Although different measures for (de)motivating teaching are available for primary and secondary education, a fine-grained instrument to assess a variety of motivating and demotivating teaching practices in higher education is lacking. Adopting a Self-Determination Theory perspective, this study first used the newly developed Situation-in-School Questionnaire—Higher Education to examine in a sample of higher education teachers (N = 357; Mage = 43.90 years) whether a broad set of need-supportive and need-thwarting teaching practices are organized in a similar circular structure as in secondary education (Aelterman et al. in J Educ Psychol 111:497–521, 2019). Second, this study addressed the role of higher education teachers’ motivation to teach (i.e., autonomous, controlled, amotivation) and their beliefs about the malleability of students’ intelligence (i.e., fixed and growth mindset) in relation to the various distinguished teaching approaches. Results of multidimensional scaling analyses confirmed the hypothesized circular structure of eight different (de)motivating teaching approaches that differ in their level of need-supportiveness and directiveness. Second, hierarchical regression analyses provided evidence for the fairly independent role of teachers’ motivation and mindsets, with the predictive role of each predictor systematically varying as one moves along the circumplex. Autonomous motivation and a growth mindset related positively to more motivating approaches (e.g., guiding, attuning), while controlled motivation, amotivation and a fixed mindset related positively to more demotivating approaches (e.g., domineering, abandoning). The present findings shed new light on the factors that underlie teacher-reported engagement in (de)motivating practices in higher education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
In a first step, SDT experts and practitioners brainstormed about the content of the questionnaire, using the SISQ-SE as the basis, which resulted in a pilot version with 19 situations and 95 responses. In a second step, structured interviews were conducted with two teachers in higher education, using a thinking-aloud protocol (Van Someren et al. 1994) during which the participants were asked to vocalize every thought that came up while filling in the questionnaire. Further, two focus groups (N = 6 and 8) were organized with educational support staff members. In advance, the participants were asked to complete the questionnaire and to indicate for all the presented situations and responses (a) how credible they were, ranging from 1 (totally not credible) to 5 (totally credible), and (b) how frequently they occurred in higher education, ranging from 1 (never) to (daily). After clarifying the purpose and structure of the focus group discussion, participants were asked to indicate whether they perceive the items to be understandable and whether they had general remarks. Next, situations and responses were discussed one by one, thereby addressing the credibility, frequency, and social desirability of the items. Additional questions about the items were presented, including ‘which teaching style (i.e., autonomy support, structure, control and chaos) do you observe in this response?.’ In a second step, non-represented situations and responses were generated during a brainstorm phase to secure that the questionnaire covers the breath of relevant teaching situations in higher education. Based on the quantitative assessment and responses during the focus groups, several adjustments were made, resulting in a questionnaire containing 14 situations and 74 responses. Then, a second series of semi-structured interviews were conducted with university teachers (N = 5), leading to further refinements of the questionnaire. In a final step, a pilot study (N = 447; Mean age = 41.52; SD = 9.35) was conducted to provide a first indication of the internal validity of the scale through Multidimensional Scaling Analysis (Borg et al. 2013). Although the global structure fitted a circumplex structure, some of the distinguished approaches were not sufficiently covered, leading to further adjustments. This adapted version is presented herein.
Averaging across the motives for teaching and group management was justified by the observation that associations between motives for both roles were moderate to strong. Specifically, correlations were .40, .68 and .65 for, respectively, autonomous motivation, controlled motivation and amotivation. In addition, the pattern of correlations between these task-specific motives and the discerned teaching approaches in the circumplex was similar. These findings are presented in Appendix 2.
Abós, Á., Haerens, L., Sevil, J., Aelterman, N., & García-González, L. (2018). Teachers’ motivation in relation to their psychological functioning and interpersonal style: A variable-and person-centered approach. Teaching and Teacher Education,74, 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.04.010.
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Haerens, L., Soenens, B., Fontaine, J., & Reeve, J. (2019). Toward an integrative and fine-grained insight in motivating and demotivating teaching styles: The merits of a circumplex approach. Journal of Educational Psychology,111, 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000293.
