University instructors’ implicit theories of intelligence, achievement goals for teaching, and teaching quality

Abstract

University instructors’ goals for teaching are important for teaching quality. However, studies examining factors that shape instructors’ goal adoption are lacking. Using data from 785 instructors, we investigated whether implicit theories (ITs) about the malleability of intelligence constitute one such factor. Following achievement goal theory (AGT) and Dweck’s achievement motivation framework, we analysed whether differences in teaching goals are attributable to differences in ITs, and whether goals mediate the relation between ITs and instructional quality. Structural equation modeling (SEM) yielded the expected relations between goals and instructional quality (positive for mastery and performance-approach goals; negative for performance-avoidance and work avoidance goals). As hypothesized, stronger endorsement of incremental ITs was positively related to mastery, and negatively to work avoidance goals. However, ITs were unrelated to performance goals. Indirect effects of ITs on teaching quality via goals were significant but rather weak. Implications for research and fostering teaching motivation are discussed.

Keywords:

• Achievement goals
• implicit theories
• motivation
• teaching quality
• higher education

Compliance with ethical standards

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee studies involving human participants and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and subsequent amendments. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Disclosure statement

We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.

Notes

1 To enhance readability, we use the term mastery goals to refer to mastery approach goals as the focal construct under study.

2 Research has begun to explore effects of different types of performance goals on teaching. As reviewed by Daumiller et al. (2019), performance goals can be differentiated in terms of whether performance is evaluated based on normative comparison relative to others, or whether one’s appearance as competent or incompetent is decisive. Importantly, their study implies that appearance goals are more useful for explaining differences in teaching quality as compared with normative goals, potentially reflecting a higher salience of appearance-related aspects of teaching under constant observation by students as compared with normative concerns for outperforming colleagues. We employed a measure designed to take these nuances into account, and focussed on instructors’ appearance-oriented performance goals.

3 The data reported in this article stem from the first measurement timepoint of a larger longitudinal study described in Daumiller and Dresel (2018) as well as Hein et al. (2019). The research questions addressed in this article do not overlap with those examined by the aforementioned publications.

Additional information

Funding

The research reported in this article was supported by German Research Foundation Grant DI 929/5-1 to Oliver Dickhäuser and Grant DR 454/8-1 to Markus Dresel.