., 2006).
1.3. Teacher self-efficacy
Numerous studies have considered possible influences of teacher
self-efficacy on the quality of teaching and student motivation.
Teacher self-efficacy represents teachers’ belief that they are able
 U. Schiefele, E. Schaffner/Contemporary Educational Psychology 42 (2015) 159–171
to perform those teaching behaviors that bring about student learn-
ing even when students are difficult or unmotivated (Klassen et al.,
2011; Ross, 1998; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). Thereby, previous
research has employed both uni- and multidimensional measures
of teacher self-efficacy (cf. Dellinger, Bobbett, Olivier, & Ellett, 2008;
Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). For example, Tschannen-Moran and
Woolfolk Hoy (2001) distinguished among teachers’ sense of effi-
cacy with regard to effective instructional strategies, classroom
management, and student engagement.
According to self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997), teachers’ belief
in their teaching ability motivates them to actually use effective
teaching practices and to exert effort in preparing their lessons. In
a review of relevant research, Ross (1998; see also Tschannen-Moran
et al., 1998) reported, for example, that self-efficacious teachers apply
more elaborate instruction methods (e.g., activity-based methods),
have a more open attitude toward new methods (e.g., implement-
ing a new program), and show either adaptive or supportive teaching
behavior (e.g., tolerating mistakes, fostering student autonomy). Ac-
cording to Ross, similar findings were produced by studies using
observations of teachers’ practices and those relying on self-
reported behavior. More recently, Wolters and Daugherty (2007) and
Schiefele et al. (2013) provided evidence for significant relation-
ships between teachers’ sense of efficacy and their self-reported
mastery-oriented and cognitively activating practices. Finally, sig-
nificant associations between teacher self-efficacy and indicators
of student motivation (cf. Ross, 1998; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998),
in particular student self-efficacy (e.g., Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles,
1989), have been obtained.
Recent evidence suggests that different facets of teacher self-
efficacy may have different effects on outcome variables. In particular,
Wang, Hall, and Rahimi (2015) demonstrated that self-efficacy for
student engagement proved to be a stronger predictor of teachers’
psychological well-being and quitting intentions than self-efficacy
for classroom management and instructional strategies. More-
over, Wolters and Daugherty (2007) found significant contributions
to mastery-oriented practices only for teachers’ efficacy for instruc-
tional strategies and student engagement but not for teachers’
efficacy for classroom management.
1.4. The current research
Taken together, previous research suggests that teachers’ didac-
tic and educational interest, mastery goals, and self-efficacy are
substantially associated with the use of adaptive teaching prac-
tices. Notable research deficits pertain to three issues: (a) Teachers’
interests and mastery goals have been only examined separately.
Moreover, the contributions of mastery goals have not been tested
against those of self-efficacy. Thus, the unique contributions of
teacher interests and mastery goals to the prediction of instruc-
tional behavior remain unclear. (b) In research on teacher interests
and mastery goals, the assessment of teachers’ instructional prac-
tices has been mostly based on teacher ratings. Accordingly, we do
not have substantial evidence on whether teacher interests and
mastery goals make a difference in students’ perceptions of instruc-
tional behavior. (c) Finally, previous studies on teacher interests and
mastery goals have neglected student outcome variables such as
student motivation and achievement (Butler, 2012).
In line with the deficits of previous studies, two main goals for
the present research were determined: (a) Direct comparison of the
contributions of teachers’ interests and mastery goals to the pre-
diction of both teacher- and student-rated instructional practices,
and (b) analysis of the associations between teachers’ motiva-
tional characteristics, teacher and student reports of instructional
practices, and student motivation. In order to address these re-
search goals, we asked elementary school teachers to indicate their
161
subject, didactic, and educational interest, mastery goals, teaching
self-efficacy, and instructional practices. In addition, the students
in the classrooms of the participating teachers should rate their
teachers’ instructional practices and their own subject interest and
mastery goals.
As instructional practices, mastery-oriented and cognitively ac-
tivating teaching methods were assessed (cf. Retelsdorf et al., 2010).
Teachers who endorse mastery-oriented practices emphasize effort,
evaluate students’ progress relative to prior attainment, adapt tasks
to students’ interests and abilities, and treat student errors as op-
portunities for further learning (Meece et al., 2006; Midgley et al.,
2000). Cognitively activating methods refer to the degree to which
teachers provide challenging and stimulating tasks, emphasize crit-
ical and independent thinking, and embrace unusual ideas (Kunter
et al., 2008; Retelsdorf et al., 2010). Previous studies have docu-
mented that students learn better and are more motivated (a) when
emphasis is placed on mastery of the demands of learning and on
individual progress, and not on competing for good grades and (b)
when lessons are cognitively stimulating and encourage cognitive
autonomy (e.g., Klusmann, Kunter, Trautwein, Lüdtke, & Baumert,
2008; Kunter et al., 2008; Retelsdorf et al., 2010). As a third dimen-
sion of teaching quality, not being considered here, classroom
management has been identified (Baumert et al., 2010; Fauth,
Decristan, Rieser, Klieme, & Büttner, 2014).
An important feature of the present study refers to the assess-
ment of instructional practices by means of teacher and student
ratings. Previous research has indicated that the agreement between
teacher and student ratings of teachers’ instructional behavior is
rather low because teachers and students rate instructional events
differently (Clausen, 2002; Hamre & Pianta, 2010; Kunter & Baumert,
2006). For example, only weak or nonsignificant associations
between teacher and student reports of mastery-oriented prac-
tices in the classroom were reported (e.g., Butler, 2012; Deemer,
2004; Ryan, Gheen, & Midgley, 1998). Both teacher and student
ratings of instruction have been criticized to be subject to specific
biases (Bieg, Backes, & Mittag, 2011; Hamre & Pianta, 2010; Kunter
& Baumert, 2006). In particular, teacher ratings may be influenced
by teaching ideals or self-serving strategies and thus tend to be more
favorable than student ratings. In contrast, student ratings are pos-
sibly affected by perceived teacher popularity or grading practice.
Despite these potential biases, evidence on the validity of both
teacher and student ratings of instructional practices has been pro-
vided. For example, teacher reports of cognitively activating and
mastery-oriented practices have been found to be significantly as-
sociated with relevant student variables such as perceived homework
difficulty, subject interest, goal orientations, and achievement (e.g.,
Kunter & Baumert, 2006; O’Keefe, Ben-Eliyahu, & Linnenbrink-Garcia,
2013; Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006). Significant relations with ex-
ternal criteria have been also demonstrated for student reports of
instructional practices (e.g., Kunter et al., 2007; Meece et al., 2006;
O’Keefe et al., 2013). In particular, Fauth et al. (2014) showed sat-
isfying factorial validity for students’ ratings of instructional practices
and confirmed their predictive contributions to student achieve-
ment and motivation when controlling for teacher popularity. Taken
together, teacher and student ratings of instructional practices have
a certain degree of validity although they represent different per-
spectives and are subject to specific biases. Thus, it seemed warranted
to assess instructional practices by both teacher and student ratings.
