Journal of Edvicational Psychology

1976, Vol. 68, No. 6, 768-774

Effects of Student Motivation and the Principal's

Values on Teacher Directivness
Dean Tjosvold and Ted Kastelic
Pennsylvania State University
Forty in-service and preservice teachers were subjects in a simulated organization study. They were led to believe that their principal valued either
collaboration with students or control of students; they also interacted with a
student who was either motivated or unmotivated to complete an assignment. Subjects gave more rewards and higher grades to the motivated
students and considered them more responsible than unmotivated students.
Contrary to expectations, subjects tended to be more directive in their teaching of motivated as compared to unmotivated students. As expected, subjects
with the control principal taught unmotivated students in a more directive
manner than did subjects with the collaborative principal. Results were
interpreted as supporting the argument that the values of colleagues can
affect a teacher's efforts to control students and his commitment to the
unilateral control of students.

Teachers must consider several, often

conflicting forces in deciding how to act
toward students. They must weigh and
manage their own values and needs, the
behavior and needs of the students, the
values of their colleagues, and the desires
of the community. This study investigates
two variables that are likely to affect
teacher efforts to control students: student
motivation and the principal's commitment to the control of students.
Teacher efforts to control students have
been a major focus of several classroom
observation research programs. Flanders
(1964), for example, classified teacher communication acts into direct and indirect
influence attempts. Direct influence attempts (e.g., criticizing the student and
giving directions) are defined as teacher
actions that tend to restrict student freedom of action; indirect influence attempts
(e.g., accepting the student and asking
questions) increase student freedom of action and perceived alternatives. In general, observational research has found
that indirect teacher influence attempts
are related to positive classroom climates
and student outcomes (Dunkin & Biddle,
Requests for reprints should be sent to Dean Tjosvold, Pennsylvania State University, 201 Carpenter
Building, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802.

1974; Withall & Lewis, 1963).

Although early observation research assumed that teacher behavior was the
cause of classroom climate and student
outcomes, it is now recognized that student behavior is likely to affect the extent
to which a teacher is direct and indirect
(Withall & Lewis, 1963). Yet we found no
research to support the straightforward
idea that teachers are more directive with
unmotivated students than with students
motivated to complete the learning assignment. Kipnis and his colleagues (Goodstadt & Kipnis, 1970; Kipnis & Cosentino,
1969) found in both field and laboratory
studies that industrial and military supervisors are more likely to use indirect influence attempts with a worker believed to be
unmotivated compared to one believed to
be motivated.
In addition to student motivation, the
values of other educators may affect a
teacher's efforts to control students. Many
educators believe that colleagues equate
teaching competence and the control of
students (Gordon, 1957). Perhaps due to
these organizational pressures, educators
have been found to become more control
oriented after student teaching and the
first years of teaching (Hoy, 1967, 1969;
Roberts & Blankenship, 1970). Willower
(1975) has argued that humanistic educa768

TEACHER DIRECTIVENESS

tors are committed to teacher-student collaboration because they believe students

are able to take the responsibility to help
plan the classroom's activities. Humanistic educators have been found to be more
indirect in their teaching than control-oriented educators (Rexford, Willower, &
Lynch, 1972).
Teachers who believe their competence
is being evaluated on their ability to control students may be directive and coercive
toward students, especially unmotivated
students. This coercion is an attempt to
make the students comply with the
planned learning activities. Teachers
whose competence is evaluated on collaboration with students can be expected to
encourage and support the unmotivated
student and try to identify the factors that
are preventing the student from performing at a more acceptable level.
Based on the preceding rationale, the
following hypotheses are proposed:
1. Teachers who believe their principal
is judging their teaching competence on
how well they control students, rather
than how well they collaborate with them,
(a) are more directive in teaching, (b) give
fewer rewards, and (c) award lower grades
to the students who are unmotivated. The
criterion by which teachers are evaluated
has no effect on directiveness of teaching,
rewarding, and awarding of grades when
the students are motivated. Since both collaboration and control imply attempts to
influence the student, the criterion for
teaching competence is not hypothesized to
affect the frequency of communication
with either a motivated or unmotivated
student.
2. Compared to a motivated student, an
unmotivated student induces teachers to
(a) be more directive in teaching, (b) give
fewer rewards, (c) award lower grades, (d)
communicate more frequently, and (e) believe the student is less responsible and
intelligent.
Due to the practical difficulties of testing these ideas in the field and to the
shortcomings of correlational field studies,
an attempt was made to investigate teaching behavior in an organization simulation
study. In the laboratory, the principal's

769

orientation and evaluation of the teacher

and the student's motivation can be closely
controlled, and the teacher's responses can
be adequately measured.
Method
Subjects
Forty in-service and preservice teachers taking
education courses at Pennsylvania State University
during the summer of 1975 volunteered to participate in the study. We had planned to have only inservice teachers participate in the study, but because enough could not be recruited, 15 preservice
teachers were included. These subjects were assigned the role of the teacher and randomly assigned
to the treatment conditions. The proportion of inservice and preservice teachers was approximately
equal in the four conditions.

