The Relationship Between Motivation and Performance of Teachers in Increasing the Quality of Education

Authors

  • Diana Nicoleta GEORGESCU Doctoral student, Valahia University of Targoviște, Romania
  • Gheorghia DUMITRACHE (TORCICĂ) Doctoral student, Valahia University of Targoviste, Romania
  • Mariana JOIȚA (LEAFU) Doctoral student, Valahia University of Targoviste, Romania

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18662/lumeneas/5.1/20

Keywords:

motivation; performance; quality; education; leadership

Abstract

Due to the diversification of the problems faced by teachers, especially in the relationship with students and in the relationship with the education system, maintaining the professional motivation of teachers has become increasingly difficult. The quality of education is the result of the interdependent relationship between motivation and the success of the teaching-learning-assessment process. The issue of performance is at the center of debate today as a result of new changes in education caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Educational performance is dependent on a multitude of factors, among which we mention: the teacher (professional training, motivation), leadership and school management that can contribute to increasing performance by supporting motivation and recognizing the teacher's effort. In this context, the education system must demonstrate its ability to provide quality pedagogical facts and processes capable of meeting the requirements of productivity, innovation and technological development imposed by current changes. That said, a new approach is needed in terms of managing school institutions and organizations, namely a new type of manager, a true leader who will focus on achieving the highest organizational performance that will automatically reflect on the quality of education. Motivation can be the essence of high performance because decreased motivation leads to less and less involvement and reduced performance in the workplace.

References

Doron R.,Parot F., (1999) [1991], p.513.

E.A. Locke, G.P. Latham, A Theory of Goal Setting&Task Performance, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Pretince Hall, 1990.

Gherguț A., 2007, Management general și strategic în educație – ghid practic, Editura Polirom, Iași, p.20.

Goldenson, 1983, apud Pânişoară, 2005.

Huffman, Vernoy, Williams, Vernoy, 1991, apud G. Pânişoară, I. Pânişoară, Motivarea eficientă, 2005, p.16.

JamesW. Botkin, Mahdi Elmandajara, Mircea Malița, 1981, ,,Orizontul fără limite al înățării”, Editura Politică, București, pp. 26-30.

Maican D., 2007, Managementul Resurselor umane, teză de doctorat, Universitatea Politehnică București, p.5.

Mayston D. J., 2003 „Measuring and Managing Educational Performance”, The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 54, No. 7 (July, 2003), pp. 679- 691

Olteanu (Andreiana) C.E., 2015, „Impact of communication on the building of the educational organization image and of prestige”, HOLISTICA Journal of Business and Public Administration, No.1/2015, p.64

Popescu D., 2006, Management, Editura Economică, București, pp. 186-188.

Tegegn B. Geribo, 2011, Education Management and School Improvement, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/180866

Zlate M., Zaharia R.G. Justiţia organizaţională. În: Psihologie organizaţional-managerială: tendinţe actuale. Iaşi: Polirom, 2008.

https://www.thecommonwealth-educationhub.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Quality-Standards-Rationale-Paper-Draft-V1-2.pdf , accesat la 29.03.2021, ora 17:37.

Downloads

Published

2020-12-21

How to Cite

GEORGESCU , D. N. ., DUMITRACHE (TORCICĂ) , G. ., & JOIȚA (LEAFU) , M. . (2020). The Relationship Between Motivation and Performance of Teachers in Increasing the Quality of Education. Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty: Economics & Administrative Sciences, 5(1), 38-44. https://doi.org/10.18662/lumeneas/5.1/20