Reliance on only a single source of ratings may not adequately rep-
resent the classroom reality.
We hypothesized that didactic interest, mastery goals, and self-
efficacy contribute uniquely and positively to the use of mastery-
oriented and cognitively activating instructional practices.
Educational interest should contribute uniquely and positively
only to mastery-oriented practices, whereas no significant
contributions to instructional practices were assumed for teacher
162 U. Schiefele, E. Schaffner/Contemporary Educational Psychology 42 (2015) 159–171
subject interest. Moreover, the assumed contributions of didactic
and educational interest, mastery goals, and self-efficacy to instruc-
tional practices were expected to be stronger for teacher reports than
for student reports of instruction (cf. Butler, 2012).
These hypotheses are based on the theoretical assumptions and
research findings outlined in the preceding sections. Specifically, the
significant role of teachers’ self-efficacy for the implementation of
adaptive instructional practices has been demonstrated by several
studies (Ross, 1998; Schiefele et al., 2013; Tschannen-Moran et al.,
1998; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). Schiefele et al. (2013) reported
that didactic interest predicted mastery-oriented and cognitively
activating practices, whereas educational interest was associated
only with mastery-oriented practices. Finally, Retelsdorf et al. (2010;
see also Shim et al., 2013) found significant contributions of teach-
ers’ mastery goals to mastery-oriented and cognitively activating
practices.
Pertaining to the prediction of students’ subject interest and
mastery goals, we hypothesized only indirect contributions of teacher
motivation that are mediated by teachers’ instructional practices.
Specifically, we anticipated that mastery-oriented and cognitively
activating practices contribute positively to students’ subject in-
terest and mastery goals. In accordance with previous findings (cf.
Meece et al., 2006; Woolfolk Hoy & Weinstein, 2006), we ex-
pected the relations between instruction and student motivation
to be closer for student- than for teacher-rated instructional
approaches.
The hypothesized associations between instructional practices
and aspects of student motivation were based on previous consid-
erations and findings suggesting that mastery-oriented practices
facilitate students’ mastery goals and subject interest (Fauth et al.,
2014; Meece et al., 2006; Midgley, 2002; Urdan, 2010). Moreover,
Klusmann et al. (2008) reported a significant association between
cognitively activating practices and students’ intrinsic motivation
(i.e., experience of competence and autonomy). Due to the multi-
level structure of the student data, the predictive relations between
student reports of instructional practices and student motivation
have to be modeled both at the individual or within-class level and
the between-class level. The present hypotheses referring to the re-
lations between students’ perceived instructional practices and their
motivation were assumed to apply to both the within-class and the
between-class level.
Finally, gender was included in the present analyses because pre-
vious studies have reported substantial effects of teacher and student
gender. Specifically, it has been found that female teachers score
higher than male teachers on mastery goals, self-reported mastery-
oriented practices, student-centered educational beliefs, and
motivation of becoming a teacher (Butler, 2007, 2012; Retelsdorf
et al., 2010; Sabbe & Aelterman, 2007). Thus, it was expected that
female teachers show higher levels of all motivational variables and
mastery-oriented instruction than male teachers. However, in ac-
cordance with Retelsdorf et al. (2010), gender differences in the use
of cognitively activating practices were not assumed.
Although past research has demonstrated gender effects in re-
lation to students’ mastery goals and subject interests (e.g., Lee, Ning,
& Goh, 2014; Meece & Holt, 1993; Schiefele, Krapp, & Winteler, 1992),
such effects were not expected in the present study. With respect
to student mastery goals, previous studies have yielded mixed results
for gender differences. Whereas some studies have found that girls
showed higher scores in mastery goals than boys, other studies have
reported no differences in students’ endorsement of mastery goals
(Kenney-Benson, Pomerantz, Ryan, & Patrick, 2006; Patrick, Ryan,
& Pintrich, 1999). Additional research (e.g., Anderman & Midgley,
1997) has suggested that the relation between gender and mastery
goals differs by subject. The latter point also applies to the rela-
tion between gender and subject interest. For example, male students
have been found to show greater interest in mathematics, while
female students show greater interest in German and literature (e.g.,
Lee, Lee, & Bong, 2014; Schiefele et al., 1992). Because a variety of
different subjects was involved in the present study, main effects
of student gender on both mastery goals and subject interest did
not seem likely.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
The sample comprised 110 teachers (20 male, 90 female) from
30 elementary schools and their students in and around a large city
in Germany. The schools represented both rural and urban areas of
different socioeconomic backgrounds. The average age of the par-
ticipating teachers (M = 47.57, SD = 9.26) was rather close to the
average age of all German teachers (M = 48.1; Statistisches Bundesamt
[Federal Statistical Office], 2008).
A total of 35 schools were contacted by telephone and asked to
participate. School principals were given detailed information on
the goals of the study and the contents of the questionnaires. Thirty
of these schools (85.7%) agreed to participate. Within the partici-
pating schools, only fifth- and sixth-grade classes and one of their
major teachers were asked to take part.2 The response rate of classes
across all participating schools was 82.7%. We chose to include stu-
dents beyond fourth grade because the instruments used in the
present study to assess students’ motivation and their percep-
tions of instructional practices had not been validated for the early
elementary grades.
Elementary school teachers in Germany usually focus their teach-
ing on either German or mathematics. Besides their major subject,
they teach at least one more subject (e.g., English), which in some
instances may become their major teaching subject. Accordingly,
reports on the main teaching subject revealed that German (n = 43;
39.1%) and mathematics (n = 34; 30.9%) were most frequent in the
present teacher sample. The remaining teachers (n = 33; 30.0%) were
distributed across different subjects (English, geography, social
science, biology, and music).
The student sample (N = 1731) included 881 fifth graders (n = 421
female, n = 448 male, n = 12 missing indication of gender) and 850
sixth graders (n = 413 female, n = 427 male, n = 10 missing indica-
tion of gender). The number of students per classroom varied
between 6 and 29. The mean age of the student sample was 11.08
(SD = 0.79; age range 9–14; fifth grade: M = 10.58, SD = .61; sixth
grade: M = 11.59, SD = .59; three students failed to indicate their age).
There were slight but significant age differences between girls
(M = 11.02, SD = .79) and boys (M = 11.13, SD = .79), F(1,1702) = 14.76,
p < .001, d = .14.
The teachers and their students were simultaneously pre-
sented with a questionnaire during a regular lesson. Before working
on the questionnaire, the teachers were instructed to answer all ques-
tions with respect to their major teaching subject, and the students
were asked to respond to the questionnaire with respect to their
teacher’s major subject. The largest number of students answered
the questionnaire pertaining to German (n = 685), followed by math-
ematics (n = 522), English (n = 297), geography (n = 105), social
science (n = 70), biology (n = 40), and music (n = 12). The distribu-
tion across subjects was highly similar for girls and boys, and for
fifth and sixth graders.
2 In most states (Bundesländer) in Germany, elementary schools only include four
grades, whereas in a few states, such as Berlin or Brandenburg, elementary schools
comprise Grades 1–6.
 U. Schiefele, E. Schaffner/Contemporary Educational Psychology 42 (2015) 159–171 163