Design
The hypotheses implied a 2 x 2 design. Student
commitment to completing the assignment (motivated or unmotivated) was orthogonally crossed
with the principal's orientation (control or collaboration) to form four treatment conditions. Confederates posing as high school students were trained to
act motivated by working consistently to complete
the assignment and by communicating to the subject
their enthusiasm and acceptance of the assignment.
The confederates were trained to act unmotivated by
showing disinterest in the assignment and by communicating to the teacher their rejection of the assignment.
The confederates in the role of the principal
stated that they valued either teacher control of
students or teacher collaboration with students.
These confederates conveyed to half of the subjects
that they had a control orientation by indicating
that they believed a competent teacher maintained
discipline over students and in other ways controlled
students. They conveyed a collaborative orientation
by indicating that they believed a competent teacher
worked cooperatively with students in planning the
learning activities.
The major dependent variable was the teacher's
communication with the student. Two raters classified these communications using Flanders's (1964)
observation schedule, with which they had considerable experience. They were unaware of the hypotheses and the conditions of the participants. Interrater reliability was computed by a phi coefficient
equal to .74. Raters were able to resolve their differences, and these resolved classifications were used
in the analysis. Participants also completed a questionnaire at the end of the session to measure the
grades they assigned the student, the money they
awarded the student, and their opinion of the student's capabilities. Measures of the effectiveness of
the inductions were included in this questionnaire.

770

DEAN TJOSVOLD AND TED KASTELIC

Procedure
To begin the first of two phases of the experiment,
one subject and a confederate (posing as a subject)
were led into a room. After they had completed a
form indicating their educational experience, the
experimenter assigned the confederate the role of
the principal because, the experimenter explained,
he had administrative experience. The subject was
assigned the role of the teacher. The experimenter
informed them that the teacher would interact with
a student and the principal would observe and evaluate the interaction in the next phase of the study.
During Phase 1, the subject and the confederate
prepared for the teacher-student interaction by
reading and discussing the instructions. The instructions explained that the students in the experiment were juniors in high schools from major cities
in the state. These students were on campus for part
of the summer in a program to prepare them for
college. The assignment they would be asked to do
(write a letter inquiring about summer employment) was determined by the director of this program, who considered this skill important for the
students. The director would be informed of the
grade the teacher gave the student on this assignment and would use the grade as part of his overall
evaluation of the student. In addition, the subjects
were told that since teachers typically have tangible
power over students other than grades (e.g., suspension, promotion, extra favors), they could determine
in part how much money these students received for
participating in the study. The student was given $1
for participating, but the subject could deduct or add
as much as $.60 to this $1.
After the subject and confederate had discussed
these instructions, the experimenter returned and
asked the confederate to complete a form indicating
his idea of an effective teacher so that, the experimenter explained, the teacher would understand the
basis on which he would be evaluated. The confederate completed this form according to the subject's
condition. The subject and confederate discussed
what the confederate had written so that the subject
understood the confederate's idea of an effective
teacher. The subject was told that, since principals
typically have tangible power over the teachers, the
confederate on the basis of his evaluation would
award the teacher up to five chances to win $20 in a
lottery to be held after all the experimental sessions.
The confederate was then escorted to another
room where the subject believed he would observe
the teacher-student interaction. Another confederate was escorted into the room and introduced as a
high school student. The teacher-student interaction was restricted to written exchanges; no verbal
exchanges were allowed and nonverbal ones were
discouraged. The subjects believed that the principal would read their written comments immediately
after the lesson and before the evaluation. An advantage of this method is that it provides an accurate record of the student-teacher interaction.
These written messages were later classified and
used as the major dependent variable. The confederate's behavior could also be easily standardized us-

ing this method. Subjects appeared to adjust to this

limitation quickly and usually became quite involved in the interaction.
After 15 minutes of interaction, the experimenter
escorted the confederate out of the room. Subjects
completed a short questionnaire to measure other
dependent variables and to check on the effectiveness of the treatment conditions. The subject was
then fully debriefed and given one chance to win $20
in a lottery.
Two educators (one female and one male) with
considerable experience took the role of the principal. Three youthful-appearing undergraduate females took the student role. They were trained in
special sessions and in an extensive pilot study to
carry out these roles. All confederates were unaware
of the hypotheses of the study. The confederates in
the role of principal were unaware of the subjects'
student motivation condition; the confederates in
the student role were unaware of the subjects' control or collaborative orientation condition.

