Environment and Social Psychology

A comparative study of teacher evaluation's impact on professional identity: Evidence from secondary school teachers in China and Japan using TALIS 2013

Xue Lian Wang

International College, Krirk University, Bangkok, 10110, Thailand

I-Hua Chen

International College, Krirk University, Bangkok, 10110, Thailand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i10.4056

Keywords: teacher evaluation; Japan; China; TALIS 2013; professional identity; self-determination theory

---

Abstract

China and Japan share similar contexts for reforming teacher evaluation in basic education. However, existing studies on teacher evaluation in both countries suffer from limited sample sizes and methodological limitations. This study addresses these gaps by employing large-scale empirical data and multilevel modeling to re-examine the influence of teacher evaluation systems. Drawing on self-determination theory (SDT), we establish a multilevel model examining how teacher evaluation influences teachers' professional identity through both mediation and moderation mechanisms involving basic psychological needs. Using TALIS 2013 data, our findings reveal that: (1) satisfaction of basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) positively correlates with teachers' professional identity in both countries; (2) the pathways of evaluation effects differ markedly between countries - for Chinese teachers, developmental evaluation indirectly enhances professional identity by first promoting perceived participation in school decision-making (autonomy need) and collegial cooperation (relatedness need), while for Japanese teachers, performance evaluation directly diminishes professional identity without mediation through psychological needs; (3) psychological need satisfaction also moderates evaluation effects - for Chinese teachers, higher teaching self-efficacy (competence need) amplifies the positive effect of developmental evaluation on professional identity, while for Japanese teachers, higher collegial cooperation (relatedness need) ironically intensifies the noegative effect of performance evaluation on professional identity. These findings highlight the complex interplay between teacher evaluation systems and psychological need satisfaction across different cultural contexts.

---

References

[1]. 1.Murphy J, Hallinger P, Heck R. Leading via teacher evaluation: The case of the missing clothes? Educational Researcher, 2013;42(6): 349–354. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13499625

[2]. 2.Huang, S. (2020). Confucian Culture and the Institutional Reform of Chinese Schools. In: Peters, M. (eds) Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_714-1

[3]. 3.Liang ZM. The theoretical structure of moral education in Japan and the role of Confucian thought. Journal of Educational Research, 2002; 48: 45–72.

[4]. 4.Tucker JA. Japanese Confucian philosophy. In: Zalta EN, editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition). Stanford: Stanford University; 2008. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/japanese-confucian/

[5]. 5.Tran TT. Is the learning approach of students from the Confucian heritage culture problematic? Asia Pacific Education Review, 2013; 14(4): 507–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-012-9131-3

[6]. 6.Katsuno M. Teacher evaluation policies and practices in Japan: How performativity works in schools. Abingdon: Routledge; 2016.

[7]. 7.Gao X, Liu Y, Wang C. Cultural foundations of teacher occupational health: The impact of Confucian work dynamism on burnout through grit among Chinese teachers. BMC Psychology, 2025; 13: 390. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02724-x

[8]. 8.Rong ZH. The spiritual source and solutions of the identity crisis of primary and secondary school teachers. Curriculum, Teaching Material and Method, 2017; 37(3): 103–109.

[9]. 9.Yan XL. Problems, causes and countermeasures of teacher evaluation in primary and secondary schools in China. Education Observation, 2018; 7(24): 84–86.

[10]. 10.Shi GC, Li Y. The loss and pursuit of teachers’ sense of professional meaning. Teaching and Management, 2014; (12): 90–92.

[11]. 11.National Council on Educational Reform. Report of the National Council on Educational Reform: 17 Proposals to Change Education [M]. Tokyo: Office of the National Council on Educational Reform, Cabinet Secretariat; 2000 Dec 22.

[12]. 12.Katsuno M. Teacher evaluation in Japanese schools: An examination from a micro‐political or relational viewpoint. Journal of Education Policy, 2010; 25(3): 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680931003700431

[13]. 13.Katsuno M. Teachers’ professional identities in an era of testing accountability in Japan: The case of teachers in low-performing schools. Education Research International, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/862193

[14]. 14.Ura T. From the Results of a Questionnaire Survey of Principals and Teachers in Tokyo Public Schools [M]. Tokyo: Dōjidai-sha; 2002.

[15]. 15.Lai YT. Contradictions and issues inherent in Japan’s teacher evaluation system: Focusing on discussions from the National Council on Educational Reform to the Central Council for Education. Annual Report of the Graduate School of Education, Tohoku University, 2013; 61(2): 129–144.

