Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Teachers’ Motivating Style and Students’ Motivation and Engagement in STEM: the Relationship Between Three Key Educational Concepts

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A key theme in the science education literature concerns the reluctance of students to participate in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Self-determination theory (SDT) states that social factors in an educational setting, such as teachers’ motivating style, can influence students’ motivation and engagement. This paper investigates the relationship between STEM teachers’ motivating style (autonomy support, provision of structure, involvement) and students’ motivation and engagement with regard to STEM. Furthermore, the relationship between students’ motivation and students’ engagement is investigated. Thirty classroom observations were conducted in different STEM lessons, to assess teachers’ motivating style and students’ engagement. The students’ motivation was assessed at the end of the school year, using an online questionnaire. The results reveal that STEM teachers’ provision of structure is positively linked to students’ motivation and engagement with regard to STEM subjects. The impact of teachers’ autonomy support was negatively predictive for students’ autonomous motivation, and positively predictive for students’ engagement. A negative relationship between students’ controlled motivation and engagement was found. Based on these results, this study suggests that taking teachers’ motivating style into account in future educational initiatives regarding STEM is highly relevant as a means of stimulating students’ motivation and engagement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Keer, H., Van den Berghe, L., De Meyer, J., & Haerens, L. (2012). Students’ objectively measured physical activity levels and engagement as a function of between-class and between-student differences in motivation toward physical education. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 34(4), 457–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assor, A., & Kaplan, H. (2001). Mapping the domain of autonomy support. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47676-2_7.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baeten, M., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2013). The effects of different learning environments on students’ motivation for learning and their achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 484–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, M., Ng-Knight, T., & Hayes, B. (2017). Autonomy-supportive teaching and its antecedents: Differences between teachers and teaching assistants and the predictive role of perceived competence. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(4), 643–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bøe, M. V., Henriksen, E. K., Lyons, T., & Schreiner, C. (2011). Participation in science and technology: Young people’s achievement-related choices in late-modern societies. Studies in Science Education, 47, 37–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Center for Self-Determination Theory. (2017). The motivation continuum: Organismic integration theory taxonomy of regulatory styles.

  • Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. Self Processes and Development, 23, 43–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, A., & Williams, L. (2008). The roles of perceived teacher support, motivational climate, and psychological need satisfaction in students’ physical education motivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30(2), 222–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curran, T., Hill, A. P., & Niemiec, C. P. (2013). A conditional process model of children’s behavioral engagement and behavioral disaffection in sport based on self-determination theory. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 35(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.35.1.30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Naeghel, J., Van Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M., & Rosseel, Y. (2012). The relation between elementary students’ recreational and academic reading motivation, reading frequency, engagement, and comprehension: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1006–1021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckes, A., Großmann, N., & Wilde, M. (2018). Studies on the effects of structure in the context of autonomy-supportive or controlling teacher behavior on students’ intrinsic motivation. Learning and Individual Differences, 62, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.01.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, B. A. (2015). Measuring cognitive engagement with self-report scales: Reflections from over 20 years of research. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 14–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofferber, N., Basten, M., Großmann, N., & Wilde, M. (2016). The effects of autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching behaviour in biology lessons with primary and secondary experiences on students’ intrinsic motivation and flow-experience. International Journal of Science Education, 38(13), 2114–2132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2012). Longitudinal test of self-determination theory’s motivation mediation model in a naturally occurring classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1175–1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knipprath, H., Thibaut, L., Buyse, M. P., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., ... & Deprez, J. (2018). STEM education in Flanders: Literacy and a positive attitude towards STEM. IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine, 21(3), 36–40.

  • Lane, E. S., & Harris, S. E. (2015). A new tool for measuring student behavioral engagement in large university classes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(6), 83–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavigne, G. L., Vallerand, R. J., & Miquelon, P. (2007). A motivational model of persistence in science education: A self-determination theory approach. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(3), 351–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. S., Hayes, K. N., Seitz, J., DiStefano, R., & O’Connor, D. (2016). Understanding motivational structures that differentially predict engagement and achievement in middle school science. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 192–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1136452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levesque, C. S., Williams, G. C., Elliot, D., Pickering, M. A., Bodenhamer, B., & Finley, P. J. (2007). Validating the theoretical structure of the treatment self-regulation questionnaire (TSRQ) across three different health behaviors. Health Education Research, 21, 691–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). Integrated STEM defined: Contexts, challenges, and the future. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 221–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Núñez, J. L., & León, J. (2015). Autonomy support in the classroom: A review from self-determination theory. European Psychologist, 20(4), 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2008). Encouraging student interest in science and technology studies. In, Global science forum. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  • Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(2), 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinxten, M., Van Soom, C., Peeters, C., De Laet, T., & Langie, G. (2017). At-risk at the gate: Prediction of study success of first-year science and engineering students in an open-admission university in Flanders—Any incremental validity of study strategies? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 34, 45–66.

  • Raphael, L. M., Pressley, M., & Mohan, L. (2008). Engaging instruction in middle school classrooms: An observational study of nine teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 109(1), 61–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renninger, K. A., & Bachrach, J. E. (2015). Studying triggers for interest and engagement using observational methods. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 58–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, A. M. (2000). Peer groups as a context for the socialization of adolescents’ motivation, engagement, and achievement in school. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3502_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawada, D., Piburn, M. D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(4), 765–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M. C., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Effects of need supportive teaching on early adolescents’ motivation and engagement: A review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 9, 65–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struyf, A., De Loof, H., Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2019). Students’ engagement in different STEM learning environments: Integrated STEM education as promising practice? Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Tessier, D., Sarrazin, P., & Ntoumanis, N. (2010). The effect of an intervention to improve newly qualified teachers’ interpersonal style, students’ motivation and psychological need satisfaction in sport-based physical education. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 242–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valås, H., & Søvik, N. (1994). Variables affecting students’ intrinsic motivation for school mathematics: Two empirical studies based on Deci and Ryan’s theory on motivation. Learning and Instruction, 3(4), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(93)90020-Z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23(3), 263–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wentzel, K. R., Muenks, K., McNeish, D., & Russell, S. (2017). Peer and teacher supports in relation to motivation and effort: A multi-level study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, D., Bobis, J., Wu, X., & Cui, Y. (2018). The effects of an autonomy-supportive teaching intervention on Chinese physics students and their teacher. Research in Science Education, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9706-y

Download references

Funding

This work is supported by the Flemish government agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT) for funding the project STEM@School and thereby making this study possible.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Haydée De Loof and Annemie Struyf contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Unit Edubron, Department of Training and Education Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Haydée De Loof, Annemie Struyf, Jelle Boeve-de Pauw & Peter Van Petegem

  2. Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Training and Education Sciences, Research Group EduBROn, Gratiekapelstraat 10, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium

    Haydée De Loof & Annemie Struyf

Authors
  1. Haydée De Loof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annemie Struyf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jelle Boeve-de Pauw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Van Petegem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Haydée De Loof or Annemie Struyf.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

De Loof, H., Struyf, A., Boeve-de Pauw, J. et al. Teachers’ Motivating Style and Students’ Motivation and Engagement in STEM: the Relationship Between Three Key Educational Concepts. Res Sci Educ 51 (Suppl 1), 109–127 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9830-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9830-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation