Group Goals in Teacher Team Meetings

Abstract

This study explored the phenomenon of group goals in teacher team meetings using questionnaires (n = 795) and in-depth interviews with teachers (n = 20). Drawing on achievement goals theory, we mapped the various types of group goals teacher teams may collectively pursue, uncovered their unique characteristics, estimated their prevalence, and investigated teachers’ stances towards them. We found that teacher group goals included establishing a sense of belonging (social goals), learning from colleagues (mastery goals), completing tasks (work goals), and demonstrating compliance with external agendas (performance approach). Social and mastery goals were the most prevalent goals and correlated with teacher satisfaction from their meetings. Work and performance goals were less prominent and correlated with teacher dissatisfaction.

1. Introduction

The interest in teacher collaboration and teacher interaction in school-based teacher teams is proliferating, highlighting the promise they hold for professional learning (Hargreaves, 2021; Lefstein et al., 2020; Trachtenberg-Maslaton et al., 2025; Rainio & Hofmann, 2021). Studies repeatedly show that teacher teams’ engagement in collaborative, critical inquiry of practice opens opportunities for professional learning (Havnes, 2009; Horn et al., 2017; Sarfati-Shaulov & Vedder-Weiss, 2025; Sedawi et al., 2023). However, empirical studies consistently show significant variance in the extent to which teacher teams engage in such interactions (e.g., Babichenko et al., 2024; Havnes, 2009; Little & Horn, 2007; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Weddle, 2023) and indicate that such variance is consequential for students’ academic performance (Ronfeldt et al., 2015; Vescio et al., 2008).

Scholars have recently started to empirically explore the conditions that shape teacher interactions in such settings (e.g., Babichenko et al., 2024; Horn & Little, 2010; Scott & Louie, 2024). In this study, we contribute to this body of research by taking a motivational perspective, assuming that the goals emphasized and adopted by a team (which we term group goals) may play a central role in shaping how teachers interact in team meetings and what they learn. Thus, we take the first steps toward conceptualizing and understanding group goals in teacher teams, drawing on Achievement Goals theory (Senko et al., 2011; Urdan & Kaplan, 2020). We employ quantitative and qualitative research methods to explore variations in teacher team goals and their characteristics. We aim to characterize the types of goals pursued by teacher teams, their prevalence, and specific characteristics in meetings.

1.1. Teacher Team Goals: An Under-Explored Terrain

Following previous studies (e.g., Van Gasse et al., 2017; Havnes, 2009), we use the term “teacher team” to refer to a group of teachers from a particular school, organized around a particular topic (e.g., discipline, grade-level) who have allocated designated time for collaboration. This term may be equivalent to “teacher community” or “professional community”.

Recent large-scale survey studies show that most teachers regularly collaborate with colleagues in a teacher team or professional community (Doppenberg et al., 2012; Ronfeldt et al., 2015). The enthusiasm for teacher collaboration is inspired by the promising idea of teacher professional learning communities (PLCs) and the empirical evidence of their positive effects on teacher well-being and student academic performance (Bolam et al., 2005; Bryk, 2010; Datnow, 2018; Ronfeldt et al., 2015; Vescio et al., 2008).

Literature on motivation repeatedly shows that motivation shapes processes and outcomes. However, research on teacher collaboration has seldom attended to motivational aspects. For example, two recent comprehensive reviews examined factors that support and hinder teacher collaboration: Vangrieken et al. (2015) synthesized 82 studies, and De Jong et al. (2022) reviewed over 50 studies. They identified numerous structural, organizational, and interactional factors shaping collaborative outcomes, yet found virtually no studies exploring motivational dynamics.

Following theories of motivation, which emphasize how goals and motives create qualitatively different systems of meaning and action (e.g., Ames, 1992; Deci & Ryan, 2000), we suggest that differences in how teacher teams collaborate might be related to how they collectively define the goal(s) of their meetings. For example, if teachers collectively view team meetings as aimed at learning from each other, they may be more inclined to share problems from their practice and embrace different opinions and views. In contrast, if they view the meetings as aimed at demonstrating professional performance, they may avoid sharing difficulties and prefer sharing successes. Moreover, teacher teams may meet in order to learn and improve their teaching, as envisioned by the PLC literature (DuFour, 2004; Hord, 1997), but they may also pursue other goals. For example, studies repeatedly describe teacher collaboration as a means to overcome the isolation characterizing the teaching profession (e.g., Achinstein, 2002; Glazier et al., 2017; Scott & Louie, 2024). Thus, teams may view the development of close, intimate relationships and a sense of belonging as a primary goal of meetings. In addition, teams may view the completion of work-related tasks as the primary goal of their collaboration (Eraut, 2004; Havnes, 2009).

While prior research has examined the importance of goal clarity (e.g., Alles et al., 2018) and shared goals (e.g., Truijen et al., 2013)—referring to explicit goals or purposes that teams (or their leaders) formally set—the construct of group goals addresses a different dimension. Group goals refer to the implicit, often unarticulated motivational orientations that shape what teams collectively value and pursue in their interactions, regardless of formally stated objectives. A team might have a clear, shared, explicit goal (e.g., “develop common assessments”), yet the implicit group goal orienting their work could be completing this task efficiently (work goal), learning from one another through the process (mastery goal), strengthening relationships (social goal), or demonstrating compliance to administration (performance-approach goal). Implicit motivational orientations—how members collectively define “success” in meetings—can shape interactions in ways that explicit goals do not capture.

In this study, we take the first steps to explore the phenomenon of group goals in teacher team meetings. To do so, we rely on the distinctions and conceptualizations of achievement goal theory (Senko et al., 2011; Urdan & Kaplan, 2020).