Results
To test the hypotheses, (a) subjects
taught a student who was motivated or
unmotivated to complete the assignment,
and (b) subjects believed their principal
defined effective teaching as either maintaining control of students or as collaborating with them. Two questions on the postexperimental questionnaire were designed
to test the effectiveness of these inductions. Subjects were asked to write the
principal's definition of effective teaching.
All subjects in the control condition correctly indicated the principal's viewpoint.
Similar results were obtained for the collaborative condition with the possible exception of one subject who failed to answer
the question. On a 7-point scale, subjects
(M = 6.35) who taught the motivated student rated the student as more interested
in the task than did subjects (M = 2.26)
who interacted with the unmotivated student, F(l, 36) = 54.21, p < .01.
The first hypothesis suggests that the
teachers' efforts to control students are a
function of the interaction between their
principal's commitment to student control
and the motivation of their students. Subjects whose principal was committed to
control rather than collaboration and who
taught an unmotivated student were expected to be directive in their teaching.
The analysis of the data (summarized in
Table 1) yielded a significant interaction

771

TEACHER DIRECTIVENESS
Table 1
Comparison Among Means on Dependent Variables
Collaborative
teaching

Control teaching
.V.O...V -,,..,,

Motivated

Unmotivated

Motivated

Unmotivated

MLB

1.26
.81
.66
Motivation x Control*
Directiveness of teaching
1.02
.33
526 .25
Money awarded
36.0
43.5
-20.0
Motiv. vs. Unmot.*
8.5
4 .45
Grade awarded
3.4
3.3
10.2
Motiv. vs. Unmot.**
7.7
Frequency of communica34 .74
tion
11.7
10.4
15.7
Motiv. vs. Unmot.**
16.7
6 ,47
Student intelligence
2.9
3.3
2.3
3.6
Student responsibility
2.6
4.1
2.9
4.4
Motiv. vs. Unmot.**
6,,47
Note. Directiveness of teaching was measured by the ratio of direct to indirect communication acts. Money awarded is the
number of cents added or subtracted. An A+ grade was scored as 1, A as 2, and so on. The lower the score the greater the
student responsibility and intelligence. Students were rated on 7-point scales. N = 40, with 10 in each eel!. Motiv. =
motivated, Unmot. = unmotivated.
*p < .02.
**p < .01.

effect on the ratio of direct to indirect influence attempts, F(l, 36) = 6.00, p < .02.
In support of the hypothesis, the follow-up
test indicates that subjects with the control principal, compared to those with the
collaborative principal, relied more heavily on direct influence attempts when
teaching unmotivated students, (18) =
4.16, p < .01. No significant interaction
effects were found on the variables of
giving rewards and awarding grades. The
more powerful t test was then used to test
these planned comparisons. As expected,
subjects with the control principal awarded
less money, (18) = 3.92, p < .01, and lower
grades, t(18) = 3.74, p < .01, to unmotivated students than did subjects with the
collaborative principal.
According to the second hypothesis, subjects were expected to be more directive in
their teaching, give fewer rewards, award
lower grades, communicate more frequently, and have a more negative opinion
of the unmotivated students compared to
the motivated students. The analysis did
yield a main effect for student motivation
on subjects' directiveness, F ( l , 36) =
10.426, p < .01. As reported above, the
analysis also yielded an interaction effect.
Follow-up tests indicate that within the
collaborative condition, subjects were less
direct in their teaching of nmotivated
students, t(18) = 5A3,p < .01. Within the
control condition, subjects were also less
directive with unmotivated students than
with motivated students, but not signifi-

