Teacher enthusiasm: Dimensionality and context specificity

Abstract

Enthusiasm is considered an important characteristic of effective teachers. However, the conceptualization of the term in the research literature is inconsistent. Whereas most studies use the term “enthusiasm” to describe features of instruction, some have used it to describe a characteristic of teachers. This research seeks to clarify the concept of teacher enthusiasm, examining its dimensionality and context specificity. The study draws on three samples of teachers who were administered questionnaire measures of enthusiasm. In two samples (N = 205 and 332), it was possible to match teacher data with data on the students taught. In another sample (N = 113), additional measures of work-related wellbeing were implemented. Confirmatory multigroup factor analyses showed that two dimensions of teacher enthusiasm can be distinguished, namely enthusiasm for teaching and enthusiasm for the subject. These dimensions differed in their meaning and context specificity. Whereas teaching enthusiasm was systematically linked to occupational wellbeing and to classroom variables, subject enthusiasm related only moderately to other measures of occupational wellbeing and was independent of characteristics of the classes taught.

Introduction

Teacher enthusiasm is thought to be one of the key conditions for effective instruction and for student motivation (Brophy and Good, 1986, Long and Hoy, 2006, Witcher et al., 2001). Yet although the belief that good teachers are, first and foremost, enthusiastic about their work is both intuitive and widespread, there is a surprising lack of compelling empirical evidence to support this claim.

One reason for this lack of empirical support is doubtless the unclear conceptualization and operationalization of the term “enthusiasm,” probably due in part to its currency in everyday language. On the one hand, it is used to refer to a feature of instruction in terms of a motivating, energetic teaching style (Patrick et al., 2003, Turner et al., 1998). On the other hand, it is taken to mean the subjective experience of teachers themselves in terms of enthusiasm for teaching, which is implicitly assumed to become manifest in certain behaviors, such as a motivating teaching style (e.g., Long & Hoy, 2006).

This article focuses on the second interpretation and conceptualizes teacher enthusiasm within the framework of psychological theories of motivation. We first aim to specify the dimensions of the enthusiasm experienced by teachers and to determine whether enthusiasm is a one- or a multifaceted construct. Second, we examine how teacher enthusiasm relates to other teacher variables, and we investigate whether the construct can be differentiated from other dimensions of job experience. Third, we examine the context specificity of teacher enthusiasm. Is it a characteristic that is independent of the context, or is it a more context-specific characteristic that is affected by certain aspects of the teaching situation? Fourth, we examine the relationship between teacher-reported enthusiasm and teacher behaviors as observed from the student perspective. To this end, we draw on data from three samples of teachers who were administered questionnaire measures of enthusiasm. For two of these samples, it was possible to match teacher data with data on the students taught.

“Enthusiasm” does not have a specific, accepted definition in psychology, and it carries somewhat different connotations in different areas of research in educational psychology. Many studies addressing the construct have been conducted in the field of instructional quality research (e.g., Murray, 1983, Patrick et al., 2003), where enthusiasm is seen as a component of high-quality instruction that is reflected in teacher behaviors such as remarking on the value of the learning material, expressing their own interest in the subject, or having a lively, inspiring presentation style (Patrick et al., 2003, Turner et al., 1998). This kind of approach seems to have positive effects on learners’ engagement and willingness to learn. For instance, Turner et al. (1998) conducted video analyses of classroom discourse in mathematics education and found that students reported more involvement in mathematics when their teachers showed interest in the topics and highlighted the relevance of the content. Note, however, that research of this kind typically assesses teacher enthusiasm in terms of observed behavior (i.e., displayed enthusiasm), and that teachers’ experience itself is not assessed directly.

Research on the effectiveness of teaching in the university context has produced similar findings (e.g., Babad, 2007, Cashin et al., 1994, Marsh, 1994). In this context, enthusiasm is assessed through student course evaluations and is generally operationalized in terms of the instructor’s nonverbal behavior (e.g., animation, facial expressions, body language). From the students’ perspective, instructor enthusiasm seems to be systematically associated with other features of effective teaching, as well as with greater learning progress and higher interest in the topic (Jackson et al., 1999, Marsh, 1994). In the same vein, studies on teacher expressiveness and its effects (see also Babad, 2007) have identified and explored the “Dr. Fox effect”—the tendency for more expressive teachers to be given more positive student ratings, irrespective of their actual teaching qualities (Babad, 2007, Marsh and Ware, 1982).