1.2. Achievement Goals in Formal Learning Settings

In this section, we introduce the concept of group goals. We then review five types of goals that individuals (or groups) may pursue in the context of formal learning settings, according to achievement goals theory.

Group goals refer to the collective goals and purposes of a particular collaborative setting (i.e., teacher teams). It tackles participants’ answers to questions like “What are we (collectively) trying to achieve in the meetings?” or “What are these meetings for?” The distinctions and knowledge accumulated over years of research in achievement goals theory provide the starting point for our exploration into teacher teams’ group goals, even though the theory was developed and applied primarily in classroom settings. Achievement goals theorists have focused on two main achievement goals, mastery and performance goals, both of which are prevalent in classrooms. While individuals who adopt mastery goals view their involvement in academic work as aimed at the improvement and development of competence and understanding, those who focus on performance goals are concerned with demonstrating competence relative to others (e.g., Dweck, 1986; Senko et al., 2011). Achievement goal theorists distinguish between performance-approach goals, in which learners strive to outperform others, and performance-avoidance goals, in which they strive to avoid doing worse than others or appearing less competent (e.g., Senko et al., 2011).

Other goals addressed in the literature include work-avoidance goals, or the attempt to complete academic tasks with minimum effort (e.g., Dowson & McInerney, 2001; Meece & Holt, 1993), and social goals—completing (or not completing) academic tasks for reasons of social solidarity and affiliation (e.g., Dowson & McInerney, 2001; Urdan & Maehr, 1995). Work avoidance and social goals have received relatively little scholarly attention and were found to be less prevalent in classrooms than the other types of goals (Dekker et al., 2013; King et al., 2012).

1.3. Expected Differences Between Goals in Classrooms and Group Goals in Teacher Teams

Previous attempts to apply achievement goal theory to contexts other than classrooms have shown that the theory is relevant and useful in explaining individual motivation (Butler, 2007, 2012; Daumiller et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2022; Lüftenegger & Muth, 2024; Ryan & Shim, 2006; Van Yperen & Orehek, 2013). However, these studies have also pointed to important differences in the types of goals pursued and their prevalence. For example, in her survey-based study of achievement goals for teaching, Butler (2012) surveyed 530 teachers from different school levels. She has shown that a new class of goals—having close relationships with students—is central to teachers’ motivation for teaching. Outside the classroom, Van Yperen and Orehek (2013) have applied a survey-based approach to explore the prevalence and outcomes of 2150 workers’ achievement goals in different workplaces, finding a relatively low prevalence of performance goals.

Based on these studies, we expect differences in the types of goals pursued in teacher team meetings and their prevalence compared to classroom goals. For example, since “learning” is not necessarily the official goal of workgroup meetings, goals other than mastery goals, such as work-avoidance and social goals, might emerge as more prevalent in teacher teams than they are in classrooms. Moreover, it can be hypothesized that when applied at the group level rather than at the individual level, achievement goals may have different meanings and characteristics. For example, what meaning might the drive for individual development and learning (i.e., mastery goals) have as a collective group goal? Or how will the attempt to demonstrate ability and outperform others (i.e., performance-approach goals) be conveyed at the group level?

1.4. The Present Study

In the present study, we aimed to characterize the types of goals pursued by teacher teams, their prevalence, and specific characteristics. Our analysis combined quantitative and qualitative explorations. In the quantitative phase, we estimated the prevalence of five group goals, as they are described by achievement goals theory, using questionnaires (based on Butler, 2007, 2012) completed by 785 teachers. This phase revealed that the goals that were salient in team meetings are different than the ones reported in the literature on classroom motivation. Therefore, in the qualitative phase, we further explored the specifics of team meetings’ group goals, using an open-ended, qualitative approach, based on interviews with 20 teachers. Through the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, we examined the following research questions:

• RQ1: What types of group goals characterize teacher teams? What is the prevalence of the different types of group goals? (Quantitative and Qualitative phases)
• RQ2: What are the group goals’ specific characteristics (nature) in the context of teacher team meetings? (Qualitative phase)
• RQ3: What is the teachers’ stance towards the group goals emphasized in their team meetings? (Qualitative phase)

2. Method

2.1. Phase 1: The Prevalence of Group Goals

2.1.1. Participants and Procedure

To assess the prevalence of different group goals in teacher teams, we collected teacher survey data from Israeli non-religious state elementary and middle schools. Teachers were participants in a national teacher collaboration reform endeavor. The reform supported teacher teams (three to ten teachers each) regularly meeting within their schools to discuss pedagogical issues. The team meetings were facilitated by a leading teacher from within the team. Each school had 2–5 teams, organized by discipline (e.g., math or science team), grade level (e.g., 1st–2nd grade team), or pedagogical foci (e.g., assessment or classroom climate). Leading teachers received bi-weekly group training focused on building a learning community and facilitating professional discourse. They had autonomy in setting the goals for their team meetings and choosing their content and form without inspection.

A total of 785 teachers completed the survey. Their ages ranged from 20 to 65 (M = 39.20, SD = 9.51); 86.1% were female and 13.9% male. Teaching experience ranged from one to 43 years (M = 11.64, SD = 9.81). Surveys were anonymously administered at the schools by the research team. Ethics approval was obtained from the Ministry of Education and the university ethics committee, and informed consent was obtained from each participant.

2.1.2. Measures and Analysis

For this study, we developed the Group Goals in Team Meetings (GGTM) questionnaire, drawing on the Goal Orientations for Teaching Questionnaire (Butler, 2007, 2012). The development included first adjusting Butler’s stem and items to the context of team meetings and the collective nature of group goals. While Butler’s questionnaire asks teachers to rate how they perceive a successful teaching day, our survey asks them to rate how their team perceives a successful meeting, using the following stem: “Different teacher teams have different perceptions about what is important in team collaboration and what goals it aims to promote. Please rate for each of the following items the extent to which it describes what your team values as an important goal for the team’s meetings.” Accordingly, we revised the items. For example, if Butler’s item referred to developing relationships with students (social goals), we revised it to refer to developing relationships with other teachers. Then, three achievement goals researchers reviewed the questionnaire to ensure face validity. Finally, the items were comprehension validated by using the cognitive pre-testing procedure (Karabenick et al., 2007) with four teachers (experience ranging from four to 17 years).

