In this brief introduction, advice for James on how to motivate his Year 5 teachers will be framed by explaining the nature of goal, the dimension of the goal and how it should be set. Secondly, suggestions of the selection of Year 5 teacher will be given. Furthermore, various ways of rewarding the goal achievement will be mentioned while evaluating the role of James during the academic year and the application of goal setting. In addition, unintended consequences of the goal setting methods will be discussed and follow by a conclusion. Nature of goal, Dimension of the goal and how it should be set Refers to Locke (1990 and 1996), goal is an object or aim for an action is the definition of goal and it is something consciously want. Goal can be explained by internal and external factors , goals are thoughts with desired end internally and object or conditions sought externally while a job to be completed is as known as task (Locke 1990 and 1996). In this case, the goal of James is to boost his school average result in NAPLAN test (i.e. the 5 reporting sector ) therefore it is above the national average while the task is to select an appropriate teacher that is able to improve the results of the 5 reporting factors. Dimension of goals can be divided content and intensity and they are not easily separated (Locke 1990). Goal content means the actual object sought and psychological goal that an individual have (Locke 1990 and 1996). Content differs in qualitatively and quantitatively and degree of specificity (Locke 1990). A positive relationship between goal difficulties and performance is founded, the harder the goal is, the better the achievement (Locke 1996).
The second factor is intensity. Intensity refers to the depth of the goal, such as scope and integration of the goal setting process and the importance of the goal, etc (Locke1990). Goals can be set according to S.M.A.R.T. which means that goals must be specific, measurable, assignable, realistic and time-related (Rouillard 2003). A specific goal should be details enough to mention what is to be achieved and accomplished, too general statement is insufficient to motive workers (Rouillard 2003).A goal should be measurable which is quantifiable and provide a standard for comparison while indicate whether the goal is reached (Rouillard 2003). Thirdly, an attainable goal should be able to achievable while challenging, a goal with extreme low and high expectation is insufficient to motivate (Rouillard 2003). Realistic goal means it is practical, possible and achievable (Rouillard 2003). Time-related means to frame the goal with a given period, an out-dated goal has no effect on motivation (Rouillard 2003). In this case, James can set a goal like ‘improve 75% of year 5 students results with a grade improvement in the factors of reading, writing, spelling, grammar and punctuation and numeracy within one semester (6 months)’. Access of candidates
In this case, the aim is to improve the students’ results therefore teacher effectiveness is the main consideration. Teacher effectiveness is a measure of teacher’s ability to produce an academic growth in a given context and situation (Stronge and Hindman 2006 and Bailey 2006). Various sectors are needed for evaluation. (i) Knowledge/ Teaching certification
Richard has the highest degree compare to others and Richard is passionate about upgrading himself to a higher level. Moreover, Richard is familiar with the updated education syllabus as he has completed his bachelor degree few years ago. No specific information about Janice’s educational background is mentioned; it is assumed she has the lowest degree among candidates. Although Janice had attended some teacher training, she is not familiar and active about the updated educational changes and practices which makes her less competitive. Ivar has deep knowledge about psychology and enjoy high degree of reputation and he is a high achieving student which shows Ivar has adequate intelligence level. Refers to Mandeville and Liu cited in Campbell et al (2012), students who are taught by higher levels of teacher certification have better thinking skills and performance than the lower level of knowledge. From the above evaluation, Richard and Ivar are more knowledgeable. (ii) Personality
Richard is young, enthusiastic, active, ambitious and competitive; Janice is mature, sociable with good personal skills, passionate but less active than Richard and Ivar is logical and rational but not good at communication. Personality is not suggested as a standard for selection as there is no direct relationship between personality and achievement of pupils (Borich cited in Campbell et al 2012 ). More factors should be considered. (iii) Experience
Richard has few years of teaching year 2 and 3 but lack of experience on teaching year 5 and 6; Janice has the most experience among 3 of them and she has 5 years experience on Year 5. Comparing to others, Ivar has the least experience in teaching. Teaching experience is a valuable access however there is no direct relationship between experience and student achievement and teaching experience is only a predictor of student outcomes occasionally (Anderson and Doresett cited in Campbell et al 2012). More factors should be concern. (iv) Self –efficacy
‘A belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the course of action required to produce given attainment ‘is called self efficacy (Bandura cited in Campbell et al 2012). Richard and Ivar are very confident about teaching year 5 while Janice is less confident about her skills. It is suggested that students that taught by higher self –efficacy perform better on standardized test and teachers with low self-efficacy have lower expectation of students (Moore and Esselman cited in Campbell et al 2012) . To improve the grade of NAPLAN, advancement of languages and maths are necessary and a teacher with higher self-efficacy is critical as there is positive relationship between self efficacy and the performance of languages and maths of the students (Anderson et al cited in Campbell et al 2012). From the perspective of goal setting theory, an individual with high self efficacy is more willing to set and accept a harder goal while commit to the goals with effort (Locke 1996). Richard and Ivar are the better choice. After accessing the above criteria, Richard and Ivar are the better choice since both of them are highly educated and with high self efficacy but Richard is the best choice. Ivar is not specialist in education which shows concern of insufficient knowledge of educational practices while Richard has a better educational knowledge. Refers to Darling-Hammond cited in Campbell et al (2012) , the strongest forecaster of relative achievement compared to others is teacher’s certification therefore Richard will be a better choice based on the element of knowledge.
