Ивана Д. Ђерић, Институт за педагошка истраживања, Београд, имејл: ivana.brestiv@gmail.com
Душица М. Малинић, Институт за педагошка истраживања, Београд
Јасмина П. Шефер, Институт за педагошка истраживања, Београд
Иновације у настави, XXX, 2017/4, стр. 1–13

| PDF | | Extended summary PDF |
doi: 10.5937/inovacije1704001D

Резиме: Више се не воде расправе о томе да ли су потребне промене у области образовања, већ којe врстe промена су неопходне и на који начин могу да се одрже у будућности. Стручњаци истичу да је мотивација један од најважнијих чинилаца који утиче на примену, одржавање и ширење иновација током дужег периода. Теорија самодетерминације сугерише да би требало одговорити на базичне људске потребе током иновирања школске праксе, као и да се одређеним подстицајима развијају унутрашња мотивација и/или аутономни облици мотивације. Циљ ове студије случаја је био да се утврде кључни подстицаји за развијање и одржавање мотивације и унапређивање знања и вештина наставника и истраживача у процесу иновирања праксе у школи. Подаци су прикупљени применом структурираног интервјуа са шеснаест истраживача који су претходно, током једне школске године, учествовали у иновирању праксе у огледној школи. Подаци су кодирани и анализирани на индуктивно тематски начин, а налази су интерпретирани у контексту теорије самодетерминације. У наративима учесника доминирају три теме: (1) Примена спољашњих и индивидуалних подстицаја током иновативних пројеката; (2) Посвећивање пажње припреми и реализацији иновативних пројеката; (3) Развој и професионално учење образовних актера током реализације иновативних пројеката. У закључцима је потврђена теоријска претпоставка како је потребно да се одговори на потребе актера за аутономијом, компетентношћу и повезивањем током иновирања школске праксе. Изнето је неколико сугестија о начинима мотивисања актера за припрему и реализацију иновативних пројеката, као и за одржавање новина у школи.

Кључне речи: теорија самодетерминације, иновирање праксе, кључни подстицаји, истраживачи, наставници, школа.

Summary: There is no discussion anymore about whether changes are needed in the field of education, but what kinds of changes are necessary and how they can be sustained in the future. Experts point out that motivation is one of the most important factors that influences the application, sustainability and expansion of innovations over a longer period. The theory of self-determination suggests that basic human needs need to be addressed while innovating school practice and that certain incentives develop internal motivation and/or autonomous forms of motivation. The aim of this case study was to identify the key incentives for developing and maintaining motivation and improving the knowledge and skills of teachers and researchers in the process of innovating school practice. The data were collected by using a structured interview with sixteen researchers who previously, during one school year, had participated in the innovating practice in an experimental school. An inductive-thematic approach was used in coding and analyzing the data and the findings were interpreted in the context of the theory of self-determination. Three topics are predominant in the participants’ narratives: (1) implementation of external and individual incentives in the course of innovation projects; (2) focusing on the preparation and realisation of innovation projects; (3) educational actors’ development and professional learning in the course of the project realisation. The paper concludes with the confirmation of the theoretical assumption that the educational actors’ needs for more autonomy, competence and cooperation in the process of innovating school practice have to be addressed. The paper also offers several suggestions for increasing the motivation of educational actors for the preparation and realisation of innovation projects, as well as for sustaining innovations in school practice.

Кey words: theory of self-determination, innovating school practice, key incentives, researchers, teachers, school.

Литература:

• Abrami, P. C., Poulsen, C. & Chambers, B. (2004). Teacher motivation to implement an educational innovation: factors differentiating users and non-users of cooperative learning. Educational Psychology. 24 (2), 201–216.
• Assor, A. (2009). Enhancing teachers’ motivation to apply humanist information technology innovations. Policy Futures in Education. 7 (6), 662–669.
• Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2004). The relation of intrinsic need satisfaction to performance and wellbeing in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 34, 2045–2068.
• Bitan-Friedlandera, N., Dreyfusa, A. & Milgromb, Z. (2014). Types of „teachers in training“: Тhe reactions  of primary school science teachers when confronted with the task of implementing an innovation. Teaching and  Teacher Education. 20, 607‒619.
• Elo, S. & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 62(1), 107–115.
• Cave, A. & Mulloy, M. (2010). How do cognitive and mo tivational factors influence teachers’ degree of programimplementation?. A qualitative examination of teacher perspectives. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal. 27 (4), 1–26.
• Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning. London: Psychology Press.
• Deglau, D. & O’Sullivan, M. (2006). The effects of a long-term professional development program on the beliefs and practices of experienced teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 25, 379–396.
• De Jesus, S. N. & Lens, W. (2005). An integrated model for the study of teacher motivation. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 54 (1), 119–134.
• Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, R. G. & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist. 26 (3–4), 325–346.
• Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. & Williams, G. C. (1996). Need satisfaction and self-regulation of learning. Learning and Individual Differnces. 8 (3), 165–183.
• Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D., Usunov, J. & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations for a former eastern bloc country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 27 (8), 930–952.
• Džinović, V., Đerić, I. (2012). Nova paradigma profesionalnog razvoja nastavnika – podsticaj za inicijativu, saradnju i stvaralaštvo. U: Šefer, J. i Radišić, J. (ur.). Stvaralašvo, inicijativa i saradnja. Implikacije za obrazovnu praksu. Drugi deo cooperation (113–135). Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja.
• Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th Edition). NY: Teacher College Press.
• Gagné, M. & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 26, 331–362.
• Gorozidis, G. & Papaioannou, A. G. (2014). Teachers’ motivation to participate in training and to implement innovations. Teaching and Teacher Education. 39, 1‒11.
• Gorozidis, G. & Papaioannou, A. G. (2016). Teachers’ achievement goals and self-determination to engage in work tasks promoting educational innovations. Learning and Individual Differences. 49, 46–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.014.
• Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, T. & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Employee and supervisor ratings of motivation: Main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and adjustment in a factory setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 23 (21), 1789–1805.
• Ishler, A. L., Johnson, R. T. & Johnson, D. W. (1998). Long-term effectiveness of a statewide staff development program in cooperative learning. Teaching and Teaching Education. 14, 273–281.
• Kasser, T., Davey, J. & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Motivation and employee–supervisor discrepancies in a psychiatric vocational rehabilitation setting. Rehabilitation Psychology. 37, 175–187.
• Kensing, F. & Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory design: Issues and concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 7, 167–185.
• Kohler, A., Boissonnade, R. & Giglio, M. (2015). From innovative teacher education to creative pedagogical designs. Inovacije u nastavi. 28 (3), 116–129.
• Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F. & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits in children’s behavior: The differential effects of controlling versus informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality. 52 (3), 233–248.
• Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S. & Van Merriёnboer, J. J. G. (2006). Teachers’ perspectives on innovations: Implications for educational design. Teaching and Teacher Education. 23 (6), 985‒997.
• Korthagen, F. (2008). ‘Quality from within’ as the key to professional development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
• Lam, S.-f., Cheng, R. W.-y. & Choy, H. C. (2010). School support and teacher motivation to implement project-based learning. Learning and Instruction. 20 (6), 487–497.
• Le Fevre, D. & Richardson, V. (2002). Staff development in early reading intervention programs: the facilitator. Teaching and Teacher Education. 18, 483–500.
• Mladenović, S. (1989). Motivacija nastavnika za inovacijski rad. Inovacije u nastavi. 8 (4), 275−277.
• Noordewier, S., Korthagen, F. A. J. & Zwart, R. C. (2009). Promoting quality from within: Towards a new perspective on professional development and changes in school culture. Paper presented at the EARLI Conference, Amsterdam.
• 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.
• Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y. & Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology. 99 (4), 761–774.
• Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 43, 450–461.
• Ryan, R. M., Mims, V. & Koestner, R. (1983). The relationship of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 45, 736–750.
• Ryan, R. M. & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57, 749–761.
• Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory. In: Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (eds.). Handbook of self-determination research (3‒33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
• Schellenbach-Zell, J. & Gräsel, C. (2010). Teacher motivation for participating in school innovations – supporting factors. Journal for Educational Research Online. 2 (2), 34–54.
• Shulman, L. S. & Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: А shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 36 (2), 257‒271.
• Snoek, M. (2003). The use and methodology of scenario making. European Journal of Teacher Education. 26 (1), 9‒19.
• Stevens, R. J. (2004). Why do educational innovations come and go? What do we know? What can we do?. Teaching and Teacher Education. 20, 389–396.
• Šefer, J., Radišić, J. (prir.) (2012). Stvaralaštvo, inicijativa i saradnja: implikacije za obrazovnu praksu – II deo. Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja.
• Šefer, J., Ševkušić, S. (prir.) (2012). Stvaralaštvo, inicijativa i saradnja: Novi pristup obrazovanju – I deo. Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja.
• Šefer, J. (2015а). Motivisanost nastavnika osnovne škole za promene u nastavi. Nastava i vaspitanje. 64 (2), 285‒299. DOI:10.5937/nasvas1502285S.
• Šefer, J. (2015b). Inovativni rad nastavnika u Srbiji: podsticaji i prepreke na primeru pristupa „Trolist“. U: Lazarević, E., Stevanović, J. i Stanković, D. (ur.). Nove uloge za novo doba: prilozi za redefinisanje obrazovne prakse (71‒92). Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja.
• Van Eekelen, I. M. (2005). Teachersʼ will and way to learn – Studies on how teachers learn and their willingness to do so (unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Netherlands: Maastricht University.
• Van Eekelen, I. M., Vermunt, J. D. & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2006). Exploring teachers’ will to learn. Teaching and Teacher Education. 22, 408–423.
• Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: An international review of the literature. UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning.

Copyright © 2017 by the authors, licensee Teacher Education Faculty University of Belgrade, SERBIA. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original paper is accurately cited.