Teachers rated their agreement on a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 (do not agree at all) to 5 (agree completely). Four items measured mastery group goals (e.g., “To learn new things about ourselves, about teaching, and about learning”), three measured performance-approach goals (e.g., “To acknowledge excellent teachers”), three measured performance-avoidance goals (e.g., “To avoid exposing difficulties in teaching”), three measured work-avoidance goals (e.g., “To reduce teachers’ workload”), and three measured social goals (e.g., “To develop good relationships between teachers”). The questionnaires were delivered in Hebrew (revised from the original Butler’s measure developed in Hebrew). For full measure, see Appendix A.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the convergence of items into factors. The measurement model included five latent factors pertaining to five goals. Results indicated an adequate fit to the data, χ2(67) = 218.85, p < 0.001, NFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.07. All items had significant loadings (ranging from 0.61 to 0.92) on their respective latent factors (see Appendix B), thus validating the measurement model. Each variable was calculated by averaging all relevant items: mastery group goals (α = 0.82), performance-approach goals (α = 0.84), performance-avoidance goals (α = 0.74), work-avoidance goals (α = 0.80), and social goals (α = 0.84). For the full set of items and validity measures, see Appendix B.

To examine the salience of the different types of group goals in team meetings, we used one-way ANOVA with repeated measures, followed by post hoc comparisons with Bonferroni corrections.

2.2. Phase 2: In-Depth Qualitative Analysis of Group Goals

2.2.1. Participants

To deepen our understanding of the specifics of teacher group goals, in this phase, we interviewed 20 teachers who participated during that academic year in a school-based, teacher-led team, which met regularly, but did not participate in the reform effort mentioned above. We recruited interviewees through social media (Whatsapp and Facebook) of regional teacher groups and teacher preparation alumni groups. The call asked for teachers to voluntarily share their experiences and thoughts from their school-based team meetings in a 30-min interview. The recruitment method yielded a highly diverse sample of 20 teachers (13 females and 7 males), with different levels of experience (7 teachers with more than15 years of experience, 3 with less than 5 years, and 10 with 5–15 years), as well as varying school levels (6 elementary, 4 middle school, and 10 high-school teachers). The types of teams they discussed were equally varied, including 7 disciplinary teams (e.g., science, English, history), 6 grade-level teams, 3 whole-school teams, and 4 other types of teams. We view the broader scope of school-based teacher-led teams in this phase as an advantage, enabling a richer characterization of teacher teams’ group goals across diverse educational contexts. While this diversity limits our ability to make context-specific claims, it enhances the ecological validity and potential generalizability of our findings regarding the core phenomenon of group goals in teacher collaboration. For more details on the sample, see Appendix C (All the names in

Table A3. Interviewees’ Background Details: Gender, Teaching experience, school level, type of team) (Names in Table A3 are pseudonyms).

Interviewee #	Name	Gender	Teaching Experience	Teaching Domain	School Level	Type of Team
1	Anat	Female	5–15 years	Special education	Elementary	Whole school
2	Aya	Female	<5 years	English	Elementary	English team
3	Dafna	Female	>15 years	School counsellor	Middle high school	Management
4	Erez	Male	5–15 years	Philosophy, social studies & homeroom	High school	11-th grade
5	Haj	Male	5–15 years	Mathematics	Elementary	Whole school
6	Idan	Male	5–15 years	Physical ed. & homeroom	Middle high school	10-th grade
7	Iris	Female	5–15 years	Homeroom	High school	Homeroom teachers
8	Itzik	Male	<5 years	English	Middle high school	English
9	Limor	Female	>15 years	Biology & homeroom	High school	11-th grade
10	Merav	Female	>15 years	Language arts	Elementary	Language arts
11	Naama	Female	<5 years	Philosophy & homeroom	High school	11-th grade
12	Nati	Male	>15 years	Physical ed.	High school	Interdisciplinary
13	Noa	Female	<5 years	Science	Middle high school	Science team
14	Rami	Male	5–15 years	Media arts & homeroom	High school	12-th grade
15	Rivki	Female	>15 years	Biology	High school	Science team
16	Sari	Female	>15 years	Language arts	Elementary	Whole school
17	Tali	Female	>15 years	Mathematics	Elementary	Mathematics
18	Tamar	Female	5–15 years	Social studies & history	High school	Social studies
19	Tirtza	Female	5–15 years	School councelor	High school	Interdisciplinary
20	Tom	Male	5–15 years	History	High school	Matriculation tests

, and hereafter are pseudonyms). Participating teachers signed an informed consent and were promised confidentiality.