Table 1 2.2.4. Teacher reports of instructional practices

Mean values, standard deviations, and reliabilities. The assessment of teacher-perceived mastery-oriented prac-
Variable Teacher (N = 110) Student (N = 1731) tices was based on the Pattern of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS;
M SD α M SD α ICC1 ICC2 Midgley et al., 2000). The German adaption of PALS was devel-
oped and evaluated by Retelsdorf et al. (2010). Sample items of the
Subject interest 3.19 .57 .63 2.65 .71 .75 .139 .72
Didactic interest 3.27 .55 .83
mastery instruction subscale (4 items) are “In my class, I make a
Educational interest 3.31 .47 .74 special effort to recognize students’ individual progress, even if they
Mastery goals 3.10 .53 .68 3.16 .54 .80 .078 .57 are below average” and “In my class, the individual development
Self-efficacy 2.96 .42 .67 of my students is most important to me.”
Mastery-oriented IP 3.44 .38 .67 3.29 .58 .68 .227 .82
The scale measuring cognitively activating practices was taken
Cognitively activating IP 2.92 .40 .74 2.65 .49 .69 .122 .68
from the project Professional Competence of Teachers, Cognitively
IP = instructional practices.
Activating Instruction, and the Development of Students’ Mathe-
matical Literacy (COACTIV; e.g., Kunter et al., 2007). The COACTIV
project was conducted as part of the Programme for International
2.2. Measures Student Assessment (PISA) in Germany. The scale on cognitively ac-
tivating practices describes the level of challenge and autonomy
Items of all scales required responses on 4-point rating scales provided by tasks and instruction (8 items; e.g., “I let my students
ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (very true). All items were coded work on tasks for which they should provide more than one solu-
with a high score indicating a high level on the given construct. tion”; “I change the setting of tasks to find out whether my students
Reliabilities for all teacher and student variables are reported in have really understood the underlying idea”). By means of confir-
Table 1. matory factor analysis, Schiefele et al. (2013) provided evidence that
cognitively activating and mastery-oriented practices represent sep-
2.2.1. Teacher interests arate factors.
Teacher interests were assessed by means of the Teacher Inter-
est Scale (TIS) developed by Schiefele et al. (2013). The TIS involves 2.2.5. Student subject interest
three subscales: subject interest (4 items; e.g. “Being involved with Student subject interest was measured by means of a five-item
my subject puts me in a good mood”; “Dealing frequently with con- scale that is based on interest theory (cf. Schiefele, 2009) and has
tents of my subject is important to me”), didactic interest (4 items; been used in a number of studies on text comprehension in order
e.g. “I like to think about ways of making my teaching more effec- to assess interest in text topics (e.g., Schaffner & Schiefele, 2008).
tive and motivating”; “It is important to me to ensure that my In line with the definition of individual interest (Hidi & Renninger,
teaching methods are always up to date”), and educational inter- 2006; Krapp, 2007; Schiefele, 2009), the scale comprises three items
est (5 items; e.g. “The most interesting aspect of my work pertains referring to feeling-related valence beliefs (e.g., “Being involved with
to the pedagogical handling of students”; “The appropriate han- this subject puts me in a good mood”) and two items referring to
dling of problem students is an important topic for me”). Schiefele value-related valence beliefs (e.g., “The lessons in this subject are
et al. (2013) have used multiple-group confirmatory factor analy- very important to me”).
sis to confirm (a) the three-factor structure of the TIS and (b) the
assumption of scalar measurement invariance (e.g., Wu, Li, & Zumbo, 2.2.6. Student mastery goals
2007) of these factors across teachers from different school tracks We used the German SELLMO scales (Spinath, Stiensmeier-Pelster,
(elementary and both low- and high-achievement secondary Schöne, & Dickhäuser, 2002) for measuring students’ mastery goals
schools). (8 items). The opening stem of this questionnaire was “In German/
mathematics/English/geography/social science/biology/music class,
2.2.2. Teacher mastery goals it is important to me that …”. Sample items are “I learn as much
To capture teacher mastery goals, the Goal Orientations for Teach- as possible” and “I really understand what is being taught”.
ing Scale developed by Butler (2007, Hebrew version) and Retelsdorf
(2006, German version; see also Retelsdorf et al., 2010) was applied. 2.2.7. Student reports of instructional practices
Sample items from the mastery goals subscale (4 items) are: “In my The assessment of students’ perceptions of instructional prac-
work as a teacher, I feel good and successful if …” [opening stem tices was based on the corresponding teacher scales. These scales
for all items] “something that happened in class made me want to were rewritten so that they directly addressed the perspective of
learn more about teaching” and “I saw that I was developing pro- students. For example, the mastery-oriented item “In my class, I make
fessionally and teaching more effectively than in the past.” a special effort to recognize students’ individual progress, even if
they are below average” was changed to “Our teacher makes a special
2.2.3. Teacher self-efficacy effort to recognize progress of all students, even if they are below
In order to measure teachers’ perception of self-efficacy, the Self- average”. Consequently, there was a close correspondence between
Efficacy for Teaching Scale (SETS) was used. This scale represents a the teacher and student scales.
global or unidimensional indicator of teacher self-efficacy and was It should be noted that all items of the student questionnaire
originally developed by Schwarzer and Schmitz (1999; Schwarzer on instructional practices explicitly referred to students’ teachers.
& Hallum, 2008) and slightly modified by Schiefele et al. (2013). The As has been recently demonstrated by Koskey, Karabenick, Woolley,
SETS consists of five items and asks teachers to rate their ability to Bonney, and Dever (2010), survey items used to assess the class-
cope successfully with various demands of the teaching profes- room mastery goal structure show higher degrees of validity when
sion. In accordance with previous definitions of teacher self- they are framed to focus on students’ teachers instead of the class-
efficacy (cf. Klassen et al., 2011; Ross, 1998; Wolters & Daugherty, room context.
2007), these demands refer in particular to finding ways of dealing
with difficult students (e.g., “I am able to communicate well with 2.3. Missing values
rather difficult students if I try”) and to instructional strategies to
facilitate student learning (e.g., “I can teach even the most prob- Missing values were estimated with the expectation-
lematic students what they will need for their exams”). maximization (EM) algorithm computed by means of the statistical
164 U. Schiefele, E. Schaffner/Contemporary Educational Psychology 42 (2015) 159–171

software NORM 2.03 (Schafer, 1999; see also Graham, 2009). On Table 2
average, only 0.6% missing values in the teacher sample and 1.7% Correlations among teacher variables.

missing values in the student sample were observed for individu- Teacher variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
al items. The highest percentage of missing values per item was 2.5% 1. Gendera –
in the teacher sample and 4.3% in the student sample. 2. Subject interest .08 –
3. Didactic interest .37*** .25** –
2.4. Statistical analyses 4. Educational .30** .31** .42*** –
interest
5. Mastery goals .33*** .41*** .53*** .40*** –
In order to examine the hypotheses pertaining to the contribu- 6. Self-efficacy .21* .36*** .34*** .42*** .31** –
tions of teacher motivation and teacher reports of instructional 7. Mastery-oriented IP .39*** .17 .47*** .41*** .21* .42*** –
practices to student reports of instructional practices and student 8. Cognitively .32*** .10 .48*** .26** .30** .43*** .54*** –
activating IP
motivation, we conducted multilevel means-as-outcomes regres-
sion analyses with fixed effects (by using Mplus 7.3; Muthén & N = 110.
IP = instructional practices.
Muthén, 1998–2014). Thus, it was possible to account for the mul- a Scoring of gender: male = 1, female = 2.
tilevel structure of the student data and differentiate between the * p < .05, two-tailed.
portions of variance in the dependent student variables that are due ** p < .01, two-tailed.
to factors at the individual and the class level. *** p < .001, two-tailed.
As a necessary prerequisite of the multilevel analyses, the re-
liability of the aggregated student variables was assessed by means
of the intraclass correlations ICC1 and ICC2 (Bliese, 2000). The ICC1 of subject matter affiliation on teacher variables, significant mean
indicates the proportion of total variance in student ratings that is differences were observed between students referring to mathe-
located between classes, reflecting systematic between-class dif- matics and miscellaneous subjects. Specifically, compared to students
ferences in instructional ratings or student motivation. Values of 5% in classes with miscellaneous subjects, students in mathematics
and above for ICC1 can be regarded as support that there are ade- classes indicated lower levels of subject interest, M = 2.59, SD = .68
quate class-level properties of a variable to warrant aggregation (e.g., versus M = 2.73, SD = .76, p < .01 (Bonferroni post hoc test), and higher
Gavin & Hofmann, 2002). The ICC2 indicates the reliability of the levels of cognitively activating practices, M = 2.70, SD = .47 versus
class mean. It is calculated by applying a Spearman–Brown correc- M = 2.60, SD = .50, p < .01 (Bonferroni post hoc test). These differ-
tion formula (based on the average number of students per class) ences are theoretically plausible but rather small in size, d = .19, for
to the ICC1, thus taking into account that measurement error de- subject interest, and d = .21, for cognitively activating practices.
creases with increasing numbers of raters. Rating of the class mean Student-based ratings of instructional practices differed signifi-
can be considered reliable if student ratings differ systematically cantly from teachers’ self-ratings, t(218) = 3.45, p < .001, d = .47, for
between classes (as measured by the ICC1) and there are many raters mastery-oriented practices, and t(218) = 7.47, p < .001, d = 1.03, for
per class (a fact that informs the ICC2). ICC2 values of approximate- cognitively activating practices (two-tailed tests). Obviously, teach-
ly .70 are considered to indicate that the assessment of the class- ers judged their instructional practices more favorably than did their
level construct is sufficiently reliable (Bliese, 2000). According to students. The largest discrepancy was obtained for cognitively ac-
this criterion, the aggregated scale scores for student subject in- tivating practices (see Table 1).
terest and student reports of mastery-oriented and cognitively
activating instructional practices can be seen as reliable indica- 3.2. Contributions of teacher motivation to teacher reports of
tors of the respective class level in the present study (see Table 1). instructional practices
Although ICC2 for student mastery goals (.57) was somewhat below
the critical value of .70, we decided to retain this variable in the The correlations between teacher interests and instructional prac-
succeeding analyses. tices were in line with the hypotheses (see Table 2). Specifically,
didactic and educational interest were both positively associated
3. Results with mastery-oriented and cognitively activating practices, whereas
subject interest was not significantly related to instructional prac-
3.1. Descriptive statistics and mean differences tices. Moreover, both teacher mastery goals and self-efficacy
positively predicted mastery-oriented and cognitively activating prac-
Mean values and standard deviations of teacher motivation vari- tices. Finally, female teachers scored higher on all motivational
ables, teacher- and student-rated instructional practices, and variables and mastery-oriented practices than male teachers. The
components of student motivation are shown in Table 1. In line with significant association between gender and cognitively activating
previous findings (Butler, 2012; Retelsdorf et al., 2010; Schiefele et al., practices, however, was not expected.3
2013), teachers reported relatively high levels of all three dimen- The hypothesized unique contributions of teacher motivation to
sions of interest, mastery goals, mastery-oriented instruction, and teacher reports of instructional practices were examined by means
cognitively activating practices. Also according to previous re- of multiple regression analyses. Thereby, teacher gender and the di-
search (Spinath et al., 2002), students indicated relatively high levels mensions of teacher motivation were simultaneously entered as
of mastery goals. predictors into the regression models. The findings (see Table 3)
We explored whether subject matter affiliation affected teacher support several of the hypotheses. First, didactic interest and self-
and student motivation as well as teacher and student reports of efficacy contributed significantly to mastery-oriented and cognitively
instructional practices. For that purpose, we compared the mean activating practices. Second, subject interest was not significantly
values of teacher motivation factors and teacher reports of instruc- related to instructional practices. Third, female teachers indicated
tional practices between teachers focusing on German (n = 43), greater use of mastery-oriented practices than male teachers.
mathematics (n = 34), or miscellaneous subjects (n = 33). In addi- However, the observed positive association between educational
tion, differences in student motivation factors and student reports
of instructional practices between students referring to German
(n = 685), mathematics (n = 522), or miscellaneous subjects (n = 524) 3
As is shown in the following section, this association became nonsignificant when
were analyzed. Whereas the findings did not reveal significant effects including other predictors.
 U. Schiefele, E. Schaffner/Contemporary Educational Psychology 42 (2015) 159–171 165