The few experimental studies to have manipulated related teacher behavior (e.g., expressiveness of presentation) were based on a similar understanding of enthusiasm. These studies revealed positive effects of teacher enthusiasm on student willingness to learn and, in part, on learning outcomes (Patrick et al., 2000, McKinney et al., 1984, Williams and Ware, 1977). Further experimental studies examining teachers’ intrinsic motivation from the learners’ perspective have shown that the mere perception of teachers as being intrinsically vs. extrinsically motivated (without any actual variation in their teaching behaviors) can lead to increased absorption in learning and to enhanced enjoyment of learning (Wild et al., 1992, Wild et al., 1997).

In sum, findings from research on learning and instruction seem to underline the importance of displayed enthusiasm for effective teaching. However, from a theoretical perspective, enthusiasm is first and foremost a mental state with a strong experiential component (Long & Hoy, 2006). This positive experience can be expressed in manifest behaviors (e.g., an expressive manner of speaking or verbal expressions of enthusiasm) that are in turn reflected in observable features of instruction (e.g., engaging teaching). Almost all of the available studies on teacher enthusiasm have addressed the behavioral, instructional aspect of the construct, but there is a major gap in research on what is in fact the core component of teacher enthusiasm, namely teachers’ subjective experience.

A focus on this subjective experience seems an important addition to the literature, particularly as research on teachers’ classroom behavior suggests that how teachers act and how they feel are not necessarily congruent. In qualitative interview study with 30 middle school teachers (Sutton, 2004), for instance, nearly all teachers reported that they habitually suppressed negative feelings such as anger or frustration, and many reported that they perceived a strong normative pressure to display more positive than negative emotions in the classroom. A 1-year repeated measurement questionnaire study with 102 teachers (Philipp & Schüpbach, 2010) showed that teachers employ different strategies in performing this “emotional labor,” from simply suppressing the display of certain emotions to actually trying to change their inner mood. Particularly the first strategy is considered to be a risk factor for exhaustion and reduced motivation in the long term (Philipp & Schüpbach, 2010). These findings indicate that relying on observations of teachers’ behaviors may provide a skewed picture of their subjective experiences. It thus seems important to investigate both teachers’ behavior (i.e., their display of enthusiasm) and their personal experiences. The latter are the focus of this article.

If enthusiasm is to be conceptualized as an affective construct, it can best be assigned to the domain of positive emotion and intrinsic motivation. According to Pintrich (2003b), motivational characteristics such as interest and intrinsic motivation constitute a group of sociocognitive constructs that form one of the bases for adaptive and functional behaviors in the school context. What these constructs have in common is an experiential component of joy and excitement during engagement with an object or activity. This experience, which is often associated with a feeling of meaningfulness, is seen as a motor for engaged behavior (Pintrich, 2003a). A teacher’s enthusiasm for the subject or interest in a certain topic could thus be described as a topic-related affective orientation. However, the literature also describes activity-related intrinsic motivation (Rheinberg et al., 2000, Schiefele and Schreyer, 1994), which is expressed in enjoyment of certain activities or occupations. The extent to which a teacher enjoys teaching could thus be conceived of as an activity-related affective orientation.

Numerous studies on students’ learning behavior have found that both topic- and activity-related intrinsic orientations are important for adaptive and persistent learning (Eccles and Wigfield, 2002, Hidi, 2006, Pintrich, 2003b). In the same vein, research with adults has shown that intrinsic orientations (e.g., in the form of intrinsic goal setting or self-regulation) are associated with wellbeing and with long-term adaptive and functional behaviors in everyday and working life (Deci and Ryan, 2000, Reis et al., 2000).

This pattern of research findings suggests that the concept of intrinsic orientations can be transferred to the domain of teacher motivation, and that enthusiasm can be addressed from this perspective. In this article, we regard enthusiasm as an affective, person-specific characteristic that reflects the subjective experience of enjoyment, excitement, and pleasure, and that is manifested in certain teacher behaviors in the classroom. Moreover, we distinguish a topic-specific from an activity-specific component of the construct—in other words, we distinguish between teachers who attach high vs. low intrinsic value to their subject and to the activity of teaching.