2.2.2. Data Collection

Data collection included a semi-structured 25–45 min interview, conducted in Hebrew by the first author. After a short introduction, in which the interviewer described the aim of the study and asked several background questions, the teachers were asked to focus on one school-based, teacher-led, regularly meeting team of which they were a member in the current academic year. The interview protocol was developed based on the assumption that group goals (i.e., the answer to the question: “What is it that we as a group try to achieve in team meetings?”) are rarely explicitly addressed in team meetings and therefore will not be easily elicited. Thus, the interviewer did not immediately target group goals but led the interviewees through a process of (1) describing the routines of their team meetings and their stance towards these routines; (2) describing their own goals for the team meetings; (3) describing other team members’ goals. Then, the interviewer introduced the concept of “group goals” to the interviewees (“Different teams may collectively adopt and pursue different goals; some of these goals may be explicitly introduced, while others might be more implicit. Team meetings may be held in order to pursue various goals”). Assuming that articulating group goals might be a complex task for the interviewees, at this stage, the interviewer provided six prompts representing different goals fully taken or slightly adapted from items in the GGTM questionnaire and asked them to rate (on a scale of 1–10) the extent to which each was an important goal for their team: (1) to complete tasks and reduce future workload; (2) to learn from each other and improve teaching; (3) to develop good and close relationships among teachers; (4) to demonstrate (to other participants) we are good teachers; (5) to demonstrate we are a good team of teachers; and (6) to avoid revealing difficulties in teaching. Prompts 4 and 5 were aimed at targeting two possible meanings of the performance approach, in the context of team meetings: demonstrating individual performance (prompt 4) vs. demonstrating collective performance (prompt 5). For each goal the interviewee rated as relevant to their team (even to a small extent), the interviewer asked for further elaboration and demonstration of the way the goal was manifested in team meetings.

2.2.3. Data Analysis

The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed by the first author. To identify the types of goals in team meetings and their specific characteristics (RQ1 and RQ2), we applied a hybrid Thematic Analysis approach (e.g., Proudfoot, 2023; Xu & Zammit, 2020). Hybrid thematic analysis combines a deductive (theory-driven) and an inductive (data-driven) approach for generating themes. It is considered useful in contexts where existing theory might offer a helpful but incomplete fit, ensuring that the voices of the participants are also valued (Proudfoot, 2023).

We took the following analytical steps (guided by Braun & Clarke, 2006):

• Identifying data extracts: The first author identified all data extracts (from both the unprompted and prompted sections of the interview) in which the interviewees described their own, others’, or group goals in their meetings. This step yielded a total of 65 extracts.
• Deductive coding (driven by achievement goal theory): We read each extract identified in Step 1 and examined whether it corresponded with one of the achievement goals or should be categorized as “other goals”. This step yielded a corpus of extracts classified according to the goals interviewees described.

  Table 1. Illustrative Interview Excerpts for Each Type of Achievement Goals.

  Type of Achievement Goals	Examples of Raw Interview Data Excerpts
  Mastery goals	A successful meeting is a meeting in which we learned something new and good. And another thing, that all group members felt comfortable expressing their own point of view. In a successful meeting, everyone participates, everyone talks, and everyone says something.
  Social goals	It is also very important to us to get the feeling that we are a part of a group, that we are not alone. We don’t want to feel that we work alone and that we are alone in the system, because throughout the day, you are alone.
  Performance approach goals	Of course, it is one of our goals! To demonstrate that we are together, that we work together, that we want to advance our learning… I told you earlier about the visit of a PD center coordinator to our team meeting, it was very important for us to show him that we do improve our teaching together.
  Work-avoidance goals	The team meetings focused mainly on administrative issues… The Leading teacher was not interested in what is going on in our classrooms. In the meetings she mainly told us what the school wants us to do and we were doing it. Let’s decide on the test date. Give me dates. Have you already done the quiz? The teachers felt that in these meetings they only get more work. We wanted to use this time slot, to finish these tasks.

  provides illustrative examples of how interview data mapped onto each goal category.
• Theme identification and refinement: The excerpts in each (deductively coded) goal category were inductively coded, similar codes were collated, and recurrent themes were identified and reviewed. During this iterative phase, codes and themes were repeatedly discussed with the second author. An overview of the themes is presented in

  Table 2. Overview of the goal description themes.

  Group Goal	Goal Description Themes
  Social	Developing close relationships with colleagues
  Mastery	Participating in meaningful dialogue with colleagues
  Work goals	Completing work-related tasks
  Performance approach	Demonstrating compliance with externally dictated goals Recognizing individual teachers’ professional performance

  .

To shed light on the prominence of the different types of goals in team meetings (RQ1) and on teachers’ stance on them (RQ3), we recoded the ratings per goal made by each interviewee in the prompted part of the interview: ratings 7–10 were categorized as “high prominence”, and ratings 0–3 were categorized as “low prominence”. Similarly, the interviewees’ answers to the question on their stance towards their team meetings were categorized as low, moderate, or high satisfaction. This enabled us to create a profile of multiple group goals per interviewee (see Appendix D) and to examine the association between interviewees’ stances on their team meetings and their group goal profiles. While we acknowledge the limitations of our small, unrepresentative sample, we suggest these ratings and the associations between them provide a foundational understanding for future larger-scale research.

3. Findings

3.1. Phase 1: The Prevalence of Group Goals

The analysis revealed significant differences between all the group goals (F(4,752) = 457.73, p < 0.001). As shown in

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations between Types of Group Goals.

	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Social goals	4.38	0.70	1
2. Mastery goals	4.22	0.63	0.67 ***	1
3. Performance-ap. Goals	3.80	0.84	0.48 ***	0.43 ***	1
4. Performance-av. Goals	2.38	1.04	−0.16 **	−0.20 ***	0.23 ***	1
5. Work-avoidance goals	2.94	1.09	0.10	0.01	0.33 ***	0.43 ***	1

** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

, teachers rated social and mastery goals as the most salient (M = 4.38 and M = 4.22, respectively). They rated performance-approach goals as valued by their teams on a medium level (M = 3.80) and performance-avoidance and work-avoidance goals as more rarely emphasized (M = 2.38 and M = 2.94, respectively). The high prominence of social and mastery goals aligned with the emphasis of the reform effort on building a learning community, stressing both “community” and “learning”.