cantly so. These results do not support and

tend to contradict the hypothesis that
teachers are more directive with unmotivated students.
In support of the hypothesis, subjects
gave significantly less money to the unmotivated students than to the motivated students, F(l, 36) = 6.15, p < .02. Subjects
gave the unmotivated students, compared
with the motivated students, lower grades,
F(l, 36) = 70.47, p < .01. Results also
indicate that subjects communicated more
frequently with the unmotivated students
than with the motivated students, F(l, 36)
= 7.63, p < .01. Subjects considered the
unmotivated students to be less responsible than the motivated students, F(l, 36)
= 17.94,p < .01. Contrary to expectations,
no significant difference was found on the
subjects' ratings of the motivated and unmotivated students' intelligence.
No hypotheses were proposed concerning how the principal's values and student
motivation would affect specific categories
of direct and indirect teacher behavior.
The data broken down into these categories (see Table 2) do provide a more detailed examination of the teachers' behavior toward the students. It appears that
much of the variance on teacher directiveness attributable to the motivation of the
student is due to differences in the proportion of the teachers' (a) asking questions
(higher proportion with the unmotivated
student) and (b) giving directions (lower
proportion with the unmotivated student).

772

DEAN TJOSVOLD AND TED KASTELIC

Table 2
Proportion of Teacher Acts in Each of Flanders's (1964) Categories
Collaborative

Control

Category
Motivated

Accepts feelings
Promises/encourages
Accepts ideas
Asks questions
Explains/informs
Gives directions
Defends authority

.02
.29
.00
.15
.11
.36
.08

Note . The first four categories are classified as indirect,

Unmotivated

.10
.34
.00
.27
.10
.10
.08
the last three as direct

The variance attributed to the interaction

of the principal's values and student motivation appears also to be largely due to
differences in (a) asking questions (higher
proportion when the principal was collaborative and student Unmotivated) and (b)
giving directions (lower proportion when
the principal was collaborative and student Unmotivated). These differences
among the specific categories, although
not predicted, are consistent with and
seem to support the hypotheses of the present study.
Discussion
The results of the study suggest that
teachers can respond in complex ways to
pressures on them to control students.
Teachers' efforts to control students were
found to be determined by the interaction
of the motivation of their students and the
values of their principal. Subjects who believed their principal equated effective
teaching with the control of students, and
thus presumably tried to control the students, were found to be more directive toward unmotivated students than subjects
whose principal considered competent
teaching as working collaboratively with
students. This finding supports correlational evidence that teachers committed to
control are more directive than humanistic, collaboratively oriented teachers (Rexford et al., 1972). This result also indicates
that the values of the supervisor are crucial in determining teacher actions when
students are unmotivated. When students
are highly motivated, the philosophy of
the supervisor may have less impact on
teacher efforts to control students.

Motivated

Unmotivated

.01
.36
.01
.10
.15
.35
.01

.06
.28
.00
.20
.05
.27
.14

Hoy (1967, 1969) argued that beginning

teachers often develop a control orientation toward students because their colleagues are committed to the unilateral
control of students. Results of this study
suggest a process by which other educators' values can affect a teacher's philosophy. Teachers may act in a directive manner toward unmotivated students to gain
social esteem and tangible benefits from
educators committed to the unilateral control of students. Once teachers have acted
in this controlling manner, they are likely
to feel pressure to adjust their ideas and
attitudes to be consistent with and support
their previous actions (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959).
Compared to subjects with a collaborative principal, subjects with a controlminded principal gave the unmotivated
students less money and lower grades. The
subjects in the control condition are likely
to have defined their task as controlling
the student so that she would complete the
assignment. They may have punished the
unmotivated student because they felt
frustrated by the student who did not complete the assignment. Subjects with the
collaborative principal may have felt less
responsible for controlling the students
who failed to complete the assignment.
Moreover, since these subjects relied on
indirect influence attempts, they may
have become more involved with the student as a person and less interested in
punishing her.
Contrary to the original hypothesis,
subjects tended to teach the unmotivated
students in a more indirect way than the
motivated students. This finding supports
Gordon's (1957) and Henry's (1955, 1957)