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Keer, H., & Haerens, L. (2016). Changing teachers’ beliefs regarding autonomy support and structure: The role of experienced psychological need satisfaction in teacher training. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,23, 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.10.007.
Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2010). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Rotterdam: Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004406155.
Amoura, C., Berjot, S., Gillet, N., Caruana, S., Cohen, J., & Finez, L. (2015). Autonomy-supportive and controlling styles of teaching. Swiss Journal of Psychology,74, 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000156.
Anderson, W. A., Banerjee, U., Drennan, C. L., Elgin, S. C. R., Epstein, I. R., Handelsman, J., et al. (2011). Changing the culture of science education at research universities. Science,331, 152–153. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198280.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Roth, G. (2005). Directly controlling teacher behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction,15, 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.008.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology,72, 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902158883.
Belmont, M., Skinner, E., Wellborn, J., & Connell, J. (1988). Teacher as social context: A measure of student perceptions of teacher provision of involvement, structure, and autonomy support . Tech. Rep. No. 102, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
Black, A., & Deci, E. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education,84, 740–756. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237x(200011)84:6%3c740:aid-sce4%3e3.0.co;2-3.
Bolding, A. R. (2017). Personality and preservice teacher success. Carolina: Western Carolina University.
Borg, I., Groenen, P. J. F., & Mair, P. (2013). Applied multidimensional scaling. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31848-1.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Campbell, R., Soenens, B., Beyers, W., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2018). University students’ sleep during an exam period: The role of basic psychological needs and stress. Motivation and Emotion,42, 671–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9699-x.
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2020). When teachers learn how to provide classroom structure in an autonomy-supportive way: Benefits to teachers and their students. Teaching and Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103004.
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., Yu, T. H., & Jang, H. R. (2014). The teacher benefits from giving autonomy support during physical education instruction. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,36, 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2013-0231.
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., Perry, N. E., & Martin, A. J. (2016). Teachers’ psychological functioning in the workplace: Exploring the roles of contextual beliefs, need satisfaction, and personal characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 788–799. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000088.
Cotten, S. R., & Wilson, B. (2006). Student–faculty interactions: Dynamics and determinants. Higher Education,51, 487–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-1705-4.
De Muynck, G. J., Soenens, B., Waterschoot, J., Degraeuwe, L., Broek, G. V., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2019). Towards a more refined insight in the critical motivating features of choice: An experimental study among recreational rope skippers. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,45, 101561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101561.
Delrue, J., Reynders, B., Broek, G. V., Aelterman, N., De Backer, M., Decroos, S., et al. (2019). Adopting a helicopter-perspective towards motivating and demotivating coaching: A circumplex approach. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,40, 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.08.008.
den Brok, P. J., Bergen, T. C. M., & Brekelmans, J. M. G. (2006). Convergence and divergence between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of instructional behaviour in Dutch secondary education. In D. L. Fisher & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to research on learning environments: World views (pp. 125–160). Singapore: World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812774651_0006.
den Brok, P., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2004). Interpersonal teacher behaviour and student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,15, 407–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450512331383262.
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House Digital, Inc.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry,6, 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review,95, 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.95.2.256.
Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application. New York: Guilford Publications.
Fernet, C., Senécal, C., Guay, F., Marsh, H., & Dowson, M. (2008). The work tasks motivation scale for teachers (WTMST). Journal of Career Assessment,16, 256–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072707305764.
Fernet, C., Trépanier, S. G., Austin, S., & Levesque-Côté, J. (2016). Committed, inspiring, and healthy teachers: How do school environment and motivational factors facilitate optimal functioning at career start? Teaching and Teacher Education,59, 481–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.019.
Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious. New York: Penguin.
Gillet, N., Morin, A. J., Huyghebaert, T., Burger, L., Maillot, A., Poulin, A., et al. (2019). University students’ need satisfaction trajectories: A growth mixture analysis. Learning and Instruction,60, 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.11.003.
Grouzet, F. M. E., Vallerand, R. J., Thill, E. E., & Provencher, P. J. (2004). From environmental factors to outcomes: A test of an integrated motivational sequence. Motivation and Emotion,28, 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-004-2387-z.
Haerens, L., Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., & Van den Berghe, L. (2016). Towards a systematic study of the dark side of student motivation: Antecedents and consequences of teachers’ controlling behaviors. In W. C. Liu, J. Chee Keng Wang, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Building autonomous learners: Perspectives from research and practice using self-determination theory (pp. 59–81). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-630-0_4.
Heyder, A., Weidinger, A. F., Cimpian, A., & Steinmayr, R. (2020). Teachers’ belief that math requires innate ability predicts lower intrinsic motivation among low-achieving students. Learning and Instruction,65, 101220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101220.
Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2016a). Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and Instruction,43, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology,102, 588. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Halusic, M. (2016b). A new autonomy-supportive way of teaching that increases conceptual learning: Teaching in students’ preferred ways. The Journal of Experimental Education,84, 686–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1083522.
Johnson, R. A., & Wichern, D. W. (2002). Applied multivariate statistical analysis (Vol. 5, No. 8). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jonsson, A. C., & Beach, D. (2012). Predicting the use of praise among pre-service teachers: The influence of implicit theories of intelligence, social comparison and stereotype acceptance. Education Inquiry,3, 259–281. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v3i2.22033.
Jonsson, A. C., Beach, D., Korp, H., & Erlandson, P. (2012). Teachers’ implicit theories of intelligence: Influences from different disciplines and scientific theories. European Journal of Teacher Education,35, 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2012.662636.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist,27, 65–90. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2701_6.
Katz, I., & Shahar, B. H. (2015). What makes a motivating teacher? Teachers’ motivation and beliefs as predictors of their autonomy-supportive style. School Psychology International,36, 575–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034315609969.
Kennett, D. J., & Keefer, K. (2006). Impact of learned resourcefulness and theories of intelligence on academic achievement of university students: An integrated approach. Educational Psychology,26, 441–457. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2701_6.
Komarraju, M., & Nadler, D. (2013). Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do implicit beliefs, goals, and effort regulation matter? Learning and Individual Differences,25, 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.005.
Lam, S. F., Cheng, R. W. Y., & Ma, W. Y. (2009). Teacher and student intrinsic motivation in project-based learning. Instructional Science,37, 565–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9070-9.
Leenknecht, M. J., Wijnia, L., Loyens, S., & Rikers, R. (2017). Need-supportive teaching in higher education: Configurations of autonomy support, structure, and involvement. Teaching and Teacher Education,68, 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.08.020.
Leroy, N., Bressoux, P., Sarrazin, P., & Trouilloud, D. (2007). Impact of teachers’ implicit theories and perceived pressures on the establishment of an autonomy supportive climate. European Journal of Psychology of Education,22, 529545. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03173470.
Leslie, S. J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science,347, 262–265. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261375.
Levesque, C., Zuehlke, A. N., Stanek, L. R., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Autonomy and competence in German and American university students: A comparative study based on self-determination theory. Journal of Educational Psychology,96, 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06184.108.40.206.
Litalien, D., & Guay, F. (2015). Dropout intentions in PhD studies: A comprehensive model based on interpersonal relationships and motivational resources. Contemporary Educational Psychology,41, 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.03.004.
Lochbaum, M., & Jean-Noel, J. (2016). Perceived autonomy-support instruction and student outcomes in physical education and leisure-time: A meta-analytic review of correlates. [Percepción de la formación de apoyo a la autonomía y resultados en estudiantes en educación física y tiempo libre: Una revisión meta-analítica de correlaciones]. RICYDE. Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte,12, 29–47. https://doi.org/10.5232/ricyde2016.04302.