Perusal of the literature further reveals that very little is known about whether and how teacher enthusiasm can be influenced and changed. Studies on intrinsic motivation have shown that intrinsic motivation emerges from an individual’s interactions with a specific context and can thus vary across situations (Deci & Ryan, 2000). This context specificity may well also apply to teachers’ enthusiasm, as teachers interact with different students, teach different courses, and may work in different schools—all contexts that may be more or less likely to boost or to undermine teachers’ enthusiasm.

Empirical findings on the context specificity of enthusiasm are few and far between. However, other findings from research on teachers provide insights into which contextual aspects may be relevant for enthusiasm. For example, research on teachers’ occupational strain has identified organizational aspects of schools and lessons (e.g., lack of support from school management or colleagues at the school level; large class sizes or “difficult” groups of students at the lesson level) as situational characteristics that increase stress (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). In terms of the conditions that motivate teachers, isolated findings indicate that teachers are inspired and motivated primarily by characteristics of the students they teach (Pelletier et al., 2002, Raudenbush et al., 1992, Ross et al., 1996, Stenlund, 1995). In fact, student motivation seems to be the main source of positive experience in the activity of teaching, whereas organizational conditions often play a secondary role. Evidence for the context specificity of teachers’ motivational orientations is also offered by research on teachers’ commitment. More broadly defined than enthusiasm, teachers’ commitment means their identification with their school (organizational commitment) or their profession (professional commitment; Chan et al., 2008, Firestone and Pennell, 1993). Several studies suggest that teachers’ commitment varies across contexts—in particular, across school contexts. More specifically, teacher commitment has been found to be higher in schools where teachers receive feedback on their work, experience autonomy, have the opportunity for participation and collaboration, have ample learning opportunities, and where resources are sufficient (Firestone & Pennell, 1993). Thus, it seems plausible to hypothesize that teachers’ enthusiasm varies across contexts—be they student constellations or school contexts.

However, it also seems plausible to assume different degrees of context specificity for the two dimensions of enthusiasm under investigation: subject enthusiasm and teaching enthusiasm. In the case of subject enthusiasm, the object (i.e., mathematics) remains identical across contexts. Thus, little variability can be expected across contexts. In the case of teaching enthusiasm, in contrast, the object (i.e., the interaction with students) can change markedly across contexts as different groups of student are taught. Therefore, more variability is to be expected. Enthusiasm for teaching can thus be expected to be strongly influenced by the conditions under which this activity takes place.

The present research examines dimensions and correlates of teacher enthusiasm—a much discussed construct that has to date been under-investigated. We conceptualize enthusiasm as an affective teacher orientation that describes the enjoyment, excitement, and pleasure that teachers experience for the subject taught, on the one hand, and for teaching that subject, on the other. Accordingly, teacher enthusiasm is assessed directly through self-reports and not indirectly via teacher behavior or student reports.

In a first step, we investigate whether enthusiasm is a one-dimensional construct or whether it is possible to separate the dimensions of topic- and activity-related enthusiasm, as is suggested by motivation theory.