Table 3 sequently, most of the hypothesized associations between teacher

Contributions of teacher motivation to teacher reports of instructional practices. motivation and student reports of instruction were not con-
Teacher variable Teacher reports firmed. In particular, the relations between instructional practices
Mastery-oriented IP Cognitively activating IP and both didactic interest and self-efficacy did not attain signifi-
a
cance. In line with the hypotheses, however, significant correlations
Gender .22* (.08) .14 (.07)
Subject interest −.00 (.07) −.11 (.06)
between aggregated student reports of mastery-oriented prac-
Didactic interest .33** (.07) .34** (.06) tices and both teacher mastery goals and educational interest were
Educational interest .18c (.08) −.05 (.07) obtained. Also according to expectations, female teachers were per-
Mastery goals −.19b (.07) .04 (.06) ceived by their students as being more mastery-oriented in their
Self-efficacy .24* (.08) .33*** (.07)
teaching than male teachers.
R2 .38 .34
The correlational findings in Table 4 provide only a first indica-
N = 110. Standardized regression coefficients; standard errors in parentheses.
tion of the contributions of teacher motivation to student reports
IP = instructional practices.
a
Scoring of gender: male = 1, female = 2. of instruction because they do not consider the multilevel struc-
b p = .065. ture of the student data. Therefore, multilevel means-as-outcomes
c p = .053.
regression analyses were performed. These analyses included student
* p < .05. gender and student age as Level 1 predictors and teacher gender
** p < .01.
and the components of teacher motivation as Level 2 predictors (cf.
*** p < .001.
Butler, 2012). Students’ age was included at Level 1 because we theo-
rized that older students exhibit lower achievement levels within
Table 4 classes than younger students and, thus, may rate their teachers’
Correlations between teacher variables and aggregated class-level student variables. instructional practices differently. In particular, older students prob-
ably tend to perceive cognitively activating practices to a higher
Teacher variable Aggregated class-level student variable
degree than younger students. The lower achievement level of older
Mastery- Cognitively Subject Mastery
students is to be explained by grade retention and by retarded school
oriented IP activating IP interest goals
admittance due to developmental deficits.
Gendera .33*** .07 .13 .19 The resulting regression models for student reports of instruc-
Subject interest .05 −.01 .28** .06
Didactic interest .19 .12 .21* .21*
tion are presented in Table 5. First, it should be noted that student
Educational interest .34*** .12 .30** .23* gender did not affect student reports of instructional practices.
Mastery goals .27** .19 .24* .21* However, according to our assumptions, older students reported
Self-efficacy .18 .02 .18 .20* stronger use of cognitively activating practices than younger stu-
Mastery-oriented IP .19* .03 .15 .23*
dents. Moreover, at Level 2, teacher gender showed the expected
Cognitively activating IP .18 .14 .03 .15
positive association with mastery-oriented instruction indicating
NTeachers = 110. NStudents = 1706.
that female teachers were perceived by their students as using
IP = instructional practices.
a
Scoring of gender: male = 1, female = 2.
mastery-oriented practices to a higher degree than male teachers.
* p < .05, two-tailed. This finding is in line with the obtained association between gender
** p < .01, two-tailed. and teacher reports of mastery-oriented practices (see Table 3).
*** p < .001, two-tailed. Interestingly, the results showed that those teacher motivation
factors that predicted teacher reports of instruction, i.e. self-
efficacy and didactic interest, did not significantly contribute to
interest and mastery-oriented practices fell short of attaining student reports of instruction. In contrast, teachers’ educational in-
significance. terest and mastery goals were significantly associated with student
In contrast to expectations, teacher mastery goals failed to predict reports of instruction (see Table 5). Whereas teachers’ educational
instructional practices positively when controlling for other rele- interest predicted student reports of their mastery-oriented prac-
vant predictors. The fact that even a negative regression coefficient tices, teachers’ mastery goals contributed to student reports of their
for mastery goals was obtained might be due to the relatively large cognitively activating practices.
amount of shared variance among mastery goals and the dimen- In the next step of the analyses, we examined the relations
sions of interest.4 Therefore, we tested an additional regression model between teacher and student reports of instructional practices, and
that only included gender, self-efficacy, and mastery goals as pre- whether teacher reports of instruction possibly mediated the re-
dictors of mastery-oriented practices. In this model, a nonsignificant lations between teacher motivation factors and student reports of
regression coefficient (ß = −.00, SE = .06) was obtained for mastery instruction (cf. Butler, 2012). As was found previously (e.g., Bieg et al.,
goals. This finding suggests that teacher mastery goals do not 2011; Butler, 2012; Kunter & Baumert, 2006), the correlations pre-
uniquely contribute to teacher reports of mastery-oriented prac- sented in Table 4 indicate rather low associations between teacher
tices when controlling for other relevant factors. and student reports of instructional practices. In line with Butler’s
(2012) findings, only the correlation between teacher- and student-
3.3. Prediction of student reports of instructional practices rated mastery-oriented practices was significant. The analyzed
multilevel regression models, however, did not reveal any signifi-
As was anticipated, teacher motivation factors mostly showed cant contributions of teacher reports of instruction to student reports
lower correlations with student- than with teacher-rated instruc- (see Table 6). Given these findings, it was not meaningful to further
tional practices (cf. Tables 2 and 4). In addition, none of the explore the role of teacher reports of instruction as mediators of
contributions of teacher motivation to aggregated student reports the relation between teacher motivation and student reports of
of cognitively activating practices was significant (see Table 4). Con- instruction.

3.4. Prediction of student motivation

4 However, indicators of collinearity (tolerance >.60, condition index <26) did not
exceed critical levels (tolerance ≤.20, condition index ≥30) for the regression model As was anticipated, the analysis of bivariate correlations re-
predicting mastery-oriented practices. vealed that student motivation was more closely associated with
166 U. Schiefele, E. Schaffner/Contemporary Educational Psychology 42 (2015) 159–171

Table 5
Contributions of teacher motivation to student reports of instructional practices and student motivation.

Predictor Student variable

Mastery-oriented IP Cognitively activating IP Subject interest Mastery goals

Level 1
Student gendera .03 (.03) .01 (.03) −.01 (.03) −.03 (.03)
Student age .04 (.03) .08* (.04) −.10** (.03) −.09** (.03)
Level 2
Teacher gendera .25* (.12) −.01 (.12) .04 (.12) .17 (.13)
Subject interest −.15 (.11) −.12 (.12) .20 (.12) −.09 (.13)
Didactic interest −.09 (.14) .02 (.15) .09 (.14) .11 (.19)
Educational interest .32** (.12) .07 (.14) .24* (.12) .09 (.14)
Mastery goals .18 (.12) .27* (.13) .04 (.13) .11 (.16)
Self-efficacy .06 (.11) −.05 (.15) .01 (.13) .19 (.13)
R2 (within) .00 .01 .01 .01
R2 (between) .26 .07 .21 .19

NTeachers = 110. NStudents = 1706. Standardized regression coefficients; standard errors in parentheses.
IP = instructional practices.
a Scoring of gender: male = 1, female = 2.