3.2. Phase 2: In-Depth Analysis of Group Goals

3.2.1. Types of Group Goals in Teacher Teams and Their Prominence

Types of Group Goals. Using the five-goal model derived from achievement goal theory, we explored the extent to which these goals were relevant to and comprehensive of group goals in teacher teams. In other words, we investigated: (1) whether any additional goals specific to teacher teams but not included in this model would be revealed by the interviews; (2) whether any goals in the model were of little relevance to teacher teams. With respect to the first question, the deductive coding of goal descriptions (phase 2 of the analysis) validated the comprehensiveness of achievement goals theory for understanding group goals in teacher teams. Only four out of 65 interview extracts (6%) could not be categorized into one of the achievement goal types. Importantly, these four extracts did not reveal additional group goal types but rather reflected individual teachers’ lack of motivation to participate in meetings—a conceptually distinct phenomenon from the collective goals a team pursues. This high categorization rate (94%) suggests the set of goals provided by achievement goal theory effectively captures the range of group goals articulated by our interviewees, supporting the validity of applying this framework to collaborative teacher team contexts. As for the second question, the interviewees’ ratings of the relevance of different types of (prompted) group goals to their team meetings revealed that none of the interviewees attributed performance-avoidance goals to the team, suggesting this type of goal might be marginal or even irrelevant to teacher teams.

The following four types of group goals were found to be pertinent to teacher teams: mastery, work-avoidance, social, and demonstrating team performance. However, as we describe in the following sections, both the characteristics of these group goals and their relative prominence seem to significantly differ from what is known about achievement goals in classrooms.

Prominence of Group Goals. The findings suggest an emphasis on social goals is typical of teacher teams; it was rated as highly prominent (scored 7–10) by 60% of the interviewees (

Table 4. Percentage (and Number) of Interviewees Rating the Goal as Highly Prominent in Team Meetings (scored higher than 7 on 1–10 scale).

Type of Group Goal	% (and n) of Interviewees Who Rated the Goal Higher Than 7
Social	60% (12)
Mastery	55% (11)
Work avoidance	40% (8)
Performance approach (team-level)	25% (5)
Performance approach (indiv. level)	10% (2)
Performance avoidance	0% (0)

). Mastery and work-avoidance goals were also quite frequently reported as emphasized in team meetings (55% and 40% of teacher teams, respectively). In contrast, emphasis on performance approach goals seems less typical. Only 25% of the interviewees reported striving to demonstrate the team’s performance as characterizing their team meetings, and only 10% reported that demonstrating individual performance is a goal in their team meetings. None of the interviewees mentioned performance-avoidance.

3.2.2. Specific Characteristics of Group Goals in Teacher Teams

Despite the basic fit of the achievement goal model to the context of group goals in teacher teams, inductive analysis of the way teachers described these goals revealed themes that significantly deviate from the way these goals are often described in the achievement goal literature. In what follows, we provide a detailed account of the goal-description themes that emerged for each group goal.

Social Goals: Establishing a Sense of Belonging. Teachers viewed team meetings as a central arena for establishing a sense of belonging and community. Fourteen out of 20 interviewees rated the prompt “to develop good and close relationships among teachers” as relevant to their team meetings. Rami and Anat (pseudonyms, as are all names in this article) described it in the following way: “It’s important for us to receive some kind of backing. That feeling that we are part of a group, that we are not alone. We don’t want to work alone and feel that we are alone within the system. Because throughout the day you are alone…” (Rami, interviewee #5, 12th grade team). “I really enjoy the meetings, I think it really creates a feeling of togetherness…We start with a meal, it’s kind of a bonding situation that really contributes to the personal experience within the team… it makes me feel the belonging in a better way” (Anat, interviewee #10, whole school).

Mastery Goals: Learning from Each Other through Dialogue. Ten out of 20 interviewees rated the “to learn from each other and improve teaching” prompt as relevant to their team. The thematic analysis of teachers’ descriptions revealed that while mastery (or learning) goals in classrooms are described in the literature mainly in terms of individual learning and development (e.g., “I have learned something new”), the interviewees emphasized the collective, dialogic nature of learning goals in team meetings. For example, when asked to describe the routines in their team meetings and their own goals, three interviewees gave the following responses:

“The most important thing about our meetings is that you can talk about things … that people are honest and sharing. For example, once we have talked about the values each one of us brings to the classroom and suddenly, we saw that each one of us is in a different place. For me, for example, it is very important not to be cynical and another teacher said that cynicism is valued by her, it is valued and it is fun. And it was a very intimate conversation…. we talked about it.”

(Naama, interviewee #6, 11th grade team)

“I would be happy if someone would ask me how the things went in my classroom, what worked and what didn’t work”.

(Noa, interviewee #16, science team)

“In a successful meeting, all of the participants are given a voice. Participants share what is important to them… We ask questions and share our visions and opinions, not in order to change someone else, but to clarify to ourselves our pedagogical views”.

(Haj, interviewee #7, whole school team)

As these examples illustrate, interviewees emphasized in their descriptions the team members’ eagerness to hear other teachers’ ideas and opinions and to be heard. Therefore, mastery group goal can best be described as an emphasis on learning from each other through dialogue.

Work Goals: Completing Work-Related Tasks. Nine out of 20 interviewees rated the prompt “to complete tasks and reduce future work” as a central goal for their teams. The interviewees did not elaborate on the nature and characteristics of this group goal (i.e., on the question about what their teams try to achieve through this type of collaboration). However, based on the teachers’ descriptions of the conversational routines in their team meetings, we concluded that this group goal can be defined as the aim to complete work-related tasks that teachers are obliged to collaboratively complete.

Despite their identification with the prompt, many interviewees expressed disagreement with the second part (“reduce future work”). Moreover, the theme of work-avoidance was not evident in the unprompted part of the interviews. That is, the work-oriented teams described by the interviewees appeared to be highly oriented to the completion of work and did not necessarily strive to avoid work or minimize effort. Thus, work goals seem a more appropriate conceptualization of this group goal than work-avoidance goals.