In a second step, we examine how teacher-reported enthusiasm relates to other aspects of their job experience, drawing on constructs that are broadly used to describe teachers’ occupational motivation and wellbeing. Occupational wellbeing can be defined as “a positive evaluation of various aspects of one’s job, including affective, motivational, behavioral, cognitive and psychosomatic dimensions” (van Horn, Taris, Schaufeli, & Schreurs, 2004, p. 366). The motivational construct currently most widely used in teacher research is teacher self-efficacy beliefs—that is, teachers’ judgments of their capabilities to produce desired educational outcomes in their students (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Teachers experiencing high enthusiasm for teaching can also be expected to have higher self-efficacy beliefs, although it is important to keep the two constructs clearly separated: enthusiasm has a more affective character, whereas self-efficacy beliefs have a more cognitive character. Another construct frequently investigated in teacher research is burnout syndrome, which is characterized by the symptoms of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced performance (Maslach et al., 2001). This construct relates to the experience of teaching and is thought to have considerable implications for behavior. It seems reasonable to expect that teachers experiencing relatively high levels of burnout will describe themselves as less enthusiastic (although excessive [initial] enthusiasm has also been proposed as a risk factor for the development of burnout; see Schmitz & Leidl, 1999). Another broadly discussed aspect of occupational wellbeing is job satisfaction, that is, the general appraisal of one’s job situation (van Horn et al., 2004). The focus here is typically on the evaluative component rather than on the affective response, meaning that this construct can also be expected to be conceptually related to, but not identical with, enthusiasm. Finally, in order to classify teacher enthusiasm as an aspect of job experience, we seek to distinguish it from the more general constructs of life satisfaction and the personality trait of neuroticism. Teacher enthusiasm is expected to be less closely related to life satisfaction, as a general evaluation of ones’ life (Pavot, Diener, & Suh, 1998), than to job satisfaction. Neuroticism, one of the Big Five personality traits, reflects a general tendency to experience negative affectivity (Costa and McCrae, 1980, Watson and Clark, 1984). Low levels of neuroticism indicate emotional stability and a tendency to experience positive affectivity (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). Although a certain overlap between enthusiasm and neuroticism is expected, it needs to be established that the two can be distinguished, as the incremental value of the more specific construct of teacher enthusiasm would otherwise be questionable. In terms of the distinction between enthusiasm for the subject taught and enthusiasm for teaching, we expect job-specific measures of experience to be more closely related to enthusiasm for teaching—because teaching can be assumed to be the core activity of any teacher, the experience of teaching can be expected to be particularly relevant for teachers’ overall appraisal of their job situation.

The theoretical separation of subject enthusiasm and teaching enthusiasm has particular implications for our third research question, which concerns the context specificity of enthusiasm. Specifically, we examine the hypothesis that the context specificity of the two aspects of enthusiasm differs markedly. Subject-specific enthusiasm is theoretically close to the construct of individual interest, which describes a stable positive relationship between a person and an object (Krapp, 2002a, Krapp, 2002b)—in this case, between the teacher and the subject he or she teaches. This teacher–subject relationship can be assumed to remain the same, regardless of the circumstances under which the teacher acts (e.g., whether reading a book or discussing the subject with colleagues or students). Teaching enthusiasm, in contrast, describes the enjoyment of the activity of teaching. In this case, the “object” is the interaction with students, the quality of which may differ substantially across contexts. We therefore expect teaching enthusiasm to covary more closely than subject enthusiasm with the specific classroom conditions. Based on the available findings on related constructs, we expect organizational conditions and, in particular, students’ motivational characteristics and aspects of teacher–student interaction to explain different levels of enthusiasm for teaching. We therefore examine whether teachers working in different contextual conditions—in terms of class sizes, class gender distribution, aspects of student motivation and achievement, and disciplinary problems—also show systematic differences in enthusiasm.

In our fourth and final research question, we address the relationship between subjectively experienced enthusiasm and the enthusiasm apparent to external observers—in this case, students. In so doing, we aim to link the present research to the observation and evaluation studies outlined above and to examine, first, whether there is any relationship between teacher-reported and student-observed enthusiasm and, second, whether these relationships differ between the two dimensions of enthusiasm.

In the research presented in this article, we focused primarily on teachers’ enthusiasm in the subject of mathematics. Mathematics is a core subject that is of utmost relevance for students’ educational and occupational careers, but one that often polarizes students—as indicated, for example, by high rates of mathematics anxiety (Middleton & Spanias, 1999). Moreover, students often perceive mathematics to be a very rigid and rational domain that provides few opportunities for positive experiences and self-expression (Kessels and Hannover, 2007, Quilter and Harper, 1988). Consequently, teachers and their modes of instruction play a crucial role in determining students’ liking or disliking of the subject (Quilter & Harper, 1988). The proposed distinction between subject and teaching enthusiasm may thus be expected to be particularly salient in mathematics. We therefore focused on mathematics teachers in two of our three studies. At the same time, we expect the distinction to be applicable to all school subjects. In our third study, we therefore tested its generalizability to other domains.