Marbell-Pierre, K. N., Grolnick, W. S., Stewart, A. L., & Raftery-Helmer, J. N. (2019). Parental autonomy support in two cultures: The moderating effects of adolescents’ self-construals. Child Development,90, 825–845. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12947.
Mascret, N., Roussel, P., & Cury, F. (2015). Using implicit measures to highlight science teachers’ implicit theories of intelligence. European Journal of Psychology of Education,30, 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-0249-6.
Matos, L., Reeve, J., Herrera, D., & Claux, M. (2018). Students’ agentic engagement predicts longitudinal increases in perceived autonomy-supportive teaching: The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The Journal of Experimental Education,86, 579–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2018.1448746.
Matteucci, M. C., Guglielmi, D., & Lauermann, F. (2017). Teachers’ sense of responsibility for educational outcomes and its associations with teachers’ instructional approaches and professional wellbeing. Social Psychology of Education,20, 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9369-y.
McLachlan, S., & Hagger, M. S. (2010). Effects of an autonomy-supportive intervention on tutor behaviors in a higher education context. Teaching and Teacher Education,26, 1204–1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.01.006.
Miele, D., Perez, S., Butler, R., Browman, A. S., O’Dwyer, L., & McNeish, D. (2019). Elementary school teachers’ growth mindsets predict their differential treatment of high versus low ability students. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qcd83
Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education,7, 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318.
Orsini, C., Binnie, V. I., & Wilson, S. L. (2016). Determinants and outcomes of motivation in health professions education: A systematic review based on self-determination theory. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2016.13.19.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research,62, 307–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307.
Park, S., Callahan, C. M., & Ryoo, J. H. (2016a). Assessing gifted students’ beliefs about intelligence with a psychometrically defensible scale. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,39, 288–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216671835.
Park, D., Gunderson, E. A., Tsukayama, E., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2016b). Young children’s motivational frameworks and math achievement: Relation to teacher-reported instructional practices, but not teacher theory of intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology,108, 300–313. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000064.
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin,134, 270–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.270.
Patall, E. A., Dent, A. L., Oyer, M., & Wynn, S. R. (2013). Student autonomy and course value: The unique and cumulative roles of various teacher practices. Motivation and Emotion,37, 14–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-9305-6.
Patall, E. A., Steingut, R. R., Vasquez, A. C., Trimble, S. S., Pituch, K. A., & Freeman, J. L. (2018). Daily autonomy supporting or thwarting and students’ motivation and engagement in the high school science classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology,110, 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000214.
Patterson, M. M., Kravchenko, N., Chen-Bouck, L., & Kelley, J. A. (2016). General and domain-specific beliefs about intelligence, ability, and effort among preservice and practicing teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education,59, 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.06.004.
Paunesku, D., Walton, G. M., Romero, C., Smith, E. N., Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2015). Mind-set interventions are a scalable treatment for academic underachievement. Psychological Science,26, 784–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615571017.
Pelletier, L. G., Séguin-Lévesque, C., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers’ motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology,94, 186–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06220.127.116.11.
Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education,23, 557–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.013.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist,44, 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903028990.
Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology,105, 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032690.
Reeve, J. (2016). Autonomy-supportive teaching: What it is, how to do it. In J. C. K. Wang, W. C. Liu, & R. M. Ryans (Eds.), Motivation in educational research: Translating theory into classroom practice (pp. 129–152). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-630-0_7.
Reeve, J., Jang, H. R., & Jang, H. (2018). Personality-based antecedents of teachers’ autonomy-supportive and controlling motivating styles. Learning and Individual Differences,62, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.01.001.
Rissanen, I., Kuusisto, E., Hanhimäki, E., & Tirri, K. (2018). Teachers’ implicit meaning systems and their implications for pedagogical thinking and practice: A case study from Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,62, 487–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1258667.
Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Implications for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self and Identity,1, 313–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860290106805.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software,48, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02.
Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,99, 761–774. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0618.104.22.1681.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Publications.