Methods to reward goal achievement
The goal cannot be reached by one party’s effort therefore Richard and students should be rewarded. Financial rewards and non-financial rewards are suggested and James should integrate them as a complete reward process in order to work more effectively (Armstrong and Murlis 2007). (i) Financial rewards
Merit pay program can be used once Richard reaches the goal. Merit pay is a system that increases the base salary of the employee who achieves the objectives of the business (Snell and Bohlander 2012). James should raise Richard‘s salary with a range of 7 to 9% in order to be motivate (Snell and Bohlander 2012). Financial rewards have no significant in students’ achievement thus financial reward is more appropriate for teachers (Robin 2012). From individual aspect, the increased salary allows Richard to satisfy various needs, such as; help his school fee for his master degree. Richard is competitive, while the financial reward is a tangible form of achievement recognition that satisfies his needs of ego and self- actualization (Armstrong and Murlis 2007). For school, the financial rewards enhance motivation, Richard is more willing to stay in the school and this benefits the school from retaining talents to teach Year 5 students (Armstrong and Murlis 2007). (ii) Non financial rewards
Non financial rewards are more effective in motivating (Armstrong and Murlis 2007). James can reward Richard by providing recognition, such as verbally reward with positive feedback, promotion and training and development. James can reward the students by praising the classes and providing extra-circular activities for students to relax and learn. Richard has his own mind in career progression, rewards such as promotion, allows him to reach his individual goal (to have a better career).If Richard is rewarded with training, more knowledge will be received and allow him to have a well preparation for his master degree. Non financial rewards shows recognition which reinforce Richard’s self esteem and self actualization. For the school, non financial rewards bring lasting motivation which maintains Richard’s motivation to work in the school and dedicate more effort for his teaching of Year 5 students. (Armstrong and Murlis 2007) The rewards motivate the Year 5 students to study hard in order to get a better result in NAPLAN. James’s role
According to managerial competency framework by Quinn, several roles from the framework are selected for James in the application of this case. James is a director, he has to develop a vision and set a clear goal and objectives for his teachers moreover he has to organize and design the whole plan to achieve the goal (Quinn et al 2003). Secondly, James is a mentor, he has to communicate effectively and share his knowledge of NAPLAN with Richard to develop his ability in teaching Year 5 students (Quinn et al 2003). James has to think creatively as he may have to draft new teaching strategies with Richard therefore he has to live and mange the change and his role in this process is innovator (Quinn et al 2003). James is also a co-coordinator, new ideas may suggested by Richard and James has to manage the projects and across the functions to ensure the Richard’s works can run smoothly (Quinn et al 2003).Finally, James is a monitor, performances of students should be reviewed regularly to keep the process on track while teaching styles should be monitored, for example, James can be a guest teacher in Richard’s class to see how the class runs and provides feedback to Richard (Quinn et al 2003, Mitchell, Ortiz, and Mitchell 1987). Feedback drives performance and motivation therefore feedback should be given frequently, James is able to check the progress of the goal while Richard is able to improve his limitations or retain his advantages (Latham 2007).
Unintended consequences Harder goals drive performance therefore James may set a harder goal for Richard and his year 5 students to achieve (Latham 2007). A harder goal is associated higher risk which may lead to worse performance compare to lower goals, for instance, a harsher teaching style is adopted by Richard but students may face extra pressure and lost their motivation in learning (Latham 2007). Secondly, goal conflicts may happen, such as, the school’s goal is vary from Richard’s individual goal which reduce the motivation and worsen the performance (Latham 2007). In order to reach the goal, James has to co-ordinate with other teachers with the class arrangement, this may lead to disagreement about the decision and conflicts between colleagues may result. With the new class arrangement, other classes need to adopt a new teacher or teaching style; it influences the academic results and motivation. Others teachers also need to cope with the new goal and assist Richard and principal in some points yet they do not get any reward, it leads to the problem of unfairness and inequality. Conclusion
To conclude, goal and task are strongly linked and dimension of goal is divided into content and intensity. A successful goal should be set according to S.M.A.R.T. After evaluation, Richard is chosen as the teacher. James could motive Richard and students by financial and non financial rewards. Within the process, James has multiple roles as mention before to ensure the goal is achieved. However, unexpected results may happen therefore James should consider more theories application solve the problem and achieve synergy.
Armstrong, M. and Murlis, H. 2007, Reward Management: A Handbook of Remuneration Strategy and Practice, 5th ed., Kogan Page Publishers, U.K. Bailey, K. 2006, Language Teacher Supervision: A case Based Approach, Cambridge University Press, U.K. Campbell, J., Kyriakides, L., Nuijis, D. and Robinson, W. 2012, Assessing Teacher Effectiveness: Different Models, Routledge, Canada. Latham, G. 2007, Work Motivation. History.Theory.Research and Practice, Thousand Oaks, U.K. Locke, E. 1996, ‘Motivation through conscious goal setting’, Applied and Preventative Psychology, vol.5, pp. 117-124. Locke, E. and Latham, G. 1990, A theory of Goal setting and Task Performance, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Mitchell, D., Ortiz, F. and Mitchell, T. 1987, Work Orientation and Job Performance: The Cultural Basis of Teaching Rewards and Incentives, Suny Press, U.S.A. Robin, G. 2012, Praise, Motivation, and the Child, Routledge, U.S.A. Rouillard,L. 2003, Goals and Goal Setting: Achieving Measured Objectives, 3rd ed., Cengage Learning, U.S.A. Snell, S. and Bohlander,G. 2012, Managing Human Resources, Cengage Learning, U.S.A. Stronge, J. and Hindman, J. 2006, The Teacher Quality Index: A Protocol for Teacher Selection, ASCD, U.S.A. Quinn, R.E., Faerman,S.R., Thompson,M.P. and McGrath,M. 2003, Becoming a master manager: A competency framework, 3rd ed., Wiley, New York.