* p < .05.
** p < .01.

student-rated than with teacher-rated instructional practices (see
Tables 4 and 7). Only the correlation between teacher reports of
mastery-oriented practices and student mastery goals attained sig-
nificance (see Table 4). In contrast, the hypothesized contributions
of student-perceived mastery-oriented and cognitively activating
practices to students’ mastery goals and subject interest were con-
firmed (see Table 7).
Also according to expectations, teacher and student genders were
not significantly related with student motivation (see Tables 4 and
7). In the Introduction, we have argued that student gender would
not affect students’ subject interest and mastery goals in the present
study because such effects are likely to differ by subject area. In ac-
cordance with this assumption, bivariate gender–motivation
correlations indicated a stronger interest of girls in German (r = .10,
p < .01) and a stronger interest of boys in mathematics (r = −.14,
p < .01). Within the group of students referring to miscellaneous sub-
jects, nonsignificant correlations of gender with interest (r = −.00)
and mastery goals (r = −.09) were observed.
Moreover, most of the class-level correlations between teacher
motivation factors and aggregated scores of students’ subject in-
terest and mastery goals attained significance (see Table 4). These
findings were not explicitly expected because we only assumed in-
direct effects of teacher motivation on student motivation (being
mediated by instructional practices), and the assumption of an in-
direct relation between two variables does not require a significant
association between these variables (e.g., Hayes, 2009). All of the
correlational findings, however, need to be interpreted with caution
as they do not take into account the nested data structure and si-
multaneous contributions of other predictors.
We first conducted multilevel means-as-outcomes regression
analyses in order to analyze the contributions of teacher-rated in-
struction and teacher motivation to students’ mastery goals and
subject interest. The results pertaining to the contributions of
teacher-rated instruction (see Table 6) did not support the hypoth-
eses and showed nonsignificant (p > .10) regression coefficients for
teacher reports of mastery-oriented and cognitively activating prac-
tices. However, a significant association between teacher educational
interest and student subject interest was obtained (see Table 5). The
nature of this relation, whether it is direct and/or indirect, will be
analyzed in more detail later.
In the next step, we examined the relations between students’
perceptions of instruction and their motivation. Thereby, stu-
dents’ perceptions of instruction were included as predictors at both
Levels 1 and 2. The results of these analyses (see Table 8) partially
supported the hypothesized significant contributions of student
reports of mastery-oriented and cognitively activating practices to
students’ subject interest and mastery goals at the individual and
the class level. Specifically, at the individual level (Level 1), mastery-
oriented practices positively predicted students’ mastery goals and
subject interest. Moreover, student reports of higher levels of
cognitively activating practices were significantly associated with
higher levels of students’ mastery goals but not subject interest. At

Table 6
Contributions of teacher reports of instructional practices to student reports of instructional practices and student motivation.

Predictor Student variable

Mastery-oriented IP Cognitively activating IP Subject interest Mastery goals

Level 1
Student gendera .03 (.03) .01 (.03) −.01 (.03) −.03 (.03)
Student age .04 (.03) .07* (.04) −.09** (.04) −.09** (.03)
Level 2
Teacher gendera .33** (.12) .06 (.12) .13 (.11) .20 (.11)
Mastery-oriented IP (TR) .07 (.14) −.09 (.13) .18 (.15) .21 (.16)
Cognitively activating IP (TR) .05 (.13) .19 (.14) −.07 (.15) .09 (.12)
R2 (within) .00 .01 .01 .01
R2 (between) .15 .03 .05 .15

NTeachers = 110. NStudents = 1706. Standardized regression coefficients; standard errors in parentheses.
IP = instructional practices. TR = teacher reports.
a Scoring of gender: male = 1, female = 2.

* p < .05.
** p < .01.
 U. Schiefele, E. Schaffner/Contemporary Educational Psychology 42 (2015) 159–171 167

Table 7
Correlations among student variables.
Student variable 1 2 3 4
1. Gendera – student subject interest, and student mastery goals. In line with our
2. Mastery-oriented IP .02 – initial hypotheses, only indirect paths between teacher and student
3. Cognitively activating IP .02 .38*** – motivation were specified. Accordingly, the between-class model
4. Subject interest −.00 .31*** .13***
5. Mastery goals −.02 .36*** .29***
N = 1731.
IP = instructional practices.
a
Scoring of gender: male = 1, female = 2.
*** p < .001, two-tailed.
the class level (Level 2), strong contributions of student reports of
mastery-oriented instruction to students’ mastery goals and subject
interest were obtained, whereas cognitively activating practices were
not significantly associated with student motivation. These find-
ings suggest that student-perceived mastery-oriented practices are
of particular relevance for students’ mastery goals and subject
interest.
In contrast to student gender, student age was significantly related
with both students’ mastery goals and subject interest (see Table 8).
Accordingly, older students within classes reported lower levels of
motivation than younger students. As was argued earlier with respect
to age effects on perceived instruction, this finding may be ex-
plained by the fact that older students within classes tend to be low
achievers and, thus, not only perceive more cognitive challenge but
also show lower levels of mastery goals and subject interest.
3.5. Indirect relations between teacher and student motivation
mediated by student reports of instructional practices
We have hypothesized indirect relations between teacher and
student motivation that are mediated by teachers’ instructional prac-
tices. The present findings suggest that only teacher educational
interest and teacher gender are likely to show indirect contribu-
tions to student motivation. This assumption is based on the obtained
significant class-level contributions of (a) teacher educational in-
terest and teacher gender to student reports of mastery-oriented
practices (see Table 5) and (b) student reports of mastery-oriented
practices to students’ subject interest and mastery goals (see Table 8).
In order to directly examine the indirect effects of teachers’ edu-
cational interest and gender on students’ subject interest and mastery
goals, a multilevel structural equation model was specified.
Table 8
Contributions of student reports of instructional practices to student motivation.
Predictor Student motivation
The focus of the analysis was on the between-class level where
we modeled the relations among teacher educational interest,
5 teacher gender, student reports of mastery-oriented practices,
– comprised paths (a) from teacher educational interest and teacher
.46*** –
gender to student reports of mastery-oriented practices and (b) from
student reports of mastery-oriented practices to students’ subject
interest and mastery goals. At the within-class level, the model in-
cluded paths (a) from student gender and student age to student
reports of mastery-oriented practices, student mastery goals, and
student subject interest and (b) from student reports of mastery-
oriented practices to student mastery goals and student subject
interest.
The overall fit of the model was good, χ 2 = 8.31, df = 4, ns,
CFI = .993, TLI = .966, RMSEA = .025. However, modification indices
suggested a significant direct effect of teacher educational inter-
est on student subject interest. Therefore, we added that path to
the between-class model. The adapted model (see Fig. 1) yielded
the following fit indices: χ2 = 3.03, df = 3, ns, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00,
RMSEA = .002. At the within-class level, the model replicated the
findings reported earlier (see Tables 6 and 8). As was expected, sig-
nificant indirect effects of student gender and student age on student
motivation were not observed. However, at the between-class level,
significant indirect effects of teacher educational interest on student
subject interest (ß = .19, p < .01) and student mastery goals (ß = .26,
p < .001) were obtained. Moreover, teacher gender also showed sig-
nificant indirect effects on student subject interest (ß = .16, p < .05)
and student mastery goals (ß = .23, p < .05). It is important to note
that teacher educational interest was both indirectly and directly
related to student subject interest (see Fig. 1). Thus, the overall re-
lation between teacher educational interest and student subject
interest was only partially mediated by student reports of mastery-
oriented instructional practices.
4. Discussion
In extending previous research (e.g., Butler, 2007; Retelsdorf et al.,
2010), the present study (a) directly compared the contributions
of teachers’ interests, mastery goals, and self-efficacy beliefs to teach-
ers’ instructional practices, (b) used both teacher and student reports
to assess instructional practices, and (c) included students’ moti-
vational characteristics as outcomes of teachers’ motivation and
instruction. In the following, we summarize and interpret the find-
ings, address some limitations, and offer directions for future
research.
4.1. Teacher motivation and instructional practices