Schneider, S., Nebel, S., Beege, M., & Rey, G. D. (2018). The autonomy-enhancing effects of choice on cognitive load, motivation and learning with digital media. Learning and Instruction,58, 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.06.006.
Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The worldwide expansion of higher education in the twentieth century. American Sociological Review,70, 898–920. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000602.
Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Dochy, F. (2009). The synergistic relationship of perceived autonomy support and structure in the prediction of self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology,79, 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709908x304398.
Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology,100, 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840.
Soenens, B., Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Dochy, F., & Goossens, L. (2012). Psychologically controlling teaching: Examining outcomes, antecedents, and mediators. Journal of Educational Psychology,104, 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025742.
Sriram, R. (2014). Rethinking intelligence: The role of mindset in promoting success for academically high-risk students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice,15, 515–536. https://doi.org/10.2190/cs.15.4.c.
Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education,17, 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(00)00052-4.
Stupnisky, R. H., BrckaLorenz, A., Yuhas, B., & Guay, F. (2018). Faculty members’ motivation for teaching and best practices: Testing a model based on self-determination theory across institution types. Contemporary Educational Psychology,53, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.01.004.
Su, Y. L., & Reeve, J. (2011). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs designed to support autonomy. Educational Psychology Review,23, 159–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9142-7.
Taylor, I. M., Ntoumanis, N., & Smith, B. (2009). The social context as a determinant of teacher motivational strategies in physical education. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,10, 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.09.002.
Taylor, I. M., Ntoumanis, N., & Standage, M. (2008). A self-determination theory approach to understanding the antecedents of teachers’ motivational strategies in physical education. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,30, 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.30.1.75.
Thadani, V., Dewar, J., & Breland, W. (2010). College instructors’ implicit theories about teaching skills and their relationship to professional development choices. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching,21, 113–131.
Van den Berg, B. A. M., Bakker, A. B., & Ten Cate, T. J. (2013). Key factors in work engagement and job motivation of teaching faculty at a university medical centre. Perspectives on Medical Education,2, 264–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-013-0080-1.
Van den Berghe, L., Cardon, G., Aelterman, N., Tallir, I. B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Haerens, L. (2013a). Emotional exhaustion and motivation in physical education teachers: A variable-centered and person-centered approach. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,32, 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.32.3.305.
Van den Berghe, L., Soenens, B., Aelterman, N., Cardon, G., Tallir, I. B., & Haerens, L. (2014). Within-person profiles of teachers’ motivation to teach: Associations with need satisfaction at work, need-supportive teaching, and burnout. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,15, 407–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.04.001.
Van den Berghe, L., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., Cardon, G., Tallir, I. B., et al. (2013b). Observed need-supportive and need-thwarting teaching behavior in physical education: Do teachers’ motivational orientations matter? Psychology of Sport and Exercise,14, 650–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.04.006.
Van Der Kaap-Deeder, J., Soenens, B., Mabbe, E., Dieleman, L., Mouratidis, A., Campbell, R., et al. (2019). From daily need experiences to autonomy-supportive and psychologically controlling parenting via psychological availability and stress. Parenting,19, 177–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2019.1615791.
Van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. C. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical approach to modelling cognitive. London: Academic Press.
Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., Haerens, L., & Soenens, B. (2019). Seeking stability in stormy educational times: A need-based perspective on (de)motivating teaching grounded in self-determination theory. In Motivation in education at a time of global change: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 53–80). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0749-742320190000020004
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist,41, 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4101_4.
Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Soenens, B. (2020). Basic Psychological Need Theory: Trends, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion.
Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., & Lens, W. (2009). Motivational profiles from a self-determination perspective: The quality of motivation matters. Journal of Educational Psychology,101, 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015083.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,87, 246–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.124.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the motivational impact of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing and autonomy-supportive versus internally controlling communication style on early adolescents’ academic achievement. Child Development,76, 483–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00858.x.
