AD ALTA
JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
communication activities dominate (activities of students
accounted for only one third of all recorded categories).
In relation to motivation, D. Gogolová (2010) confirmed the
several times emerging research fact that teachers (N = 6) with
the traditional way of teaching achieved lower values of the
motivation index than teachers working in an alternative way.
Regarding these several stated researches using the micro-
educational analysis method, we would like to make a
conclusion using the words of M. Zelina (2007, p. 13), who says
that these, as well as other research, has shown very succinctly
that "... our teachers and educators do not know the theory of
cognitive function development, and do not use incentives for the
comprehensive development of cognitive functions and positive
motivation in practice. The directive style of learning process
management still prevails, with a few exceptions." It is therefore
legitimate to say that "... the implementation of a comprehensive
cognitive development theory, the non-directive guidance of
students and the introduction of positive motivation can become
truly a "silent revolution" in education".
Based on previously mentioned, we decided to carry out research
regarding the subjective understanding of creating motivation by
teachers to achieve universal student needs on a sample of higher
secondary education teachers. The results are interpreted in the
following passage.
2 Self-diagnostics of motivational influence of the teacher in
the classroom
As it is generally known about motivation that it is a challenging
category, requiring a higher level of researcher's knowledge for
its deduction (recording motivation in teaching requires an
estimate of a further context decryption) and it is known that
with its presence it is a desirable category at every stage of the
lesson. If the teacher wants to motivate their students in the
classroom, it is correct. But it is not correct to assume that it is
enough to make the students interested just at the beginning of
the lesson and then it will work by itself. Also, relying only on
the application of activating methods of teaching is not the best
way to achieve motivation during the lesson, because not every
method must address and attract all students. It is therefore
appropriate and correct if the teacher focuses initially on the
application of the universal needs of students, i.e. creating
curiosity, cognitive uncertainty, the need to think freely, etc.
From this perspective, it will be motivational for the student, if
they: "may proceed freely and independently in learning; may be
successful; is valued and honored for progress in learning; can
collaborate in learning; can express disagreement, resist, argue
and evaluate." (Rötling, G., 2002, p. 9).
Our research aimed to use on a sample of secondary school
teachers with a pedagogical focus (PaSA teachers teaching
pedagogy and psychology) to identify the extent of their
motivation initiatives in the application of the universal needs of
students. The given type of schools was chosen deliberately, as
these schools prepare their graduates in particular for the activity
of the teacher and educator in an educational environment, and is
therefore a type of school in which alternative teaching
approaches are much more clearly promoted and established, and
for which the graduates of these schools should be prepared by
their teachers, as well as other conditions brought to the attention
of teachers to achieve educational professionalism. We expect
from the teachers of this type of schools to have good self-
knowledge arising from self-reflection during the lesson and
adequate self-critical approach in an effort to improve their
motivational effect during the lesson. Teachers (N = 61) were
given the Teacher Motivation Self-diagnosis (AMU)
questionnaire, whose authors are Rötling – B. Sihelsky – J.
Valocký. The questionnaire consists of 20 items (motivational
incentives) oriented on the application of the universal needs of
students, and also create incentives for the self-regulated
learning of students. The results of the questionnaire are
interpreted through the following areas: the area of questions S
relates to motivation through the provision of freedom to the
student in their thinking and acting when learning in the
classroom; the area of questions U focuses on the motivation
conditioned by the student's experience of success in learning in
the classroom; area of questions O relates to the need for student
appreciation and recognition for their results in learning
activities; the area of questions K relates to the satisfaction of
social needs (cooperation, communication) in learning; the area
of questions M is aimed at creating a space for the development
of higher and critical thinking in students. If the teacher reaches
the score of 10 and 12 points in any part, it means that they
create very good motivation incentives in the relevant area.
Upon reaching 8-9 points, they create a good measure of
motivational incentives. With the number of points at 6-7 they
create poor motivational incentives, and if they reach 4-5 points,
the result shows that in the given area the teacher does not create
motivational incentives.
We processed the statistical analysis of the research results in the
statistical program SPSS 20.0 (Statistical Package for Social
Sciences). For a description of the sample we used descriptive
statistics, the results illustrated in Table 1.
For the statistical processing of data, we further used the analysis
of variance - ANOVA, which allows us to verify whether the
value of a certain feature that be can observe in an individual,
and allows us to detect a difference in the sense of creating
motivational action by teachers in different areas of the teaching
practice, has a statistically significant effect on the value of the
random variable in respect to the given individual in the
empirical context. We state the research results in relation to the
used research method.
Table 1: Interpretation of descriptive statistics
Factor
N
M
SD
SEM
Min
Max
Area
S
up to 10 years
25
9.72
1.838
.368
6
12
<10, 20]
13
9.69
1.843
.511
6
12
<20, 30]
12 10.08
1.311
.379
9
12
<30 and more
11 10.09
1.136
.343
8
12
Total
61
9.85
1.611
.206
6
12
Area
U
up to 10 years
25 10.44
1.557
.311
7
12
<10, 20]
13 10.23
1.691
.469
6
12
<20, 30]
12 11.50
.798
.230
10
12
<30 and more
11 10.73
1.555
.469
7
12
Total
61 10.66
1.504
.193
6
12
Area
O
up to 10 years
25 11.00
1.080
.216
8
12
<10, 20]
13 11.15
1.068
.296
9
12
<20, 30]
12 11.25
.754
.218
10
12
<30 and more
11 10.91
1.300
.392
8
12
Total
61 11.07
1.047
.134
8
12
Area
K
up to 10 years
25 11.28
1.061
.212
8
12
<10, 20]
13 11.46
.776
.215
10
12
<20, 30]
12 11.42
.996
.288
9
12
<30 and more
11 11.09
1.221
.368
8
12
Total
61 11.31
1.009
.129
8
12
Area
M
up to 10 years
25 11.32
1.069
.214
8
12
<10, 20]
13 11.54
.776
.215
10
12
<20, 30]
12 11.75
.452
.131
11
12
<30 and more
11 11.64
.505
.152
11
12
Total
61 11.51
.829
.106
8
12
The results of descriptive analysis tell us about the good to very
good creation of motivational incentives for teaching in any area.
Specifically, the achieved points score between 10-12 points,
which means that teachers create very good motivational
incentives in the area (note that it is still a subjective assessment
of motivational action by teachers), corresponds in area S to 39
teachers, in the area U to 52 teachers, in the area O to 57
teachers, in the area K to 58 teachers, and in the area M 60
teachers in the research sample. Upon reaching the score of 8-9
points, i.e. the teacher creates a good rate of motivational
incentives during the lesson, the results as follows: the area S is
represented by 18 teachers, area U by 6 teachers, area O by 4
teachers, area K by 3 teachers, and area M by 1 teacher. In this
case, we have already recorded a slight difference in the
- page 56 -