Page 57

AD ALTA

JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

representation of teachers within the perception of motivational
action in individual areas. Another category of points is 6-7,
which show that teachers create a weak motivational incentive,
was represented by teachers in only two areas as follows: in area
S by 4 teachers and in the area U by 3 teachers from the research
sample. We emphasize that the result of 4-5 points achieved in
any area, which indicates the absence of motivational incentives,
did not correspond to any research respondent. The results
pushed us to the application of the analysis of variance as a
statistical method (it is a method for comparing averages),
through which we wanted to find out whether and how teachers
perceive themselves in different ways based on the length of
teaching experience in terms of creating motivational incentives,
and which area this difference applies to. The findings are
interpreted in Table 2.

Table 2: Comparison of the research group respondents in
individual factors

ANOVA

Area S

.252

.860

Area U

1.863

.146

Area O

.260

.854

Area K

.312

.817

Area M

.857

.469

df – degrees of freedom; F – ANOVA;

p – statistical significance level

Table 3: Comparison of the research group respondents in the
factor of area U (LSD)

Area U

1 2

.209

.679

1.060

.045

.287

.592

2 1

-.209

.679

1.269

.036

-.497

.414

3 1

1.060

.045

1.269

.036

.773

.214

4 1

.287

.592

.497

.414

.773

.214

*. The difference is significant at the level of 0.05.

1 – up to 10 years of experience; 2 -

<10, 20]; 3 - <20, 30]; 4 -

<30 and more years of teaching experience

According to the above findings, area U is the one whose value p

= .146 is closest to the significance level α = 0.05 and we can
therefore consider the presence of differences. In view of this,
we have also analyzed the data by the Student's t-test statistical
method, which is used to compare quantitative variable levels
where the level is identified by the mean. The result is that
teachers perceive themselves differently in creating motivational
action only in area U (the area is aimed at motivating
conditioned by the student's experience of success in learning
and during the lesson), since the group of teachers with teaching
experience of up to 10 years in relation to the group of teachers
with pedagogical practice of

<20, 30] years reached p = .045,

and the

<10, 20] group of teachers in relation to the group of

teachers with pedagogical practice of

<20, 30] years reached a

value of p = .036, both of which are smaller than the chosen

significance level α = 0.05. By comparing the averages of these
teacher groups, we gain a statistically significant result for
teachers with a length of teaching experience being

<20, 30].

This is a group of teachers, who although have the highest
achieved mean value among the monitored groups in area U, i.e.
mean = 11.50, it reaches the value of p = .036 at the significance

level of α = 0.05, which is the evidence of differences in the
subjective concept of creating incentive action in the classroom.
The final result is that the subjective evaluation of teachers in
creating motivational incentives when applying universal needs
of students in any area (S, U, O, K, M) is very good.

3 Conclusion

According to S. Babiaková et al. (2014, p. 231): "At present, the
process of improving the quality of teaching based on improving
the quality of the teacher and their work is preferred. We are
leaving (in theory, although in practice it is not yet so clear) the
control, inspection and external intervention instruments and
emphasize the internal evaluation and promotion of teachers'
self-evaluation."

Based on the findings of good sides of motivational impact on
the self-diagnostics of teachers, we are to consider the issue that
arises from the results: To what extent is this subjective
assessment of the motivational impact by teachers actually
reflected in the classroom? Is this a subjective assessment of the
motivational impact creation by teachers in compatibility with
the assessment by their students? Thus, to what extent of
compliance would students express their knowledge and
opinions regarding the teacher's impact in ensuring that the
teaching is of interest to them? We are convinced that these
questions can be answered if the teacher endeavors to obtain and
evaluate feedback on the motivational impact during the class
from the students, for example, through a questionnaire. Of
course, the teacher also has another option, i.e. to use the micro-
educational analysis method. Micro-educational analyzes are a
tool to identify and improve the quality of school, teaching, and
according to M. Zelina (2007, p. 13), these challenging but also
most advanced and highest quality methods of learning, quality
evaluation of educational work should be used by "... school
directors, representatives of class inspections, methodologists in
lesson analyses, inspectors evaluating and checking quality, and
teachers themselves for self-improvement" in their work and in
the analysis of the educational process. Although S. Babiaková
et al. is theoretically leaving this method, we believe that it needs
to be popularized for use particularly by teachers who can carry
out self-reflection of their own work through a deeper
penetration into the knowledge of the lesson. The micro-
educational analysis method is identified as a tool that can be
used to explore and improve the essential phenomena of school
quality, and in particular, to make the teacher's self-evaluation
not only a confirmation of self-delusion, this method becoming a
self-recognition and self-improvement tool for teachers. The
interpreted results at this point open up the importance for
further research endeavors, i.e. to identify the level of the
professional fitness of teachers and see if there is any
relationship between the perceived professional competence of
teachers and motivation of students, and what is the impact of
the perceived professional competence of teachers on student
outcomes.

Literature:

1. Alberty, L.

Edukačné štýly komunikácie v pedagogickej praxi

: dizertačná práca. Bratislava : PF UK, 2002. 120 s.
2. Babiaková, S

a kol. Progresívny učiteľ. Autoevalvácia

v teóriách a výskumoch. Banská Bystrica : PF UMB – Belianum,
2014. 264 s. ISBN 978-80-557-0738-9.
3.

Dvořák, D. Efektivní učení ve škole. Praha : Portál, 2005. 142

s. ISBN 80-7178-556-3.
4.

Fenyvesiová, L. Vyučovacie metódy a interakčný štýl učiteľa.

Nitra : Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa, 2006. 151 s. ISBN 80-
8050-899-2.
5.

Gogolová, D. Účinnosť vyučovacieho štýlu učiteľa :

dizertačná práca. Nitra : PF UKF, 2010. 167 s.
6. Kruszewski, K. Najpotrzebniejsze zasady dydaktyczne. In

Sztuka nauczania. Czynności nauczyciela. Warszawa : WN
PWN, 1991. s. 263-267. Dostupné na:

http://www.kul.pl/files/154/Dziak/Kruszewski_cz_1.pdf
7.

Langr, L. Úloha motivace ve vyučování na základní škole.

Praha : Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, 1984. 112 s.
8. Nikodemová, V. Mýty o motivácii. In: Mezinárodní

Masarykova konference pro doktorandy a mladé vědecké
pracovníky 2014. Hradec Králové: Magnanimitas, 2014. ISBN
978-80-87952-07-8, s. 2062-2067.
9. Petlák, E. Pedagogicko-didaktické požiadavky motivácie

žiakov do učebnej činnosti. Nitra : Univerzita Konštantína
Filozofa, 2008. 186 s. ISBN 978-80-8094-340-0.

- page 57 -