Vermote, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., van der Kaap-Deeder, J., & Beyers, W. (2020). The unifying role of teachers’ need-based experiences: A fine-grained analysis of their relation with social pressure, personal (mal)adjustment and (de)motivating teaching style. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Vossensteyn, J. J., Kottmann, A., Jongbloed, B. W. A., Kaiser, F., Cremonini, L., Stensaker, B., et al. (2015). Dropout and completion in higher education in Europe: Main report. European Union. https://doi.org/10.2766/826962.
Wang, C. J., & Biddle, S. J. (2001). Young people’s motivational profiles in physical activity: A cluster analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,23, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.23.1.1.
Waterschoot, J., Vansteenkiste, M., & Soenens, B. (2019). The effects of experimentally induced choice on elementary school children’s intrinsic motivation: The moderating role of indecisiveness and teacher–student relatedness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,188, 104692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104692.
Wilkesmann, U., & Lauer, S. (2018). The influence of teaching motivation and New Public Management on academic teaching. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1539960.
Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2005). Two decades of research on teacher-student relationships in class. International Journal of Educational Research,43, 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.03.003.
Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re not magic. Review of Educational Research,81, 267–301. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311405999.
Yorke, M., & Knight, P. (2004). Self-theories: Some implications for teaching and learning in higher education. Studies in Higher Education,29, 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/1234567032000164859.
Young-Jones, A., Levesque, C., Fursa, S., & McCain, J. (2019). Autonomy-supportive language in the syllabus: Supporting students from the first day. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1661375.
This study was carried out as part of a university-wide project on motivating teaching. We wish to thank the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration and the Department of Educational Policy of Ghent University for partly funding this research.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The SISQ-HE vignettes and scoring key
(*) = This situation or response is inspired by the Situation-in-School Questionnaire - Secondary Education (SISQ-SE; Aelterman et al., 2019) and adapted to the higher education context, (+) = This situation or/and corresponding response is unique to the Situation-In-School Questionnaire - Higher Education (SISQ-HE).
The Situations in School Questionnaire - Higher Education contains 10 different teaching situations that occur regularly when teaching a (large) group of students. For each situation, several ways in which a teacher can respond are presented. You are asked to indicate to what extent each reaction describes what you have done this academic year in a similar situation. Each of these reactions may apply. If the presented reaction describes very well what you did, please circle a number close to 7. If the presented reaction does not describe at all what you did, please circle a number close to 1. If the presented reaction somewhat describes your approach, please circle a number close to 4, using the following 7-point scale:
|Does not describe me at all||Somewhat describes me||Describes me extremely well|
If a particular situation occurs rarely or not at all in your course, we ask you to imagine this situation for yourself and to think about how you would act if the situation would occur. To obtain a valid view of your teaching style, please answer the questions as honestly as possible. There are no right or wrong answers, only your personal actions and feelings matter to us. Don’t think too long about the questions. Your first thoughts typically best describe your approach.
Situation 1: behavioral guidelines and rules in your course
You think about behavioral guidelines and rules for your course, you… (*)
|Set_expectations1||… clarify your norms and expectations for cooperation. (*)|
|Wing_it1||… wait and see. You will introduce fitting guidelines and rules when problems arise. (+)|
|Invite_input1||… ask the students to help decide on the rules and guidelines. (*)|
