ABSTRACT Background: Physical education (PE) teachers face the challenge of managing their classroom and directing students’ learning in a way that engages students in a motivating manner. For this reason, numerous studies have examined the impact of PE teachers’ autonomy-supportive, structuring, and controlling style. Most research relied on a variable-centered approach, but a person-centered approach is warranted as in reality these styles co-occur. Prior person-centered research examined the combinations of autonomy support and structure, autonomy support and control, and structure and control. In the current study we take the next step by examining combinations of the three most prevalent styles in PE teachers. This investigation is particularly relevant as many PE teachers believe that being perceived as controlling might not be detrimental if they are also seen as autonomy-supportive and/or structuring. Purpose: To further understand the interplay of an autonomy-supportive, structuring, and controlling style, this study simultaneously investigated all three styles using a person-centred approach. The first aim was to examine how students perceive PE teachers’ combined use of an autonomy-supportive, structuring, and controlling style. The second aim was to investigate whether students’ motivation differed according to the profile they perceived their teacher to be in. Method: A sample of 673 secondary school students (M age = 13.82, SD = 1.25 years) reported on their PE teachers’ autonomy-supportive, structuring, and controlling style, and their motivation for PE. Hierarchical K-Means Cluster analyses and MANCOVA tests were performed. Findings: Results showed that in the eyes of the students, PE teachers employed different combinations of autonomy support, structure, and control to different degrees, as six different profiles were found. Students who perceived their teacher as more need-supportive displayed higher levels of intrinsic motivation, integrated, and identified regulation, particularly when students perceived their teacher as high on both autonomy support and structure. In contrast, students who perceived their teacher as more controlling displayed more extrinsic regulation and amotivation, even when students simultaneously perceived their teacher as need-supportive. Students who perceived their teacher as higher on all three styles displayed higher levels of introjected regulation, suggesting that this mixture of styles elicits internal pressure. Conclusion: In conclusion, according to the students, PE teachers can combine certain autonomy-supportive, structuring, and controlling behaviors to different degrees, indicating that classifying PE teachers as either need-supportive or controlling may be inaccurate. Students who perceived their PE teacher as highly autonomy-supportive and structuring and lowly controlling reported the most optimal motivational outcomes. The detrimental effect of a perceived controlling style was evident, even when the teacher was additionally perceived as autonomy-supportive and structuring. This finding challenges the common belief among PE teachers that being perceived as controlling is not harmful when simultaneously being perceived as autonomy-supportive and controlling. Interestingly, both need-supportive and controlling styles were positively related to students’ introjected regulation.
Read full abstract