Work-oriented meetings were described as devoted mainly to coordinating upcoming events and testing, assessing pacing and progress, and, in rare cases, sharing information. The interviewees repeatedly emphasized the technical, logistical orientation of these work-oriented meetings. A close examination of the verbs they used to describe the interactions in work-oriented team meetings (“coordinate”, “set”, “decide”, “report”, “present”, “update”) reveals the non-dialogic orientation of these meetings. Tamar’s description of the routine in her team meetings was exemplary:

“We talk about where we are in the material, if there were any evaluation events, tests, exams and so on. And then he (the leading teacher) says: “Let’s decide that we will finish this and this until”, “let’s decide that we will do some kind of a test after we finish this….” You know, very frontal, very straight to the point, what we managed to finish and what we didn’t”.

(Tamar, interviewee #12, Social studies team)

Team Performance Goals: Demonstrating Adherence to Dictated Agendas. Five out of 20 interviewees attributed to their teams the aim of demonstrating the team’s performance. Performance approach in this context was not described as an attempt to outperform other teachers or teams, but rather as a shared effort to demonstrate compliance and adherence to the goals, targets, and agendas envisioned and dictated by external factors (e.g., school management, school network, state reform). For example, Dafna responded to the prompt targeting team performance-approach as follows: “The goal of the one who initiated these meetings (the principal) was to demonstrate that we are a good management team, that we do plan together, and that we do adopt a long-term perspective” (Dafna, interviewee #14, management team).

We identified an additional type of performance-approach group goal in the unprompted part of the interviews, where the shared aim of a team might also be the recognition of the participants’ individual professional performance. This is how this goal was described by Aya:

“There is an additional important aspect for the team, which is completely legitimate: The desire to receive positive feedback. To hear a little bit that you are doing well. For example, many of us share all kinds of materials that we create. For example, a good slide show or a good game…to receive kind of positive feedback, “Well done”, and so on, to get the feeling that I am OK, that I am doing something good”.

(Aya, interviewee #13, English team)

According to Aya, an important goal for teacher teams is to offer and receive positive feedback from colleagues on work completed in isolation and to maintain teachers’ professional self-esteem. The goal Aya described resembles that of performance-approach goals on the individual level, as described by achievement goals theory (individuals aiming to demonstrate their successful performance in order to validate it and receive recognition). However, when translated into a group goal (that is, the group meets in order to approve and recognize each other’s professional performance), this goal becomes closer to a social goal, as it focuses on teachers supporting each other.

3.2.3. Teachers’ Stance Towards Group Goals Emphasized in Team Meetings

The interviews clearly contrasted the participants’ satisfaction with mastery and social goals and their dissatisfaction with working and performance goals. This was apparent in their verbal descriptions and in our systematic examination of the association between the interviewees’ reported satisfaction with their meetings and their ratings of the predominance of different types of group goals in their meetings. See

Table 5. Group Goals Profiles—High vs. Low Team Meeting Satisfaction.

Reported Personal Satisfaction with Team Meetings	Percentage of Interviewees Who Rated the Goal Higher Than 7 (and n)
	Social	Mastery	Work	Performance Approach
High (n = 10)	90% (9)	80% (8)	10% (1)	0% (0)
Medium/Low (n = 10)	10% (1)	20% (2)	60% (6)	30% (3)

.

Interviewees who reported high satisfaction with team meetings (n = 10), by and large, reported emphasis on mastery (80% of the highly satisfied participants) and social goals (90% of the highly satisfied participants) in their team meetings. In contrast, participants who reported medium or low satisfaction with their team meetings (n = 10) reported on their meetings being dominated mostly by work goals (60% of the medium/low-satisfaction participants) and to some extent (30% of the medium/low-satisfaction participants) by performance goals.

3.3. Integration of Findings from Phase 1 and Phase 2

In both the quantitative and qualitative phases of this study, we explored the prevalence of different types of group goals in teacher team meetings (RQ1). Despite the two phases’ different research methods and populations, the main findings are consistent. Both indicate the high salience of mastery and social goals in team meetings and the lower (but still notable) salience of performance-approach goals. Both phases also suggest performance-avoidance goals might be less relevant in the context of teacher team meetings, at least in their traditional conceptualization. We found a discrepancy between the two phases in that work-avoidance goals were rarely rated as salient group goals in the questionnaires, but work goals were frequently mentioned in the interviews. This suggests that teacher team meetings are seldom viewed as a means to avoid work but are often characterized by the aim of completing collaborative work-related tasks (work goals).

In general, the convergence of findings between our quantitative phase (homogeneous reform context) and qualitative phase (diverse contexts) strengthens confidence in the robustness of our findings.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Using both qualitative and quantitative methods, we investigated group goals pursued in teacher team meetings. Findings suggest different teams have different answers to the question, “What do we collectively try to achieve in our meetings?”. Their answers may include the following: establishing a sense of belonging (social goals), learning from colleagues (mastery goals), completing tasks (work goals), and demonstrating compliance with external agendas (performance approach). Social and mastery goals were the most salient. Our analysis indicates that team meetings may also be viewed by teachers as a space to recognize each other’s professional performance and maintain professional self-esteem, a goal we term “professional recognition”. On the individual level, this goal can be clearly classified as a performance-approach goal, as our interviewees viewed the meetings as a means to demonstrate their professional performance. However, on the group level, it is closer to social goals, as the main aim expressed by interviewees was to support each other.