|Provide_rationale1||… discuss with the students why certain rules may be useful for them. (+)|
|Shame1||… firmly speak to your students: “Those who are not able to follow the rules should stay at home. This is not kindergarten.” (+)|
Situation 2: lesson preparation
You are preparing a class, your priority is… (*)
|Insist_firmly1||… to insist that students pay attention; you don’t tolerate any exceptions or excuses. (*)|
|Wing_it2||… to not invest too much time in preparation. Things will run smoothly. (*)|
|Overview1||… to ensure that your lesson is clear and complete. (+)|
|Invite_input2||… to give students enough freedom to participate and offer suggestions during class. (+)|
|Communicate_trust1||… to give your students the confidence that they will be able to master the more difficult subject matter of the course. (+)|
|Shame2||… to emphasize that you will be disappointed if they don’t put enough effort into this class. (+)|
Situation 3: an extra effort is needed
You are covering a difficult subject that requires a lot of effort from the students, you… (*)
|Foster_enjoyment1||… seek new or different ways to make the lesson more interesting and meaningful for the students. (*)|
|Exert_power1||… simply command them: “Stay attentive during this class! If not, you won’t make it!” (+)|
|Helpful_strategy1||… divide the lesson content into pieces and ensure that there is sufficient time for repetition (+)|
|Offer_choice1||… offer students the option to go through an introductory text in preparation for the lesson. (+)|
|Lax1||… don’t worry too much in advance. You wait and see if any difficulties arise. (+)|
|Push_compliance1||… make it clear to the students that they have to pay attention or otherwise they have to leave the classroom. (+)|
Situation 4: talking students
You want to start the lesson, but the students are still talking loudly to each other, as they often have in previous classes. Even when you have everything set up and make it clear non-verbally that you want to start, the chatter and noise doesn’t stop. You… (+)
|Set_expectations2||… ask the students for silence so that you can start the lesson. (+)|
|Indifference1||… start the lesson despite the chatter. If they don’t understand it, they have to figure it out themselves. (+)|
|Invite_input3||… attract attention with a thought-provoking statement and invite the students to react. (+)|
|Exert_power2||… insist that the students have to stop talking. If you come to class, you are expected to pay attention! (+)|
Situation 5: the lesson starts
The lesson starts. You… (*)
|Overview2||… begin with a clear schedule and overview of the lesson. (*)|
|Wing_it3||… just begin where you ended the previous lesson and take things as they come. (*)|
|Insist_firmly2||… strongly insist that students have to learn what you teach them. If students come to class, it is their duty to cooperate. (*)|
|Foster_enjoyment2||… use an interesting statement or case to trigger your students’ curiosity. (+)|
|Invite_input4||… ask the students for any suggestions on the lesson topic. (*)|
|Helpful_strategy2||… teach the learning material step-by-step so that the students have the feeling that they understand everything. (+)|
|Shame3||… warn the students: “Now it is time to pay attention or your exam will be a disaster” (+)|
|Indifference2||… just start your lesson and waste as little energy as possible. (+)|
Situation 6: holding students’ attention
You want to keep the students’ attention during class. You… (*)
|Shame4||… say that students who can’t pay attention during a full lesson don’t belong in higher education. (+)|
|Adjust1||… check to what extent the students understand the subject matter and you adjust your explanation accordingly. (+)|
|Identify_benefits1||… discuss with the students how the subject matter can be relevant in their daily lives or future careers. (*)|
|Indifference3||… don’t do anything special. Students are responsible for staying attentive. (+)|
|Insist_firmly3||… demand a maximum attention from the students present. (+)|
|Overview3||… show the students what they can expect from today’s class through a clear overview. (+)|
Situation 7: lack of cooperation
You ask your students a challenging but interesting question in an attempt to involve them in class. However, just like during the previous lesson, no one raises their hand to give an answer. You… (*)
|Command1||… force a student to answer: “You, show me what you are worth. What is the answer to my question?!” (*)|
|Invite_input5||… first let the students discuss the question with each other and then ask if there are students who want to share their answer. (*)|