Subject interest Mastery goals 4.1.1. Teacher reports of instruction

The present study confirmed the hypotheses pertaining to the
Level 1
Student gendera −.02 (.03) −.04 (.02) prediction of teacher-rated instruction by teachers’ interests and self-
Student age −.10** (.03) −.11*** (.03) efficacy. In extending earlier findings (Schiefele et al., 2013), it was
Mastery-oriented IP (SR) .23*** (.02) .23*** (.03) demonstrated that the contributions of didactic and educational in-
Cognitively activating IP (SR) .02 (.03) .19*** (.03) terest remain substantial when controlling for teachers’ mastery goals
Level 2
and gender. However, in contrast to expectations, teacher mastery
Teacher gendera −.09 (.11) .01 (.09)
Mastery-oriented IP (SR) .72*** (.12) .80*** (.13) goals were not significantly related to teacher reports of mastery-
Cognitively activating IP (SR) −.01 (.16) .07 (.12) oriented and cognitively activating practices when controlling for
2
R (within) .06 .13 teachers’ interests, self-efficacy, and gender.
R2 (between) .47 .71
The minor role of teacher mastery goals for the prediction of
NTeachers = 110. NStudents = 1706. Standardized regression coefficients; standard errors mastery-oriented practices has been supported by Butler (2012).
in parentheses. Butler extended her four-factor model of teacher goal orienta-
IP = instructional practices. SR = student reports.
a Scoring of gender: male = 1, female = 2. tions by adding relational goals as a fifth factor. Relational goals
** p < .01. represent “strivings to attain caring personal relationships with stu-
*** p < .001. dents” (Butler, 2012, p. 727). Butler examined the unique
168 U. Schiefele, E. Schaffner/Contemporary Educational Psychology 42 (2015) 159–171
Within-Class Level
Student
gender
.03
.04
Student
age
Between-Class Level
Teacher
educational
interest
.31**
Aggregated student
reports of mastery-
.27** oriented instruction
Teacher
gender
Fig. 1. Multilevel structural equation model for the prediction of student motivation. NTeachers = 110. NStudents = 1706. Standardized path coefficients. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
contributions of teacher goals to various teacher-rated instruc-
tional practices and found that relational goals but not mastery goals
predicted mastery-oriented practices. Although Retelsdorf et al.
(2010) and Shim et al. (2013) demonstrated significant associa-
tions between teacher mastery goals and teacher reports of mastery-
oriented practices, they have not included competing predictors or
relevant control variables.
4.1.2. Student reports of instruction
Student-based ratings of instructional practices turned out to be
significantly less favorable than teacher-based ratings. In addition,
correlations between student and teacher ratings were either low
or not significant. These findings were expected (cf. Bieg et al., 2011;
Clausen, 2002; Hamre & Pianta, 2010) and converge with Butler
(2012). Also in keeping with the hypotheses, teachers’ motiva-
tional characteristics were weaker predictors of student-rated than
of teacher-rated practices. This applied in particular to teachers’ self-
efficacy and didactic interest which significantly predicted teacher
reports but not student reports of mastery-oriented and cognitively
activating instruction. Teachers educational interest, however, proved
to be the only facet of teacher motivation that contributed posi-
tively to both teacher and student reports of adaptive instructional
practices. Moreover, educational interest was found to be the only
significant motivational predictor of student reports of mastery-
oriented instruction. This finding suggests that mastery-oriented
instructional practices are more closely associated with features of
teacher motivation that involve a caring attitude and an interest in
-.10**
-.02
Individual
student
.24*** subject interest
Individual student
reports of mastery- .38***
oriented instruction .30***
Individual
-.10*** student
mastery goals
-.04
.19*
Aggregated
student
.59*** subject interest
.67***
.83***
Aggregated
student
mastery goals
students’ personal characteristics and development. Mastery-
oriented practices involve encouraging students to master learning
tasks by attributing their achievement to effort, by focusing on their
individual progress, and by adapting tasks to their interests and abil-
ities. These practices fit well with motivational orientations, such
as educational interest, that refer to students’ individual develop-
ment. Indirect evidence for these considerations is provided by Butler
and Shibaz (2014) who found that teachers’ relational goals con-
tributed to teachers’ social support of students but not to teachers’
cognitively activating practices. Thereby, it is important to note that
the construct of relational goals seems to share some characteris-
tics with the construct of educational interest. Specifically, both
constructs involve a focus on students’ personal development and,
thus, imply a caring relationship with students.
Whereas mastery goals did not predict teacher reports of mastery-
oriented instruction above and beyond teachers’ interests and self-
efficacy, a significant unique contribution of teacher mastery goals
to student reports of cognitively activating practices in the class-
room was obtained. This result is of particular relevance because
it shows that teacher mastery goals may be indeed important for
a central dimension of teachers’ instructional behavior. In addi-
tion, this result appears to be conceptually meaningful because
teacher mastery goals and cognitively activating practices share a
strong focus on the development of competence. Specifically, teacher
mastery goals entail a striving toward higher levels of teaching com-
petence (e.g., by seeking challenging tasks), and cognitively activating
practices are directed at fostering students’ competence by means
 U. Schiefele, E. Schaffner/Contemporary Educational Psychology 42 (2015) 159–171
of providing challenging and stimulating tasks and by emphasiz-
ing critical and independent thinking (Butler, 2007; Kunter et al.,
2008). Supporting evidence was recently demonstrated by Butler
and Shibaz (2014) who found that teacher mastery goals pre-
dicted student reports of cognitively activating practices.
Although teacher self-efficacy and didactic interest proved to be
substantial predictors of teacher reports of instructional practices,
they did not significantly predict student reports. This gap between
self-reported and student-reported practices is in line with studies
showing that teacher ratings may be influenced by self-serving ten-
dencies or teaching ideals and thus tend to be more favorable than
student ratings (cf. Hamre & Pianta, 2010; Kunter & Baumert, 2006).
In fact, the analysis of mean values in the present study revealed
that teacher ratings of instruction were more positive than student
ratings. In our view, it may be assumed that self-efficacy and di-
dactic interest possibly have reinforced the influence of self-
serving tendencies and teaching ideals. Moreover, the tendency to
appear self-consistent may have led teachers with strong efficacy
beliefs and didactic interest to report high levels of adaptive in-
structional practices that were not perceived in the same way by
these teachers’ students.
4.2. Prediction of student motivation
A novel feature of the present research refers to the inclusion
of student motivation as a possible outcome of teachers’ motiva-
tion and instructional practices. Overall, closer relations between
instruction and student motivation were expected for student than
for teacher reports of instructional practices. In accordance with that
assumption, the present findings showed that only student reports
of instruction, but not teacher reports, did predict student moti-
vation, both at the individual and the class level. This suggests that
teachers’ self-rated instructional practices possess rather limited va-
lidity with respect to students’ self-reported subject interest and
mastery goals.
As was expected, the findings revealed that student reports of
mastery-oriented practices contributed significantly to students’
mastery goals and subject interest at the individual and the class
level. These contributions were particularly strong at the class level
suggesting that differences between teachers in their average use
of mastery-oriented practices (as perceived by students) were more
important than individual differences between students within
classes. This suggests that teachers’ mastery-oriented practices show
a relatively close association with students’ motivation that does
not depend on students’ specific individual experience of their teach-
ers’ mastery-oriented practices.
In contrast to mastery-oriented practices, student-reported
cognitively activating practices only predicted student mastery goals
at the individual level. Thus, students’ specific individual percep-
tions but not teachers’ average scores of (student-perceived)
cognitively activating practices made a difference in student mastery
goals. This suggests that higher levels of cognitively activating prac-
tices in the classroom only affect students’ mastery goals if students
actually perceive their teachers’ practices to be cognitively activat-
ing. For example, when students perceive their teachers’ cognitively
activating practices as too demanding, then their mastery goals will
not be strengthened.
Contributions of student reports of cognitively activating prac-
tices to student subject interest were not observed. This finding
contrasts with our hypotheses and recent studies by Fauth et al.
(2014) and Butler and Shibaz (2014). These studies reported sig-
nificant contributions of student-reported cognitively activating
practices to student subject interest at the individual and the class
level. However, Fauth et al. found effects of cognitively activating
practices at the individual level only when not controlling for other
indicators of teaching quality (e.g., supportive climate). In our view,
169
the issue of competing or alternative predictors might be crucial
when explaining the differences in findings between studies. Al-
though we obtained a significant bivariate correlation between
individual scores of student-perceived cognitively activating prac-
tices and student subject interest (see Table 7), this relation became
nonsignificant in a multilevel regression model that included
mastery-oriented practices as an additional predictor of student
subject interest (see Table 8). This may suggest that student subject
interest depends more strongly on mastery-oriented practices than
on cognitively activating practices. Thus, the fact that both Fauth
et al. and Butler and Shibaz have not accounted for mastery-
oriented practices as a predictor of student subject interest may have
contributed to their findings.
Among teacher motivation factors, the present findings suggest
a particularly important role of teacher educational interest for stu-
dents’ subject interest and mastery goals. Only educational interest
showed significant indirect contributions to students’ mastery goals
and subject interest that were mediated by mastery-oriented prac-
tices. In addition, a significant direct effect of teacher educational
interest on student subject interest was observed. On the one hand,
this finding underlines the particular importance of teachers’ edu-
cational interest, which refers to the appropriate pedagogical
handling of students and to their personal development, for stu-
dents’ subject interest. On the other hand, the obtained direct effect
of teacher educational interest on student subject interest points