This study further shows that the type of goals emphasized in team meetings has implications for teachers’ satisfaction with the meetings. By and large, the interviewees’ stance towards mastery and socially oriented meetings was highly positive, while their stance towards work and performance-oriented meetings was negative. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution as the associations are correlational and do not establish causal direction. The correlational findings may result from a third variable influencing both group goals and satisfaction, such as supportive leadership, strong collegial relationships, and autonomy in shaping meeting agendas. Additionally, the idea of group members’ dissatisfaction with the goals emphasized by their own group may seem paradoxical. However, group goals may be determined by the group leaders and not necessarily by its members, raising questions about teacher agency in shaping the collective goals and the nature of the interaction in their group meetings.

4.1. Contribution to Teacher Collaboration Research

Research on teacher collaboration has seldom attended to motivational aspects. Two recent comprehensive reviews examining factors that support and hinder teacher collaboration (De Jong et al., 2022; Vangrieken et al., 2015) identified numerous structural, organizational, and interactional factors shaping collaborative outcomes yet found virtually no studies exploring motivational dynamics. Inspired by achievement goals theory, which demonstrates how subtle motivational orientations shape students’ classroom behavior, engagement, and learning (Dweck, 1986; Senko et al., 2011), we explored whether analogous motivational processes operate at the collective level in teacher teams. Just as individual students’ achievement goals (e.g., mastering content vs. demonstrating competence vs. avoiding failure) create qualitatively different patterns of classroom engagement, we hypothesized that teams’ collective motivational orientations might shape the nature of collaborative interactions. Our findings support this hypothesis. Teacher teams collectively pursue diverse group goals: establishing belonging and social support (social goals), learning from colleagues through dialogue (mastery goals), completing required collaborative tasks (work goals), or demonstrating compliance with external agendas (performance-approach goals). The group goals construct thus may offer a novel explanatory lens for understanding documented variations in teacher collaboration quality (e.g., De Jong et al., 2019; Doppenberg et al., 2012). By conceptualizing and describing the range of goals teacher teams might pursue, we offer the field both a theoretical construct and an empirical foundation for examining motivational dimensions that have remained largely invisible in prior research.

Though group goals in teacher team meetings have not been directly studied, our findings regarding the prevalence of the different group goals resonate with and extend existing teacher collaboration research in several ways. First, approximately 30% of our interviewees described their team meetings as dominated by monologic (Horn et al., 2017) activities like coordination and logistics, which offer limited learning opportunities. This prevalence aligns closely with Horn et al.’s (2017) observational taxonomy, where they similarly found that approximately one-third of teacher workgroup time focused on logistical coordination rather than instructional inquiry. Our study extends this finding by revealing that such meetings are characterized by work goals—the collective aim to complete required tasks. It is important to note, however, that a large proportion of teams (around 40%) reported devoting their meetings to deeper forms of dialogic collaboration (resembling the type of group interaction reported, for example, in Havnes, 2009; Horn et al., 2017; Vangrieken et al., 2015) and view them as aimed at professional learning. Given that these teams were not initiated by a program aiming to support PLCs, this finding provides a promising indication of the dissemination of the core idea of the PLC movement, according to which school-based teacher communities should function as spaces for ongoing mutual learning and instructional improvement (DuFour, 2004; Hord, 1997).

Second, the findings corroborate existing studies emphasizing the vital role of strong collegial relationships among teachers (e.g., Nias et al., 1989; Turner et al., 2022) by showing that teacher teams often view the development of close interpersonal relationships as a central goal of their meetings.

Third, our findings connect to the concept of “contrived collegiality” in teacher collaboration (Hargreaves, 2000; Grossman et al., 2001)—non-authentic, externally regulated collaboration where teachers meet under external control (Datnow, 2011; Hargreaves, 2000). Our findings suggest that teams governed this way risk adopting performance-approach goals, prioritizing adherence to external agendas, which appears to reduce meeting satisfaction. However, “contrived collegiality” does not necessarily lead to performance demonstration goals; externally initiated teams may pursue various group goals, as our quantitative findings suggest.

Finally, the findings regarding teachers’ dissatisfaction with work goals versus satisfaction with mastery goals resonate with recent debates on the value of “joint work” compared to idea-sharing and storytelling in teacher collaborative learning (De Jong et al., 2019; Horn et al., 2017; Segal, 2019). Joint work has long been considered superior to mere exchange of stories due to its high interdependence (Little, 1990). However, recent studies challenge this assumption. De Jong et al. (2019) demonstrate that both sharing (stories, strategies, ideas) and collaborative planning can support teacher learning, depending on teams’ prior collaborative culture and needs. Horn et al. (2017) show that under pressure to complete work-related tasks, joint work often devolves into coordinating and pacing activities, limiting opportunities for in-depth instructional inquiry. Our findings extend this critique: when joint work is pursued primarily to accomplish required tasks (work goals) rather than to learn from the collaborative process (mastery goals), it correlates with teacher dissatisfaction.

4.2. Contribution to Achievement Goals Research

This study expands achievement goals literature, first, by introducing the construct of group goals. While existing achievement goal theory focuses on goals pursued by individuals (e.g., Elliot & Sommet, 2023; Katz-Vago & Benita, 2024; Urdan & Kaplan, 2020), group goals address collective objectives in collaborative settings—an unexplored domain. Though we examined teacher team meetings specifically, group goals likely apply to various collaborative contexts where people regularly work together. Given the increasing emphasis on collaborative learning in education (Herrera-Pavo, 2021; Kaur & Dasgupta, 2024; Qureshi et al., 2023) and teamwork more generally (Driskell et al., 2018), introducing group goals as a motivational dimension is timely and merits further study across different collaborative environments.