|Follow_pace1||… provide the students enough time to think and then invite them to give it a shot. (+)|
|Overview4||… explain the correct answer step by step and show them clearly what the desired answer looks like. (+)|
|Lax2||… wait in silence until you get an answer from one of the students. (+)|
|Ignore1||… give the answer yourself. If they don’t want to cooperate and learn something, that is their problem. (+)|
Situation 8: background noise
A more difficult part of the lesson elicits a lot of background noise. You… (*)
|Insist_firmly4||… insist that the noise stops. You demand full attention of the group. (+)|
|Adjust2||… gradually reintroduce the more difficult part. (+)|
|Ignore2||… ignore the noise and continue with the lesson. Students have to figure out themselves how they can overcome obstacles. (*)|
|Invite_input6||… discuss this with the students and ask how you can organize the remainder of the class. (+)|
Situation 9: a wrong answer
You ask a question during class. After waiting for a while, someone raises their hand and gives a partially wrong answer. You… (+)
|Ignore3||… give the right answer yourself and continue with the lesson. You don’t waste any further energy. (+)|
|Shame5||… express your disappointment: “No. That is wrong. Someone who does know the right answer?” (+)|
|Adjust3||… ask some additional questions and guide the group towards a correct answer. (+)|
|Interest_taking1||… show interest in how the student came to their answer. (+)|
|Overview5||… gradually develop reasoning underlying the correct answer so that the students clearly know what is expected. (+)|
|Lax3||… don’t respond to the answer and you wait for other students to respond. (+)|
Situation 10: preparation students
You consider it necessary for students to go through a reading at home before the next lesson. You… (*)
|Wing_it4||… don’t explain too much and see how the assignment turns out. (*)|
|Offer_choice2||… offer the students various readings and ask them to choose one to read. (*)|
|Indifference4||… don’t really explain the assignment; after all, students in higher education do not need to be pampered. (+)|
|Offer_help1||… tell the students that you offer extra help and guidance if necessary. (+)|
|Shame6||… make it clear that you are disappointed in students who don’t complete the assignment: “Do students really need hand holding in higher education?!” (+)|
Scoring key for calculating the subscales
Participative: (Invite_input1, Invite_input2, Offer_choice1, Invite_input3, Invite_input4, Invite_input5, Invite_input6, Offer_choice2)/8
Attuning: (Provide_rationale1, Foster_enjoyment1, Foster_enjoyment2, Identify_benefits1, Follow_pace1, Interest_taking1)/6
Autonomy support: (Invite_input1, Invite_input2, Offer_choice1, Invite_input3, Invite_input4, Invite_input5, Invite_input6, Offer_choice2, Provide_rationale1, Foster_enjoyment1, Foster_enjoyment2, Identify_benefits1, Follow_pace1, Interest_taking1)/14
Guiding: (Communicate_trust1, Helpful_strategy1, Helpful_strategy2, Adjust1, Adjust2, Adjust3, Offer_help1)/7
Clarifying: (Set_expectations1, Overview1, Set_expectations2, Overview2, Overview3, Overview4, Overview5)/7
Structure: (Communicate_trust1, Helpful_strategy1, Helpful_strategy2, Adjust1, Adjust2, Adjust3, Offer_help1, Set_expectations1, Overview1, Set_expectations2, Overview2, Overview3, Overview4, Overview5)/14
Demanding: (Insist_firmly1, Push_compliance1, Insist_firmly2, Insist_firmly3, Insist_firmly4)/5
Domineering: (Shame1, Shame2, Exert_power1, Exert_power2, Shame3, Shame4, Command1, Shame5, Shame6)/9
Control: (Insist_firmly1, Push_compliance1, Insist_firmly2, Insist_firmly3, Insist_firmly4, Shame1, Shame2, Exert_power1, Exert_power2, Shame3, Shame4, Command1, Shame5, Shame6)/14
Abandoning: (Indifference1, Indifference2, Indifference3, Ignore1, Ignore2, Ignore3, Indifference4)/7
Awaiting: (Wing_it1, Wing_it2, Lax1, Wing_it3, Lax2, Lax3, Wing_it4)/7
Chaos: (Indifference1, Indifference2, Indifference3, Ignore1, Ignore2, Ignore3, Indifference4, Wing_it1, Wing_it2, Lax1, Wing_it3, Lax2, Lax3, Wing_it4)/14
See Table 5.
About this article
Cite this article
Vermote, B., Aelterman, N., Beyers, W. et al. The role of teachers’ motivation and mindsets in predicting a (de)motivating teaching style in higher education: a circumplex approach. Motiv Emot 44, 270–294 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-020-09827-5
- Teaching styles
- Motivation to teach
- Fixed and growth mindset
- Higher education
- Self-determination theory