Autonomy-Supportive and Controlling Styles of Teaching

Abstract

Autonomy-supportive and controlling styles of teaching are usually considered to be the opposite ends of a single continuum. An alternative view, however, is that individuals can perceive both styles simultaneously, which suggests that they are different constructs ( Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2011 ). Using cluster analysis, Study 1 (N = 160) confirmed that both teaching styles were perceived by students. Four clusters appeared depending on the student’s score on the measures of autonomy and controlling styles (high autonomy–high control; low autonomy–low control; high autonomy–low control; low autonomy–high control). Participants in the high autonomy–low control cluster reported the highest self-determined motivation in their studies. Using path analysis and mediational analyses, Study 2 (N = 127) tested the independence of the two styles by studying the process through which they influenced motivation. The results showed that need satisfaction (specifically, the need for autonomy) mediated the path between perceived autonomy-supportive teacher behavior and motivation, and that need-thwarting (specifically, the need for autonomy and relatedness) mediated the path between perceived controlling teacher behavior and self-determined motivation, which in turn predicted academic performance. These results add to the existing literature supporting the independence of the two styles.

Expanding autonomy psychological need states from two (satisfaction, frustration) to three (dissatisfaction): A classroom-based intervention study.

“…At the start of this decade, SDT researchers introduced the dual-process model to make the distinction between need satisfaction and need frustration (Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2011a). This research showed that need frustration was conceptually and empirically distinct from (low) need satisfaction, because the two motivational experiences correlated (negatively) only modestly, factor analyzed into distinct constructs, arose from different antecedents, and predicted different outcomes (Amoura et al, 2015;Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Mouratidis, Katartzi, Thøgersen-Ntoumani, & Vlachopoulos, 2018;Bartholomew et al, 2011a;Cheon, Reeve, & Ntoumanis, 2018;Cheon, Reeve, & Song, 2016;Haerens, Aelterman, Vansteenkiste, Soenens, & Van Petegem, 2015;. The contribution of the AUTONOMY DISSATISFACTION 4 dual-process model was to show that need satisfaction represented the "bright side" of student motivation that explained adaptive functioning and outcomes, while need frustration represented the "dark side" of student motivation that explained maladaptive functioning and outcomes (Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2011b;Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013).…”

Perceptions of Teachers’ Interpersonal Styles and Well-Being and Ill-Being in Secondary School Physical Education Students: The Role of Need Satisfaction and Need Frustration

“…1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Taken collectively, the findings of the current study suggested that the interpersonal styles of PE teachers were strongly associated with the psychological experiences of their students through need satisfaction and need frustration. The modest negative relationship between the perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling interpersonal styles of teachers suggested that the two interpersonal styles might have been simultaneously employed by the PE teachers (Amoura et al, 2015;Haerens et al, in press;Matosic & Cox, 2014). For example, the teachers may use some controlling behaviors for classroom management and meanwhile acknowledge the difficulties the students may encounter in the PE class to increase students' engagement level.…”

“…Recent research has shown that autonomy support and control can co-occur, so that different combinations of both styles can be identified. This work shows that teachers (and coaches) can be perceived as high on autonomy support and low on control, low on autonomy support and high on control, high on both styles, or low on both styles (Amoura, Berjot, Gillet, Caruana, Cohen, & Finez, 2015 ; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Running Head: TEACHERS' INTERPERSONAL STYLES IN PE 6 Haerens et al, in press;Matosic & Cox, 2014). Furthermore, the absence of autonomy support may be displayed as a "neutral" style that does not reflect the will to control others.…”

Satisfaction of Basic Psychological Needs and Autonomous Motivation in School Context: A Test of Additive, Synergistic, and Balance Hypotheses/Zadovoljavanje osnovnih psiholoških potreba i autonomna motivacija u kontekstu škole: testiranje aditivne, siner

“…Researchers combined scores of autonomy, competence and relatedness to get one indicator of need satisfaction, therefore they established the effect of all needs satisfaction but defied the importance of each need. Other scholars used separate indicators for each need and evaluated the main effects of needs satisfaction on autonomous motivation (Amoura et al, 2015;Joesaar, Hein, & Hagger, 2011;Koka & Hagger, 2010;Rutten et al, 2012) and other academic outcomes such as emotional engagement (Park et al, 2012) and school adjustment (Ratelle & Duchesne, 2014). However, examining only the main effects does not take into account theoretical statements about possible interactions between all needs.…”

“…The seven subscales' scores were combined into a Relative Autonomy Index (RAI, Grolnick & Ryan, 1987) to get a single measure of the level of autonomous motivation. Such scores are regularly used by SDT researchers (e.g., Amoura et al, 2015;Guay, Ratelle, Roy, & Litalien, 2010) to assess individuals' level of autonomous motivation relative to their level of controlled motivation and amotivation. RAI was calculated by assigning weights to subscales representing their amount of self-determination.…”