AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANCY THEORY AS A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING THE MOTIVATIONAL IMPACT OF MERIT PAY FOR CLASSROOM TEACHERS

This study was designed to examine the utility of expectancy theory as a framework for obtaining a better understanding of the motivational impact of merit pay compensation plans for classroom teachers. Fifty elementary classroom teachers, selected from 7 school districts in Iowa and Nebraska, served as subjects. Five commonly used evaluation criteria for merit pay determination were identified via literature review, that is, classroom teaching performance, (CTP), professional involvement and growth (PI&G), human performance (HRS), dedication to the school and community (DS&C), and student test score gain (STSG). Separate measures of teacher expectancy and instrumentality were gathered for each of the five evaluation categories, and valence measures were obtained for two possible outcomes. The degree of relationship between the total motivational force score, as well as the individual model components, and the criterion measure (i.e., teacher predicted effort) was examined for each of the respective evaluation categories. An initial analysis of the results appeared encouraging: Significant correlations of moderate size (ranging from .34 to .50) between motivational force and predicted effort scores were found for each of the five evaluation categories. Upon closer examination, however, the valence component of the expectancy theory model was seen to largely account for the predictive power of the entire model. Teachers indicated strong confidence (expectancy) in their ability to meet the specified merit pay criterion of top quartile performance. Expectancy scores for the HRS evaluation category were found to be significantly higher than those obtained for the STSG and DS&C, while instrumentality scores for STSG were found to be significantly higher than those found for the PI&G, DS&C, and CTP evalation categories. Predicted effort scores for the STSG category, however, were found to be significantly below three of the four other evaluation categories