TEACHER DIRECTIVENESS

argument that teachers often rely on indirect influence, such as affective interactions, to control students rather than on
formal power. The reliance on indirect influence attempts allows teachers to cope
with several forces: (a) the expectation
that teachers are responsible for controlling student behavior; (b) the belief that
a child's education depends on a personal
teacher-student relationship; (c) the
teachers' desires for personal involvement
with students; (d) the ineffectiveness of
formal power to control unmotivated, alienated students; and (e) professional
norms that prohibit the liberal use of coercion (Bidwell, 1965).
Educators' use of indirect influence attempts with unmotivated subordinates
contrasts with the finding that industrial
and military supervisors use direct influence attempts, including threats, against
unmotivated subordinates (Goodstadt &
Kipnis, 1970; Kipnis & Cosentino, 1969). A
check indicates that less than 1% of the
communication acts of subjects in all conditions involved threats about money. Although more research is needed, these results suggest that schools may generally
rely less on directive methods of influencing and coordinating organizational members than do industrial and military organizations.
Unmotivated students did not receive
consistently negative responses from the
teachers. Indeed, the unmotivated students received more frequent communication, and these communications were often
indirect influence attempts. Acting unmotivated, like other types of undesired behavior (Harris, Wolf, & Baer, 1964), may
provoke teacher responses that actually
reinforce the unwanted behavior. Though
demonstrating little motivation may have
short-term payoffs for students, it can be
very costly in the long run. Results
strengthen the observation that this strategy results in poor grades and negative
teacher opinions, both of which can reduce
the unmotivated students' future opportunities.
Several limitations of the present study
should be noted. First, all of the students
in the study were females; teachers may
try to control unmotivated male students

773

in a more direct way than female students.

Second, the subjects interacted with the
student over a relatively short period of
time. Perhaps if the unmotivated studnt
had persisted, the subjects would have felt
personally rebuffed and turned to more
directive methods to control the students.
Third, teachers often interact with more
than one student at a time. With more
students, teachers may direct their support and interest toward more motivated,
rewarding students and rely more on coercive methods with unmotivated students.
These limitations suggest ways in which
the antecedents of teacher efforts to control students can be further studied.
The emphasis on unilaterally controlling others, especially those in subordinate
positions, has been thought to pervade the
organizational life of schools (e.g., Waller,
1932; Willower & Jones, 1967) as well as
many other settings (e.g., Argyris &
Schon, 1974). Consistent with other research (Tjosvold, in press), results of the
present study indicate that this control orientation may be costly both to teachers
and to students. Teachers under pressure
to control may teach students who are not
highly motivated in a directive, dominating manner, a teaching style that previous
studies suggest may negatively affect
classroom social processes and student outcomes (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974; Withall &
Lewis, 1963). In addition, teachers pressed
to control students may assume responsibility for making students engage in the
planned activities and for making them
comply with the rules of the school. These
teachers may feel deeply frustrated by
those students who refuse to comply, and
they may seek to punish the students in
retaliation.
References
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. Theory in practice:
Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.
Bidwell, C. E. The school as a formal organization.
In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965.
Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1974.
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 58, 203-211.

774

DEAN TJOSVOLD AND TED KASTELIC

Flanders, N. A. Interaction analysis in the classroom: A manual for observers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan School of Education, 1964.
Goodstadt, B., & Kipnis, D. Situational influences
on the use of power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970,54, 201-207.
Gordon, C. W. The social system of the high school.
Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1957.
Harris, F. R., Wolf, M. M., & Baer, D. M. Effects of
adult social reinforcement on child behavior.
Young Children, 1964, 20, 8-17.
Henry, J. Docility, or giving the teacher what she
wants. Journal of Social Issues, 1955,11 (2), 33-41.
Henry, J. Attitude organization in elementary
school classroms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1957,27, 117-133.
Hoy, W. K. Organizational socialization: The student teacher and pupil control ideology. Journal
of Educational Research, 1967, 61, 153-155.
Hoy, W. K. Pupil control ideology and organization
socialization: A further examination of the influence of experience on the beginning teacher.
School Review, 1969, 77, 257-265.
Kipnis, D., & Cosentino, J. Use of leadership powers
in industry. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1969,
53, 460-466.
Rexford, G. E., Willower, D. J., & Lynch, P. D.

Teachers' pupil control ideology and classroom

verbal behavior. Journal of Experimental Education, 1972, 40, 78-82.
Roberts, R. A., & Blankenship, J. W. The relationship between the change in pupil control ideology
of student teachers and the student teacher's perception of the cooperating teacher's pupil control
ideology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1970, 7, 315-320.
Tjosvold, D. Alternative organizations for schools
and classrooms. In D. Bar-Tel & L. Saxe (Eds.)
Social psychology of education: Theory and research. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, in press.
Waller, W. W. The sociology of teaching. New York:
Wiley, 1932.
Willower, D. J. Some comments on inquiries on
schools and pupil control. Teachers College Record, 1975, 77, 219-230.
Willower, D. J., & Jones, R. G. Control in an educational setting. In J. D. Raths et al. (Eds.), Studying teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall, 1967.
Withall, J., & Lewis, W. W. Social interaction in the
classroom. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.
Received April 6, 1976