[16]. 16.Zhang XF, Ng HM. An effective model of teacher appraisal: Evidence from secondary schools in Shanghai, China. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 2015; 45(2): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213510508

[17]. 17.Liu S, Zhao D. Teacher evaluation in China: Latest trends and future directions. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 2013; 25(3): 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9171-4

[18]. 18.Liu S, Xu X, Stronge J. The influences of teachers’ perceptions of using student achievement data in evaluation and their self-efficacy on job satisfaction: Evidence from China. Asia Pacific Education Review, 2018; 19(4): 493–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9541-6

[19]. 19.OECD. TALIS 2013 database. 2014a. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/education/school/talis-2013-data.htm (accessed on 13 August 2025).

[20]. 20.OECD. TALIS 2013 Technical Report. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2014b. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en

[21]. 21.Tokyo Metropolitan Teachers’ Union, Tokyo Metropolitan Board of Education. Survey on Teacher Performance Evaluation and Collegiality among Metropolitan High School Teachers [R]. Tokyo: Tokyo Teachers’ Union; 2005.

[22]. 22.Ichinose A, Yamazaki Y. Current situation and issues of the teacher evaluation system and school evaluation system in teacher professional growth: A fundamental survey in Shizuoka Prefectural high schools. Studies in Subject Development, 2013; 1: 81–90. https://doi.org/10.14945/00006329

[23]. 23.Aarts E, Verhage M, Veenvliet JV, Dolan CV, van der Sluis S. A solution to dependency: Using multilevel analysis to accommodate nested data. Nature Neuroscience, 2014; 17(4): 491–496. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3648

[24]. 24.Chang TM, Chang XS. The influence of evaluator composition on compulsory education teachers’ performance-based pay preferences. Journal of Shaoxing University (Education Edition), 2017; 37(2): 1–11.

[25]. 25.Deci EL, Ryan RM. Self-determination theory. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2015; 91(2): 486–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26036-4

[26]. 26.Wong CYE, Liu WC. Development of teacher professional identity: Perspectives from self-determination theory. European Journal of Teacher Education, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2024.2371981

[27]. 27.Liu B, Zhang Y. Closing the gap of teacher professional identity in student teachers between coursework learning and teaching practice: Perspectives from self-determination theory. Journal of Education for Teaching, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2025.2532603

[28]. 28.Ma D. The role of motivation and commitment in teachers’ professional identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 2022; 13: 910747. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.910747

[29]. 29.Weiß JK, Bottling M, Kärner T. Professional identification in the beginning of a teacher’s career: A longitudinal study on identity formation and the basic psychological need for autonomy in VET teacher training. Frontiers in Psychology, 2023; 14: 1196473. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1196473

[30]. 30.Deci EL, Koestner R, Ryan RM. Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 2001; 71(1): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071001001

[31]. 31.Canrinus ET, Helms-Lorenz M, Beijaard D, Buitink J, Hofman A. Self-efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: Exploring the relationships between indicators of teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 2012; 27(1): 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0069-2

[32]. 32.Wang ZJ, Liu LD. Can performance appraisal promote breakthrough academic innovation of university teachers? An empirical study based on self-determination theory. Higher Education Research, 2017; 38(4): 52–60.

[33]. 33.Gratton R. Teacher appraisal: A lesson on confusion over purpose. International Journal of Educational Management, 2004; 18(5): 292–296. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410554056

[34]. 34.Skaalvik EM, Skaalvik S. Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 2014; 114(1): 68–77. https://doi.org/10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0

[35]. 35.Cuevas R, Ntoumanis N, Fernandez-Bustos JG, Bartholomew K. Does teacher evaluation based on student performance predict motivation, well-being, and ill-being? Journal of School Psychology, 2018; 68: 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.03.002

[36]. 36.Fornell C, Larcker DF. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 1981; 18(1): 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

[37]. 37.Wen FX, Chiu HC. Multilevel Model Methodology—Key Issues and Tentative Solutions of Hierarchical Linear Modelling [M]. Taipei: Chien Cheng Culture; 2012.

[38]. 38.Katsuno M. The working of performativity: How is the teacher assessment enacted? [C] In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of British Educational Research Association; 3–6 September 2008; Edinburgh, UK. Heriot-Watt University; 2008.

[39]. 39.Yuan MM. The performance appraisal and performance pay system for basic education teachers urgently needs institutional innovation. Shanghai Educational Evaluation Research, 2016; 5(3): 76–79.

[40]. 40.Zhao YM, Zhang ZT, Liu N, Ding MZ. A review of new developments in self-determination theory. Journal of Management, 2016; 13(7): 1095–1104.

[41]. 41.Shin M, Alpern LW. Drawing teacher identity: Perspectives of students in a teacher education program. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 2024; 10: 101036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101036