to the existence of mediating processes not being considered in our
study. Such mediating processes could involve instructional prac-
tices that are directed, for example, at supporting students and
fostering their experience of autonomy and competence (e.g.,
Klusmann et al., 2008; Kunter et al., 2008).
4.3. Limitations and future directions
A major limitation of the present study refers to its cross-
sectional character. This makes it impossible to dispel uncertainty
about the direction of postulated effects. Although it seems rather
probable that facets of teacher motivation indeed impact on teach-
ers’ classroom practices (Butler, 2012; Givens Rolland, 2012; Ross,
1998), recent evidence suggests that the association between teacher
motivation and instructional quality might be reciprocal. Specifi-
cally, Holzberger, Philipp, and Kunter (2013) conducted a longitudinal
study and found not only effects of teacher self-efficacy on student
and teacher reports of instructional practices but also reverse effects.
Reciprocal effects may also apply to the association between stu-
dents’ reports of instructional practices and their motivation. On
the one hand, perceived instructional practices are likely to impact
on students’ motivation. On the other hand, however, highly mo-
tivated students (e.g., with strong mastery goals) probably tend to
evaluate their teachers’ methods more positively and, thus, con-
tribute to a positive classroom climate that may encourage the
teacher to use effective classroom practices. Longitudinal studies are
needed to explore these considerations.
A further limitation concerns the assessment of teachers’ in-
structional practices by means of teacher and student reports. In
line with previous studies (Butler, 2012; Kunter & Baumert, 2006),
rather low correlations between teacher and student reports were
found. Accordingly, teachers’ reports of their motivation were more
closely related to their self-rated practices than to student-rated prac-
tices, whereas students’ motivation was more closely associated with
their perceptions of instructional practices than with teacher-
rated practices. It follows that the perspective of an outside observer
on teachers’ instructional behavior (e.g., Lerkkanen et al., 2012;
Mashburn, Meyer, Allen, & Pianta, 2014) might be helpful in order
to get a less biased account of the relations among teacher moti-
vation, instructional practices, and student motivation. In addition,
the use of observational methods would potentially contribute to
170 U. Schiefele, E. Schaffner/Contemporary Educational Psychology 42 (2015) 159–171
a better understanding of the nature of teacher and student
reports of instruction and their discrepancy (Kunter & Baumert,
2006).
When evaluating the relevance of the included teacher motiva-
tion factors, one should bear in mind that we have not assessed all
of the relevant instructional practices that are possibly affected by
teacher motivation. For example, teacher subject interest might be
related to teachers’ expression of enthusiasm about their subject
in the classroom (e.g., talking to students about exciting aspects of
the subject; Frenzel, Goetz, Lüdtke, Pekrun, & Sutton, 2009) or to
teachers’ use of other interest-enhancing methods (e.g., emphasiz-
ing the practical relevance of the subject; Bergin, 1999). Presumably,
teacher subject interest contributes through these processes to the
development of students’ subject interest. Thus, it seems impor-
tant for future research on the effects of teacher motivation to include
forms of instructional practice that were not considered in the
present study and that might be potential mediators of the
motivation–instruction relation (see also Butler & Shibaz, 2014; Fauth
et al., 2014).
It seems also noteworthy that the reliabilities of some of the
present scales were below the standard minimum of .70 (cf. Table 1).
Thus, it seems desirable to improve these scales by adding new items
and/or replacing old items. Improvement of the scales should also
take into account the high mean values that we have obtained for
the motivation and instruction scales (for similarly high values, see
Butler, 2012). By creating more “difficult” items, the mean values
could be reduced while enhancing the interindividual variance. As
a consequence, stronger relations might be observed.
As well as overcoming these limitations, future research should
address possible (indirect) effects of teacher motivation on stu-
dents’ academic achievement. Studies on the relation between
teacher motivation (with the exception of teacher self-efficacy; e.g.,
Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006) and academic achieve-
ment are largely missing. However, in order to corroborate the
present findings and to further evaluate the importance of the various
facets of teachers’ motivation and their instructional practices, it
seems desirable to examine the relations between teacher moti-
vation and student achievement. For example, it seems likely that
teacher mastery goals show an indirect relation to student achieve-
ment that is mediated by cognitively activating practices. This
assumption is supported by (a) the present finding of a significant
relation between teacher mastery goals and student reports of
cognitively activating practices and (b) recently demonstrated class-
level effects of cognitively activating practices (assessed by a
combination of teacher and student ratings) on student achieve-
ment (Kunter et al., 2013).
Although we have assessed teachers’ self-efficacy, future re-
search should also include more direct or objective indicators of
teacher competence. Teachers’ classroom behavior does not only
depend on their motivation but also on their instructional compe-
tence. For example, Baumert et al. (2010; see also Kunter et al.,
2013) provided evidence for a positive effect of mathematics teach-
ers’ pedagogical content knowledge (e.g., knowledge of tasks as
instructional tools and recognition of students’ misconceptions)
on students’ learning gains over one school year that was medi-
ated by teachers’ cognitively activating practices and learning
support. Thus, it would be desirable for future studies to examine
whether teacher motivation contributes to the use of instruc-
tional practices when controlling for teacher knowledge. However,
teacher knowledge could also be considered as a possible media-
tor of the relation between teacher motivation and instructional
practices. For example, educational interest might facilitate the ac-
quisition of pedagogical content knowledge that, in turn, leads to
the use of appropriate teaching methods (e.g., mastery-oriented
practices). Hence, here as well, a longitudinal design could gener-
ate important findings.
References
Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations,
perceived academic competence, and grades across the transition to middle-level
schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 269–298.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., et al. (2010).
Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and
student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 133–180.
Bergin, D. A. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34,
87–98.
Bieg, S., Backes, S., & Mittag, W. (2011). The role of intrinsic motivation for teaching,
teachers’ care and autonomy support in students’ self-determined motivation.
Journal for Educational Research Online, 3, 122–140.
Bliese, P. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability. In K.
Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multi-level theory, research, and methods in
organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brookhart, S. M., & Freeman, D. J. (1992). Characteristics of entering teacher
candidates. Review of Educational Research, 62, 37–60.
Butler, R. (2007). Teachers’ achievement goal orientations and associations with
teachers’ help seeking: Examination of a novel approach to teacher motivation.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 241–252.
Butler, R. (2012). Striving to connect: Extending an achievement goal approach to
teacher motivation to include relational goals for teaching. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 104, 726–742.
Butler, R., & Shibaz, L. (2008). Achievement goals for teaching as predictors of students’
perceptions of instructional practices and students’ help seeking and cheating.
Learning and Instruction, 18, 453–467.
Butler, R., & Shibaz, L. (2014). Striving to connect and striving to learn: Influences
of relational and mastery goals for teaching on teacher behaviors and student
interest and help seeking. International Journal of Educational Research, 65, 41–
53.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement:
A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 473–490.
Clausen, M. (2002). Unterrichtsqualität: Eine Frage der Perspektive [Quality of instruction:
A matter of perspective]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
Deemer, S. A. (2004). Classroom goal orientation in high school classrooms: Revealing
links between teacher beliefs and classroom environments. Educational Research,
46, 73–90.
Dellinger, A. B., Bobbett, J. J., Olivier, D. F., & Ellett, C. D. (2008). Measuring teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs: Development and use of the TEBS-Self. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24, 751–766.
Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J.
Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72).
New York: Guilford.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals
and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 461–475.
Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Büttner, G. (2014). Student ratings of
teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student
outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 29, 1–9.
Fernet, C., Senécal, C., Guay, F., Marsh, H., & Dowson, M. (2008). The Work Tasks
Motivation Scale for Teachers (WTMST). Journal of Career Assessment, 16, 256–
279.
Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Lüdtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Sutton, R. E. (2009). Emotional
transmission in the classroom: Exploring the relationship between teacher and
student enjoyment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 705–716.
Gavin, M. B., & Hofmann, D. A. (2002). Using hierarchical linear modeling to investigate
the moderating influence of leadership climate. The Leadership Quarterly, 13,
15–33.
Givens Rolland, R. (2012). Synthesizing the evidence on classroom goal structures
in middle and secondary schools: A meta-analysis and narrative review. Review
of Educational Research, 82, 396–435.
Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual
Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576.
Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 541–553.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2010). Classroom environments and developmental
processes: Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement. In J. L. Meece
& J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Handbook of research on schools, schooling and human
development (pp. 25–41). New York: Routledge.
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the
new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development.
Educational Psychologist, 41, 111–127.
Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A., & Krapp, A. (2004). Interest, a motivational variable that
combines affective and cognitive functioning. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),