Second, in this study, we examined constructs proposed by achievement goals theory to describe classroom goals in a new context—teacher team meetings. This examination yielded several insights for the study of achievement goals across contexts. Overall, like previous applications in different settings (Butler, 2012; Ryan & Shim, 2006; Van Yperen & Orehek, 2013), this framework appeared relevant for teacher team meetings, providing additional support for its robustness and comprehensiveness. However, our study also points to context-specific variations when the theory is extended to new settings: work-avoidance and performance-avoidance goals were rarely pursued by teacher teams, while work goals and professional recognition goals emerged as more relevant to this context. Additionally, some goals had context-specific meanings—mastery goals were not perceived in terms of individual learning and development but in terms of dialogic exchange, while performance-approach goals involved demonstrating adherence to external agendas without competitive elements. Finally, as previously shown by Van Yperen and Orehek (2013), when translated to a new context, the relative prevalence of each goal is different. For example, social goals appear to be highly central to teacher team meetings, while performance-approach goals are relatively less dominant, compared to classrooms.

Third, our findings underscore the benefits of qualitative explorations of the way individuals perceive, describe, and talk about motivational goals in different settings (Dowson & McInerney, 2003; Ryan & Shim, 2006). The findings exemplify how such a methodological approach, rarely adopted by achievement goal researchers (Urdan & Kaplan, 2020), enables a complex, rich, and more complete understanding. However, it is important to emphasize the challenges associated with uncovering group goals using interviews. Group goals are implicit constructs and, as such, are not easily uncovered by direct questioning. Specifically, tailored interview protocols are required to obtain rich descriptions and shed light on the way group goals are embedded in the larger picture of interaction in various settings. The protocol we developed for this study can serve as a starting point for further development.

4.3. Practical Implications

Team leaders may play a central role in shaping and emphasizing group goals in team meetings. Understanding the range of implicit goals teams may pursue may enable team leaders to recognize goals as they emerge, monitor their dynamics over time (e.g., shifts from mastery to work orientations), and deliberately foreground particular goals. However, rather than simply setting goals, team leaders may engage teams in explicit reflection on group goals: What are we collectively trying to achieve in these meetings? Do team members share the same understanding of our goals, or do different members hold different assumptions? Given that motivation fundamentally shapes interaction patterns, such meta-conversations may prove important, though further research is needed to examine whether and how explicit goal negotiation influences collaboration quality and satisfaction. Our finding that teachers express satisfaction with mastery goals (learning through dialogue) but dissatisfaction with work goals (task completion) suggests that team leaders should actively protect space for inquiry-oriented dialogue even amid pressures to use time “efficiently” for completing required tasks. This may require explicitly naming the tension between efficiency and depth, helping teams recognize that investing time in reflective dialogue, though seemingly less productive, ultimately generates greater satisfaction and professional learning.

Our findings further suggest that school administrators should carefully consider the tradeoffs between control and autonomy in teacher collaboration. The association between performance-approach goals (compliance with external agendas) and teacher dissatisfaction indicates that top-down mandates about team purposes may undermine collaborative quality. While leaders legitimately need teams to address organizational priorities, our findings suggest that teacher autonomy in defining collective goals is associated with higher satisfaction. Externally imposed goals may persist despite generating dissatisfaction, potentially undermining the collaboration initiatives leaders intend to support.

4.4. Limitations and Future Research

In this study, we took the first steps toward conceptualizing, mapping, and characterizing the types of group goals that teacher teams pursue in their meetings. Several limitations warrant consideration.

First, our measurement relied on individual teacher perceptions rather than observational or team-level data. We examined group goals through self-reported questionnaires and interviews, which, while meaningful, may not fully capture implicit goals or discrepancies between espoused and enacted goals. Moreover, we did not verify goal consensus within teams: quantitative data were anonymous (precluding within-team comparisons), and we interviewed only one teacher per team. Thus, our “group goals” construct reflects individual perceptions of collective orientations rather than demonstrated team-level agreement. Future research should employ observational methods to examine how goals are articulated and negotiated in meetings, and survey multiple members per team to assess consensus.

Second, voluntary recruitment for the second phase of the study may have introduced selection bias. Teachers who value dialogue and reflection may have been more likely to volunteer, potentially inflating reports of satisfaction with mastery/social goal emphasis while underrepresenting those satisfied with work-oriented meetings. Larger-scale studies with more representative sampling are needed to verify the relationship between group goals and teacher satisfaction.

Third, all participants were from Israeli schools, limiting cross-cultural generalizability. Educational systems differ in collaboration cultures, policy contexts, and professional norms, which may shape goal types and prevalence. Cross-cultural research is needed to examine the framework’s applicability.

Additionally, further research is needed to explore the way group goals affect the nature of collaboration and interaction among team members, within the meetings and beyond, as well as the mechanisms involved in the preservation of and changes in teachers’ group goals. Another direction for future research is the way teams’ group goals are set and shaped. The current study suggests that teachers can be dissatisfied with the goals of their teams, calling for examination of the role the leading teachers play in shaping group goals, as well as the role of broader contextual factors, such as school culture (e.g., Eaker & DuFour, 2009) and school leadership (Carpenter, 2015).

The development of the Group Goals in Team Meetings (GGTM) questionnaire opens an avenue for future quantitative research into group goals in teacher team meetings. Future research will need to refine the questionnaire to reflect insights about the specific characteristics of group goals in teacher teams arising from the current study. These revisions should include: omission of items assessing performance-avoidance goals (which proved largely irrelevant in our data); refinement of items measuring performance-approach and work goals to better capture their specific meanings in team contexts (demonstrating compliance to external agendas and completing required tasks, respectively); and addition of items measuring professional recognition goals (supporting colleagues’ professional self-esteem), which emerged as meaningful in our qualitative analysis but are not represented in the current instrument. The refined questionnaire can be used for large-scale research that provides more comprehensive estimates of group goal prevalence and their associations with different outcomes (such as collaboration quality) and environmental factors (such as school culture). Such a line of research can shed light on an understudied dimension of teacher team collaboration, with potential to improve the quality of teacher learning, their social relationships and satisfaction, and their teaching.