Motivation, emotion, and cognition (pp. 89–115). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related
to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,
105, 774–786.
Kenney-Benson, G. A., Pomerantz, E. M., Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2006). Sex
differences in math performance: The role of children’s approach to schoolwork.
Developmental Psychology, 42, 11–26.
 U. Schiefele, E. Schaffner/Contemporary Educational Psychology 42 (2015) 159–171
Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M. C., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher efficacy
research 1998–2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational
Psychology Review, 23, 21–43.
Klassen, R. M., Usher, E. L., & Bong, M. (2010). Teacher’s collective efficacy, job
satisfaction, and job stress in cross-cultural context. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 78, 464–486.
Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2008). Teachers’
occupational well-being and quality of instruction: The important role of
self-regulatory patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 702–715.
Koskey, K. L., Karabenick, S. A., Woolley, M. E., Bonney, C. R., & Dever, B. V. (2010).
Cognitive validity of students’ self-reports of classroom mastery goal structure:
What students are thinking and why it matters. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 35, 254–263.
Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic
motivational orientations. Learning and Instruction, 15, 381–395.
Krapp, A. (2007). An educational-psychological conceptualisation of interest.
International Journal of Educational and Vocational Guidance, 7, 5–21.
Krauss, S., Brunner, M., Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Neubrand, M., et al. (2008).
Pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge of secondary
mathematics teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 716–725.
Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Who is the expert? Construct and criteria validity
of student and teacher ratings of instruction. Learning Environments Research,
9, 231–251.
Kunter, M., Frenzel, A., Nagy, G., Baumert, J., & Pekrun, R. (2011). Teacher enthusiasm:
Dimensionality and context specificity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36,
289–301.
Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013).
Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student
development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 805–820.
Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Dubberke, T., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Brunner, M., et al. (2007).
Linking aspects of teacher competence to their instruction. Results from the
COACTIV project. In M. Prenzel (Ed.), Studies on the educational quality of schools.
The final report on the DFG Priority Programme (pp. 32–52). Münster: Waxmann.
Kunter, M., Tsai, Y.-M., Klusmann, U., Brunner, M., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J. (2008).
Students’ and mathematics teachers’ perceptions of teacher enthusiasm and
instruction. Learning and Instruction, 18, 468–482.
Lee, K., Ning, F., & Goh, H. C. (2014). Interaction between cognitive and non-cognitive
factors: The influences of academic goal orientation and working memory on
mathematical performance. Educational Psychology, 34, 73–91.
Lee, W., Lee, M.-J., & Bong, M. (2014). Testing interest and self-efficacy as predictors
of academic self-regulation and achievement. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 39, 86–99.
Lerkkanen, M.-K., Kiuru, N., Pakarinen, E., Viljaranta, J., Poikkeus, A.-M.,
Rasku-Puttonen, H., et al. (2012). The role of teaching practices in the
development of children’s interest in reading and mathematics in kindergarten.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37, 266–279.
Long, J. F., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006). Interested instructors: A composite portrait
of individual differences and effectiveness. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22,
303–314.
Mashburn, A. J., Meyer, J. P., Allen, J. P., & Pianta, R. C. (2014). The effect of observation
length and presentation order on the reliability and validity of an observational
measure of teaching quality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74,
400–422.
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure,
student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57,
487–503.
Meece, J. L., & Holt, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of students’ achievement goals.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 582–590.
Midgley, C. (Ed.), (2002). Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student
self- and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high
school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247–258.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E. M., Anderman, L. H., & Freeman,
K. E. (2000). PALS—Manual for the pattern of adaptive learning scales
(Unpublished manuscript). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2014). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
O’Keefe, P. A., Ben-Eliyahu, A., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2013). Shaping achievement
goal orientations in a mastery-structured environment and concomitant changes
in related contingencies of self-worth. Motivation and Emotion, 37, 50–64.
Papaioannou, A., & Christodoulidis, T. (2007). A measure of teachers’ achievement
goals. Educational Psychology, 27, 349–361.
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The differential impact of extrinsic
and mastery goal orientations on males’ and females’ self-regulated learning.
Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 153–171.
Pelletier, L. G., Séguin-Lévesque, C., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and
pressure from below as determinants of teachers’ motivation and teaching
behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 186–196.
Phelps, G., & Schilling, S. (2004). Developing measures of content knowledge for
teaching reading. Elementary School Journal, 105, 31–48.
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement,
and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46, 168–184.
171
Retelsdorf, J. (2006). Zielorientierung und Unterrichtsverhalten bei Lehrerinnen und
Lehrern [Teachers’ goal orientations and instructional practices] (Unpublished
diploma thesis). University of Bielefeld.
Retelsdorf, J., Butler, R., Streblow, L., & Schiefele, U. (2010). Teachers’ goal orientations
for teaching: Associations with instructional practices, interest in teaching, and
burnout. Learning and Instruction, 20, 30–46.
Ross, J. A. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In J. Brophy
(Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 7, pp. 49–73). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M. H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoid asking
for help? An examination of the interplay among students’ academic efficacy,
teachers’ social-emotional role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90, 528–535.
Sabbe, E., & Aelterman, A. (2007). Gender in teaching: A literature review. Teachers
and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13, 521–538.
Schafer, J. L. (1999). NORM: Multiple imputation of incomplete multivariate data
under a normal model, version 2.03 for Windows 95/98/NT [Computer Software].
<http://www.stat.psu.edu/~jls/misoftwa.html> Retrieved 11.01.09.
Schaffner, E., & Schiefele, U. (2008). Familiäre und individuelle Bedingungen des
Textlernens [Familial and individual conditions of text learning]. Psychologie in
Erziehung und Unterricht, 55, 238–252.
Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In A. Wigfield & K. Wentzel
(Eds.), Handbook on motivation at school (pp. 197–222). New York/London:
Routledge.
Schiefele, U., Krapp, A., & Winteler, A. (1992). Interest and academic achievement:
A meta-analysis of research. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.),
The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 183–212). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Schiefele, U., Streblow, L., & Retelsdorf, J. (2013). Dimensions of teacher interest and
their relations to occupational well-being and instructional practices. Journal for
Educational Research Online, 5, 7–37.
Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of
job stress and burnout: Mediation analyses. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 57, 152–171.
Schwarzer, R., & Schmitz, G. S. (1999). Skala zur Lehrer-Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung
[Teacher self-efficacy scale]. In R. Schwarzer & M. Jerusalem (Eds.), Skalen zur
Erfassung von Lehrer- und Schülermerkmalen (pp. 61–62). Berlin, Germany: Freie
Universität Berlin.
Shim, S. S., Cho, Y., & Cassady, J. (2013). Goal structures: The role of teachers’
achievement goals and theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Education,
81, 84–104.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.
Spinath, B., Stiensmeier-Pelster, J., Schöne, C., & Dickhäuser, O. (2002). SELLMO: Skalen
zur Erfassung der Lern- und Leistungsmotivation [Scales for the assessment of
achievement motivation]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Statistisches Bundesamt [Federal Statistical Office] (2008). Datenreport 2008. Ein
Sozialbericht für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Data report 2008. A social report
for the Federal Republic of Germany]. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an
elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its
meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.
Urdan, T. C. (2010). The challenges and promise of research on classroom goal
structures. In J. L. Meece & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Handbook of research on schools,
schooling, and human development (pp. 92–108). New York: Routledge.
Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and
achievement: A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65, 213–243.
Urdan, T. C., & Schoenfelder, E. (2006). Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal
structures, social relationships, and competence beliefs. Journal of School
Psychology, 44, 331–349.
Van Veen, K., Sleegers, P., Bergen, T., & Klaassen, C. (2001). Professional orientations
of secondary school teachers towards their work. Teaching and Teacher Education,
17, 175–194.
Wang, H., Hall, N. C., & Rahimi, S. (2015). Self-efficacy and causal attributions in
teachers: Effects on burnout, job satisfaction, illness, and quitting intentions.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 120–130.
Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (Eds.) (2008). Motivation for teaching. Learning
and Instruction, 18(5).
Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and
goal orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 236–250.
Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teachers’ sense of
efficacy: Their relation and association to teaching experience and academic level.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 181–193.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Student and teacher perspectives on
classroom management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of
classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 181–219).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wu, A. D., Li, Z., & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance
and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: A
demonstration with TIMSS data. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12,
1–26.